Start A Petition

Accusations of Jewish Self-Hatred and Anti-Semitism Are a Strategy to Hide From One's Self-Reflection

Society & Culture  (tags: activists, americans, culture, dishonesty, education, ethics, freedoms, government, Israel. media, Palestine, politics, religion, rights, society )

- 2136 days ago -
Anyone who follows the debate over Israel-Palestine knows how automatic and routine it is for one side to label those who disagree with Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people as self-hating Jews, Israel haters or anti-Semites.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


wolfNoFwdsPls a (135)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 12:01 pm
"Anti-Semitism" (in its predominant usage) a most promising candidate for the OxyMisMoronoMer of da century !
" 'Anti-Semite' used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated BY Jews." -- Joseph Sobran

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 12:06 pm
Bless your heart for posting this, Kit!  I posted a C2NN article by Rich Forer about two years ago (Commit Yourself To The Truth -- Cutting Through the Confusion About Israel/Palestine) and have great respect for him and his knowledge.
"Richard Forer is a former member of AIPAC. His identical twin brother is a prominent member of an Ultra-Orthodox sect of Judaism. His younger brother is an attorney and President of one of the largest Reform synagogues on the East coast. Forer is a practitioner of the Meir Schneider Self-Healing Method, a unique system of healing developed by an Israeli. His book, Breakthrough: Transforming Fear into Compassion – A New Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict will be available in the Fall (2010)."

Janelle Wong (71)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 12:11 pm
"Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people " ??

What about the Palastinian's treatment of the Jewish people and more. Guess it's OK to lob rockets on a neighbor, Remember the Achille Lauro. And the beat goes on.

Roger G (154)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 12:46 pm
noted thanks !

MmAway M (505)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 1:11 pm
Thank you Kit for the news at site, as well as Carole for the forward.

Sam H (410)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 1:15 pm
And the damage doesn’t even stop there. Look at how they tried to silence Finkelstein by preventing him from even earning a living. How many, as a result of the Finkelstein experience, were robbed from the chance to speak their mind? How long can they continue to do that before this whole approach backfires? Here too, as in any murder trial, only the guilty fear telling the truth.

divergent revolution (309)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 1:15 pm
first, thanks for the article Just.
I having been there a few times have another perspective. In my honest opinion the problem also is one between the regular assimilated jews and the ultra orthodox who spurn them. It is a big problem.

Gene J (290)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 1:15 pm
"From my perspective, everyone wants the same thing, peace and justice for the people of Israel and the people that are Palestinian. We can't resolve this, however, we could discuss this topic in a far more fair and reasonable manner. "

We can't, Kit, but they can. The people of the middle east, all of them, working together, could devise a solution. Someday, I hope they will give up their mutual hatred and name calling and realize that a peaceful resolution is in the best interest of all concerned, most especially the children who will no longer have to inherit the hostilities but could begin to share in building a real community dedicated to peaceful existence. It isn't impossible, it is only unlikely through the unwillingness and intransigence of people who prefer to fight rather than love each other. Some day I hope to see that change. I think, some day, it must. I just shrink from the blood that will be shed until that some day comes.

Henriette Matthijssen (154)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 1:41 pm
We are all born equally with the same rights. It is a choice each individual can make to bring harmony within themselves first. Be the change you wish to see in the world. Thanks Kit, Carole for the forward.

Michela M (3964)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 1:44 pm

Richard Zane Smith (81)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 1:47 pm
Perhaps one problem is the use of labels without defining terms.
"Jewish" can refer widely to Hebraic descendants OR it could refer to religious Jews
who can be converts of many different ethnic groups. or Even Zionists.
"Palestinian" is such a BROAD category it has lost meaning. Can refer to a radical Islamist,
or it could simply be referring to descendants of non-Jewish ethnic groups .

Americans are self-hating? because they're ashamed of how their own aboriginal inhabitants were beaten down to dust and poverty and all the abusive stigma that it represents?


Craig Pittman (52)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 2:06 pm
Really a thought provoking and uplifiting article. Meaningful and constructive debates come to a standstill the minute a label is used. I wonder what it will take to finally bring peace to this area. Debates over this have been on-going longer than many of us have been alive. Perhaps it will take more individuals like Richard Forer in both camps to bring some kind of fairness and humanity into the equation.
Thanks very much for this Kit.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 2:37 pm

I so agree, Barbara!

Until we agree to honest self-examination/reflection of our stances on certain subjects -- disregarding others' criticisms and attacks, who feel intent upon control by "mob attack" and censorship -- we cannot truthfully evaluate the situation.

As an American, it is incumbent upon those, who wish to see see their freedoms remain intact, to be vigilant and speak out. (That's why it's the First Amendment.) As such, a true patriot will protest any assault on the rights set forth by the founders of this country. To NOT criticize the government of this country and remain silent, when basic rights are threatened, is unpatriotic!


Angelika R (143)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 2:49 pm
Yes, an excellent article offering deep insight, and so plausible because of his own experience. Key words such as "labels" have already just been mentioned above by Richard and Craig, an aspect also highlighted by Forer.
However, I doubt that the opponents among us here will be readily able to free their minds from those labels with all attached beliefs and images. But I certainly hope for it.
For those I'd like to pick out and repeat some sentenses from the article:

"And in order to avoid encountering my own lack of humanity, I ignored documented evidence, thereby consenting to the subjugation of millions. I judged Palestinian violence as a pathological expression of hatred, not the response of an oppressed people, a small minority of whom resort to violence as the only way they know to retain a measure of self-respect in the face of generations of violence inflicted upon them. By turning my back on the suffering of others, I had sacrificed the very values Israel once personified."
( he is so correct in saying "ONCE" )
"Compassion is the expression of peace and the means of peace. When we know it then we also know that peace for the world is achievable."

Yvonne White (229)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 3:20 pm
Amen Kit! "Not everyone who disagrees with Israeli politics is in any way an anti-semitic, nor if the situation fits, are they self-loathing Jews. It also does not mean that disagreeing with political policies of Israel any one wants to see Israel destroyed nor Palestinians swept from the face of the earth."
I believe the Palestinians should have their own territory declared a country. I don't understand why the UN doesn't do so, but that's not my problem - being an American I would think the Pentagon would "encourage" it just so we'd have a clear target to bomb..;) Sorry, I couldn't resist going to the dark side..

Terry King (113)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 3:24 pm
I choose to remain blissfully ignorant regarding this entire mess. Both parties are entitled to bring all the misery on themselves and each other that they can stand. I don't think either side is blameless and there is plenty of Hatred, bigotry, religious intolerance, and cruelty right here in this country for me to worry about.

Elle B (84)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 3:44 pm
Thank-you for posting this astute article Kit.

“Today we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships, the ability of all peoples of all kins to live together and to work together in the same world at peace.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

“If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

"Together we must learn to live as brothers or together we will be forced to perish as fools." ― Martin Luther King Jr.

LaurenBackSoon Kozen (173)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 3:51 pm
Noted. Very interesting article. Thanks for posting Kit.

Vallee R (280)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 4:02 pm
Thanks Kit - very self-reflecting - wish more people would look inside themselves.

Jean M (143)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 4:23 pm
Read and re-read. Thanks.

Vance Daddi (65)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 5:28 pm
As a cultural Jew (I moved to team atheism when I was twelve) I have to tell you that I really resent Richard Forer's broad-brush psycho-babble description of a personal epiphany (one that should not have required, as he said, fifty years to achieve). What Forer is defining as overcoming a supposed propensity in the Jews for self hatred (poor form using a stereotype to ostensibly oppose stereotypes) is nothing more than understanding that the nationalism we all adhere to within every society from childhood forward, until we recognize it for what it is, propaganda in support of and justifying a particular cultural group's positions and actions.

He used far too many words to poorly explain the obvious. And, finally, I am fairly certain he is preaching to the choir. No one who bases their philosophic position on nationalism is going to hear what Forer has to say; again, he said it about took fifty years for his own awakening...and he's a bright guy

As for the actual conflict, I try not to take sides. They are all idiots; the reasons for which are too legion to detail, and only upset everyone on both sides. Bottom line is there are a whole bunch of Semitic (Arabs and Jews) people that are anti one another. I suspect it's because they have the same imaginary friend, so they are vying for control.

Barbara Tomlinson (431)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 6:11 pm
"Denial and projection go hand in hand. What I denied about Israel and about myself, I projected onto the other who automatically and necessarily became my enemy"
Of course, this applies to ANY groups of people. {Especially those competing for the same territory, etc.}

Those who wish to not participate in these discussions, that's FINE.
This article at least shows people a way to start talking civilly to one another -- gives a framework.
How do you know that someone on on side or the other, won't be positively influenced by it? If the author had thought it would "do no good", he wouldn't have bothered to publish.
If you don't want to participate in Israel-Palestine discussions, that's FINE. But why put down people who do want to participate? and try to raise the tone above name-calling and mud-slinging?

I personally don't like to participate in these discussions. I personally think the situation is near-to-hopeless. That is not to say that I don't sympathize, or see the Palestinian point-of-view. The reason I think there is no solution, is that BOTH or ALL sides, are over-populating the area, for ANY sustainability to be possible. Both of the Orthodox Fundamentalist sides, are trying to out-breed each other. The Reform Jews, do not have the huge families that the Orthodox do, but they encourage immigration {to stay demographically ahead of the Muslims}. This is a DESERT area. See the article about the Dead Sea dying. The same is true of the famous River Jordan -- it is literally a trickle that you can step across, now. And, the irrigated farmland is SILTING UP with SALT. There just isn't enough WATER to sustain what they have there, the population and the infrastructure. There just isn't. Period. I guess the only "solution" would be mass suicide on both sides -- war is the alternative. Since we are going to be possibly ruled by a Mormon Bishop and the Mormons believe crazy things about the Jews -- Armageddon is a real possibility. Some problems actually HAVE no solution. One that's even remotely humane or satisfactory. Sorry.

Past Member (0)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 6:13 pm
Thanks. just saved the article.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 6:48 pm

Flagged the spammer. (Please do the same.)

Barbara Tomlinson (431)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 6:50 pm
Charles O., I don't think you know very much about Zionists or Zionism. I don't think you can speak for Zionists or tell us accurately what they are "thinking". I think you are parroting propaganda which is rife on BOTH or on ALL sides of this question. You are painting with a broad brush, as if all "Zionists" were the same. You are basically using "Zionism" as just a bad word to slam a group of people. No better and no worse than, say, using the words "PalestinianTerrorist" to describe a whole group of people as being "all alike".
My grandmother called herself a "Zionist" and was proud of it. That was of course, decades ago and the word has changed meanings over time. Every single Lefty in my college class {1950's!} called themselves a "Zionist" -- including the Commies! How things have changed, huh? The people who generally use the word "Zionist" as an epithet, as you do, Charles, act as if this word was constant since the beginning of time! It is like Satan and everything Evil!
Oh, I REALLY REALLY REALLY do NOT want to participate in this discussion. It makes me feel horrible. I see both sides. There are no answers that I can see. This is something that "good will" can't "fix". Or the "correct Party Line". I hope I'm wrong. I only wish I were.
It is great that somebody is trying to sort out WORDS so that at LEAST there can be a CIVIL DIALOGUE -- all too lacking! -- and that is why I am here at all. And, Charles, you are NOT contributing to that Civil Dialogue; nor do you care!
You're right in one thing, tho, Charles, "They don't see the future". Very TYPICAL Human Failing and not confined to "Zionists"!
As for "the U.S. being in the pocket of the Zionists" -- more scare propaganda about the "evil conspiracy of Satanic Jews with enormous devilish powers" heard since the Middle Ages. The Palestinians do NOTHING for their cause, when they use this kind of language in their writings. Anymore than the Israelis or Jews help THEIR cause by talking about "self-haters".
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, that the U.S. rulers, the 1%, and the Israeli ruling class, have Interests In Common. So naturally they MUTUALLY support one another. {The U.S. wanted a "base" in the Middle East to keep them Ay-rabs scared of us.}
The Palestinians, the vast majority of the Israeli Jews, and the downtrodden masses of the U.S. -- we are the 99% -- and we're ALL being screwed. Palestinians = Native Americans. But the "white" people are getting screwed too, just not quite as badly. So far.

Michael Carney (217)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 8:09 pm
Thanks, Kit...I have saved this to read when I have a bit more time, so I can make an informed comment...

Robert Tomlinson (62)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 8:29 pm
Thanks for this post, Kit.

Past Member (0)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 8:53 pm
-ty- and spammer reported

Suruna WTF (38)
Sunday July 15, 2012, 11:52 pm
I had an insight that Israel may be suffering from the victim syndrome. This can manifest as compassion, which it does not seem to be, or as rigorous nationalism. So fearful of loss that all is justified. It seems that the Jewish histories seem to focus on this aspect of their history. Persecution and no home to call their own. These deeply imbedded beliefs reflect in their International policy and political identity. They must move on or become villains in this play.

It is hate inspired by ignorance which is the enemy. Righteous anger inspired by cruelty and injustice, absolutely, but with that said, beware the absence of truth and the sway of propaganda. We have become too comfortable saying and thinking in "labels", as the point has been made here.

My takeaway is that Richard Forer shared a poignant piece reflecting his journey toward personal resolve and understanding. He knows more thoroughly who he is, and he's shared that with us in hopes, I feel safe to assume, that we will in some way profit from it. I hope that is the case.


Stephen Brian (23)
Monday July 16, 2012, 12:45 am
There is a slight problem with the article: Its basic premise.

More than nine times out of ten, when I see statements about the use of the label "self-hating Jew" or "antisemite", it is only from people claiming to have been targeted by those labels. Their use is actually quite rare. I have actually seen the claim "they just blindly dismiss us as [insert here]" used to avoid facing the reasonable arguments and statements levelled against people who oppose Israel and their claims.

For example, I could state, truthfully, that Forer's second argument is ridiculous because international law which people claim that Israel regularly violates is in no way supported by Jewish values, so violating them does not produce the kind of conflict upon which he bases much of his argument. Obedience to the law is only demanded in Judaism so long as it does not run counter to tenets of the faith. For example, Israel's most commonly violated "law" (though in truth it is nothing of the sort) actually declares open season on civilians in war. (It also practically demands that wars be systematically spread to previously neutral countries and, again while claiming to do exactly the opposite, in fact turns every medical facility and vehicle into target-practice.) As the lives of innocent people are considered sacred in Judaism, obedience to that law is not demanded. I can now expect this argument to be dismissed as an accusation of self-hatred or antisemitism by Forer.

As for much of the rest, perhaps those were his motivations for his previous behaviour. However, they are not the only valid motivations for them. For example, Palestinian violence is not a pathological behaviour of an inherently evil people. However, neither is it just a logical response to oppression so even if they were given absolutely everything they demanded, it still would not stop. The problem is intractable to any influence external to the Palestinians themselves by any means short of at least cultural genocide (if not physical). The resulting position taken on the issue ends up quite similar to the one Forer used to hold.

I have no fear of mental self-examination. I do it regularly. I certainly have no fear of facing harsh realities. The difference, I believe, between myself and Forer in this is that I am willing to face realities even more disturbing than those he described. Sometimes an enemy operates on a different paradigm and so is truly implacable by any means which one would find reasonable. Sometimes the rational behaviour, justified so long as one operates in that different paradigm, produces conditions under which innocent people will die. Sometimes it is impossible to save everybody, and the means by which to do the most good involves getting one's hands bloody, even with innocent blood. Often humanity, operating as a unit, simply acts immorally or foolishly. Sometimes justice and law, even democratically produced, are totally unrelated. There is more, and there is, arguably, worse, but I think I have made my point clear.

Terrie Williams (798)
Monday July 16, 2012, 12:46 am
Thanks, Kit. Very good comments and very thought provoking from many. Me...just my 2/100ths....a few destroy it all for the many on both sides and until the many can bring the few to heel, there will be no peace.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday July 16, 2012, 12:54 am
Hi Charles,

"I counter Zionism by understanding it"
You don't understand it at all. You seem not to understand fascism either, but that is another matter.

Of course, none of this will matter to you. Rather than ever defend an argument, you will just keep on with your "battering ram", leaping over every hole in your logic because reasoning is for other people, those without such a noble cause as yours.

Arild Gone for now (174)
Monday July 16, 2012, 2:41 am
Thanks for posting this Kit and to "C" for the forward,just wanted to draw attention to something Barbara posted:
"The General's son" and the link to the video is:

AWAY AWHILE Cal M (1067)
Monday July 16, 2012, 3:19 am
Kit, you know how much I hate labeling of all sorts. It fuels expectations and allows the labeler to put the labeled into a banal verbal container, sometimes without any cause. That said,Kit, we both know that there are real anti-Semites at Care2 and everywhere in the world--they are not just monsters hiding under the bed! Some of them manifest themselves quietly with sweet sounding words and phrases and some with open hatred, but anti-Semites they are. It is not important to label them because their true natures are revealed when double standards of behavior are endorsed on the issues of human rights and the rights of any people to a homeland of their own.

What is NOT TRUE is that all people who criticize israel are anti-semites. In fact, the greatest patriots can and are sometimes its' biggest critics. In a :democracy" or at least a society that encourages open debate, dissent and protest are a basic right and one of my highest expectations. It is also the living proof that a democracy truly is one, but of ideas and in fact, of actions also.

I hope Care2 is and can be a forum for open discussion and this topic is the only one where chaos and discourtesy has triumphed over civility. I think that on both sides there is the perception of some deeper agenda, either personal and/or inspired by outside puppet masters. In some cases, I read comments from both sides that seem extreme and designed to agitate and only designed to agitate the other side-- those who their author disagrees with! This is the easiest and most direct path to conflict where respect and civility take second place to getting one's message out and being "right" The need for Being "right" at all costs has killed millions of people from religious and political wards throughout the history of man, Intolerance breeds hatred and vice versa. And so it goes--thanks for posting this Kit

wendy webber (28)
Monday July 16, 2012, 4:00 am
Unfortunately, I must plead a fair amount of ignorance about the conflict in the middle east.I will read this article as I do need to be informed.What I have run into over the yrs has been confusing (for me) to understand.Thanks Kit for the article and I will read and try to understand.

Pamylle G (461)
Monday July 16, 2012, 5:29 am
Ha ! My own mother thinks because I don't condone land-theft and the inhumane treatment of Palestinians by Israel that I am anti-Semitic & a "self-hating" Jew. Israel is automatically in the right - she honestly has no idea what's been going on & doesn't want to know.

Kenneth L (314)
Monday July 16, 2012, 7:43 am
A person is a human being first, one of over 7 billion of the human species/race on earth. This is what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is founded on and addresses. Whether man, woman, Jew, Muslim, black, white, rich, poor etc. is secondary and are subdivisions of human beings into 'categories'. There are multitudinous subdivisions that people can be put into but the primary absolutely vital basic bottom line is every PERSON has all 33 human rights irregardless of religion or belief or gender or anything else.
Not easy to work out or implement of course but it has to be the scenario which is strived toward or everything fizzles down into a complete endless confusion and chaos and 'insolvable' problems.


Sam H (410)
Monday July 16, 2012, 9:14 am
This statement made by Stephen Brian is quite appalling.

“The difference, I believe, between myself and Forer in this is that I am willing to face realities even more disturbing than those he described. Sometimes an enemy operates on a different paradigm and so is truly implacable by any means which one would find reasonable. Sometimes the rational behaviour, justified so long as one operates in that different paradigm, produces conditions under which innocent people will die. Sometimes it is impossible to save everybody, and the means by which to do the most good involves getting one's hands bloody, even with innocent blood.”

Just imagine if such an argument was made to justify Hitler’s actions! It would be as despicable there as it is here.

And that was not the only nonsensical statement he makes. Take, for example, this: “More than nine times out of ten, when I see statements about the use of the label "self-hating Jew" or "antisemite", it is only from people claiming to have been targeted by those labels. Their use is actually quite rare.” This guy tries to justify his “forgone” conclusions before even presenting his argument.

This guy concocts his own statistics. When he says, “nine times out of ten,” you’d think he has a sample large enough to support coming up with this 9-out-of-10 conclusion. It would be quite interesting to review his scientific methodology that led him to make this 9-out-of-10 assertion. If he can’t detail that scientific approach that led to such quantification, then his whole argument will fall apart.

But let’s say he comes back and provides us with a legitimate statistical approach on which he based his 9-out-of-10 argument. We then have to wonder, given the “large statistical sample” he relied on, how the finding of 9 out of 10 led him to conclude that “their use is actually quite rare.”

The credibility and veracity of Stephen Brian’s statements are of the same caliber you’d expect from a brainwashed religious zealot proselytizing at the street corner. The only difference is that Mr. Brian tries to houdini his way through the use of fake statistics and pseudo logic to advance his biased positions.

That reasoning doesn’t only lead him to the immoral acceptance of the death of innocent people, but to the unthinkable condoning of “getting one’s hands bloody, even with innocent blood” to do “the most good.”

This is a morality the world can do without.

. (0)
Monday July 16, 2012, 10:18 am
The response to this item has been incredible, and interesting. Thank you Kit for the various definitions of what Zionism is. I wish Charles O. would retract his outrageous statement that Zionists "are not interested in peace. What they want is to go down in a blaze of self-pitying glory. They see their own destruction as vindication of their ideology of hopeless hatred."
I was so angered to read this from a man who merely throws statements out there, waiting for a response.

Kamila A (141)
Monday July 16, 2012, 10:37 am
Thanks Kit. Its a complex situation, but the soul always knows what is true, and all accounting will be made by it, for itself in the end. I wish for peace, and self-love will follow.

Kenneth L (314)
Monday July 16, 2012, 11:13 am
Jim, oops, there's 30 human rights, not 33 (well, the rights to baseball, tasty food, and funky music notwithstanding), are found here at:

Phil P (94)
Monday July 16, 2012, 1:57 pm
Palestinians are merely a pawn in the wider Arab-Isreali conflict. Hell, the Sunni and Shiite Arabs and others can't even agree amongst themselves or agree to disagree in civilized manner. How in Gods green earth do you expect Arab and Israeli to make peace, when both side continue to be arrogant and oblivious in their righteousness. Maybe in 50 years hopefully they can agree to disagree in a civilized manner, if we're all still around and Romney and the Republican hawks haven't started WW III.

Monday July 16, 2012, 1:59 pm
Any country that has religion or race as the base of it's existence is inherently bigoted, racist, or both. A country can be a majority muslim country like Saudi Arabia, a majority Christian like the United States, or be majority Jewish like Israel; but once a country start using phrases like, "we demand to be recognzed as either Jewish, Christian, or Muslim; this statement conversely means that all others will have less rights.

Zionism as a philosophy which means that the Jews have a right to establish a homeland where they are safe from discrimination and persecution is not the issue. No one is against this. But what do Zionism have to do with bull dozing Palestinian homes, polluting their water, cutting down their olive trees, occupying their land, Committing war crimes in Gaza, and on and on.

Zionism means the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Didn't this establishment take place in 1948? After Israel have established their homeland, why is Israel still taking more and more Palestinian land and literally making the Palestinian people prisoners on their own land? The practices of Israel towards the Palestinians are the actions of a superior military power bent on total humiliation, subjugation, racism, aparthied, occupation, and war crimes against a people that is militarily weaker..

Unfortunately, minorities who live amongst a majority will be open to all forms of domination, exploitation, and brutality. The reverse is also true of minorities abusing power like Aparthied South Africa. This is the reality of history and current events. As citizens of the world, we owe it to our fellow human beings to try our best to prevent such abusive treatment. Being selfishly ideological driven usually blinds us to the truth and closes or hearts to the pains of others caused by our fixation on what's best for my people only.

AWAY AWHILE Cal M (1067)
Monday July 16, 2012, 2:24 pm
Charles, it simply is not a matter of over analysis as you are bent to do at all times. If it quacks like a duck and talks like a duck then in all probability it is a duck, so ifJews are not given the same rights as people of your ancestry or the ancestry of anyone speaking about them, then there is discrimination involved. It is not anymore tolerable for ANY people you can speak about when it comes to that. You get into semantics too much, Charles, either purposely or by habit, this doesn't serve your arguments well!

AWAY AWHILE Cal M (1067)
Monday July 16, 2012, 3:36 pm
BTWCharles, since you made such a semantic fuss over my use of the word i did some research and I used the word "homeland" in an entirely appropriate way.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

home·land noun \-ˌland also -lənd\

Definition of HOMELAND

: native land : fatherland
: a state or area set aside to be a state for a people of a particular national, cultural, or racial origin; especially : bantustan
See homeland defined for English-language learners »
See homeland defined for kids »
Examples of HOMELAND

He returned to his homeland for the first time in many years.
The rebels are fighting for an independent homeland.

Please do your research before you criticize, Charles. It just comes out better that way!

Sam H (410)
Monday July 16, 2012, 3:45 pm
I’m impressed, Cal.

marie C (163)
Monday July 16, 2012, 4:10 pm
Thanks for the article Kit
It has turned into a fascinating thread

Robert B (60)
Monday July 16, 2012, 6:33 pm
First we need to throw organized religious dogma out with the trash. It is irrelevant to our total well being. We need a Secular world where EVERY human being is just that, a human being. The "Us against them" tribal, gang, group, click mentality is a spiritual illness that is holding US ALL from a bright and HAPPY future. Until we learn that compassion, love, kindness and decent behavior is what needs to be our only guiding principal we will continue to fail at making any serious progress. NO religion has a lock on that and has no right to claim superiority.

Talya H (10)
Monday July 16, 2012, 9:20 pm
Thanks for the article! :(

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday July 16, 2012, 10:21 pm
Hi Sam,

It would be appalling if someone tried to use those arguments to rationalize the Nazis' behaviour, but primarily because their behaviour does not in any way follow from those harsh realities, unlike the case in question. You assume a parallel here, taking that as a foregone conclusion without ever arguing the case.

You're right about the 9/10 assertion: It is, as I presented it, anecdotal, and the plural of anecdote is not statistics. However, if you wish to contest the point, could you please point out five cases where such arguments have been levelled by large groups or organizations of Zionists? If you cannot find even five in the last, say, 60 years, I believe my point stands.

There is nothing immoral about the acceptance of the deaths of innocent people. It is a part of reality and failure to recognize it and adapt to this fact of life will only get even more good people killed. If we don't cut losses, we lose everything. It is also not an aspect of morality that I think anybody here really wants to see the world go without: Perhaps in principle it is too ugly for you to face, but the world as it would stand if nobody accepted those facts could drive a sane man to suicide. The bloodshed which stems from failure to recognize this fact is even more appalling than that of usual murder as it is totally pointless and avoidable.

Hi Charles,

Your parallel to Stalinism appears to be unsupported in a key manner: I could draw a clear causal line fro the principles at the core of Stalinism to the policies which imprisoned, impoverished, and subjugated so many people. You have never drawn any such clear causal line from the principles and origins which Kit described to the behaviour which you assert Zionists maintain. You have also never really demonstrated that your assertions about Zionist behaviour are based in reality, but I long ago stopped waiting for you to do that.

Hi Terrance,
If we replace "religion" with "identifiable aspects of culture", a more general term for effectively the same thing as far as bigotry is concerned, a problem with your comment becomes plain to see: Every country on Earth meets this requirement for bigotry. They are all nativist. France demands to be recognized as culturally French and Ethiopians will act, as a unit, to protect their culture too. The same is true of the Saudis, Indians, and (in multiple ways which I could describe at length) Canadians.

Your comment about Israel making Palestinians prisoners on their own land runs into a similar problem: Strictly speaking, every person of every nationality is a prisoner on his or her own land. Israelis cannot freely migrate to Arab states. Nobody outside the E.U. can freely migrate to E.U. member-states, and even their internal migration-treaty is currently under threat. It's not a matter of Israel holding them in as a people so much as it is all countries of the world, controlling the entire rest of the world, holding them out as individuals ... just as they do with any individuals they deem non-desirable for immigration. Under the same mechanism by which Palestinians are made prisoners in their own land, every person on Earth who is not desired for immigration elsewhere is a prisoner in his or her own land. Ask any U.S. citizen who has been found guilty of a felony-level crime (and not later pardoned) about his travel-options. Now, of course many other "prisons", like the U.S., are far nicer than the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but others are worse. Somalis and Congolese have it worse and are even more trapped: Their homelands are in far worse shape than the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and while other countries may accept them, but they mostly lack the means to make emigration practical. I know there is a further complication regarding the Gaza Strip as it only borders Israel, but the residents of San Marino would fare no better if their country's relations with Italy were poor.

Hi Robert,
I wish it were that easy: Even if we dumped all religions, we would still see tribalism by different groups which take different moral guiding principles. We would see risk-takers against safe-players, environmentalists against those who wish to support the wealth of their society as a unit, those who see systematic unfairness in all inequality against those who see intrinsic differences in the same, hierarchists against (relative) anarchists. I know this because it is already happening. Religions are only one group of moral guides, but no more nor less divisive than any other kind.

Jay S (116)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 8:47 am
Now if the Arab-Muslim-Palestinian world would think and say the same things this man says in this naive article, but they don't. That is the problem with this airy-fairy liberal blindness.

Israel has many flaws and much to improve on, as do even the most advanced nations on earth, but in comparison to the brutal, intolerant,Islamist thugs in Palestine, especially in Gaza where women are forced to wear hijab or risk acid in the face or beatings, polygamy is promoted, Shiites and non-Muslims are persecuted, dissent has been silenced, the press repressed, gay people are tortured and imprisoned, and corruption is rampant, Israel is a beacon of light surrounded by a sea of hatred, oppression, backwardness, superstition and intolerance.

Palestinian TV regularly broadcasts hate programs toward Jews, Israel and Christians. If Israel did this you all here would be outraged, wouldn't you? But there is total silence for the bigoted, brutal tyranny that lobs rockets into Israel every day.

Where are the Palestinians calling for peace and for Israel's right to exist? Israel has excelled in building a civilization despite living under a constant state of seige from surrounding hostile Muslim occupied lands, they have been invaded and are constantly threatened with their very freedoms and survival, yet where is the condemnation of this hate? Israel contributes to the scientific advancement of all humankind.

What has 'Palestine' produced other than throwing rocks, suicide bombers and oppression. If the Arabs/Muslims cared so much for the Palestinians they would have helped them build a civilization instead of living off infidel charity and whining, for the most part, for 70 years while Israel has excelled and taken in all the Jews expelled from Muslim/Arab ruled lands (where is the outrage over those hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees?), while Arab/Muslim neighbors have treated Palestinians with disdain, kept them in camps and done nothing for them.

Bukhari:V4B52N177 "Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say."O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."'"
(A poll sponsored by the Israel Project found that 73 percent of Palestinian Arabs “believe” this Hadith, according to the findings of a July 2011 study by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner)

Is this the Palestinian yearning for peace and tolerance with Israel and Jews? Why aren't these people held to any high standards? You know full well if the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims reconquer Israel/Jerusalem it will sink into darkness, intolerance and bigotry. Then what will you say?

Israel has religious freedom - even for its Muslim citizens, as do all the others. Israel even allows the desecration of their holiest site, a deliberate act of humiliation of the Jews, of the Muslim Dome of the Rock and al-Agsa mosque, to remain standing, and the refusal of the Muslim invaders there to even allow Jews to go there to pray.

Fatah leader, Abbas Zaki, has repeatedly revealed the duplicity of the PA leaders. On April 9th 2008 he told NBN TV the following: “The PLO has not changed its platform even one iota….The PLO proceeds through phases…..Allah willing we will drive them out of all of Palestine.” The following year he revealed on Lebanese TV: “When we say that the settlement should be based upon these (1967) borders, President (Abbas) understands, we understand, and everybody knows, that the greater goal (destruction of Israel) cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end.” He then cautioned his listeners: “It is not acceptable policy to say that we want to wipe Israel out. Don’t say these things to the world, keep it to yourself.”

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."
-- Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive committee member


Tuesday July 17, 2012, 9:00 am
Praise be that the Palestinians (such peaceful loving people) as well as the 2.5 billion (lost count by now) Muslims with their tiny scraps of oil money have Kit B. Carson and her two loaded six guns galloping in every now and then to their rescue ..... yeeeeeee hah!

Tuesday July 17, 2012, 10:38 am
Kit B Carson without your amazing skill at surfing the great wondrous Internet bubble for statistics and figures people like me would remain forever in the grasp of ignorance. You see Kit I am nothing at all like you; I do not support any ideology or religion and I consider arguments or discussions around that subject as fruitful as comparing the smell, texture and colour of assorted turds. At the same time when a large group of people have been deprived of their property and then subject to mass murder followed on by their rescuers incarcerating then in camps on Cyprus (whilst denying them the right to return home and resume their lives) unlike you and your team, I feel they have a right to fight back. When they establish themselves on a tiny bit of real estate whilst around them, people are attempting to annihilate them according to you they should simply roll over and wait for the bullet. The world is not perfect and the “rights” to bits of real estate is very fuzzy. I find it rich that you living in the USA (Texas) along with your other US team members, rant on about rights when your glorious ancestors mowed down Indians to take their land; those same ancestors of your lot used slave labour to build your country and then fought tooth and nail to keep that system running. In my opinion we should start a campaign to chuck all the whites out of the USA and give the indigenous American Indians back their land. Maybe we can send them to wherever you and your 7th Cavalry plan on dumping the Jews once you get them out of Israel.

Gillian M (218)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 10:42 am
Kit, let us look at the term of anti-Semitism
an·ti-Sem·ite (nt-smt, nt-)
One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.
prejudiced against or hostile to Jews
anti-Semitically adv

\ˌan-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm, ˌan-ˌtī-\

Definition of ANTI-SEMITISM

: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

— an·ti–Se·mit·ic adjective

— an·ti–Sem·ite noun

And from the Britannica Online

anti-Semitism, hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns underway in central Europe at that time. Although this term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites. Nazi anti-Semitism, which (it runs out here)

The international definition of anti-Semitism includes accusations against Israel and not against any other country for the same alleged crime. None of you here have ever accused a Muslim controlled country of any of the offences that you accuse Israel of.

In fact I have yet to see any of the Palestinian supporters comment that their claim to refugee status no longer exists after 4 or 5 generations. No-one here has condemned the Jews being forced out of their homes in the Middle East nor the current and ongoing abuses against Christians in dozens of countries. I have yet to hear any condemnation of Syria or Jordan for stealing land nor does anyone criticize any Muslim controlled nation for their appalling treatment of the Palestinians nor the abuses against the Palestinians by their own people.

So,according to the correct definitions (which Kit seems incapable of finding) she is as anti-Semitic as any of her "friends".

Of course Israel does make mistakes but these are blown up out of all proportion and people, such as Kit, prefers to propagate untruths and lies instead. The UNWRA school was not hit during Iron Fist but a terrorist holding a rocket launcher was. UNWRA failed to dosclose this fact and I still hear it from time to time. No condemnation or criticism of a terrorist regime that hides in the population and deliberately using a school as cover knowing that soldiers will not attack a place with children in it.

Then we come to war crimes. I am still waiting (not with bated breath) for someone to take responsibilty to accuse Muslims of this. They have summer camps where they train children with arms to hate Jews and Israelis. Their schools across the Middl East echo this hatred.

The difference between Israel and the countries around it is summed up by Golda Meir “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”.


Alexa R (319)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 10:49 am
Kit B, has this article on purpose 'forgotten' about the 'oh so extremely brave' Christians who along side the 'oh so extremely brave' Jews - and the ONLY 'brave' Jews from the article's perspective'' - SOLELY focus their condemnation on Israelis/Zionists 'policies'?

I quote:"by sheikyermami on July 14, 2012
The Jews Made Us Do It!
‘Activist’ priests & useful idiots intend to bring ‘internationals to the West Bank to experience life under occupation’. The EAPPI has called on supporters to stage sit-ins at Israeli Embassies. These people are calling for divestment and campaign for sanctions against Israel.
It is simply astounding that, with Christians being persecuted by Muslims across the Third World, not least in Gaza and the disputed territories, being converted at knifepoint, driven from their homes and even burned in their churches in Africa and elsewhere, the Church of England remains silent about all this but instead singles out Israel for condemnation – Israel, the one country in the Middle East where Christians are protected, thriving and increasing.
Rub your eyes indeed. But then, the obsessive hatred of Israel, on routine display in the Church of England as elsewhere, has nothing whatever to do with evidence or reason. It has everything to do with bigotry. And in the case of the church, as became all too plain at that Synod meeting, with overt anti-Jewish bigotry. For as the Times of Israel reported, some of the clerics blamed the fact they had voted for the EAPPI upon the ’Jewish lobby’.
‘“A few people said that all the lobbying from the Jewish side led us to vote the other way,” said the Rt. Revd. Nigel McCulloch, who is chair of the Council of Christians and Jews (CCJ), the UK’s oldest Jewish-Christian interfaith group. “There was over-lobbying by some members of the Jewish community. The CCJ actually warned against this, as we know how the Synod works and it’s not a good way to get things done.”’

So not only did the Synod effectively vote to punish the Jews for their own victimisation, but these unnamed clerics are now blaming the Jews for having made them do so! (Melanie Philipps)"

ABSOLUTE nonsense this whole article (as much nonsense as what the Rt. Revd. Nigel McCulloch spoke .. there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of EXTREMELY brave ISRAELIS/ZIONISTS out there all for human rights and justice for all .. whether you wish to believe it or not ..

PARAPHRASED from this article: "The notion that any Jewish Zionist/Israeli Zionist who dedicates him or herself to justice for ALL people and who protests the unfair treatment of the downtrodden harbors hatred defies common sense. Given the self-esteem it takes to stand for justice amidst fierce denunciation, a more accurate assessment is that Zionists are compassionate Jews!"

If the "fierce denunciation" from Zionists is your biggest fear, boy I hope you NEVER have to deal with/live with/among mindless terrorists ..

Phil R (29)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 10:52 am
Thanks Kit,
I don't think it's any different for an Israeli to criticize Israel than it is for an American to criticize America.
It's not only right in any democracy to be critical of one's own country, it's indispensable. I'd even say it's every citizen's duty. So i think the concept of the "self hating Jew" is a myth. This is just an individual having an opinion pertaining to the actions of their government.

I see the word antisemitism thrown around a lot. It's important to note that it refers to discrimination against people who speak a particular language family and/or who live or originate from a certain part of the world...generally, the middle east. So it can be applied to anyone from that region. I can't understand, though, how it can be "antisemitism" when one Semitic group has a dispute with another (which is technically the case with Arabs and Jews).

Gillian M (218)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 10:53 am
The other problem Kit has is the inability to understand a simple concept. Many of us dislike parts of Islam and we do speak out against it.

However, that does not mean that we hate or fear Muslims. We dislike the extremism that some use, like on 9/11 or 7/7. FGM, paedophilia, murder of homosexuals, female abuse, attacking people for not being a Muslim or those who are not extreme enough and their intolerance of other religions. However, none of us have ever said that all Muslims are like this and we all have friends and colleagues who are Muslim. I have attended a mosque which is associated with my synagogoue. I didn't catch fire nor was I assaulted.

However, I am regularly accused of Islamophobia (a Muslim Brotherhood term) and hating Muslims as are other people on the board. If we use quotes from the Koran to prove what we say we are attacked and ridiculed.

All I say to such, as Kit, that you view us as thinking as you do about Israel and Jews, you could not be more mistaken. We are not bigoted and full of hate as you are, we are just honest about the bits we don't like. I can say that about Judaism but most of them are no longer practised.

And we spend time a lot of time on human rights issues, working for women and children regardless of their race, creed, colour, disability or religion. I have yet to see you do that. Hypocricy rules.

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 11:47 am
The rat pack shows up. Does it take 4 of you to swarm someone? LOL

Gillian, talking in generalities again. Who's 'WE' you're supposedly speaking for? lol Some created big generality.
Oh btw, regarding 'none of us have ever said that all Muslims are like this' yet the truth is only a few of you have ever said anything GOOD about muslims when asked---not Pam W., not Carol D., not Carola May, not Bernard, in fact only about 3 of your dozen or so clique dogs have said you don't hate all muslims.
Let's get the stats straight.

Bernard as usual is out of his tree. What the hell does 'your U.S. ancestors mowing down Indians' in the past have to do with present time and human rights?

Gillian and Bernard are proven liars when it comes to making absolutely false statements about me on other threads. Rob and J. as well accused a muslim on another thread of being a 'paid Islamist propagandist' and when confronted for proof scurried away and hid. No proof.


Tuesday July 17, 2012, 11:56 am
Kenny baby, it is sad to see a grown man reacting with name calling and accusations when someone has the temerity to voice an opinion that runs contrary to that of his lordship. I’d watch the ticker old chap – all that blood pressure cannot be good for you. Logically please explain me, in your opinion, how far back is it OK to go when claiming territory? Presumably 1948 is a no, no but the 19th century through to the 1920’s when your lot were still happily grabbing Indian Territory is just fine and dandy!

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 12:04 pm

Yes, Kenneth. This article was being very pleasantly and respectfully discussed -- by commenters on both sides of the issue -- until the arrival of the same group (who I've witnessed "hijacking" any thread regarding the Palestine/Israel conflict that does not conform to their thinking) decided to suddenly discard civility and, instead of attacking the subject, began insulting other posters.

As Kit stated -- which is now being forgotten: "This article was posted as one man's journey to find his own truth, that it is just too much for some to comprehend is unfortunate."


Vlasta M (7)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 12:05 pm
Zionism is a liberation movement of the Jewish people. If you respect liberation movement of all other nations, then singling out Zoinism to hate is delusional Jew hatred. Anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism. Palestinians was a name for Jews who live in Palestine until Israel become a country in 1948 after second partition of Palestine voted by US in November 1947 and proclamation of independence by Israel in May 1948. The Palestinians (Jews from Israel) accepted it but Arabs attacked the Jewish majority state (20% of populations are Arabs, mostly Muslims), while Arabs attacked the new state in hope to loot what Jews had built since second part of 19th century when they started moving in (Jerusalem ALWAYS had a Jewish majority, even during Ottoman Emprire).

In 1964, the Palestinians were invented as Arabs who lived in former British Mandate, Palestine, which lopped off East Palestine in the First Partition in 1922 and in 1923 the Transjordan was formed under Hashemite king. There were many more Jews who were expelled and had to flee with their lives from Arab countries, then Arabs who left Israel. Those Arabian Jews were mostly settled in Israel and now form over 50% of the Jewish population of Israel. If Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians were resetettled in areas vacated by the Jews in Arab countries (where they lived longer than Muslims, ex. Iraq and Iran) there would be no problem.

The Arab countries had been using "Palestiniians" as pawn in their political power games. IT has nothing to do with justice, which would be served if the Arabs from West Bank and Gaza strip were resettled in lands and properties that Arabian Jews left behind, as it was done in most war conflicts, such as Inida/Palkistan, Germany/Plland. USSR/Poland etc. Theere can be no peace as long as 73% if "Palsetinians" desire annihilation of Israel rather then good lives for themselves. There can be no peace as long as Islam stays a supremacist ideology of Jew hate similar to Nazi ideology, and if Arabs could they would commit a second Halocaust, although they deny the firts. Israel should fear of Islamists taking over Egypt and now Syria, becaue their goal is annihilation of Israel. Thus the partition of Palestine and exhange of population along the First Partition of Palestine should be completed by re-settling population (that wants to annihilate Jews) into Arab countries where Jews had left property and lands in ares of over 5 areas of current Isarel. That would be justice!

Vlasta M (7)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 12:15 pm
Jews are by nature self-critical and yearn for is a part of Jewish religion. People like Emanuel Levinas emphasises the ultimate importance of relating to the "other" and be responsible for them. Thus you find Jews who are unrealistic and do not realize that you cannot negotiate peace with somebody who wants to behead you ans trow you into the sea, as 73% of West Bank and Gaza inhabitants want to do, rather then improving their own lives.

Some Jews, such as Chomsky and J-street Jews are totally meshugana and becaue of their delusional thinking, inspiered by political correctness, they woek against Isral and their own Jewish people, and in the case of Chomsky against America. Those guys should be forced to read Koran and hadith from cover to cover to understand what Muslims think of Jews (dhimmis at best and descendents of dogs and monkeys who should be exterminateed). They should be also sent to some Arab countries to experience "freedom" under sharia, which is inncompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. IT is not a coincidence that Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, spend WWII in Berlin egging Hitler on to hurry up extermination of European Jews and come to Palestine. This Nazi Mufti of let go unpunished by the Brits and French to Cairo and Middle Eest where he riled up Arab masses into Jew hating frneny and rejection of the Second Partition of Palestine which Jews accepted by Areabs rejects and attacked Israel to annihilate it.

Supremacist ideology of Islam is simlar to Nazi supremacist ideology, with its delusionalo Jew hatred, a mental illness aflicging majoritty of Muslims around the world.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 12:49 pm
Kit, it amazes me how quick you and the others here are quick to slam Judiasm and Christianity. Most of you claim to be intelligent athiests, and attack organized religion at every turn, except of course, if it has something to do with Islam. You accuse everyone else of hate, and yet these postings are the stuff of which stirrings are made of. I really don't care what you personally believe or care about anything, but it's way time for you and your kin to spend time on issues other than slamming any form of Christianity or Judiasm.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 12:50 pm
Excuse me, I meant to spell it Judaism....

monica r (41)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 1:38 pm
Oh, here comes Kenny to the rescue!

At least Israel ratified the UN' Human Rights Declaration. No country fully follows it, of course. But signing or ratifying it at least shows acceptance that it is to be aspired to.

Ken, dear, are you aware that the 57 member states of the OIC (basically the muslim majority countries) have REJECTED the International Declaration of Human Rights? They have come out with their own declaration which bows to shari'a. Without getting emotional or calling me a hater, please consider what that means.

You can read it here:

I would call special attention to the last two articles:

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Now read the rest with that in mind. So,for example:

(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

Under shari'a, woman's testimony in court is worth half a man's, she can inherit only half what males do, she should not leave the home without her father or husband's permission, she can have one spouse but her husband can have up to 4, her husband can easily divorce her but she must make her case before a shari'a council to get one, and she will have no right to custody of her children on the rare occasion a divorce is granted to her. Her husband's rights include beating her (not too hard though so that's probably no big deal, right?) and sex on his command, and since there is provision for divorcing her before she hits puberty, she obviously can be married before puberty. Her father should be sure her genitals have been "circumcised" (aka female genital mutilation) before she marries, as "a courtesy to her husband". If she is a virgin, it doesn't matter if she's 10 or in her 30s, it is the right of her father or paternal grandfather to marry her to whomever he wishes (anyone suitable, specifically no closer than 1st cousins, and a muslim in good standing) regardless of whether she wants to (btw "irregardless" is not proper usage). So the term "equal" here sounds good, but shari'a being the arbiter of what that equality looks like from the other side of the burka, tell me, do you think she can possibly be enjoying her 30 human rights? Might we concede that there are some human rights abuses (per the UN Declaration, obviously NOT by the criteria of the OIC) that a muslim woman is subjected to under shari'a?

Please educate yourself on shari'a. Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat al-Salik) is an Islamic source approved by Islamic authorities and scholars. Google it, you can read it online for free on several sites.

I sincerely admire your support of the International Declaration of Human Rights. I support it too, which is why you will never see me support shari'a. I now am wondering why you have done so on several C2 threads.


Alexa R (319)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 1:46 pm
Kit B: "For some Jews, support for Israeli policy is unconditional, even if it conflicts with traditional Jewish values. "

Support for Israeli policy most certainly does not conflict with Judaism ..!!??!! In fact Israel IS a Judaistic state .. Judaism in ALL its varieties IS how things get done in Israeli government ..

Kit B: "What I have clearly stated on many occasions, is that I condemn religion and state."

Thus apologies for having to point out to you that you CLEARLY in your own words condemn a Judaistic state as what can be found in Israel ..

Mayar Girl, hmm, Kit might not 'slam' a Judaistic state, but in her own words, she 'condemns religion and state' or 'theocratic rule' (as can be found in Israel). Perhaps there's a BIG difference between 'slam' and 'condemn' that we're not quite getting ..

Personally Mayar Girl, I'm ALL for a state "based on the Abrahamic religions [where citizens] are taught to love their neighbor" ..!

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 3:11 pm
Monica "I now am wondering why you have done so (support Sharia) on several C2 threads". ANOTHER DAMN LIE! That's THREE on the last two threads I've met you on! Are you some kind of pathological liar? One lie after another, same with Gillian, Pam W., Carol D., Carola May, Bernie Cro-Magnon, all proven liars by making continuous false statements about me on threads.

Does your clique get together in some sleazy internet back alley to plan your next tag-team swarming?

Personally I NEVER do anything but DISCARD anything said by anyone who lies, and this clique makes continuous false statements.


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 3:14 pm

True, Charles and Kit. There is NO HATE in this article. (In fact, I felt that it showed so much enlightened truth, and humility, by admission of the author that he'd actively participated in an endeavor that he later, upon reflection, realized was wrong, that *I* am the one who forwarded it to Kit. I would have posted it, myself, but I have little patience with the gang of thugs who personally attack anything and anyone doubting the actions of the Israeli government. Their accusations and statements are always the same -- circular, vindictive, and as such, unworthy of argument.)

It is entirely discouraging to see someone post an honest point of view, although it may be different from others', and witness these vicious attacks of character.

Elle B (84)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 4:06 pm
Thanks again Kit for posting a relevant and insightful post on a very complex and controversial issue...and always riding herd on the commentary ...not sure if everyone read the same article though. I think the final paragraph is a concise and excellent summation. Plan to read the book soon. the idea of adding rights vs. subtracting them. . .think you're on to something. . .

Ditto link: Declaration of Human Rights

Carole...flagged the spammer prior...wish there was a "troll" flag option. . .

Heart to Care2er's . . .

“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.” ― Viktor E. Frankl

“I do not forget any good deed done to me & I do not carry a grudge for a bad one.” ― Viktor E. Frankl

“There is not one among us in whom a devil does not dwell; at some time, on some point, that devil masters each of us... It is not having been in the Dark House, but having left it, that counts.” ― Theodore Roosevelt, US President

“Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated.” ― George Bernard Shaw

“A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave.” ― Mohandas K. Gandhi


Angelika R (143)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 4:10 pm
...which leads me to say, had Mr Forer read / participated in /witnessed this thread in it's later development, he would probably say something like "it is mainly for THOSE type of people and their mindmap that I have written this piece".

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 4:12 pm
My comment is meant to follow up on Carole's.

marie C (163)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 5:08 pm
I was really enjoying this thread but once the name calling starts its time for me to leave
Some extremely knowledgeable comments
Thank you everyone

patrica and edw jones (190)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 5:11 pm
Once in a while it would be a nice change to hear from Kit - what Israel does to benefit mankind.....which is much. Instead she continually seeks to label Israel as a pariah..........never logically looking at the whole picture. Never once - to my knowledge- have any of her sycophantic followers or her - made mention of the daily rocket abuse into Israel. Obviously these 'peace lovers' are only of that mind where the Palestinians are concerned. Did you know that the Hamas Government recently set about destroying the homes of 120 Palestinian families? This land is for Government use and is a far greater number than the Israel has demolished in recent years!! Funny how deafening the silence is from western media and human rights groups about this atrocity. What a one-eyed blog you run Kit. Noted as NOT WORTHY!

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 5:13 pm

[I completely understand, Marie.]


Jennifer Ward (40)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 5:53 pm
Hmmm- I don't have a dog in this hunt- I'm neither Jewish or Zionist. However, I can't help thinking of the weekly suicide bombers that caused Israel to put up the wall. Last year's Fogel family massacre, where the mothers of the murderers thought their sons were 'heroes' for cutting innocent babies throats. The misappropriation of funds sent to support the Palestinians, etc, etc. Do you think there are 5million Palestinians in Gaza & the West Bank? Of course there aren't-the 'refugees' are inflated by the dispora who are born and settled around the world which goes against the UN's own rules by granting of refugee status in perpetuity and disadvantages every genuine refugee waiting in deprivation and danger for their opportunity to be settled or returned to their own countries.

So if Israel is over run- what will happen then? More of the same mismanagement and violence? Israel contributes to the world in many ways and works hard. Enough already of these whiners and murderers I'm sick of hearing their complaints and their atrocities being excused by the MSM and well intentioned but wrong thinking people that post here and call for the destruction of Israel.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 6:00 pm

Hmmmm (back atcha, Phyllis) . . . I've been following this thread from the beginning; and I didn't see even ONE post calling for the destruction of Israel.


monica r (41)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 6:17 pm
Kenneth, I was not lying. You have made your reputation of defending an ideology, self-admittedly with little knowledge of it, that is responsible for egregious human rights violations.

I'm sorry friend, let me simplify that. Theoretically, if you defended Nazism on a thread (NOT saying you did that, you have not) and repeatedly defended the right of Nazis to their beliefs and practices, you could hardly blame anyone for concluding that you were defending the inherent human rights violations of Nazism, such as euthanizing anyone who qualifies for special ed (they were the 1st to go), killing Jews, gypsies, gays, political dissidents, etc?

Likewise when you defend an ideology that is inseparable from shari'a, by the opinion of scholars and leaders of said ideology, though not every individual claiming the name of the ideology practices it, as I pointed out to you before, makes it SOUND LIKE you support the human rights violations. You say I hate all muslims, I pointed out I don't (just the ideology) and I gave very specific examples as you requested. And for the record, a LOT of them are in the west to ESCAPE shari'a, because they suffered greatly by it, that is, their human rights were violated. I stand up for these muslims by opposing the ideology that has oppressed them.

If you don't remember the previous exchange, you now say you never said it. Whatever.

Fine, discard what I said about that.

BUT read the OIC declaration. Read Umdat al-Salik. It even breaks down when and how different sects or schools of Islam disagree on an issue. Those sources are Islamic. Look at what they say. Compare the two declarations for yourself. If you really are as passionate about human rights as you say, you'll do this.

If not, YOU'RE lying about caring about human rights, because you willfully refuse to look at blatant violations of them.

"Personally I NEVER do anything but DISCARD anything said by anyone who lies, and this clique makes continuous false statements. "

Please back this up. You can start by proving that the list applying to women I provided above are NOT in Islamic jurisprudence (shari'a). I'll just start looking up quran verses and items in Reliance to show they are, plus videos of imams explaining that they are.

Also, disagreeing with you is not automatically a "DAMN LIE!" or "false statement." Please know that ad hominem attacks including babyish modifying of someone's name to turn it into an epithet are looked down on as debate tactics. The people who do that end up sounding like schoolyard bullies and deserve about the same respect, too.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 6:55 pm

[spammer reported]

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 7:05 pm

I thought I'd posted something similar to this earlier (but it never appeared), so I'll do it again.

Although I am an American, and respect the documents establishing this country under its Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution (in spite of the fact that I'm Native American) . . . I feel the right (and, indeed, obligation) of its citizens is to question the authority and decisions of its government.

As such, I CONDEMN the increasingly imperialistic practices of this government, laying to waste resources needed by its own citizens through war and corporate-backed trade decisions. The same holds true of anyone protecting the doctrines of any other country.

Does that make me UN-American? I think not. BUT, I think it is the responsiblity of all to QUESTION AUTHORITY! (Otherwise, you are a willing adherent to a dictatorship.)


Stan B (123)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 7:21 pm
I respect Richard Forer's right to express his personal views on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Having said that it has to be pointed out that there are, of course, other Jews who have differing opinions. I'm definitely one of them.
Below is a letter to the world by the late Stanley Goldfoot also known as Eliezer ben Israel. He was the founder of the Times of Israel and wrote the piece below in the first issue of the paper. He died at the age of 92 in 2006.

" I am not a creature from another planet, as you seem to believe. I am a Jerusalemite, like yourselves, a man of flesh and blood. I am a citizen of my city, an integral part of my people.

I have a few things to get off my chest. Because I am not a diplomat, I do not have to mince words. I do not have to please you or even persuade you. I owe you nothing.

You did not build this city, you did not live in it, you did not defend it when they came to destroy it. And we will be damned if we will let you take it away.

There was a Jerusalem before there was a New York . When Berlin , Moscow , London , and Paris were miasmal forest and swamp, there was a thriving Jewish community here. It gave something to the world

which you nations have rejected ever since you established yourselves - a humane moral code.

Here the prophets walked, their words flashing like forked lightning. Here a people who wanted nothing more than to be left alone, fought off waves of heathen would-be conquerors, bled and died on the battlements,

hurled themselves into the flames of their burning Temple rather than surrender, and when finally overwhelmed by sheer numbers and led away into captivity, swore that before they forgot Jerusalem , they would see their tongues cleave to their palates, their right arms wither.

For two pain-filled millennia, while we were your unwelcome guests, we prayed daily to return to this city.

Three times a day we petitioned the Almighty: "Gather us from the four corners of the world, bring us upright to our land, return in mercy to Jerusalem , Thy city, and swell in it as Thou promised."

On every Yom Kippur and Passover, we fervently voiced the hope that next year would find us in Jerusalem .

Your inquisitions, pogroms, expulsions, the ghettos into which you jammed us, your forced baptisms, your

quota systems, your genteel anti-Semitism, and the final unspeakable horror, the holocaust (and worse, your terrifying disinterest in it) - all these have not broken us. They may have sapped what little moral strength you still possessed, but they forged us into steel.

Do you think that you can break us now after all we have been


Do you really believe that after Dachau and Auschwitz we are frightened by your threats of blockades and sanctions?

We have been to Hell and back- a Hell of your making. What more could you possibly have inyour arsenal that could scare us?

I have watched this city bombarded twice by nations calling themselves civilized. In 1948, while you looked on apathetically, I saw women and children blown to smithereens, after we agreed to your request to internationalize the city. It was a deadly combination that did the job - British officers, Arab gunners, and American-made cannon.

And then the savage sacking of the Old City - the wilful slaughter, the wanton destruction of every synagogue and religious school, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, the sale by a ghoulish government of tombstones for building materials, for poultry runs, army camps, even latrines.

And you never said a word.

You never breathed the slightest protest when the Jordanians shut off the holiest of our places, the Western Wall, in violation of the pledges they had made after the war - a war they waged, incidentally, against the decision of the UN.

Not a murmur came from you whenever the legionnaires in their spiked helmets casually opened fire upon our citizens from behind the walls. Your hearts bled when Berlin came under siege. You rushed your airlift "to save the gallant Berliners". But you did not send one ounce of food when Jews starved in besieged Jerusalem . You thundered against

the wall which the East Germans ran through the middle of the German capital - but not one peep out of you about that other wall, the one that tore through the heart of Jerusalem .

And when that same thing happened 20 years later, and the Arabs unleashed a savage, unprovoked bombardment of the Holy City again, did any of you do anything?

The only time you came to life was when the city was at last reunited. Then you wrung your hands and spoke loftily of "justice" and need for the "Christian" quality of turning the other cheek.

The truth - and you know it deep inside your gut - you would prefer the city to be destroyed rather than have it governed by Jews. No matter how diplomatically you phrase it, the age old prejudices seep out of every word.

If our return to the city has tied your theology in knots, perhaps you had better reexamine your catechisms.

After what we have been through, we are not passively going to accommodate ourselves to the twisted idea that we are to suffer eternal homelessness until we accept your savior.

For the first time since the year 70, there is now complete religious freedom for all in Jerusalem .

For the first time since the Romans put a torch to the Temple, everyone has equal rights (you prefer to have some more equal than others.)

We loathe the sword - but it was you who forced us to take it up.

We crave peace, but we are not going back to the peace of 1948 as you would like us to.

We are home. It has a lovely sound for a nation you have willed to wander over the face of the globe. We are not leaving.

We are redeeming the pledge made by our forefathers:

Jerusalem is being rebuilt.

"Next year" and the year after, and after, and after, until the end of time - "in Jerusalem "!

I believe this opinion would also have been shared by the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust because they had no Israel to go to.

Kit. I find your throw away line, "when in doubt, dust off and bring out Hitler," most offensive.


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 7:33 pm

That's fair, Stan. Go ahead and object to Kit's reference, as is your right.

BUT, the circumstances of the Holocaust -- while, admittedly, were atrociously monstrous (and have haunted me since my childhood, when I first heard of them) -- cannot be used as a "forever excuse" for Israel's own committance of atrocities . . . any more than my ancestors, Native Americans, should they choose to attempt a similar genocide as redemption for committing a similar atrocity.


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 7:37 pm

"An eye for any eye only leaves the whold world blind." Mahatma Gandhi

Think peace.


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 7:38 pm

Correction: Should read "An eye for AN eye . . ."


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 7:47 pm

[Actually, "An eye for any eye" is still appropriate. However, in my haste, I totally messed up the quote. Sometimes, my vehemence interferes with my mind-to-fingers interpretation and typing skill. Sorry.]

"An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi


Sam H (410)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 8:00 pm
"An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi

Essentially, Carole, what Gandhi warned against is a world full of militant Zionists who can’t see the truth.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 8:04 pm

Thanks, Sam. *kiss*


Sam H (410)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 8:28 pm
It’s quite frustrating for me too to not be able to send stars to Carole, Kit and all my other deserving friends!

But I always remind myself that the good work you do here and elsewhere generates enough twinkling stars for me and all the others you share your wisdom with.

Gillian M (218)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 9:21 pm
It's interesting how the anti-Semites agreeing with each other is acceptabl as is complaining about Zionists because they are unable to find anyone else to blame. But if others on the board point out something different then we are haters.

If one of the other kinds of contributers points out one of the misconceptions that you like to use, such as the correct origin of anti-Semitism, it's ignored.

I have yet to see any of you point at other countries in the Middle East or Africa and object to their behaviour, only Israel.You clearly indicate that killing non-Muslims or not extreme enough Muslims is OK or just something that is better ignored because it damages your perception of how wonderful they are. Could you possibly get your heads out of your backsides and look at the greater picture of what is happening world wide or are you all records stuck in one track or just parrots?


Sam H (410)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 9:30 pm
You’re such a wise lady, Gillian!

Could you please list the names of those anti-Semites you see on this thread, Gillian?


Antonia Windham (6)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 10:37 pm
I've a disliking for the bandying about of the word 'hate' and its use where it doesn't belong. In most cases I've found that objections to something're not grounded in hatred of a person or people but in a dislike of concepts and practices.

And have an equal disliking for the way some've decided the world's to be viewed in either/or. For us/for our enemies. Criticizing Zionism's not an automatic morph into hatred of cultural Jews and Mosaicists, nor yet a guaranteed morph into love of Mohammedans. It's just a criticism of a political ideology. Criticism of Israel's not an automatic morph into love for Mohammedan states. And criticism of Christianity or Mosaicism's not an automatic morph into love of Mohammedanism. Those without religion're usually not favoring one and disfavoring the rest - they're all religion and're usually all to be condemned, and if only one's under negative discussion that's no indication others wouldn't be if all were under discussion.

If the argument's good enough personalities need never enter into it and ad hominem attacks're just a sign of desperation. On some level, though, they're as enjoyable to me as is hypocrisy since both're an admission of wrongdoing, and I've a liking for people being so willing to let others see how wrong they are.

Nice article, Kit. Attracting some thoughtful comment from some and some silly one-sidedness from others.

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 10:54 pm
Hi Kit :)

If you check Sam's post to which I was responding, he actually brought out Hitler. I was responding to a specific proposal which he presented in his second paragraph.

My comment about the tribalism referred to a list of divisions having nothing to do with religion, but which are of a nature effectively identical to that caused by different religions. I'm quite surprised that you didn't pick up on the fact that I was listing existing cases which often arise on Care2. Here they are explicitly:

"risk-takers against safe-players": "Progressives" vs. "Conservatives"
"environmentalists against those who wish to support the wealth of their society as a unit": "Environmentalists" vs. "Those who prioritize business-growth"
"those who see systematic unfairness in all inequality against those who see intrinsic differences in the same": Liberals vs. a different group of "Conservatives"
"hierarchists against (relative) anarchists": Communists / Socialists / Public-Sector Enthusiasts vs. Capitalists

There certainly has been quite a lot of development over the years. However, the elimination of destructive, combative, division by cultural moral guiding principles of the same nature as religion is not among them. Individuals will certainly wish to act as such, but will still be attracted to groups of similar moral hierarchies and oppose groups of different hierarchies or of belief-systems which lead to different ethics even with similar morals.

I'm just saying that we will all still want to be "the good guys" and just have different ideas of what that involves.

Antonia Windham (6)
Tuesday July 17, 2012, 11:05 pm
And a non-valid-argument to bring up ancestral American activities, Bernard C. Americans today have as much control over their ancestors' actions as they do over the orbit of the Earth 'round the Sun. Less, actually, since maybe one day we'll find ways to alter planetary orbits. But we've no control over the past, which's the responsibility of those who lived it.

Wednesday July 18, 2012, 3:17 am
The sanctimonious Charles O. sallies forth with his endless tomes and his judgemental labels a la the Kit/ Kenny alliance. One of his oft repeated and hilariously naïve ones is, now wait for it (puts on horrified expression) ……. “haters”! I am not sure who these labels are directed at but personally hating someone takes far too much energy and is a distraction when the bullets fly. I am afraid that I have so little respect for the losers that you lot have the need to defend that I most certainly would not waste my energy resources upon hating them – nor you for that matter.

Alexa R (319)
Wednesday July 18, 2012, 4:41 am
I'm with you on this one Stan! I too respect Richard F's right to express his personal views on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, just as I have respected every commenter on this thread's right to express theirs. Like you Stan, I most certainly do not share Richard F's point of view or even respect his point of view as it's too far removed from reality IMHO to merit any respect -perhaps it is because i do not share his american reality, maybe if i was american i might have understood at least some of his perspective or point of view....

Anyways, I also (as it is part of Judaism, my faith) respect every person's right to not only express themselves, but to be free to live their life according to their own beliefs. Israel is a multicultural society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive, practice whatever faith, or no faith at all;, etc every person in Israel is free to be themselves. It's one of the things about Israel that i love, the fact that Herzl's zionist dream of a multicultural oasis has become reality in so many parts of Israel. What I, and other zionists like me do not respect or tolerate is people breaking the laws of our country for example killing others, violence, terrorism, etc. Thus attempting to destroy our zionist dream of a multicultural society.

Thanks Stan for sharing a most delightful and insightful article by the late Stanley Goldfoot/Eliezer ben Israel. I feel myself much in agreement with him.

Kenneth L (314)
Wednesday July 18, 2012, 6:10 am
Monica YOU'RE WRONG. AND YOU ARE COMPOUNDING A LIE WITH ANOTHER LIE.. YOU LIE CONTINUOUSLY.. "Kenneth, I was not lying. You have made your reputation of defending an ideology, self-admittedly with little knowledge of it, that is responsible for egregious human rights violations.".
THAT IS ANOTHER LIE. I don't have a 'reputation' except one that you in your deluded mind has created about me. And spread, Same with your fellow attack dog clique members. CONFRONT IT. YOU MANUFACTURE FALSE IDEAS. YOU'RE A LIE FACTORY.

ONCE AGAIN I have to correct you that I don't condone ANY violations of human rights by ANYONE. You don't understand english? You can't learn? You can't duplicate?
Whenever I have to continually correct one LIE after another from you Monica I know I'm looking at someone who is out of their stinking gourd. Seriously.

I was also waiting for one of the hyena pack dogs like Monica to attack me for posting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights SO YOU COULD MAKE ME WRONG ABOUT IT. ROTFLMFAO! You're one mentally disturbed puppy.

Bernie Cro-Magnon, I told you before you shouldn't come out from under your rock in the daylight, somebody will recognize you.

I don't know if anyone sees this clearly, but any Care2 member is continually under the gun of all the members of the 'attack dog clique' on this thread in having to continually CORRECT the FALSE IDEAS, LIES, MIISINFORMATION, FALSE STATEMENTS about what they think or feel or have said regarding Islam or Muslims or Sharia Law et al. You are continually hit with lies, false ideas, manufactured ideas, false statements. Notice that?
I wouldn't doubt that more than one of this attack dog clique is psychotic. Also, for some strange reason, psychotics tend to hang around together. Must have something to do with the similar way they think.


Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday July 18, 2012, 7:52 am
Hi Kit,

Read Sam's post to which I was responding, specifically:

"Just imagine if such an argument was made to justify Hitler’s actions! It would be as despicable there as it is here. "

He asked me to imagine it so I did and I wrote my conclusions. Yes, of course Nazi-references showed up in them because that was part of the parameters which Sam suggested.

Fennie Yap (0)
Wednesday July 18, 2012, 7:54 am
Noted. Thanks :-)

Alexa R (319)
Wednesday July 18, 2012, 8:29 am
Kenneth L, so are you saying, you categorically deny that you're defending Islam? Just curious. Wondering, if I may. No need to reply.

Wednesday July 18, 2012, 12:06 pm
Barbara W - and so your point is?

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday July 18, 2012, 2:54 pm
Hi Kit,

Israel is a multicultural and diverse society. It certainly maintains its Jewish character, but internally people are not persecuted for maintaining a minority-culture. It is difficult for us to see this in the West for two reasons:

First, we expect to see cultural toleration so we don't deem it notable and newsworthy, for example, that Muslims are permitted access to their holy sites. We don't deem it newsworthy that non-Jews are given equal voting-rights (though they may throw away those votes in the same manner that Quebecois did for decades). We don't see the acceptance.

Second, we are accustomed to seeing Christian majorities in accepting cultures to the point where we do not even notice the Christian character of so many Western countries. The top executive of the U.K. is also the titular head of the Anglican Church, but nobody talks about its Christian character. Do you think Italian culture does not have a whole lot to do with Catholicism? The Swiss flag is a cross. In the U.S., even secular society is obsessed with defining everything in terms of a fight between good and evil (really easy and polarizing in a two-party system), the universal framework presented by Christianity. France forbids the mixture of any religion and the public sector, but symbols of French heritage, like crosses, are allowed. However, the moment we look at a non-Christian country, we see the majority-character and many of us fail to comprehend that such majority-character is actually normal in even the most accepting and diverse societies.

I don't think you quite know what happened in the United States: There was a massive plague immediately before the beginning of the spread of European colonies. Think about it: Nearly all of Africa was "colonized", but the majority of the inhabitants of those colonies are not of European descent. Why would it be different in North America? Here's a fun read and, while it comes from a humour-website, seems to be fairly well-researched:

I tend to expect more from Israel than many other countries as well, but it is still not right to demand more from one group than from another. That maintains a double-standard which remains supported to this day. Look at turnouts for protests regarding events in Syria and compare them to protests regarding events in Israel. More importantly, by failing to demand the same from Palestinians, people miss half the picture and totally fail to recognize practical realities. The fact is that meeting the demands placed upon Israel would be suicidal for it. I could go into detail precisely how it would be, and precisely how and why the demands were engineered for this purpose if you want. (It was a USSR-initiative as part of Cold War politics, operating through the wonderful-looking and absolutely vile Additional Protocol 1, meant to turn the laws protecting of civilians in war into a suicide-pact for humanitarians, which mostly did not include USSR-proxies.)

The conflict will continue regardless of Israeli desires for war or peace. I could go into detail regarding why that is true as well if you want.

Alexa R (319)
Wednesday July 18, 2012, 4:16 pm
Send a Green Star to Stephen Brian

Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Stephen because you have done so within the last week.

Kenneth L (314)
Wednesday July 18, 2012, 6:00 pm
Nice try at a statement couched in a question Alexandra. I was about to take you seriously until your little addendum 'you don't have to reply'. If you want to be sneaky, you can probably do much better.
Your question is a generality to begin with, especially with the term 'categorically' meaning 'absolute'. You mean do I think Islam in it's entirety is good? I don't. You mean do I think Islam in it's entirety is bad? I don't. It's like me asking you 'do you 'categorically' defend Judaism? And what would you think if anyone 'categorically' attacks Judaism? It's stupid because it's a generality. It's also a loaded and slanted question.

Right from the start Islam, and Christianity, and Judaism are not good to the degree IMO that they are dogmatic. They tell others what to think, believe, what is 'the truth'. Doesn't work well, not smart, not good IMO, to that degree, right off the bat.

I don't condone ANY human right violations, which means ACTS. Not thoughts. There is no policing of thoughts or beliefs. In fact, that's one of the human rights---freedom of thought. Nowhere will you find 'freedom of actions'. Criminals would jump for joy for that one.

There is nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that says 'Islam is never to be defended by anyone". What hogwash.

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday July 18, 2012, 7:40 pm
Hi Kit :)

For it to be a chicken-and-egg problem, the conflict must be necessary for its own continuation. I believe that even if there were somehow peace tomorrow, the fighting would just start up again in a few months at most. The two cultures just cannot coexist peacefully as independent political entities. Their relationship will default to conflict and they will not establish peace. Here is why:

The classic Middle-Eastern tradition is that two entities are at war until they make peace. Normally, peace is preferable and possible so the state of war does not last very long, perhaps not even long enough for a single weapon to be raised. Still, without a peace-agreement, the default is war. It doesn't even matter that the majority of Israeli Jews come from the Middle East and not Europe because the European tradition is that if the other side declares war, then the response is war. Palestinian culture, obviously, developed with the Middle-Eastern tradition.

Again, that is normally not an issue, except that the two sides cannot make peace because they have incompatible paradigms of war-resolution. This difference of tradition goes back thousands of years, and to understand it one must understand how these different paradigms developed. Here goes a long history-lesson:

5900 years ago, there was a massive global warming event. Rivers and lakes shrunk, deserts grew, and food became much more scarce. Humans migrated towards remaining freshwater sources, raising population densities and producing the oldest surviving civilizations. (There is a reason the Jewish calendar goes back to roughly the same time as the start of Chinese civilization.) Whatever social development in establishing peace came before, everybody was thrown into life-or-death conflict over food and water. The point of war was to reduce the number of mouths to feed and defeat meant either death or displacement (if one could kill the tribe on the other side or drive it away). These wars were genocidal. Over time, the expectation of genocide drove the defeated to fight to their last breaths and the expectation of fighting to the last breath drove the victors to never stop fighting. This tradition of genocidal war lasted until well after there was sufficient economic and infrastructure-development that the life-or-death struggle over land ended. Fortunately, as long as war was genocidal, no victor would leave any people to conquer, so one was stuck with natural growth and could not grow through war, so there were no great polities annihilating everyone on their borders. Great polities grew by overcoming the tradition of annihilation in two ways:

First, there is a familiar empire: After the fighting, the two sides agree that the defeated one will obey the edicts and laws of the victor, pay it taxes, and raise no armed force against it. In exchange, it will be allowed to live as it did before except where the edicts and laws demand otherwise. Often slaves were taken. In exchange, the victors would protect the defeated side from external attack and provide whatever other services of state were standard for the victors. Given that the alternative was genocide, the defeated side would generally accept these terms of conquest, which were really a very one-sided peace-deal.

Every single Western nation has been on the losing end of this, or inherited a culture that has been so, Jews, I believe, more than any other. Rome conquered much of Europe and took slaves, granting the slaves' descendants full citizenship. Those descendants were the vast majority of the population of the city of Rome, so really Rome was composed entirely of conquered peoples. Before them there were the Greeks, the Persians, the Babylonians, and the Assyrians. After them there were the Byzantines, Goths, French (under Napoleon), British, and others conquering back and forth across Europe. Jews were always subject to classic terms of conquest, on threat of massacre or expulsion, but the acceptance of those terms were drilled into every culture of the Western world. Those nations which did not accept them were annihilated, or depopulated until they could no longer maintain their cultures, mostly by Rome. There were exceptions: In colonial wars, Europeans wanted the land, not the people conquered people, so those could be genocidal, unlike intra-European conflict.

However, not one of these empires ever went to the Arabian Peninsula. Even the Ottomans, who ruled the Middle East, did not conquer it: They were successors to a nation which originated there. It developed independently. Mohammad managed to build a "tribe" defined by religion rather than bloodline. Upon defeating another tribe, it offered, rather than annihilation, it could join the victorious tribe. The defeated tribe ceased to exist as a unit, being absorbed.Upon defeating larger nations, I have heard (since the last time I posted this on Care2) that the Caliphate generally offered the defeated people client-status (dhimmi-status) where they did not convert, were not its subjects, and were not automatically entitled to the services of state. Instead, they paid taxes and followed laws normally and paid an extra tax, the Jizhya, either in money or labour, in exchange for which they were given the services of state, like military protection, which the Caliphate could not deny on a personal basis. Also, as defeated peoples and not subjects, they held a lower social status and laws ensured that this remained the case. There are two aspects which are vital to note here: First, the conflict never really ended: As the clients were not a part of the victorious polity, neither subjects nor citizens, the defeated nation was not completely defeated until its members converted. Second, this happened every time, except for Christians and Jews, whose maintained ties to cultures beyond the Caliphate's borders. It could take centuries, as it did for Egypt, but the trend towards absorption was always there. In the end, peace was established when the defeated culture ceased to exist.

As the preexisting cultures ceased to exist, all regions absorbed by the Caliphate adopted its culture and its tradition of war-resolution. This is particularly ingrained throughout the Arabic world. We see the impacts everywhere: Look at the lack of religious freedoms, or persecution of religious minorities where intolerance is informal, throughout the Arab world. Look at how intractable and universal the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites is: They cannot make peace as long as both sides exist independently. Look at the power-sharing agreements which arise after every conflict, like in Lebanon: The idea of one faction surrendering completely to the laws and edicts of the other is foreign and remaining in opposition, as a loyal opposition, is foreign. This is also why we don't see functional democracy in the Arab world. The monolithic culture lacked the diversity of ideas necessary to spur social development and much of it got stuck shortly after its culture grew monolithic: The "Mujaheddin" are pretty much Crusaders straight out of the Middle Ages, and many other people (I understand particularly in rural Saudi Arabia and Egypt) are stuck in a culture from centuries ago as well.

Essentially, one tradition demands and accepts only terms under which the defeated people's culture remains and they become members of the victorious polity as subjects or citizens like any other. The other demands and accepts only terms under which the defeated culture ceases to exist or they do not join the victorious polity as subjects nor citizens. These are mutually exclusive. The two cultures cannot ever make peace.

The traditional response to failure to accept terms of conquest (or terms of surrender) is, as Rome applied many times, genocide. I still do not support that, even if it is the only demonstrated means of establishing peace where no negotiated resolution is possible. Today we possess far greater weapons of total war than have ever been used in the past: Facebook, Youtube, Google, Hollywood movies and television-programs, Twitter, and other such tools can be used to change a culture, assimilating others into Western culture regardless of actual numbers of people. I think we are already starting to see changes which should, eventually, lead to the necessary paradigm-shift which would allow both peace between Israel and Palestinians, and functional democracy in the Arabic world. It could take 30 years because cultures change on the timescale of generations, but I am confident that the West can manage it.

Alexa R (319)
Thursday July 19, 2012, 12:10 am
Thanks for that history lesson Stephen! Great insight, with which i agree. When i studied Chinese history, i was both surprised and amused about the ancient (4000 to 5000 years ago) links with Jewish culture/Judaism. It is even unmistakenly captured in their script.

Kenneth, there are far too many precepts/teachings in Islam/sharia law that is incompatible with the International Declaration of Human Rights, making too much of it indefensible. It is no surprise to me that so many Islamic governments/countries refuse to sign the Declaration of Human Rights, but that Israel was one of the first to sign. Human Rights is a key concern for most Israelis.

Angel Campbell (0)
Thursday July 19, 2012, 2:54 am
Thanks for sharing :)

Kenneth L (314)
Thursday July 19, 2012, 6:21 am
Alexandra "there are far too many precepts/teachings in Islam/sharia law that is incompatible with the International Declaration of Human Rights, making too much of it indefensible".
That's your opinion. Pure opinion. Not everyone views it the same as you, nor does anyone have to.

As for various Islamic countries not signing the UDHR, that is what needs to be worked at, doesn't it..
Since there are also many many non-Islamic countries that have human rights violations galore as well, it does no good to simply complain or proclaim about how bad something is, since all these countries factually exist, Islamic and non-Islamic, and improving conditions must be worked at to implement human rights wherever they aren't practiced. I don't see how anyone is going to exterminate the beliefs of over a billion human beings on earth. Not going to happen, so there is no alternative but to work at improving conditions. That's it.

Alexa R (319)
Thursday July 19, 2012, 8:56 am
That's your opinion Kenneth, pure opinion. Not everyone's views are the same as yours, nor do they have to be.

Just because you see no alternative does not mean now we should all blame Israel/the Jews. Do you seriously think taking Israel by force from the Israelis/Jews will 'solve' the problem?

Kenneth L (314)
Thursday July 19, 2012, 11:28 am
Tommy S., you as usual are like a monkey (with apologies to monkeys) throwing rocks from the sidelines. Grow up.

Alexandra "Just because you see no alternative does not mean now we should all blame Israel/the Jews. Do you seriously think taking Israel by force from the Israelis/Jews will 'solve' the problem?"
I 'see no alternative'? What 'alternative' are you talking about? You mean exterminating Islam or every person who believes in it. You'd be insane if you thought that was an 'alternative'.
I already said the only thing to do is work towards implementing the UDHR wherever it isn't implemented or violated YOU have no solution or other alternative that is practical or workable or applicable to the reality of the planet having 1.4 billion people who believe in Islam.

Also, I never said a single thing about the Jews or Israel. All you went on about with me was Islam. I could care less about debating anything about Jews or Israel.


Thursday July 19, 2012, 3:36 pm
Anyone who considers themselves a zionist whether they are Jewish or Christian are nothing but lang grabbing, racist, and war criminals. I say this because by definition a zionist is someone who seeks a homeland for their people. How can you be a zionist when Israel achieved its independence in 1948?

Those who call themselves zionist and at the same time say they are for a two state solution are very disingenuos and hypocritical. What these so-called zionist really believe in is taking as much land from the Palestinians as possible and forcing the Palestinians to live in conditions not fit for animals. This very act is deeply terroristic. These aren't zionist; they are occupiers and war criminals.

The only real zionist in this equation are the Palestinians because they are in search of a homeland. The main and only obstacles for this homeland are Israel and the United States. The overwhelming majority of the world supports a Palestinian state. What's preventing this state is pure arrogance and military aggression. So I dare anyone on this thread to call themselves a zionist and intelligently argue that position.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday July 19, 2012, 5:14 pm
Hi Kit :)

I don't really presume that nobody else has studied any history. However, I think it is a fairly safe assumption that all potential readers are coming in with different backgrounds and will need different things filled in. In this medium, I can't really tailor the comment to each reader, filling in only as needed in each case. That is why although I don't really believe it, I explain under the assumption that a reader needs everything filled in.

Warming and ice age come to the same thing as far as the theory is concerned, a decrease in the food-supply. As long as regions do not match the climates for which the local fauna and flora evolved, populations would concentrate and fight over food (which, under those circumstances, amounts to fighting over the land on which the food grows).

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday July 19, 2012, 7:27 pm
Hi again Kit :)

I also think that most people on both sides want peace. The problem is that they trust and accept peace on two sets of mutually exclusive terms. As for the leaders, I think you're half-right:

Israeli Jewish cultural, political, and economic elites who went a long way towards shaping the country's culture are European or of European descent. They are very, very close to Western culture and Israel is a democracy. (There are questions regarding how functional it is as one, but those don't really affect this problem.) Imagine your reaction, if you were an Israeli voter, to a party that managed to finally establish peace after your entire lifetime was spent in fear of violence. The Israeli leader who establishes a lasting peace on acceptable terms would be set for life as a hero in his country and elsewhere, ensure the success off his party, and assure all of his allies success for life. Of course, there is a substantial (though minority) voting-bloc for which minimum "acceptable terms" are unreasonable even by Western standards.

On the Palestinian end of things, matters are a little different. Their political parties are armed. If one renounces violence, it will have trouble attracting as many potential militia-members. Do you remember the Fatah/Hamas conflict after the last election? Imagine if one side had failed to maintain its militia. They need to keep their militias intact. There are other reasons why they cannot make peace, but that demands another long discussion of culture.

Sam H (410)
Thursday July 19, 2012, 8:08 pm
This is quite laughable: “Israeli Jewish cultural, political, and economic elites who went a long way towards shaping the country's culture are European or of European descent.”

Those Europeans of European decent must have that European divine right to confiscate Palestinian homes and Palestinian land in the Middle East.

Freud at work again, Stephen!

Alexa R (319)
Thursday July 19, 2012, 10:23 pm
Sam H wrote: “Palestinian homes and Palestinian land in the Middle East”

Sam, have you forgotten about Saladin? Salah al-Din Yusuf united and lead the Muslim world and in 1187, he captured Jerusalem for the Muslims after defeating the King of Jerusalem at the Battle of Hattin near the Lake of Galilee. Saladin was born in Tikrit, Iraq (thus not as you claim a native to Israel; neither are Saladin’s men nor their descendents) – as Saladin brought Arabs from all the surrounding Arab lands to Israel when he captured Jerusalem in 1187. Many more came afterwards too.

Same H wrote: “those Europeans of European decent must have that European divine right”

Sam, have you forgotten about the holocaust too? Or are you also a holocaust denier like the Palestinian leaders? European Jews are European JEWS, not simply European as you state. During and leading up to the holocaust, every single Jewish European had to have a number tattoo-ed into their skin to clearly identify them as European JEWS. They were never accepted by too many Europeans who demanded not only their identification, but their extermination too; that’s when the term anti-Semitism was coined; to be able to make laws prohibiting this insane hatred against someone simply for having links/bonds with the land of Israel.

Terrance, is it frustrating for you that I simply do not fit into the right zionist box that you so carefully constructed and labeled?

Terrance N wrote: “these so-called zionists .. forcing the Palestinians to live in conditions not fit for animals”

Terrance have you forgotten that Palestinians are the highest paid in aid per head of any peoples? It simply defies common sense to blame the living conditions of the Palestinians on the Jews/Isrealis/Zionists and not on their own leaders/government, specially when they have the best budget per head than any other government all paid for in aid. Let me explain:

In September 1993, the “Israel-PLO Declaration” gave for a midway period of Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Under these agreements signed between May 1994 and September 1999, Israel gave to the Palestinian Authority (PA) the job of managing many Palestinian-populated areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, talks for the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip failed after the outbreak of an intifada in September 2000.
In April 2003, at the OSLO agreement, the US, EU, UN, and Russia presented a roadmap to a final settlement of the conflict by 2005 based on steps by each of the two parties in order to achieve two states: Israel and a democratic Palestine. After Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat's death in late 2004, Mahmud Abbas was elected PA president in January 2005.
A month later, Israel and the PA agreed to the “Sharm el-Sheikh Commitments” in an effort to move the peace process forward. In September 2005, Israel pulled out the troops occupying Gaza, along with thousands of Jews who had settled in the territory. As far as Israel was concerned that was the end of the occupation.


Sam H (410)
Thursday July 19, 2012, 10:36 pm
Alexandra, you and Stephen seem intent on entertaining us!

Why did Saladin have to go into Palestine in the first place?

And if the Europeans of European decent were wronged by other Europeans, why do the Palestinians have to pay the price for European sins?

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday July 20, 2012, 7:33 am
Hi Sam,

"why do the Palestinians have to pay the price for European sins?"

First, you're assuming that Israel was created as an apology for European sins. This is simply not true. The Holocaust did play a role, but only in demonstrating that even the places generally accepted as least likely to persecute minorities could not be trusted. Before the rise of the Nazis, Germany was considered the most liberal and enlightened place on Earth. This led to the conclusion that peoples, including Jews, could only trust themselves for their own protection, so peoples which are often persecuted need to control territory independently. This is why Israel exists, not as some sort of price for sins.

As for why it must be where it is, that is a matter of practicality: Even ignoring all the groundwork which had already been laid in Israel over the preceding decades, a large number of Jews would not have accepted it anywhere else. Perhaps they should have been willing to do so, but that doesn't really matter. The fact is that it could not have been established elsewhere without their support.

However, all of that is really moot: Palestinians are not paying any sort of price. People whine constantly about Israeli rule, but try comparing that to rule by Arab leaders.

Their GDP is in the gutter, but I suspect that has more to do with a false economy built by excessive foreign aid, and aid-workers, than anything else. I could dig up a few other statistics, but just look at Palestinians' treatment by Arab leaders and by their own. they are, in objective measurable ways, better off than other Arabs. Do you think that's because they're somehow better people, more civilized, more organized, and better at self-governance than other Arabs?

Friday July 20, 2012, 12:54 pm
Alexandra, I don't care how retarded, irresponsble, or stupid another person or group of people are; dropping white phophoros, depleted uranium, and totally destroying their infrastructure while killing 1400 mostly civilians is a bit excessive and the responsibilty of those pursuing these actions. Israel actions are totally disproportional.

You state Alexander, "Israel gave the PA the job of managing many Palestinian area's in the West bank and Gaza strip". This sentence might by the crux of the problem. Who is Israel to gave another people a job of managing. This staement is racist, arrogant, and demeaning.

You and Netanyahu are not as smart and clever as you think you are. Israel's image is really taking a beating worldwide because of your insistence of giving human rights to the Palestinians. America is now sixteen trillion dollars in debt. Sequistration will mean a drastic cut in tthe US military budget. This will mean future cuts in military aid to Israel.

Overthrowing governments in the area based on the neocon strategy called "the project for a new American century" in which the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Lebanon could back fire on Israel as it already did in Egypt. Instead of Israel making peace with it's neighbors, Israel pursues the policy of grabbing Palestinian land , threantening war with Iran, and blocking a Palestinian homeland. If there is a world war three, Israel will be a main cause.

PS: no one has stated they were zionist either.

LD B (40)
Friday July 20, 2012, 7:43 pm
This thread is a microcosm of the greater dispute itself.

Alexa R (319)
Friday July 20, 2012, 11:49 pm
TERRANCE N wrote: "Who is Israel to gave another people a job of managing. "

It would seem it is time you and the Palestinian people/Palestinian authorities make up your minds about whether you want or do not want self-rule. I was always under the impression that it is the key thing that Palestinians are demanding: self-rule. Thus I'm not surprised that Israel conceded to this in order to negotiate peace.

Perhaps you're right, and that this is indeed the crux of the matter. May you and the Palestinians indeed stop this fickleness and once and for all make up your minds whether you do or don't want self-rule, and may it happen soon for the benefit of all ..

PS. In case it is not blindingly clear, I am indeed a zionist, the newly named and hated 'race'.

Alexa R (319)
Saturday July 21, 2012, 12:11 am

Irish Examiner

No Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinian Arabs

Thursday, July 12, 2012

The accusation that the state of Israel was founded on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs is thrown about with great abandon, most recently in letters from two of your correspondents, Charles Murphy and Kevin Squires (Jul 10), despite there being little historical evidence to substantiate it.

The displacement of 650,000-700,000 Arabs took place, according to the best historical sources, in four stages. In the first, the UN General Assembly resolution of Nov 1947 to divide Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state was immediately followed by an upsurge of Arab violence against Jews accompanied by Jewish self-defence and retaliation. In this phase, which lasted until late March 1948, the Arab upper and middle classes, numbering about 75,000, fled the country to avoid the violence.

In the second phase, lasting from Apr to June 1948, the Jewish armed forces began to win the upper hand over the Arab irregulars and, from May 15 onwards, had to face also the invading armies of five Arab neighbours. About 300,000 of the Arab population fled due to fear and at the urging of the Arab regimes radio stations. None were expelled by Jewish forces in either of these phases, nor was there any Zionist policy aimed at doing so.

The third phase took place during the fighting of July 1948. About 100,000 of the Arab population fled, of whom about 50,000 were expelled by Israeli forces for military reasons from towns along the fiercely contested Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road. Yet no general expulsion directive was given, and the Israeli military was ordered to treat the Arab population with dignity.

The fourth phase involved the flight of another 200,000 Arabs during the fighting of Oct-Nov 1948, of whom a minority were expelled, the rest as before fleeing to avoid the violence. Large numbers of Arabs stayed on.

The real ethnic cleansing was that of the Jewish civilians driven out of east Jerusalem, where there had been a Jewish majority as far back as 1863. That is not even to mention the 900,000 Jews forced to leave the Arab states from 1948.

Dermot Meleady
Dublin 3

Kenneth L (314)
Saturday July 21, 2012, 8:38 am
Not not I want to besmirch Ghandi, and it is off-topic I suppose, but I was completely shocked when I read his lengthy advice to Churchill regarding the attempted Nazi invasion of England in WW2. He essentially advised Britain to lay down all their arms, let the Nazis walk in, take over England, give them all the land and property they want, subjugate yourselves to whatever the Nazis say, except don't let them take your honor....
This was such shocking stupid advice to me when I read it, and was apparently the same to Churchill who then called Ghandi a 'skinny little fakir'. So much for 'passive resistance' and peace-preaching to that degree, since the entire world would've ended up part of the Third Reich if every country had followed that ridiculous advice.
Google it sometime and see for yourself. Up to that point I had had a totally sweetness and light idea about Ghandi, probably like a lot of people.

Alexa R (319)
Saturday July 21, 2012, 8:46 am
Charles O, you quoted and wrote: "I'm not disparaging or denigrating Zionism. here. I'm saying that Zionism is a threat to our very existence. -- I recommend a forgiving attitude towards all"

Your lies doesn't change who I am, neither does it change what us zionists stand for. I forgive you and others who share with you your hatred of zionists and your lies.

May mercy and forgiveness not make us zionists weak : may truth and justice prevail.

Saturday July 21, 2012, 10:19 am
"What would serve the Jewish world better in repayment for a thousand years of massace than a nuclear winter". You hit the nail right on the head Charles O. Even though countless groups as you mentioned have suffered some degree of genocide, ethnic cleansing, or annihilation; the Zionist Jews appear to be the most intent on evening things up and seeking revenge not only against Europe, but against the whole world who they view as complicit in the holocaust.

Then there si the attitude that everyone is going to hate me anyway, so it doesn't matter what kind of behavior I have. This psychosis is extremely dangerous to the world especially with the amount of military weapons that include nuclear weapons possessed by Israel. Combine this with the zionist control of the levers of powers of the United States government and you see a clear pattern of eventual all out war starting in the middle east that eventually will engulf most of the world.

This zionist motivation to punish the world for the wrong done to Israel is even sicker than any world domination in recorded history, because this zionist domination not only seek control, but the other goal is to punish as many as possible. The world needs to wake up to the plans of these trully sick, power hungry, megalamaniacs hell bent on destruction.

Alexandra, you Zionist are far from weak, but you are certainly sick, evil, liars, hateful, and a danger to world peace. I pray that the world wakes up to time to stop your diabolical plan for humanity.

Jane H (139)
Saturday July 21, 2012, 11:08 am
noted--the occupation of Palestine must end.

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday July 21, 2012, 2:09 pm
Hi Charles,

Part of your error, and a part you keep repeating without cause, is the presumption that Zionists only gained sympathy by playing the victim and being deemed beyond reproach for that. This is simply not true. the Holocaust demonstrated the point that Zionists had been making for decades by then: Jews cannot trust others for their protection. Germany was, for a long time, considered the least likely place for persecution to arise. If Nazis could rise in Germany, it was concluded, something similar could arise anywhere.

Your entire Holocaust narrative", words you put in others' mouths, is unrelated to reality. There is no conspiracy to punish the world, only to live in it safely. The Holocaust itself is not the foundation of much external support for Zionism; The threat of another, and preparation against it, is. Your most recent post, like so many others, is built entirely upon false premises.

I don't expect you to learn from having your mistakes pointed out.

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday July 21, 2012, 2:22 pm
Hi again Charles,

There is an extremely simple reason why there are so few hits for "former non-Zionist": Non-Zionists mostly do not define their political stances in terms of Zionism. The usual term for "former non-Zionist" is "Zionist". If I decided that the archetypal non-Zionist was "Happy Jimmy the thinker" and you searched for that on Google, by your logic, everybody would be Zionist.

BTW: If you look up "non-Zionist", you get few hits Google asks if you meant "anti-Zionist". Looking up "former anti-Zionist" gets me 18200 hits. If I look up "Zionist" I get over 13 million hits, and anti-Zionist gets only a little over 1 million. Sure, anit-Zionists were counted in the 13 million, but even 12:1 Zionist to anti-Zionist does not exactly make your point.

Antonia Windham (6)
Saturday July 21, 2012, 7:53 pm
Unfortunately, Charles, Jews've good historic cause to distrust non-Jews. Most especially European, Asian, and Mediterranean-region history's clear on that point, from the various Crusades that decimated Jewish populations, multitudes of pogroms, restrictive laws, expulsions, forced ghettoizations, blood libels, restrictive quotas, expropriations of property, refusal of full civil rights within their own countries, charges of being 'Christ-killers' (doubt that one'll ever die out), charges of causing the Black Plague, exclusionary social policies, lies, vilifications, the Holocaust, Holocaust-denialism, charges of massive Jewish conspiracies, and suchness.

I've no acceptance for the theory that the historic wrongs're justification for oppression of those who didn't create the wrongs, and even less sympathy for divine land deeds. But I've an understanding and empathy for the mindset that sees a Jewish homeland, controlled by Jews and powerfully protected militarily, as a way to guard against future atrocities against the Jewish people. Push a people hard enough and, when they've the opportunity, they'll pretty reasonably start pushing back.

Stan B (123)
Saturday July 21, 2012, 8:38 pm
Antonia. Congratulations on your very sensible post. After a 2000 year open season on Jewish persecution, you can't really blame them for wanting to defend themselves in the best way they can.
It's heartening to see that at least some people are able to understand this.

Antonia Windham (6)
Saturday July 21, 2012, 9:10 pm
I've a belief, stan b, that if the Israeli government and the extremists would act with greater justice towards the Palestinians and remove the theocratic elements of the government that discriminate against non-Mosaicists, Israel'd regain the status it once had among many. Israel'd many admirable qualities as a nation that've been overshadowed by the events of the past few decades. However unfairly the country was created, Israel's there and I think it's tragic what we saw in the past - a real pioneer spirit, a building of something important and very real successes - can't be seen for the injustices today. Much like what I'm afraid my own country's become - a once-successful experimental republic turned sour. And while the American people'll survive (governments come and go, but people remain, and we've a large country that's physically isolated by distance from trouble spots), I've a doubt that Israeli Jews could survive more than minimally if their government fails too spectacularly. Too many very close enemies and too many very fragile borders. I think productive change's needed.

Antonia Windham (6)
Sunday July 22, 2012, 12:15 am
Charles, I made no allegation that Jews were 'uniquely' persecuted nor that they are 'ultimate victims' and that others count for nothing. I spoke of the very significant and longstanding known historical prejudice against the Jews, from various sources and throughout various cultures. And quite a few very specific un-generalities.

And for the purposes of persecution, we do indeed know 'what is a Jew'. A Jew is a person who identifies as Jewish. Who identifies as culturally Jewish. Or is a Mosaicist. Or is of Jewish ancestry. Most important, a Jew is a person the persecutor looks at and says, 'He's a Jew'. The 'common denominator' you say doesn't exist is that all those you mention are....Jews. And the perps care naught for whether the person's atheist, Mosaicist, of Khazar ancestry or anything else.

Just like a Klansman cares little whether the black man he's persecuting is of Nigerian, Bahamian, or Aboriginal ancestry - those distinctions hardly matter in the context of unreasonable persecution.

And shall we not go overboard when vilifying Zionists? I've no agreement with Zionism but certainly don't think that 'Zionism requires Absolute Persecution' which must 'apply to all' 'be constant' and 'be total'. Nor have I a belief that Zionists are such monsters that they've no belief other humans matter - ridiculous concept.

Zionists are human beings. Who aren't all of a piece. Who interpret Zionism in quite a few different ways.

Alexa R (319)
Sunday July 22, 2012, 5:50 am
Thank you Antonia, for recognising Jews/Zionists/Israelis as part of the human race too. There are indeed many, so many Jews/Zionists/Israelis who are compassionate human beings, who treat all other human beings, even animals very well.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday July 22, 2012, 8:48 am
Hi Charles,

I guess conversions are, one-for-one, more indicative than base-positions because a lot of base-positions are uninformed. However, some small but not insignificant fraction of them are and because conversions are so relatively rare, I believe the number of people who take informed base-positions to be a better indicator. I don't really have statistics to support that, so I guess we can go with both measures.

Kahanists are definitely a problem. If I recall correctly, Kahane was the first person killed on U.S. by al Qaeda. Frankly, I have little problem with that killing: I heard he was on a personal level a nice and good man, but he advocated a mono ethnic Jewish Israel, his followers got violent about it, and he didn't intervene to try to stop them. This is why his political party, Kach, and its splinter group Kahane Chai, were outlawed by Israel. The bulk of Zionists, acting as a unit through the Israeli government, labelled them terrorists and outlawed their organizations, also getting them declared terrorists by the U.S., E.U., and Canada. With that extreme split, I don't think their views can be taken as representative of those of Zionists in general. I doubt that you wre aware of this, but using them as a representative sample is like using active al Qaeda-sympathizers (though probably not full members) as a "representative sample" of Muslims.

What many Zionists are taught is far more nuanced than "They have nothing better to do than hate Jews":

Here's the problem: Outside of the Western world, and even within it before the rise of liberalism, what we would call religious persecution is not only the norm, it is praised. People define good and evil by religious doctrine and monotheistic religions are exclusive so those not of the dominant religion are deemed morally inferior and "corrective" measures are taken to encourage conversion and the virtue which is seen as coming with it. This is a condemnation of people as being generally evil: They just want to live in a virtuous society and have a definition of virtue which excludes Jews. Sadly, the more devoted they are to promoting virtue, the less tolerant of deviation from the established religion they get. There is a reason why the Saudi religious police are called the "department for the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice". Those who promote persecution of minorities tend to be otherwise benign.

Even in the liberal Western world, something has gone horribly wrong with many of the forces which theoretically fight against persecution.

I suspect you already know the framework, but I'll go into it for anyone following our conversation: The primary division in Western politics is over the strength of the assumption at the core of liberalism, that people, without external interference, will prosper. (There is a second split over centrality of decision-making which I could go into, but that one is less relevant here.) Those who reject it entirely conclude, when they see inequality, that the cause is some internal factor within those who do not prosper, totally failing to see any possibility of bigotry, financial hurdles in the path out of poverty, or other such problems. These people, the extreme Right, have no problem with religious bigotry and continue with racism like much of the rest of the world. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who take the assumption as axiomatic, the extreme "Left", which I believe has infiltrated the mainstream for several reasons that I could explain if you want. When they see inequality, they conclude that it must come from interference stopping those who do not prosper from doing so. They jump to the conclusion that those who do prosper and (liberals believe deceitfully) claim that they had no external advantage denied to those who did not prosper, must be the ones engaging in interference to maintain their positions. Look at most of the rhetoric of the Occupy movement. Again, this is not a condemnation of liberals as being evil. They just want freedom for everyone.

Now comes the problem: Jews have traditionally valued and supported education far more than anyone else on Earth. I would have to do some digging to find the numbers again, but I recall reading that Jewish male literacy around the Renaissance era was about 75% (ridiculously high for the era). In the modern world, and for some centuries, this strongly culturally and institutionally ingrained support for education has given Jews an advantage. This is an internal aspect, not a matter of a skewed playing-field, which has produced inequality, helping Jews to prosper to a greater degree than others. Liberals have not reacted well to this, and this can be seen in every piece of 20th century antisemitic propaganda. Look at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Nazi propaganda, and how many people say "The Jews control the media/government/banks/news/[insert institution here]." It's all conspiracy-theories about how Jews are interfering with everyone else to maintain greater prosperity driven at first, I suspect, by a general under-appreciation of the impact that education can have.

The problem is not that people are generally evil and have nothing better to do than hate. It's that at the core of every culture, on all ends of every political spectrum on Earth, there is a drive, for one reason or another, to hate Jews.

I should probably also point out that if you take this modern liberal 20th-century antisemitism and play word-replacement, you get nearly every single anti-Zionist talking-point. This is why there are claims of antisemitism among anti-Zionists, though individual cases of labelling an individual as antisemitic are rare. The Palestinians are seen as oppressed not because they are poor, but because they are poor in such proximity to wealth that the inequality is astounding. Otherwise, liberals would fixate upon North Koreans, Haitians, Somalis, or other far poorer people. Again we see this playing into liberal bigotry and witch-hunts in exactly the same way as does antisemitism: Palestinians are poor, violent, whatever, primarily due to their own internal problems (weak, corrupt, one-plank leadership, multiple unaddressed social problems including domestic abuse, family-centric rather than individualistic culture (I could explain that problem too if you want), and a conflict-resolution paradigm which is incompatible with functional democracy, their desired form of government. They do face trouble from outside-interference, some (but not nearly as much as reported) from Israel and quite a bit from foreign-aid which undercuts local production and has workers who are much wealthier than the locals and drive price-inflation far beyond locals' income. Is it any wonder, with so many internal problems, that they have become a great symbol of the modern liberal struggle, and that so little progress has been made as the world insists that their trouble is not to any significant degree their own mess?

I won't presume to know your doctrine or your thoughts beyond what you write, but I strongly suspect that you are strongly liberal, take the liberal assumption very strongly, and learn from sources that take it axiomatically. In your place, I would revisit that assumption and verify, without dismissing the possibility that it is wrong, which narratives make more sense and whether the arguments raised by your sources really address and rule out that possibility rather than just presume it wrong.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Sunday July 22, 2012, 9:17 am
One of the Israelis who is some times described as self hater is Uri Avnery.He Wrote an article on February 18,2012.Let us see what he wrote.It might shed some light on the current situation and the possible/impossible peace settlement.

Thou Shalt Not Kill (Thyself)

By Uri Avnery

February 18, 2012
AFTER THE founding of Israel, God appeared to David Ben-Gurion and told him: “You have created a state for my chosen people in my holy land. This merits a great reward. Tell me what you wish, and I will grant it.”

Ben-Gurion answered: “Almighty God, I wish that every person in Israel shall be wise, honest and a member of the Labor Party.”

“Dear me,” said God, “That is too much even for the Almighty. But I decree that every Israeli shall be two of the three.”

Since then, if a wise Israeli is a member of the Labor party, he is not honest. If an honest Israeli is a member of the Labor party, he is not wise. If he is wise and honest, he is not a member of the Labor Party.

THIS JOKE was popular in the 1950s. After 1967, another much less funny formula took its place.

It goes like this: many Israelis ask God for their state to be Jewish and democratic, and that it will include the entire country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. That is too much even for the Almighty. So he asks them to choose between a state that is Jewish and democratic but only in part of the country, or a state in all the country that is Jewish but not democratic, or a state in the entire country that is democratic but not Jewish. To which I would add a fourth option: A Jewish and democratic state in the entire country, but only after driving out all the Arabs – some 5.5 million at this point, and growing quickly.

This is the choice facing us today as it did almost 45 years ago. It has only become more sharply defined.

For any foreseeable future, the fourth alternative can be excluded. The circumstances which led, in 1948, to the expulsion of more than half the Palestinian people from the territory that became Israel were unique, and not likely to return in the coming decades. So we must deal with the present demographic reality.

The current government is determined to prevent any peace that would compel it to give up any part of the occupied territories (22% of pre-1948 Palestine). There is no one around who would compel them to do so.

What remains?

A state that is either non-democratic or non-Jewish.

As things stand, the first possibility is certain to be realized, or, rather, to realize itself. This needs no conscious decision, since it is the default situation that already exists de facto.

This means, to use the popular catch phrase, an apartheid state: a state in which every instrument of power is in the hands of the Jewish-Israeli majority (some 6.5 million people), with limited rights for the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. The Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, some four million, are granted no rights whatsoever - neither national, nor human nor civil.

The present state of “temporary” occupation can last forever, and is therefore ideal for this purpose. However, a future Israeli government, an even more nationalist one, could change the formal situation by annexing these territories to Israel. That would make, in practice, no difference.

As many Israelis see it, this situation could go on forever. The official slogan is: “We have no partner for peace”.

But can it really last? The Palestinian population throughout the country is growing rapidly, soon enough it will constitute the majority. The idealists who embrace this as the “One-state Solution” believe that the Apartheid State will slowly turn into a “state of all its citizens”.

If, after decades of oppression, civil war, atrocities and other plagues this really came into being, it would quickly turn into a Palestinian state, with a Jewish minority, like the Whites in present South Africa. It would be a negation of the whole Zionist enterprise, whose core purpose was to have one place in the world where Jews would be a majority. Most Jewish Israelis would probably emigrate.

For an Israeli, this would mean national suicide. Yet it is the inevitable outcome if the state continues on its present course.

IF A person wants to kill himself, as is his right, he has many ways to do so: poisoning, shooting, hanging, jumping from the roof etc. As a state, Israel also has several options.

Apart from the external ticking bomb (the “One-state Solution”), Israel also has an internal ticking bomb, which may be even more dangerous. Like the first option, the second one is already well on its way. If the first option depends at least partly on outside factors, the second is entirely self-made.

When Israel came into being, Orthodox Jews were a small minority. Since Ben-Gurion needed them for his coalition, he gave them some privileges which looked cheap to him. The Orthodox got their own education system, financed by the state, and were exempted from army service.

Some 60 years later, these privileges have grown to gigantic dimensions. To compensate for the lives lost in the Holocaust, and to increase the Jewish population, the Israeli government has encouraged natural increase by generous children’s subsidies. Since the religious of all shades have reproduced much more than any other Israelis (except Muslim Arabs), their part in the population has grown by leaps and bounds.

Orthodox families generally have 8-10 children. All these go to religious schools, where they study exclusively religious texts and don’t acquire any skills useful for working in a modern society. They don’t need them, since they do not work at all, devoting their entire lives to the study of the Talmud. They don’t need to interrupt their studying of the dead texts, because they don’t serve in the army.

If these were marginal phenomena in the early days of the state, they are now rapidly leading to a national emergency. Right from the beginning, almost all government coalitions have relied on the religious parties, because no party has ever won an overall majority in the Knesset. Almost all governing parties had to bribe their religious partners with ever increasing subsidies for children and adults, thus encouraging the growth of a population which neither serves in the army nor does any work.

The absence of the Orthodox from the labor force has severe effects on the economy, attested to by world financial institutions. Their absence from the army – as well as the absence of the Arab citizens, who are not drafted for obvious reasons – means that soon almost half the male population will not serve. This compels all the others to serve three full years, and then to do reserve duty for many more years.

Also, very soon, half the first grade pupils in Israel will be religious children, destined for a life without work, without paying taxes or serving in the army – all this paid for by the taxes of the diminishing number of the non-Orthodox.

Recently, after deepening unrest between religious and non-religious in Bet Shemesh, 25 km west of Jerusalem, the secularists demanded that the town be divided into two, one half Orthodox and the other secular. The Interior Minister, himself a leader of an Orthodox party, rejected this outright. As he candidly explained. since the Orthodox do not work and cannot pay municipal taxes, they cannot sustain a town of their own. They need the secular to work and pay.

This grotesque situation exists throughout the state. One can calculate when the whole edifice will come crashing down. International financial institutions as well as Israeli experts foretell disaster. Yet our political system does not make any change possible. The hold of the religious parties is as strong as ever.

Another method of suicide.

A THIRD method is less dramatic. Israel is rapidly becoming a state in which normal people just may not want to live.

In his monumental opus on the Crusades, the late British historian Steven Runciman maintained that the Crusader state did not collapse because of its military defeat, but because too many of its inhabitants just packed up and went back to Europe. Though many of them belonged to the 4th and even 8th generation of crusaders, the Crusader state had lost its attraction for them. The state of perpetual war and inner stagnation drove them out. The state collapsed when many more went away than came to join.

The Crusaders felt a stronger sense of belonging to Christendom than to the local Kingdom of Jerusalem. Today, many Israelis feel themselves first of all as Jews, belonging to a world-wide people, and only in second place Israelis.

That makes emigration easier.

A state without democracy, without equality, condemned by itself to an endless war, dominated by religious fanatics, with the gap between the abject poor and a handful of immensely rich growing from year to year – such a state will look less and less attractive to bright young people, who can easily find a better life elsewhere, while retaining their Jewish identity.

That, too, is a kind of national suicide.

I AM not, by nature, a prophet of doom. Quite the contrary.

We can easily avert all these dangers. But first of all we must recognize them and see where they are leading us.

I believe that the people of Israel – the Israeli nation – have the will to survive. But in order to survive, they must wake up from their apathetic stupor and change course – turning towards peace based on the two-state solution, separating the state from religion and building a new social order.

In the Jewish religion, suicide is a sin. It would be ironic if future historians were to conclude that the “Jewish State” committed suicide.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli peace activist and a former Knesset member. He is the founder of Gush Shalom.


Alexa R (319)
Sunday July 22, 2012, 10:41 am
Uri Avnery: "This means, to use the popular catch phrase, an apartheid state: a state in which every instrument of power is in the hands of the Jewish-Israeli majority (some 6.5 million people), with limited rights for the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. The Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, some four million, are granted no rights whatsoever - neither national, nor human nor civil.

What a bold, blatant lie!

Israel is in no shape or form an APARTHEID state .. EVERY single Israeli citizen has full human rights (national or civil or whatever you wish to call it)!!! Israel is fully signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ..!

Palestinians who are Israelis have more human rights in Israel than they even have in Gaza/West Bank/Jordan/Libya/Iran/Syria/etc.

With people capable of telling such bold/blatant lies .. no wonder Israel/Israelis/Zionists/even Jews are so extra-ly hated of late ..

It's one thing is someone does not agree with theocratic government, but quite beyond despicable when their political agenda motivates them to pass of such blatant lies for the 'truth'..!

There's nothing in Uri Avnery's article that merits any respect from me. Does he want to line up all the Orthodox men in Israel and do what with them ..? Would his line up include Orthodox wives and children? Even though some Orthodox men might not work as he says, many Orthodox families support themselves through the earnings of the wife.

Uri Avnery: “since the Orthodox do not work and cannot pay municipal taxes, they cannot sustain a town of their own.”

Just to set some of the record straight after Uri Avnery’s lies about Orthodox families in Israel, and I confirm the following from my own experiences living in Israel -- I quote from Aish:

I grew up with no religious background. So I was never aware of the common stereotype that Orthodox women are considered second-class citizens and that these poor unfortunate creatures are barefoot, always pregnant, and chained to the kitchen. After meeting observant women of all stripes in Israel, I returned to New York only to be informed by my secular friends of the actual state of affairs. If I hadn't seen the reality for myself, I would have believed what they said and dismissed subsequent Jewish exposure as archaic and out of touch.
For those of us who question unproven stereotypes, let's get something perfectly clear: Jewish women work. And they have always worked, whether as shopkeepers, teachers, or professionals, whether in Babylon, European shtetls, and twentieth-century America. And nowadays, like women all over the Western world, they work in every field. Some run their own businesses or are part of a larger corporation. Here in Israel one of my neighbors is a nuclear physicist. Another is a school principal. Several good friends are lawyers. One's a pediatrician. Two are successful artists. I'm a zoo veterinarian.
Many of these professional women have been religious since birth; equally as many are newly returned to traditional Judaism. My point is, little is forbidden to us. We work in the fields we want. We have open choices. We can choose to work part-time or full-time. We can choose to stay at home with our children, and no one will pooh-pooh us because this, too, is a valued choice.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday July 22, 2012, 12:52 pm
Hi Charles,

Avineri misses a few important aspects of the situation:

First, to maintain Jewish character, Israel does not have to be mono-ethnic. It requires a Jewish majority, but not that all Arabs be driven out.

Second, the bulk of the non-Jews in question, Palestinians, are not citizens of the country. If we decide to count non-citizens towards a population, then no country on Earth could be, nor should be, deemed democratic. I live under U.S.-jurisdiction and do not get a vote, nor should I, because I am not a U.S. citizen. I won't pretend to be in the same boat as Palestinians in the territories, but the refusal to grant them a vote does not invalidate Israeli democracy just as my lack of a vote here does not invalidate U.S. democracy.

Third, and there is obviously no way he could have spotted this one, after he wrote his article the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the religious exemption from the military to be illegal. As their military service gets phased in, they will be forced to face reality and those among them who live as economic parasites will have children who must learn practical marketable skills. Israel's internal "ticking bomb", as Avineri puts it, may be disarmed over the next several years as a result of this ruling.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday July 22, 2012, 12:53 pm
Hi Abdessalam,

Oops: I meant to address my previous post to you. It would probably also be a good read for Charles.

Alexa R (319)
Sunday July 22, 2012, 1:43 pm
Send a Green Star to Stephen Brian
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Stephen because you have done so within the last week.

Thanks Stephen, I was about to point out how Israel is dealing with economic parasites and their children. You also pointed out how Israel is currently dealing with exemption from the military.

Excellent point about your status in the US, I've had the same status, as you have currently in the US, while living in the UK. As I wasn't a UK citizen, though living there on a visa for a few years, I had no vote, nor would I have had any access to any benefits or free medical treatment under the NHS during this time I guess, if I tried for any.

Michael S (0)
Monday July 23, 2012, 4:09 am
The premise of this piece, that there are only two groups, is a false dichotomy: “For some Jews, support for Israeli policy is unconditional, even if it conflicts with traditional Jewish values. For other Jews, these values are primary and ought to be associated with Israel’s compliance with international law.”

Rather, there are (also, and substantially) Jews whose support for traditional Jewish values compel them to support Israeli policy, not unconditionally, but wherever Jewish lives and values are threatened by those who would destroy all Jews. Where justified survival (including the support for the continued existence of the Jewish nation) conflicts with “International Law”, the moral choice is clear — and among the Muslims in general, but particularly the Arabs, Persians and most of all Palestinian Arabs (to distinguish from the Palestinian Jews), there really are what amount to two groups: those who would rather be rid of all Jews in the world, and pretend that Israel is the only problem they have with Jews, and those who would rather be rid of all Jews and don’t bother to pretend.

Monday July 23, 2012, 10:39 am
I have never met a more sick, paranoid, psychopathic people than the zionist. Their victimization goes to the extent of being lunacy. How about you zionist changing places with the native American who now exist on delapidated reservations after facing near total elimiination. Or how would you like to trade places with the African-American who suffered chattel slavery for four hundred years, and then stripped of language and culture.

Even after all this cultural brutality just about every Native American I encounter are basically humble without a trace of revenge or hatred like the Zionist. The African-American though displaying signs of pathology and anger are still williing to forgive and forget if their oppression is stopped and some reparations given.

To give you a personnal experience as to the dispicable zionist behavior I relate an experience in a dentist ooffice in mid Manhattan called "Toothsavers". I went to have tooth implants at this dentist. I was later to find out that the principal owners were zionist. For the year that had treatment done, I was exposed to what I consider as torture at the hand of this dental office.

I have never hidden my political position of being anti-aparthied and anti-zionist. I have nver physical harmed or threatened anyone Jewish or zionist. I have always exercised my first amendment rights to speak out and demonstrate against what I feel is unjust. For this offce to take advantage of my need for dental care to me sums up the depravity of Jewish zionist.

I was later asked, why would I get treatment from a zionist dentist. The dentist did not have zionist written in it's name. there also were different nationalities working at this office although it was ran by a zionist.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday July 23, 2012, 11:01 am
Hi Charles,

The U.S. government taxes me. The remaining differences which you listed can be summed up in a single line:
Israel is engaged in war against rebels who hide among Palestinian civilians and acts accordingly.

Yes, the difference is that there is no violent rebellion in territory under U.S.-jurisdiction.

You seem to have almost completely failed to read my previous post. I demonstrated why a self-fulfilling prophecy is entirely unnecessary for the current behaviour of so many politically active non-Jews. As I have come to expect from you, you just went along and repeated a previous falsehood as though it had not been debunked. Like I said, I do not expect you to learn from having your mistakes pointed out.

I see people as individuals. However, many groups of people share quite a lot in common. For example, how many politically active Europeans do not fall into either "right-wing" or "left-wing" political alliances? There are some, but such a vast majority do that one can characterize their behaviour by anything which the two alliances have in common.

This is rich: "Part of your problem, Stephen, is that you see "The Jews" as monolithic. You are not willing to recognize the existence of the human INDIVIDUAL. " ... followed by " Would you hate the people who have done you so much harm? " I guess part of the problem is that Palestinians see "The Jews" as monolithic. As for what I would do, I would seek to either leave the area entirely or work to establish a region where the militias are not tolerated and do not go. That way, I would have a place free from Israeli action against those militias and not risk having my home become collateral damage again.

Hatred does not exist in a vacuum, like you said, but as a rule it is not a response to any injustice by the hated group. It comes from a perception of evil in that group, usually rationalized (truthfully or not) by a claim of injustice committed by it. For example, you may be angry about the loss of an IRA, but react against the person because you deem him to be evil, or at least careless. Once you have deemed him evil, the loss of the IRA becomes secondary: Now you act against him not in reaction to any injustice, but because you seek to neutralize a person whom you have deemed to be evil. It is quite easy to differentiate between the two types of behaviour, a reaction to injustice and action based upon hatred of a person or entity declared to be an enemy:

When the antagonistic behaviour lasts more than a few incidents of backlash, or lasts more than a few years, it comes from hatred. Here's where things get really screwed up: People don't react to reality. They react to their perceptions, which can often be skewed. Genuine evil is very rare. Far more often than not, the perception of evil which drives hatred comes from a skewing of one's perception, not real evil behaviour. Going back the the guy on Wall Street who gambled away your savings: What if, given the information available at the time, his investment of your IRA seemed entirely safe, and only appears to be gambling in hindsight? You would deem his dangerously careless, at best, despite the fact that this is totally false. If you retaliated against the "gambler" in reaction to the "injustice", you would work against him without real cause. Ironically, you might very well hamstring and alienate the only person who could recover your savings.

Back to the matter at hand, like I pointed out, liberal bigotry arises from a presumption of intrinsic equality as far as some arbitrary definition of "prosperity" is concerned and conservative bigotry arises from including amoral aspects of a culture in a definition of virtue. Those sources of antisemitism have absolutely nothing to do with any injustice.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday July 23, 2012, 11:03 am

"Those sources of antisemitism have absolutely nothing to do with any injustice" should be "Those sources of antisemitism are absolutely not driven by any injustice." Of course hatred has something to do with injustice, but in its effects, usually not its causes.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Monday July 23, 2012, 11:23 am
Alexandra lived for few years in UK under some sort of visa and was not allowed to vote as she was not a UK citizen. Stephen also is living in USA may be as a green card holder which gives him the right to live and work but not to vote as he is not a US citizen.After a while Stephen might be "naturalized"( given USA citizenship) and will be given the right to vote then.
Apparently both Alexandra and Stephen want the Palestinians in a ONE state to have equal rights except the right to vote according to their own experience .I believe they forgot a main point here that makes Alexandra in UK and Stephen in USA different from the Palestinians.Why?
The Palestinians lived for thousands of years on this land before the creation of the Zionist entity in 1948 while Jews immigrated to Palestine under the British mandate mainly from Europe in application of a Zionist/British plan.This simply means that Palestinians,including a small Jewish community,are the native populations.Thus they are entitled to the right to vote as they aren't visitors or green card holders.
The ONE state would require :
* Guarantee equal civil and political rights to its citizen whether they are Christians,Jwes,Muslims....etc.including the right to vote.
*Guarantee equal opportunities without discrimination based on color,race,ethnic group,religion or language....etc.
* The application of UN resolution 194 regarding Palestinian refugees right to return to their homes,properties....etc.
* More immigration from any side shouldn't be allowed.
* The ONE state will be named Palestine based on the geographic known name of this land a very long time ago.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Monday July 23, 2012, 12:10 pm
Stephen who stated on a thread ,one year ago as far as I remember,that he is a lawyer specialized in international law can't unfortunately get rid of his loyalty to Zionism and see facts on earth as it really is.With all the respect,I began to think that he is an other Hasbara graduate.He says "Israel is engaged in war against rebels who hide among Palestinian civilians and acts accordingly".He twist facts when he speaks about the resistance as rebels.Although you used the word rebels ,yet you intended to forget that those rebels have the right according to the international law to resist the Israeli occupation and turn IDF life to a nightmare.Those aren't rebels.They are freedom fighters and they are entitled to fight the occupation by all means possible.You are justifying all the crimes of Israel against Palestinians. You then talk about hatred?. Israel is the entity which created hatred. When Israel bombs schools,terrifies children,arrest children and put them in jail without being charged for any crimes,do you think it is creating love?. It certainly is creating hatred generation after generation.Then you blame those who have been terrified if they take action against the occupation forces or even against the occupiers? Shame on you.

Alexa R (319)
Monday July 23, 2012, 12:53 pm
Abdessalam, I do have Welsh ancestry; thus I was in a similar situation in this one respect as those Palestinians today who do not currently have Israeli citizenship. Their ancestry fled and now they try to come back to Israel. My ancestry fled and I visited the UK on a visa without having citizen rights. (There are many Palestinians that never fled Israel and today their descendants do have Israeli citizenship.)

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Monday July 23, 2012, 1:25 pm
Thanks Charles for your comments.The Zionist entity after being created in 1948 issued a " return law" that allows any Jew any where in the world to return to Israel as if he were there before.The native Palestinians who were driven away of their villages,towns,homes,properties by the Zionist terrorist gangs such as Haganah and Stern are not allowed to return despite UN resolutions.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Monday July 23, 2012, 1:38 pm
Palestinians were driven away from their farms,villages,towns and properties by the Zionist terrorist fascist gangs like Stern and Haganah before and in 1948 and by IDF in 1967. They are the original inhabitants of Palestine and they have the right to return to their land,villages,town and homes which Israel has stolen.
Under a ONE state they have the full right to vote . Israel hasn't the right to give or deny their rights ,According to UN resolution 194 they have the right to return or be compensated if they prefer not to return.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Monday July 23, 2012, 2:09 pm
Palestinians have been subject to ethnic cleansing by Israel.You may accuse me of antisemisism,although I am semitic myself,but what about an Israeli who belongs to a family of the founding fathers of Israel?.What will you say when you read this honest article ?.READ

Ethnic Cleansing of Invented People
By Miko Peled

January 04, 2012 "Information Clearing House" - - Mostafa Tamimi from Nabi Saleh, Bahjat Zaalan and his son Ramdan from Gaza died on my fiftieth birthday and just a few days after Newt Gingrich declared them an invented people. They were murdered by the Israeli terrorist organization, the IDF, an organization that is supported and funded by the US. One Israeli terrorist shot the invented Tamimi in the head with a tear gas canister, and another Israeli terrorist fired a rocket that murdered the invented Zaalan and his boy Ramadan. Both terrorists were educated and trained by Israel, and armed by the US. The Israeli terrorists are not invented but quite real, and they are safe, protected by the apartheid regime that trained and sent them on their missions, and the Israeli court system will make sure that they are never brought to justice. This is how Israel’s well-oiled ethnic cleansing machine operates.
The Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine is not a thing of the past but an ongoing campaign that is executed by three arms of the State of Israel: The education system, a dedicated bureaucracy and the security forces. The education system is dedicated to indoctrinating and producing soldiers and bureaucrats who will execute and enforce the ethnic cleansing. The bureaucracy is charged with making rules that make life unlivable for Palestinians. Rules that restrict Palestinian access to their lands, and restrict their ability to travel freely to work and school. This same bureaucracy then demands that Palestinians pay for permits to be allowed do these very same basic things that they were denied. The security forces, the most obvious of which is the IDF, are charged with enforcing the restrictions, fighting off the resistance, armed or peaceful, and terrorizing the “invented” people of Palestine.

Since my father was a general and I served as a soldier in the IDF terrorist organization, people often ask me how is it that Israeli children who are raised in a Western style democracy become such monsters once they are in uniform? The detailed answer can be found in my book, The General’s Son due out in February 2012, but the short answer is this: Education – Racism requires a mindset that is fashioned by education. In order to rationalize and justify the ethnic cleansing the Israeli education system portrays Palestinians as culturally inferior, violent and bent on the annihilation of the Jews, and at the same time, void of a true national identity. Palestinian national identity is but a figment of some anti-Semitic imagination.

Israeli children are educated to see the Palestinians as a problem that must be solved and as a threat that must be eliminated. They can go through life, as I did growing up in Jerusalem, without ever meeting a Palestinian child. They know nothing of the life or culture of Palestinians who quite often live only several hundred meters from them.

Palestinians are portrayed as an existential threat through absurd comparisons like that of Yasser Arafat to Hitler, the Palestinians to Nazis, and the Palestinian resistance to Al Qaeda. Since Israeli kids never meet Palestinians what they learn in school, particularly in the school textbooks, is all that they know. In fact it is remarkable that even though they live so close to one another, much if not all of what Israelis know about their Palestinian neighbors comes from high school text books and popular racist stereotypes. Israelis don’t know that Palestinians never had an army, that they do not posses a single tank, a single warship or fighter jet, that they don’t have a single artillery battery and do not in fact pose a military threat at all. According to a new book by Dr. Nurit Peled-Elhanan, not a single photo of a person who is a Palestinian exists in Israeli textbooks and there are millions of Palestinians in and around Israel. Israelis don’t learn about Palestinian doctors and teachers, engineers and writers. They don’t learn Palestinian poetry or prose and they don’t read the works of Palestinian historians.

At a recent lecture I mentioned the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and someone called out: “What ethnic cleansing?” People are unaware of the ethnic cleansing taking place in Palestine because Israel hides it well and the mainstream media doesn’t care enough to ask. In mainstream peace groups and dialogue groups that discuss Palestine/Israel, a basic Israeli condition is not to bring up issues like the ethnic cleansing because Israel doesn’t like to talk about it.

But for the past 64 years ethnic cleansing of Palestine is what drives the Zionist policies towards Palestinians. All Zionist governments and all Zionist political parties left right and center support the ethnic cleansing. The Israeli judicial system lets the Israeli authorities get away with abuse, theft and murder as long as they are perpetuated against Palestinians. Had these same crimes been committed against Israeli Jews they would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Zionist supporters like to bring up the fact that on November 29, 1947 the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into a Jewish sate and an Arab state. What is left out of the Zionist story is that within one year of the vote Israeli forces had managed to capture close to 80% of Palestine, destroy close to 500 Palestinian towns and villages, kill scores of unarmed civilians and force the exile of some 800,000 Palestinians.

Then, when the UN passed resolution194 in December of 1948, calling for the refugees to be allowed to return to their homes, Israel proceeded to build cities and towns, parks and highways for the use of Jewish Israelis on Palestinian land. Then the Knesset began passing laws that prohibit the return of the refugees and allow the new state to confiscate their lands.

After the war was over, the Palestinians who remained within the newly created Jewish state were forced to become citizens of a state that despised them and saw them as a “problem” and a “threat.” They were designated as “The Arabs of Israel” a designation that stripped them of a national identity and denied them any rights to the land and provided them very limited rights as citizens. From being the rightful owners of their lands and their country they now existed at the pleasure of the new owner of the land, the state of Israel. Palestinian refugees were forced into concentration camps, conveniently called refugee camps, and those that tried to return were shot. A military unit was created for the purpose of punishing Palestinian refugee who “infiltrated” back into their homeland, now called Israel. It was called Unit 101, the notorious Ariel Sharon led it and it made a name for itself as a murderous gang with a license to kill Palestinians.

So regardless of the myth, now perpetuated by Newt Gingrich among others, that says there was no forced ethnic cleansing, we know today that the creation of Israel was made possible through a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing, conducted by the Jewish militia, involving massacres, terrorism, and the wholesale looting of an entire nation.

Newt Gingrich, being the history buff that he is, might be interested in a story I mention in my book The General’s Son, about my mother. She was born and raised in Jerusalem and she remembers the homes of Palestinians families in neighborhoods in West Jerusalem. She told me that when she was a child, on Saturday afternoons she would go for walks through these neighborhoods, admiring the beauty of the homes, watching families sit together in their beautiful gardens. In 1948 when the Palestinian families were forced out of West Jerusalem, my mother was offered one of those beautiful, spacious homes but she refused. At age 22, the wife of a young army officer with little means and with two small children, she refused a beautiful spacious home, offered to her completely free because she could not bear the thought of living in the home of a family that was forced out and now lives in a refugee camp. “The coffee was still warm on the tables as the soldiers came in and began the looting” she told me. “Can you imagine how much those families, those mothers must miss their homes.” She would ask and she continued, “I remember seeing the truckloads of loot, taken by the Israeli soldiers from these homes. How were they not ashamed of themselves?” there are thousands upon thousands of homes in cities all over the country that were taken.

Moving forward now to 1967 and the myth that Israel was fighting for its existence as it was attacked by Arab armies from all directions. Much was written about this but nothing is more revealing than the minutes of the meetings of the IDF general staff from June 1967, just prior to the war. According to the generals, one of whom was my father, Matti Peled, not only was there no existential threat but the generals clearly state that the Egyptian army needed at least a year and a half before it would be ready for war and therefore this was an opportune time to attack and destroy it. The army pressured the cabinet to authorize an attack and indeed the cabinet approved an attack against Egypt. The IDF destroyed the Egyptian army and then went on to attack Jordan and Syria. It took the IDF six days and 700 casualties to kill an estimated 15,000 Arab forces, take the West Bank, the Golan Heights and The Sinai Peninsula. One may like to think this was a miracle but it was a well-planned, well-executed attack against countries that had no viable military force. The Israeli army had thus fulfilled its goal of conquering the entire Land of Israel, and the De-Arabizing of Palestine could now proceed into the West Bank and Gaza.

Since the early days of the State of Israel the IDF made it its mission to be the most brutal bully in the region. Today the IDF has one purpose: to conduct an all out war against Palestinians by terrorizing Palestinian civilians, kidnapping children from their homes and using brutal force against protesters. We are reminded of the intensity of IDF cruelty every so often, the latest major display being the three-week bloodbath in Gaza that began on December 27, 2008. Hundreds of tons of bombs were dropped by Israeli pilots on Gaza, followed by a massive invasion of land forces. All this for the purpose of terrorizing a defenseless civilian population that includes 800,000 children.

Now that Israel has been in control of the West Bank for over four decades it had built and invested there heavily. But all of the investment and construction in the West Bank was made to bring Jews into the West Bank. Palestinian lands are being taken at an alarming pace, their homes are destroyed and thousands are incarcerated, while industry, roads, malls, schools and gated communities with swimming pools are being built for Jews only. Water, which is the scarcest resource of all, is controlled and distributed by the Israeli water authority, as follows: Per capita, Israelis receive 300 cubic meters of water per year. In comparison, per capita Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza receive 35-85 cubic meters per year, while the World Health Organization recommends a minimum of 100 cubic meter of water per person per year. But what is even worse is that per capita, Israeli settlers in the West Bank are allocated 1500 cubic meters of water per year. Jews in the West Bank live with green lawns and swimming pools while Palestinians quite often get no water at all. Perhaps invented people have no need for water.

De-Arabizing the history of Palestine is another crucial element of the ethnic cleansing. 1500 years of Arab and Muslim rule and culture in Palestine are trivialized, evidence of its existence is being destroyed and all this is done to make the absurd connection between the ancient Hebrew civilization and today’s Israel. The most glaring example of this today is in Silwan, (Wadi Hilwe) a town adjacent to the Old City of Jerusalem with some 50,000 residents. Israel is expelling families from Silwan and destroying their homes because it claims that king David built a city there some 3000 years ago. Thousands of families will be made homeless so that Israel can build a park to commemorate a king that may or may not have lived 3000 years ago. Not a shred of historical evidence exists that can prove King David ever lived yet Palestinian men, women, children and the elderly along with their schools and mosques, churches and ancient cemeteries and any evidence of their existence must be destroyed and then denied so that Zionist claims to exclusive rights to the land may be substantiated.

Once we connect the dots it is not hard to see that the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is only a small part of the Israeli Palestinian issue. The greater issue is the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionist state. The way forward for Israelis and Palestinians alike is to oppose the ethnic cleansing by opposing all its manifestations. This means supporting the movement to boycott, divest and place sanctions on Israel, or BDS for short, it means actively participating in the popular non-violent struggle in Palestine and it means challenging the racist laws that govern Israel by defying them. There has to be a clear and unequivocal call to recognize that the IDF is a terrorist organization and its officers are war criminals. Furthermore, the reprehensible discrimination against Palestinians, whether they live in Israel/Palestine or not, practiced by the security officials at Ben Gurion airport and other points of entry to Israel/Palestine must be challenged. The struggle for a democracy in our shared homeland is no different than the struggle at Tahrir square and can in fact be
“Miko Peled is a peace activist who dares to say in public what others still choose to deny. He has credibility, so when he debunks myths that Jews around the world hold with blind loyalty, people listen. Miko was born in Jerusalem in 1961 into a well-known Zionist family. His grandfather, Dr. Avraham Katsnelson was a Zionist leader and signer on the Israeli Declaration of Independence. His father, Matti Peled was a young officer in the war of 1948 and a general in the war of 1967 when Israel conquered the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and the Sinai.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday July 23, 2012, 10:02 pm
Hi Abdessalam,

You recall incorrectly. I am not a lawyer specialized in international law regarding war, but I do check with one on complex questions of such law.

Rebels may have the right to rebel. The governing regime also has the right to put down rebellions. There is a dispute in the law regarding Palestinian militias' war-crimes as Additional Protocol 1 of the 4th Geneva Convention, at the time of its signing, would have formally placed them above the law. However, Israel never signed that Additional Protocol, so its responses to their war-crimes are not bound at all by that law.

Regarding hatred, you may wish to read the series comments to which I responded at the time. Those were generally in reference to hatred of Jews by Westerners and people not even in the Middle East. Palestinians did not come into it as any special party. That said, the bombing of schools, etc. generates anger, not hatred. The judgment that those bombing the schools are evil generates hatred.

Now, regarding your comment at the end of your post: "Then you blame those who have been terrified if they take action against the occupation forces or even against the occupiers?" No, I do not blame them for taking action. However, I do blame them for war-crimes. Those include mixture of civilian and military-infrastructure and failure to wear clear identification (such as a uniform, for example). Those make it impossible for their opponents, who certainly have every right to fight, to fight them without endangering civilians. The rules are simple: Hospitals are protected under law as long as there is no reasonable suspicion that they are being used for military purposes (aside from the treatment of combatants along with the normal flow of patients). Places of worship are similarly protected as long as their only "military" purpose is as a place of worship which includes militants. Civilian homes are the same, so long as there is no reason to believe that they serve the war-effort in any way beyond housing their normal inhabitants which may include militants. Schools are protected as long as their "military" purpose is only to educate militants or their families along with regular civilians. All have been used for storage of weapons, abnormal housing of militants, and firing-platforms (or "legal cover" for firing-platforms) so often that a pattern has been established, significantly lowering the bar for one to raise reasonable suspicion.

This feeds back into my comment earlier: The hatred is driven by the judgment of those bombing the schools to be evil. The perception is skewed by the fact that the bombing of schools is very visible and publicized, but often not the use of those schools for military purposes which caused them to lose their protection. The guy who fires into the crowd is not necessarily criminally responsible for civilian deaths. They guy who initiates combat by firing from within the crowd, deliberately using it as cover, is.

Hi Charles,
I am not from Israel. I can't just go "back" there. Also, there are a few reasons why I am given far more rights than are Palestinians: The granting of rights to foreigners comes from two sources, local sensibilities and the desire for reciprocity.

Regarding local sensibilities, Americans have nothing at all against people of my nationality and are generally welcoming hosts. Israelis have mostly grown up with a violent conflict between themselves and Palestinians. At this point, they need to be given some kind of incentive to grant Palestinians rights.

That incentive is normally reciprocity. Americans like to visit and do business with my country of origin. They want to be granted similar rights to those that they grant. They don't care enough about voting in my country to offer me a vote in theirs, so they don't. They do care enough about their general protection under the law in my country when they visit that they grant me the same, giving voters of my country something to lose should my country decide not to protect visiting Americans. Do you see how reciprocity works? Now here is it doesn't work: Without a country with which to reciprocate, or not reciprocate, Israeli offers of rights, Palestinians have nothing to offer in exchange for those rights and nothing to deny in exchange for their denial. While the matter is technically moot, it is worth noting that given Palestinian attitudes towards Israel and the fact that they respond to their judgment of Israelis and not to specific actions, in a sovereign Palestine there would be no reason to expect reciprocity from Palestinian leaders for Israeli granting of rights. If you really need proof of this failure to reciprocate, look at Palestinian demands that settlements be dismantled despite the total lack of Israeli demands for the same regarding regions of local Arab majority in Israel.

Essentially, as a group, Israelis don't feel warm and fuzzy towards Palestinians, and have no reason to grant them rights, so they don't. That's the difference.

Stan B (123)
Tuesday July 24, 2012, 3:01 am
" I have never met a more sick, paranoid, psychopathic people than the zionist. "
Take a look at the video clip in this link if you dare and you'll see real " sick, paranoid, psychopathic people," on EGYPTIAN television. Perhaps Abdessalam can find some way to justify their manic, intolerant hatred.


Abdessalam Diab (145)
Tuesday July 24, 2012, 6:59 am
Hi Stephen
I am well aware that lawyers defend only who pays.Arabs and Palestinians in particular will wait actively even for 100 years.If you remember Crusaders came to this part of the world under Jesus cross.They killed thousands of people,created kingdoms and thought they are the strongest but after 100 years they they were obliged to leave and return to Europe where they came from.I am afraid the Zionist entity will have the same destination.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Tuesday July 24, 2012, 7:15 am
I have seen nothing but a report on JP.No video.That said,I didn't watch the video JP mentioned . I don't like this kind of programs (hidden camera)with its silly contents.After all I wonder how can you imagine or think that Egyptians have fallen in love with the Zionist entity or the Zionists who killed thousands of Egyptians and are still doing so despite the peace treaty which they violate.? How can you imagine that Egyptians will kiss and hug Zionists whose army had killed Egyptian war prisoners and buried them alive? I am afraid there won't be real peace in the middle east as long as Israel occupies one inch of the Arab land outside the truce lines as were on the fourth of June 1967 including east Jerusalem.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Tuesday July 24, 2012, 7:21 am
Correction in my comment to Stephen
" I am afraid the Zionist entity will have the same destiny."

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Tuesday July 24, 2012, 8:18 am
Yes Kit "Israel has the latest weapons developed by the United States" and in many cases Israeli weapons developed by Israel as well,But you might agree with me that" Who lives with the sword dies with the sword "

Antonia Windham (6)
Tuesday July 24, 2012, 12:04 pm
So being a bad dentist is now 'dispicable [sic] zionist behavior'.

I've now well and truly heard it all.

patrica and edw jones (190)
Tuesday July 24, 2012, 11:24 pm
It would seem that Kit and Co have very little entertainment in their lives. If Kit B Carson ever offers anything at all - you can be sure it will be about Israel, the Jews and their shortcomings. When you are busy looking at the ground you see only the mud - and you miss all the beauty around you. You miss the wonderful things that good people do for others - in particular - I have to say- the Jews. They must have contributed more to help mankind than not. The reason for their success is - when their backs are to the wall - they never lose their enthusiasm to carry on. SO KIT AND CO........ALL YOU CAN SEEM TO DO IS CONSTANTLY REITERATE - AD INFINITUM - THE SAME OLD DISHWASHING LIQUID. SAY SOMETHING KIND AND POSITIVE FOR A CHANGE, DUMP THE POISONOUS RHETORIC - YOU MAY SURPRISE HOW GOOD YOU WILL FEEL.

John J (0)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 1:14 am
and exactly how do we teach muslims that alla was wrong when he calls non muslims the vilest of creatures
and with the continuation of this inherent hatred
"Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs (i.e., Jews) IS A WAR OF RELIGION AND FAITH. Long Live Fatah!”
[PA TV (Fatah), Jan. 9, 2012]
PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein: “Palestine in its entirety is a revolution… continuing today, and until the End of Days. The reliable Hadith… says:
"The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'”
[PA TV (Fatah), Jan. 9, 2012]

Ibrahim Mudayris, Official, PA Ministry of Religious Trusts and Religious Affairs: "The Prophet said: The Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. Rejoice in Allah's Victory... Everything wants vengeance on the Jews... these pigs on the face of the earth. And the day of our victory, Allah willing, will come."

Source: Palestinian TV (Fatah), Jan. 9, 2012
Moderator at Fatah ceremony:
"Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs (i.e., Jews) is a war of religion and faith. Long Live Fatah! [I invite you,] our honorable Sheikh."

PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein comes to the podium and says:
"47 years ago the [Fatah] revolution started. Which revolution? The modern revolution of the Palestinian people's history. In fact, Palestine in its entirety is a revolution, since [Caliph] Umar came [to conquer Jerusalem, 637 CE], and continuing today, and until the End of Days. The reliable Hadith (tradition attributed to Muhammad), [found] in the two reliable collections, Bukhari and Muslim, says:
"The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews.
The Jew will hide behind stones or trees.
Then the stones or trees will call:
'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'
Except the Gharqad tree [which will keep silent]."
Therefore it is no wonder that you see Gharqad [trees]
surrounding the [Israeli] settlements and colonies..."

Source: Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), Dec. 3, 2010
"Allah, oh our Lord, vanquish Your enemies, enemies of the religion
[Islam] in all places.
Allah, strike the Jews and their sympathizers,
The Christians and their supporters,
The Communists and their adherents.
Allah, count them and kill them to the last one, and don't leave even one

ource: Palestinian TV (Fatah), Jan. 29, 2010
A sermon calling for the genocide of Jews broadcast by PA TV, which is under the control of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas:
"Oh Muslims! The Jews are the Jews. The Jews are the Jews. Even if donkeys would cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl and snakes to bite, the Jews would not cease to harbor hatred towards Muslims. The Prophet said that if two Jews would be alone with a Muslim, they would think only of killing him. Oh Muslims! This land will be liberated, these holy places and these mosques will be liberated, only by means of a return to the Quran and when all Muslims will be willing to be Jihad Fighters for the sake of Allah and for the sake of supporting Palestine, the Palestinian people, the Palestinian land, and the holy places in Palestine. The Prophet says: 'You shall fight the Jews and kill them...

Who in their right mind could side with those who follow such dictats?
Answer-- No-one in their right mind

The love of Islam knows no bounds-- ROFL
All statements contain the mandate to "Kill Jews"
As quoted earlier-- "Those that live by the sword"


Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 2:41 am
An other Hasbara graduate.
John J.joined care2 Sept.28,2011. No friends yet.No testimonial yet.No comments yet.Here for:meeting friends,support a cause.What cause? No body knows even himself.

Stan B (123)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 3:55 am
John J. You have to understand that people like Abdessalem are a product of an education system and ideology that inhibits individual thought or questioning the propaganda that's been fed to them since they were born.
This is why Arab countries have contributed so little to humanity for hundreds of years.
Israel is a beacon of light and civilization in a desert of darkness and ignorance and they find this very difficult to accept.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 4:38 am
Those who deny the role Arab and Muslim scientists played in keeping and adding to human heritage in science and culture are either blind or ignorants.When Europe was living in darkness in the middle ages,the streets in Spain under Islamic rule were lit and safe.What Arab and Muslim scientists achieved was the base of the European renaissance in the beginning of modern history.Arabs introduce Algebra,the numbers you are using now are Arabic and the ZERO is an Arabic invention.Ibn Sina medical books was the main source of studying medicine for a long time in modern Europe...the list is too long in all field like pharmacy,astronomy...etc. This was the base of modern and advanced science in which Arab and Muslim scientists are still contributing through the brain drain programs Egypt is subject to by US and other western countries.Many Egyptian American scientists are involved in research in USA in all fields like space programs,physics,chemistry,medicine and even military programs.I'll give you three names only as an example: Dr.Ahmed Zwail noble prize winner( Elbaz (a geologist involved in space programs) and Mustafa Elsayed who was honored in the white house for his achievements and research in in the field of cancer.
Day after day Satan proves that he is just a hasbara graduate well paid by Zionism and the more he posts the more he gets.Good for him and all hasbara graduates !!!!! VIVA PALESTINA.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 4:57 am
Farouk El-Baz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

فاروق الباز
Farooq Al-Baaz

Born January 2, 1938 (age 74)
United States

Boston University
Alma mater

Missouri University of Science and Technology

Known for Project Apollo

Notable awards

NASA's Apollo Achievement Award
Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal
Certificate of Merit of the World Aerospace Education Organization
Republic of Egypt Order of Merit - First Class
1989 Outstanding Achievement Award of the Egyptian American Organization
1991 Golden Door Award of the International Institute of Boston

Farouk El-Baz (Arabic: فاروق الباز‎, Egyptian Arabic: [fɑˈruːʔ elˈbæːz, fæˈruːʔ]) (born January 2, 1938) is an Egyptian American scientist who worked with NASA to assist in the planning of scientific exploration of the Moon, including the selection of landing sites for the Apollo missions and the training of astronauts in lunar observations and photography.

Currently, El-Baz is Research Professor and Director of the Center for Remote Sensing at Boston University in Boston, Massachusetts. He is Adjunct Professor of Geology at the Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. He is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the Geological Society of America Foundation, Boulder, Colorado, a member of the Board of Directors of CRDF Global, and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 5:06 am
From Patrica:  "It would seem that Kit and Co have very little entertainment in their lives. If Kit B Carson ever offers anything at all - you can be sure it will be about Israel, the Jews and their shortcomings."
Totally unfounded!  (See Kit's news submissions.)
If you're going to smear people with lies, you should at least not do so when it can be so easily proven that they are baseless.  (Is it possible that the reason you are so deluded that you think Kit only "offers anything at all" when it is derisive of Jews is because that's mainly what YOU fixate on -- and not the array of posts she submits covering areas such as human rights, politics, environment, business, health, humor, etc.?)

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 5:06 am
Ahmed Zewail
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ahmed Zewail
Born : Ahmed Hassan Zewail
February 26, 1946 (age 66)
Damanhour, Kingdom of Egypt

Egyptian and American
Chemistry, physics

California Institute of Technology
Alma mater
University of Alexandria, University of Pennsylvania
Known for Femtochemistry

Notable awards
Nobel Prize for Chemistry (1999)
The Franklin Medal (USA) (1998)
Wolf Prize (Israel) (1993)
Priestley Medal (USA) (2011)
Davy Medal (2011)

Ahmed Hassan Zewail (Arabic: أحمد حسن زويل‎, IPA: [ˈæħmæd ˈħæsæn zeˈweːl]; born February 26, 1946) is an Egyptian-American scientist who won the 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on femtochemistry. He is the Linus Pauling Chair Professor Chemistry and Professor of Physics at the California Institute of Technology.


Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 5:12 am
Mostafa El-Sayed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8 May 1933
Zifta, Egypt


Alma mater

Ain Shams University
Florida State Uni

Mostafa A. El-Sayed (Arabic: مصطفى السيد) (born 8 May 1933 - Zifta, Egypt) is an Egyptian-American chemical physicist, a leading nanoscience researcher, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a US National Medal of Science laureate. He is also known for the spectroscopy rule named after him, the El-Sayed rule.

Stan B (123)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 5:29 am
Abdessalami. I wish you were right about me being a hasbara student receiving lots of money. Can't you see it's precisely this kind of comment which indicates a certain paranoia in the personalities of so many of our Arab friends? As I've told you before, you need to spend some time in Israel to see how a real democracy functions.
BTW. How many of the esteemed gentlemen you mentioned have won Nobel prizes? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Is it true that some members of the Muslim Brotherhood would like to destroy the Pyramids?

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 6:39 am
I am afraid I gave you the chance to make more money by your latest comment> Do they pay you per word,per paragraph or per page? Poor Satan.A typical hasbara greedy graduate .Sorry I will not give a chance to make more money.

monica r (41)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 8:53 am
Please switch to decaf. Nobody attacked you for putting up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I said I support that as well.

Are you now saying that:
a) It's a lie that the OIC has their own Declaration of Human Rights that is subject to shari'a?
b) It's a lie that they wrote their own because they would not ratify/sign the Universal Declaration of /human Rights?
c) You did not, in previous threads, state that you had not read the quran, and later that you had started to read it?
d) You did not , in previous threads, defend Islam?
e) Islam can be separated from shari'a?

If that's what you are saying, a, b, and e can be proven that YOU are lying within 5 minutes on Google (In fact, I put in the link to the OIC's separate declaration just for muslim countries in this thread; look at the previous posts). As for c and d, some of the people here on this thread were on those threads too and saw what you wrote. Again, if you are going to say it never happened, whatever. Those who know, know, and your denial of it doesn't erase it. But one example would be on Thursday June 7 starting at 6:01am, you repeatedly bashed on people who commented AGAINST beheading an apostate of Islam. In fairness, you said the act itself was "heinous, evil, horrible, terrible, awful" but yet you repeatedly attacked the people who were complaining that, essentially, hacking off someone's head for leaving a religion is a human rights violation. And in so doing you made statements that Islam and the quran, despite demanding death for apostasy, should be defended, and went on fatalistically about what anyone could do about it anyway. Go ahead, say you never said it, I'll post the link.

monica r (41)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 9:04 am
I have not made people's names into epithets (like calling Bernard "Cro-Magnon") nor have I told people they live under rocks, or called anyone a pathological liar.

What did I say that you interpreted as "ad hominem"? I try hard to keep it on issues and I think it would be quite rare to find me name-calling like a common schoolyard bully, but if I'm wrong, please give me specific examples.

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 4:06 pm
Hi Abdessalam,

I recommend that you read your own comment where you copied "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Crusaders left because they identified as European Christians and wanted to go home. They were not defeated by Arabs who, for several reasons, produce the world's weakest armies. Seriously, I suspect there are African rebel militias which could fight on-level in conventional war with Arab armies despite being far poorer and worse-equipped. I understand that Saladin was an outstanding military leader, but I am not convinced that even he could overcome the fundamental deficiencies of Arab armed forces which persist even today.

Hi Charles,
Rights are universal? Really? How about before the rise of democracy? Were they universal then too? Last I checked, what we call "rights" today were universally denied.

Rights would be universal if the world were ruled by morality. It's not. It's ruled by power. People are only in the same boat only so long as they reciprocate when treated well or poorly. Poor treatment certainly contributes towards Palestinian action against Israel, but does not make a vital contribution. Palestinian internal politics and hatred.would sustain the so-called "resistance" even if Israel granted them full rights. No, so long as there is no reciprocity, reward, nor punishment for treatment coming from Palestinians, Israelis and Palestinians are not in the same boat in this regard.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday July 26, 2012, 12:24 am
Hi Kit :)

Were the crusaders still dependent on the Pope for funds, personnel, and materiel after they set up the Crusader states? It just seems to me like even with the Mediterranean, the distances would have made that impossible in the 12th Century. They certainly had quite a few silly ideas, but I doubt those made up for the enormous problems faced by Arabic armies (attitudes towards military, work ethic especially regarding training and maintenance, and most importantly, the hierarchy of loyalties). They may well have been run out by Saladin, who may have even won the troops' loyalty over the traditional structures. In that case, Abdessalam could learn to use better sources than one which claimed otherwise (which he quoted in full above).

Hi Charles,
"The populace" are not a monolith. Does the American government depend upon support from the Iranian electorate? What about the people of China? Does a democratically elected government require support from every single person in the country? The base of the pyramid which you mentioned stands as long as a powerful enough portion of the base remains loyal. This generally requires the granting of rights to that portion of the base. The most effective method is normally to grant full rights to everyone, to seek support from the entire population so as to gain sufficient support even with a less than 100% success-rate. However, if a government expects a near-zero success-rate in gaining people's loyalty in some group, and expects certain rights to be abused by rebels such that the cost in combating rebels outweighs the gain in loyalty, then it makes no sense to grant those rights. Politically active Palestinians are not about to become loyal to Israel even if it grants them rights equal to those of its own citizens. Palestinian militias' defensive strategy centres around forcing Israelis to choose between violating laws based upon their own sensibilities and calling off any strikes. Do you really think an expansion of those laws, built upon humanitarian or other such sensibilities, would not give greater mobility to those who use such strategies? Do you think that increasing an enemy's safety would not lead to more brazen attacks?

Like you said, we are all human beings. Contrary to your silly accusations, I have absolutely no dispute with that fact. What I reject is the presumption that this suffices to put us all in the same boat in the way you claimed. In fact, I am more than somewhat convinced that you fail to grasp the concept that we are all human beings. You seem to believe Zionists and Israelis to be subhumans. You are the incredible racist here. If America finds the courage to get off its knees, you and those who support your madness may be quite surprised to see what happens.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday July 26, 2012, 8:10 am
Hi Kit :)

I know the Church gave the original funding for the Crusades. However, funding the Crusades themselves is not the same as funding the Crusader States. First,, the goods purchased with that funding would have been bought and used by Crusaders while still in Europe. Second, while the Crusades themselves were just military campaigns, the Crusader States in the Middle East lasted for nearly 200 years (and those in the Balkans lasted longer). Did the Church continue funding them through all those years? The difference in funding is like the difference between funding the 2003 three-week invasion of Iraq and funding the occupation of several years.

The original leaders of the Crusades were not the ones who were defeated centuries later. Their wealth funded the Crusades, not the Crusader States. The "return" to Europe was not by the people who originally gambled their livelihoods in Europe for wealth in conquered land. It was a few generations before the Crusader States fell.

Hi Charles,

That's not just American philosophy. That's in the U.S. Constitution. It is there because the state has the power to deny rights, to prevent individual governments from wielding that power arbitrarily. Rights are permitted by those with the power to deny them. Even then, most rights can disappear, even in the U.S., if the government is given cause to deny them: Consider conscription and penalties for crime. Beyond even that, the U.S. fully recognizes multiple classes of residents: Citizens and non-citizens, permanent and visitors, making precisely the same major distinctions as does Israel and every other country on Earth. I don't get a vote here. If I get into trouble, the social safety-net does not apply to me. I get to re-apply to maintain a residence should my initial visa expire. I am in the country only upon the arbitrarily revocable permission of multiple separate institutions over which I hold no power, and any of which could veto that permission.

I am not a fan of statism either. However, the division is not normally between the power of the state and that of all residents, but between the state (with decisions made by the government and leader) and the loyal citizens who uphold the country's social contract. Not only do politically active Palestinians generally violate many, many terms of Israel's social contract, but Palestinians are not even a party to it. We are all human beings, but that does not mean we all get rights everywhere.

A government does usually choose between those two ways to relate to people, normally going for a mixture. For example, the U.S. relies upon the far more stable consent of its citizenry in general, but applies force in the case of criminals. It works usually with the consent of its allies and applies force to its enemies. However, the government doesn't always get to choose. Relations based upon consent, by their nature, can be vetoed by either party. Israel can seek consent of Palestinians all it wants, but without reciprocity, that consent and all the benefits normally associated with it will not be forthcoming. With them, Israel relates through force whether it wants to do so or not, and it simply works for its well-being in that context.

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday July 27, 2012, 7:34 am
Hi Charles,

The classifications from one country to another do not translate precisely in a one-to-one manner. For example, in Lebanon, there are slightly different political rights for Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and for Christians, as given in the power-sharing agreement in their constitution. The closest translation in the American system would be permanent residents of specific states, but not of the country as a whole.

The question of what should be done with Jews who reject Zionism depends entirely upon which definition of Zionism one uses. If they would refuse to recognize the legitimacy of laws and edicts passed by the state of Israel and actively rebel against the state for the sake of working against the country as its founders and citizens have deemed it ought to be, then I still think they should be accepted as citizens, but only so that they can be tried for treason and then sentenced appropriately. If by "reject Zionism" you mean "reject the desire for a mono-ethnic Jewish religious supremacist state", then they should be treated as other Jews who reject the same madness, and not have organizations which they produce be outlawed as terrorist groups (as opposed to Kach and Kahane Chai, which wanted such a state, and have been outlawed as terrorist organizations).

Do you really believe that a lack of such a claim leaves one "dead meat"? You obviously have never visited the country, nor gotten any sort of thorough information about it. Try walking up to nearly any of the 20% of Israeli citizens who are not Jews and telling them that. Sure, some are subject to bigotry, as is the case with every group of people everywhere, but not systematic institutional bigotry. The worst they face is effective loss of the vote as they vote for Arabic ethnocentric parties which lock up a portion of the vote so that the rest of the parties don't even seek it, and then behave in such a way that including them in a governing coalition would alienate so many other parties that such a coalition would fail. I have seen exactly the same dynamic in Quebec. Some Arabs, though certainly not all, are fooled, by their own community-leaders, into opting out of having a say in policy in accordance with the normal dynamics of functional democracy. Aside from that, do you think that non-inclusion in the draft somehow makes them second-class citizens? Lat I checked, it was normally the demographic group that got selectively conscripted that effectively had less rights.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Sunday July 29, 2012, 8:33 am
On Wednesday July 25,2012 Charles wrote "..If, someday, we Americans find the courage to get up off our knees, the Zionists will have to grow up in a hurry!"

On the next day Stephen wrote addressing Charles " You are the incredible racist here. If America finds the courage to get off its knees, you and those who support your madness may be quite surprised to see what happens."
I have been waiting for a response from Charles and a clarification from Stephen but in vain.That is why I think Stephen owes us a reply to the following questions :
1- Why does Stephen think that " If America finds the courage to get off its knees, the Zionists will have to grow up in a hurry!"is madness?
2- What does Stephen think that Charles and those who support his madness,may be quite surprised to see what happens."?
3- What,is the surprise Stephen thinks or believes that will happen if America finds the courage to get off its knees?


Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday July 29, 2012, 7:24 pm
Hi Kit,

Where exactly did I not deal with history? Was it where I pointed out that Abdessalam's statement contradicted his own cited source, or where I differentiated between the funding of Crusades and the funding of states established on land conquered by Crusades? I'm fairly confident you're familiar with the difference, after all the commentary on the war and occupation in Iraq on Care2.

Hi Abdessalam,
Regarding your questions:
1. Charles' statement which you quoted is wrong, but alone is not madness.

He has demonstrated fascist ideology here:
He supports 9/11 conspiracy-theory here:
He believes the U.S. violent conflict against terrorist groups to be "bogus" (diversionary warfare):
Do you really want me to go on?

2: I expect that if the U.S. stops pandering to non-allies, transnational groups which really do not work for a better world regardless of their claims, and political correctness, it will jump in precisely the opposite direction from what he claimed. In this particular case, it is because the well-being of Israel serves U.S.-interests and has done so for decades.

3: If the U.S. "gets off its knees", I expect it to be a whole lot less friendly towards its opponents and enemies, and I expect a far bloodier world for a period of time which varies roughly inversely with how far "off its knees", as Charles put it, the U.S. gets. The longer it takes this to happen ,the longer the tougher it will be to send the message "Play By Our Rules Or We Won't", and the longer the bloodshed will last. Then I expect those enemies to be reduced to insignificance in global affairs, whether by external force (directly by the U.S.) or, far more likely, by internal ones (as local factions work against anti-Western ones in fear of a U.S.-response) and a far more peaceful and pleasant world for a long time thereafter.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday July 29, 2012, 7:32 pm
Hi again Abdessalam,

I should probably also point out that his insistence, here, that rights are universal and unconditional is madness too. Rights are earned by socially constructive behaviour, or at least an absence of destructive behaviour. To grant them unconditionally is to deny the need for the codes of behaviour by which they are earned, the codes of behaviour necessary for the granting society to function. A position he advocates here on this thread would lead directly to the collapse of every society that cares about granting people rights, leaving only tyrannies throughout the world.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Monday July 30, 2012, 6:04 am
I actually believe that RIGHTS are UNIVERSAL.You may call this madness but I,and I think Charles too, stand beside the rights of all human beings as well as other creatures.Rights are rights.Any other attempt towards differentiation is just a failing and inhuman attempt. PERIOD.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Monday July 30, 2012, 6:30 am
I received ,via care2 personal messages,a comment by my friend Kit.I came to this page to read it but unfortunately I didn't find it. For this reason I couldn't relate Stephen's response on July 29,2012 to her comment. I thought it might be useful to re post it as received from care2 in order for commentator to follow this dialogue . Here it is :

" Want the last word that badly Stephen? That comment most certainly displays an incredible level of ignorance and intolerance.

What history? You convenient lack of knowledge about the crusades.

You maybe a student of physics, but you are most certainly not a student of history."


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Monday July 30, 2012, 6:45 am

WAIT A MINUTE . . . Am I going blind -- or have ALL of Kit's comments been deleted????


Abdessalam Diab (145)
Monday July 30, 2012, 7:56 am
Zionism at work

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday July 30, 2012, 5:55 pm
Hi Carole,

It looks like all of Kit's posts are gone. That is extremely strange, especially on her own story. Nothing she said was offensive. At least her profile is still intact. I hope nothing was deleted before anybody could see it. I'm still seeing posts from her elsewhere, so I hope this is just a software-glitch.

I'll respond to Kit's comment as quoted by Abdessalam:

Hi Kit,

I know about the Crusades. I was just running off of Abdessalam's source, demonstrating that he was wrong either earlier, when citing it, or later, when contradicting it. Then I differentiated between the Crusades and the Crusader States. One was a set of military campaigns, each lasting only a few years. The other was a set of independent countries which stood for centuries. If you can't tell the two apart, then that's just your inability to understand history, not a problem with my comprehension.

Hi Abdessalam,

I believe that everyone should have a chance to earn rights and that if earned, those rights should be granted. Under friendly circumstances, this comes to the same thing as universal granting of rights. However, even on the micro-scale, you can see that normal codes of law and conduct absolutely deny the universal granting of rights. For example, you earn your right to personal security by respecting others' right to the same: If you try to kill someone without good legal cause to do so, you forfeit your own security as the would-be victim may kill in self-defence and bystanders may kill in defence of another. This is all part of the basic social contract by which societies stand. You get a vote in a country and receive its services normally only in exchange for taxes and loyal servitude of that state by whatever terms it demands. Foreigners receive rights as communities in exchange for their communities' granting of rights to visiting citizens of the granting country, and as individuals in exchange for their obedience to whatever laws apply. In much of the U.S., those currently imprisoned for major crimes get no monetary welfare, nor do they get a vote. Do you see a pattern here?

Rights are not, never were, and should not be, unconditional and universal. Taken to the micro-scale, the unconditional granting of rights amounts to the placement of unconditional recipients of those rights above the law, denying protection and rights to everyone else. On the macro-scale, the situation is slightly different, but not in relevant ways: Unconditional granting of rights to one community means allowing it to freely violate whatever terms of the social contract by which those rights are normally earned,to the detriment of everyone else. You're not really talking about equality for Palestinians in Israel: You're talking about denying Israelis any protection in their own country. Let's put this another way: How about the universal granting of rights to Israeli Settlers to live wherever they want in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, conducting their business as they see fit?

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Monday July 30, 2012, 7:17 pm

Hmmm . . . and now, there is dead silence from all other (previously very vocal) pro-Israel commenters? (Curiouser and curiouser.)


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Monday July 30, 2012, 7:24 pm

I wish now that I had posted this article myself. As I stated earlier, I didn't because I've seen too many "rabid dog attacks" from those who will attack ANYTHING posted that appears to sully Israel. (Even an innocuous article, such as this one, that simply gives one man's story of his change in thinking.)

NOTHING in the article attacked or spewed venom; but the commenters who besieged and hijacked the thread afterward did.

It's a sad statement that civil debate cannot exist in any thread where the judgment of Israeli government is questioned.


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Monday July 30, 2012, 7:38 pm

"You have not converted a man [person] because you have silenced him.”
by John Viscount Morley


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Monday July 30, 2012, 8:18 pm

Oh, and I I forgot to mention (so totally impolite of me):

"Welcome to Care2, Mossad. Thanks for joining!"


Kit B (276)
Monday July 30, 2012, 8:23 pm

True Carole, but that is always the case. Any one can say whatever they chose to say about any country on the globe, as long as that country is not Israel. Then the "rabid dogs" come out to attack. With the same ole stale and well rehearsed comments, nothing new, and never with an idea of finding some middle ground.
Most certainly not with any form of respect for other's ideas or thoughts on the matter, always moving as a pack. Honestly, it gets very boring, very quickly.

Thanks for the comment and the quote by Morley, extremely appropriate.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Monday July 30, 2012, 8:57 pm

I calls 'em like I see 'em.


Stephen Brian (23)
Monday July 30, 2012, 11:35 pm
Hi Carole,

They are silent here because, like Charles, they got into a lively discussion regarding another story. I don't remember which one it was. I think it might have been where Charles claimed that the recent bus-bombing of Israeli tourists was a false-flag (because he's convinced every attack on Westerners is a false-flag or a result of aggression motivated by a false-flag).

Hi Kit,

If I see another country subjected to the kind of ridiculous criticism normally reserved for Israel, I will respond similarly. I have called out other pro-Israel posters on Care2 regarding similar criticism of Arabic countries, addressed unfounded criticism of Canada, done the same in support of Afghans, and one of my first posts on Care2 was to address the claim that Indians don't constitute a single nation and that their country should be split up. It just so happens that this sort of aggression is, like I said, normally reserved for Israel.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Tuesday July 31, 2012, 5:25 am
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"
You cannot currently send a star to Just because you have done so within the last week.

Thank you Carole.You said it all.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Tuesday July 31, 2012, 5:56 am
Hello Stephen
You write "You're not really talking about equality for Palestinians in Israel: You're talking about denying Israelis any protection in their own country."
No Charles.Without any philosophical terms I am talking about the Palestinians rights whose land had been occupied for over 45 years.Their right to have at least
1-their own state in the Palestinian territories occupied by the Zionist entity since 1967including east Jerusalem ,and which is now being stolen till this moment by Zionist settlers.
2- The right of Palestinian refugees to return to their villages and towns,properties and homes which they were forced to leave before and after 1948 by the Zionist terrorist gangs.Compensations must be paid by Israel to those who don't want to return after fair evaluation of their losses.This is according to UN solution 194.
3- Their rights to be treated as human beings even under the occupation according to Geneva declaration.
4- Their right to move between Gaza and the west bank freely.
5- their right to build houses on their land without complicated expensive procedures and fees.
6- Their right to live where they want on their land including East Jerusalem which all the world consider it annexation to the Zionist entity illegal.

These are just few of their basic rights and in one word their human rights.If you say they have to do something to be granted these rights under the Israeli occupation,this is like asking them to an other intifada that might turn to be a violent one.This means that you and Israel of course is pushing them to violence.At this point you have to understand that your byzantine arguments are not going anywhere.If you suffer daily the same way they suffer,you would have been reasonable.
I simply believe that you are encouraging Israel to continue its occupation and daily but hourly harassments against Palestinians and that is why I again say " Shame on you"

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Tuesday July 31, 2012, 6:09 am
Welcome back to your post Kit. I wonder why all your comments were deleted although as Stephen mentioned they included nothing offensive.Was that because of the petition to care2 to stop the spammers?
Never mind .Here you are and welcomed.I actually intended to re-post your comments.I have may be 90% of them saved and could be re-posted if you want if it is really" just a software-glitch".

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday July 31, 2012, 9:31 am
I don't quite follow your ideas about universal rights Stephen Brian. No one has to 'earn' them.
How about illustrating your point with an actual stated and numbered human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? That way you're specific. Anyone can endlessly pontificate on the ramifications of human rights as being 'universal' or not and how various different countrie's laws and moral codes come into play regarding them. Obviously the UDHR is a goal to work towards because it embraces ALL human beings first and foremost regardless of anything else.. Saying 'it can't work' or 'won't work' or 'doesn't work' is only a statement, not necessarily true.
People need a stated ideal scenario as a starting point to agree on, and the UDHR seems to be the best in that regard. Any debate or complication iin implementing it comes after.

Kit B (276)
Tuesday July 31, 2012, 10:01 am

I honestly do not know Abdessalam, and Care2 does not seem to have answers either.

I have directly, harshly and openly condemned both north Sudan for the treatment of the south and the United States for standing for policies that are destructive of fair and equal human rights in that country. Not a word from you Stephen. I done the same about Haiti, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and at the moment, too many countries to list. I only see you Stephen on the articles about Israel.

Human rights are so simple, we are born to the human race each of us and therefore, we each have human rights. No one has need to earn a birth right.

Palestine as "foot in mouth" Romney clearly brought forward, can not achieve it's potential while living under occupation. That was not Romney's goal, but worked for the Palestinian people nonetheless. Truth and facts have a way of coming out, whether those of a predictable mind set like or not.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday July 31, 2012, 6:49 pm

Ya know . . .

When you think about it, it takes a certain personality that sees ugliness in even joyous human revelation and epiphany, and wants to share it -- with NO animosity to any party . . . only sharing.

What's even MORE remarkable is when SEVERAL people all share that negativity, and connect, then spread it everywhere they stop.

(I've read about these kind of folks, and even seen CSI television series about them -- Manson family, Jonestown, etc.)

In fact, I think they're usually called "cults."


Kit B (276)
Tuesday July 31, 2012, 8:21 pm

Oh no, Carole. Cults tend to run in groups or packs, like attacking single individuals, cling absolutely to one constant idea and no matter the facts fall back on that one singular idea.

yeah, Okay - Cult!

Kenneth L (314)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 12:14 am
Stephen Brian: "the unconditional granting of rights amounts to the placement of unconditional recipients of those rights above the law, denying protection and rights to everyone else.". No, because everyone else has human rights too. The UDHR doesn't say or imply that anyone claiming their human rights then gives them the right to nullify anyone else's rights. In fact, if I looked closely at it, there's probably an article in it about that very thing. I'd say whoever created the UDHR was smart enough to foresee that particular scenario.
Don't confuse criminal thinking or criminals using their human rights to try to justify criminal acts with the purpose of why the UDHR was created. Criminals will use anything to try to justify their actions, including using in a bad way anything that was originally intended for good.
As for laws, different countries have different laws. Certain acts are judged by those laws, but laws cannot nullify human rights in the UDHR. What if a country's laws are oppressive and violate human rights to begin with? Then the laws have to be changed. Impossible? Lots of people have said lots of things were impossible, right up to the point when someone did the 'impossible'.

Tommy S (11)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 1:18 am
The question must be addressed-- Would you want them for your neighbours if you were Jewish

John J. (0)
Wednesday July 25, 2012, 1:14 am
and exactly how do we teach muslims that alla was wrong when he calls non muslims the vilest of creatures
and with the continuation of this inherent hatred
"Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs (i.e., Jews) IS A WAR OF RELIGION AND FAITH. Long Live Fatah!”
[PA TV (Fatah), Jan. 9, 2012]
PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein: “Palestine in its entirety is a revolution… continuing today, and until the End of Days. The reliable Hadith… says:
"The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'”
[PA TV (Fatah), Jan. 9, 2012]

Ibrahim Mudayris, Official, PA Ministry of Religious Trusts and Religious Affairs: "The Prophet said: The Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. Rejoice in Allah's Victory... Everything wants vengeance on the Jews... these pigs on the face of the earth. And the day of our victory, Allah willing, will come."

Source: Palestinian TV (Fatah), Jan. 9, 2012
Moderator at Fatah ceremony:
"Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs (i.e., Jews) is a war of religion and faith. Long Live Fatah! [I invite you,] our honorable Sheikh."

PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein comes to the podium and says:
"47 years ago the [Fatah] revolution started. Which revolution? The modern revolution of the Palestinian people's history. In fact, Palestine in its entirety is a revolution, since [Caliph] Umar came [to conquer Jerusalem, 637 CE], and continuing today, and until the End of Days. The reliable Hadith (tradition attributed to Muhammad), [found] in the two reliable collections, Bukhari and Muslim, says:
"The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews.
The Jew will hide behind stones or trees.
Then the stones or trees will call:
'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'
Except the Gharqad tree [which will keep silent]."
Therefore it is no wonder that you see Gharqad [trees]
surrounding the [Israeli] settlements and colonies..."

Source: Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), Dec. 3, 2010
"Allah, oh our Lord, vanquish Your enemies, enemies of the religion
[Islam] in all places.
Allah, strike the Jews and their sympathizers,
The Christians and their supporters,
The Communists and their adherents.
Allah, count them and kill them to the last one, and don't leave even one

ource: Palestinian TV (Fatah), Jan. 29, 2010
A sermon calling for the genocide of Jews broadcast by PA TV, which is under the control of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas:
"Oh Muslims! The Jews are the Jews. The Jews are the Jews. Even if donkeys would cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl and snakes to bite, the Jews would not cease to harbor hatred towards Muslims. The Prophet said that if two Jews would be alone with a Muslim, they would think only of killing him. Oh Muslims! This land will be liberated, these holy places and these mosques will be liberated, only by means of a return to the Quran and when all Muslims will be willing to be Jihad Fighters for the sake of Allah and for the sake of supporting Palestine, the Palestinian people, the Palestinian land, and the holy places in Palestine. The Prophet says: 'You shall fight the Jews and kill them...

Who in their right mind could side with those who follow such dictats?
Answer-- No-one in their right mind

The love of Islam knows no bounds-- ROFL
All statements contain the mandate to "Kill Jews"
As quoted earlier-- "Those that live by the sword"


LD B (40)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 1:40 am
Well, Tommy, if you are going to categorically declare all to be like the most extreme, I certainly would not want to have Christians as neighbors.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 1:48 am

Good one, LD B! (Touche, Tommy.)


Stan B (123)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 2:15 am
Great post Tommy. Green star on its way to you.
Just Carole. Aren't you the person who swore blind that Osama Bin Laden was dead a year or two before the
Navy Seals actually killed him? Perhaps you are some kind of psychic. In any event I'm afraid you don't have a lot of credibility.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 5:51 am

More pot-stirring and off-topic ad hominem? Thanks for making my point, Stan.


Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 6:00 am
Tommy Shanon :joined care2 June 13,2010.After more than 2 years on Care2 he has one testimonial and one comment both from Biatrice B..An empty profile.What he wants to do? He doesn't know. What causes he is committed to : noting.Groups: nothing. Activities : Nothing.
Wouldn't this be a carton character? Or even an other Hasbara graduate although even Hasbara graduates are real people who are hired and paid by the Zionist entity?

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 6:26 am
Dear Abdessalm,
Yesterday in Jerusalem, Governor Mitt Romney made some statements that were not only wrong, but frankly, prejudiced and ignorant.

Romney declared that "cultural differences" were the reason the Palestinian economy is not doing as well as Israel's, without even acknowledging the Occupation. On top of that, he managed to get his facts completely wrong, claiming the Israeli GDP is twice that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, when in fact it is actually about ten times as high.

Most people who even cursorily keep up with the news know that Israel largely controls not only the entry and exit of goods to and from the West Bank and Gaza, but the entry and exit of the Palestinian people as well. Israeli soldiers can arbitrarily block the access of farmers from their land, students from their studies, and patients from medical care. Israel can, and has, closed Palestinian universities for years at a time.

Israel won't allow even the most innocuous materials, like strawberries from Gaza, to be sold in the West Bank, which serves to prevent Gazan farmers from making a living. (2) At various times, it has not allowed steel, glass, or even pasta in to Gaza to allow it to re-build after the devastating war on Gaza in 2008-2009. And Israel allows private companies like Ahava to take take natural resources in the West Bank and sell them for a profit. (3)

It's this infrastructure of control that chokes not only economic growth, but anything approaching normal life.

Governor Romney’s willful lack of understanding of facts on the ground and what appear to be racist assumptions about Israelis and Palestinians do not represent us. Sign our letter calling on him to set the record straight and apologize. We'll deliver it to Romney's campaign headquarters at the end of the week.

Romney stakes his value as a leader on his success in business. But any businessperson should know that blocking free trade and commerce, profiting from exploiting stolen land, and holding an entire economy hostage is not exactly fair play.

Please help us send a message to Mitt Romney that this kind of ignorance and racism is unacceptable. JVP members in Boston will be delivering your signature personally to Romney Headquarters before the end of this week. Spread the word so to your friends and communities—we want enough signatures by the end of this week to make it clear that his statements are not a reflection of the values Jews, Americans, and our allies hold.
Rebecca Vilkomerson, Executive Director
Jewish Voice for Peace


Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 6:39 am
To Governor Mitt Romney,

Your statements in Jerusalem regarding the growth of the Palestinian and Israeli economies were inaccurate and misleading. Israel's Occupation of Palestinian land makes it impossible for the Palestinian economy to succeed, not "cultural differences." Your comments were not a reflection of the values Jews, Americans, and our allies hold dear. We call on you to apologize to the Palestinian people for your willful lack of understanding of the facts on the ground and the racist assumptions behind them.


Kit B (276)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 10:09 am

I think we must give the Willard credit for increasing the American Jewish vote for Obama and losing his one and only news base Fox. Yep, even Fox is now mocking the Willard. How can an educated man speak so foolishly and contemptibly, while expecting to be elected to the highest office in the United States?

Stan, you call that a great post, WHY? What personal or actual history did this Tommy offer?

Kit B (276)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 10:17 am

Another reminder: This about one man's journey to discover his own truth. This is not a condemnation of any thing nor anyone. Much could be gained by first reading the letter, then considering why this man has made a choice to abandon once deeply held beliefs, in favor of casting aside those beliefs for clarity.

Israel has become it's own worst enemy, and to continue to count on support from the United States may not be the wisest of decisions. We are embroiled in our own economic and political confusion in the US. The vast majority are suffering from war exhaustion. Pledges to support Israel maybe nice words for the ears of Israel but I have my doubts that should Israel begin another war, she will find anyone to support that endeavor.

Jelica R (144)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 8:49 pm
I had to laugh when I read: "...(Carole you) don't have a lot of credibility." Priceless! After checking Stan's and Carole's comments only on this post only, it is easy to evaluate level of credibility for both of them. I would trust Carole with my life.

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 10:52 pm
Hi Abdessalam,

No, people don't necessarily get a right to hold sovereignty over territory. That, like other rights, is to be earned. Today's Palestinians have not earned it. Those who were forced from their homes by immediate threat of violence are guaranteed a right to return to them under Israeli law, and were mostly permitted to do so.

Palestinians are treated as human beings. Of course, the way that most countries treat human beings under Israel's circumstances is somewhat different: Other countries, facing the same conditions, recognize the relevant population as human, and then engage in full-up genocide.

Once again, freedom of travel and reside where one wishes, especially when passing through another state's territory, is to be earned, not necessarily given.

Hi Kenneth,

That's a good idea.
Life, Liberty, and Security of Person: One maintains a right to life so long as the maintenance of that life is practical (no right to medical miracles), one does not arbitrarily commit a recognized capital offence (treason or any other such offence), and one does not pose a significant threat to the life of another such that homicide may be justifiable in defence of that other. Liberty is earned by obedience to laws which ,if violated, result in imprisonment, house-arrest, or other loss of liberty. Security of Person is earned by refraining from threatening the security of others in excess of legal permission. (One is permitted to drive a car in the presence of pedestrians without getting broadsided off the road by a police-car, but not , for example, speed through a red light directly towards people crossing the road and claim the same right.)

Slavery and Servitude: This freedom may be forfeit by voluntary contract without duress or recognized social contract wherein some forced labour is required. (You may sign up for the military or voluntarily live in a country with a draft.) It is also earned only when one is recognized as being capable of living independently. (Parents or other legal guardians may demand that children do their chores.)

Personhood before the law: Define "personhood". Children and others with legal guardians do not get full standard legal rights as independent persons. In many ways they are treated as extensions of their guardians. In those cases, the right is earned by recognition of independence, which may be presumed at a certain age (18 or whatever), or may demand some demonstration of independence (land-ownership, independent employment, non-salary income, obedience to the law without close oversight, whatever the society demands). Of course, even once one is a "person", that in itself does not grant any particular rights.

Non-discrimination: Earning of this right has three requirements, one individual, one communal, and one inter-communal. First, discrimination against convicted criminals may in many cases be wrong, but it is also commonly accepted because those criminals are presumed to have had a choice not to enter the targeted group, so personal prior obedience to the law is required. On the communal level, discrimination is commonly accepted when statistics warrant it. If one demographic group is statistically significantly more likely to commit a crime, drive drunk, or whatever, then that group may be more closely and aggressively monitored. If one community poses a security-threat to some region, then security-forces may treat that group differently, for example by barring its access to that region. On the inter-communal level, if the presence of one community is likely to drive the other to act criminally and it is not practical to discriminate against the community which is the source of criminal behaviour, then for the sake of maintaining peace and order, discrimination against the innocent group is generally permitted. That said, even when a community forfeits its freedom from discrimination, one can still earn freedom from it when such granting on an individual or sub-community bases is practical, by active opposition to the element of the community which forfeits the freedom. If one can establish a separately recognizable sub-community which does not forfeit that right, then one can gain the relevant freedom despite the behaviour of the larger group with which one is identified.

Right to remedy by competent national tribunals for violations of rights: This one is earned communally, by the maintenance of a society that maintains such tribunals. If you create a society where the courts don't exercise any power over the government and the government violates your rights, and you do not rebel against or actively seek to reform this tyranny, then you don't get the relevant remedy.

Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile is earned by the maintenance of an orderly community such that the law remains enforceable as declared, one does not necessitate such arbitrary measures for the purpose of maintaining order. One must also not rebel and challenge the state, or be of a community that does so, so that the state, for its own security, is not forced to treat one or one's community as an enemy rather than a citizen or subject (or community thereof). Also check the earning of a freedom from discrimination.

Right to an impartial trial: First, this must be earned communally like the right to remedy for violation of rights. Then it must be earned individually by refraining from crimes against the judiciary. You don't get to bomb a courthouse and then claim immunity from prosecution because all the judges with relevant jurisdiction now hate you.

Presumption of innocence: Check freedom from discrimination. If there is strong statistical evidence that guilt is likely, then that may override the individual presumption of innocence. Also, one must maintain a sufficiently orderly society so that peace and order may be maintained with the presumption of innocence.

Freedom from arbitrary interference in private affairs and attacks upon reputation. This is generally forfeit the second one's personal life, and anything it may imply about behaviour in society, becomes a matter of legitimate public interest. Should Bill Clinton's personal behaviour with Monica Lewinsky have been dragged out into the open like it was? I don't think so, but if there is reason to suspect that a person holding authority over others may not be personally fit to hold it, then they certainly have a right to verify the reason, whether or not the authority-holder's honour and privacy are effectively attacked. There does not need to be legal cause for such scrutiny so it is legally indistinguishable from arbitrary interference with privacy. I don't think that most celebrities' personal lives should be as publicized as they are, but in practice anybody of interest gets no privacy.

This post is getting really long and my internet-connection is not great. I will continue with another post.

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday August 1, 2012, 11:49 pm
Right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state: First, one must be present legally within the state with a status which allows one to establish residence and travel freely. For example, when visiting the U.S., one must declare one's place of residence for the first night and then go for that first night, or be subject to arrest. Legal visitors and other non-citizens do not get unfettered freedom of movement. Second, one must abide by all laws for which the penalty is loss of liberty. Third, anyone, even citizens may be denied such freedom when practicality demands, for security-purposes, containment of epidemic, or whatever other reason. Also, this does not permit trespassing outside of public areas or in closed public areas, nor does it permit residence outside of appropriately zoned areas, nor does it often permit residence in places that fail to meet specific safety-regulations and other legal requirements.

Right to leave and return to one's country: For the guarantee of a right to leave, one must first be in good legal standing, not even owing any debts which could not be collected following departure, and supply or hire one's own means of transit. Second, one must have a right to enter the region to which one is travelling, which if it is another country, is never guaranteed. To return to one's country, one must have good legal standing and citizenship recognized by the current regime. Essentially, the country to which you return must recognize that freedom as applicable to you. For example, as Israel does not recognize Palestinians as Israeli so they have no right to return to its territory, even if the territory to which they seek to return was not under Israeli jurisdiction when they left. It does not see itself as "their country".

Right to asylum: You must earn access to the country and residence there like anyone else, by whatever rules it sets. Those are usually laxer in cases of persecution, but the onus is still on the asylum-seeker to demonstrate that the right is applicable. Where practicality permits, the rules it sets must leave it possible to earn this right, but that right is still earned by meeting those requirements, whether they are limited to obedience to the law, demand some measure of integration or assimilation, or make any other demand.

Right to a nationality: If by "nationality" one means citizenship, then this is earned by behaviour non-conducive to non-arbitrary deprivation of citizenship. One might earn it by being truthful on migration-papers, non-commission of treason, and by whatever other means. If you move from one place to another, renouncing your original citizenship in exchange for the new one, and lie on your migration-papers such that you would be deported or have citizenship revoked, this right offers no protection. If by "nationality" one means "membership in a culturally, historically, and politically distinct group", then the right is totally meaningless because that distinction usually has no legal meaning. Sure, a totally meaningless right can be universal.

Freedom from arbitrary deprivation of nationality (citizenship) and to change nationality (citizenship): The first part of this is earned communally, by maintaining a regime that recognizes a community as people of the country. In cases of revolution, conquest, or whatever, the new regime can simply refuse to recognize some people. When justified, it is normally justified by the community's forfeiture of the freedom from discrimination as described above. As for the right to change citizenship, that is earned by meeting the requirements set by the state granting agency the new nationality. I don't have a right to suddenly declare myself legally a French citizen without going through the appropriate process.

Protection of marriage and the family: This right, like many listed here, including ones that I have already said are earned in certain ways, was never really in force. I'm having trouble thinking of a single culture that actually grants equal rights in practice to both genders upon divorce. Many jurisdictions permit arbitrary divorce, violating Article 16 part 3.

The right to private property is earned by the legal purchase of that property, the maintenance of legal status whereby property may be owned, and the legal status as an independent economic actor (not subject to legal guardianship regarding finances). As for not being arbitrarily deprived of property, again one's community must maintain an orderly society such that laws as declared which would lead to deprivation may be enforced non-arbitrarily. Also, it must maintain a society sufficiently orderly that theft can be practically prevented.

Freedom of conscience is earned by the practice of that freedom in such a manner which is not criminal nor conducive to crime. Some religious, traditional, or conscientious practices are deemed excessive and harmful. A guy's freedom "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance" does not permit human sacrifice, nor does it permit things like FGM.

Freedom of opinion and expression: Again, this may be forfeit if it is deemed criminal or conducive to crime. Hate-speech is often outlawed, so it can forfeit this freedom. It is also earned by providing oneself with a platform from which to express oneself, or finding a friendly entity willing to provide such a platform at its convenience. Care2, Facebook, etc. have every right to refuse to provide a platform to messages with which they disagree. If you want the unfettered right to freedom of expression, get your own soap-box, stand on it. and say things which are not recognized as conducive to criminal behaviour.

Peaceful assembly and association: This is earned by one's community's maintenance of the peaceful nature of assemblies. If the state cannot differentiate between peaceful ones and those which will turn violent, it has every right to err on the side of caution for the sake of others' security.

No being forced to belong to an association: Tell that to a conscript. Those guys could use a laugh.

Democratic rights: These are earned by the maintenance of a society which permits them. If one wants those rights and doesn't have them, then it is time to work for reform or revolution, or migration.

I'll go on in another post again.

Before I do, I should probably point out one important fact: Many of these rights may be granted (or not denied) by any agency with the power to do so even if they are unearned, just because it is friendly. However, without earning them, one loses the right to demand that those rights be granted and they may be freely revoked.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 12:14 am

I meant to add more requirements to earn rights to a fair trial and other forms of protection under the law. To earn it as an individual, one must be a recognized loyal member of the society granting that protection. That generally demands that one be a citizen of the country, recognized by the state from which the judiciary in question draws its authority. Otherwise, it may be practically earned communally by having one's community offer the state in question an incentive (whether positive or negative) to grant those rights, like reciprocity in one's own country. (However, should it deny those rights, one cannot demand them back. One's community can only withhold the positive incentive or follow through on the negative.) This also applies to the vote and access to public services included under Democratic Rights

Now, back to the point-by-point of the UDHR:

Social Security and social and cultural rights needed for dignity and personal development: You earn those first by being a person for whom dignity is justified and whom others want to have develop. More seriously, you earn access to them by, making a net-contribution to them for others and having a community which maintains a society which provides them.

Right to work: Earn by being qualified, doing your job, and having it be practical for you to get the job in question.
Equal pay for equal work: Earned by maintaining equal prospects of work and other non-immediate aspects of employment. As long as women take major maternal leave and men do not take similar leave, men will be more valuable to an employer and probably receive higher pay so that they stay. It doesn't matter what is medically, socially, or otherwise necessary. The employer wants the security of confidence that its worker will not suddenly disappear for a year-and-a-half shortly after completing training and beginning employment.

Remuneration ensuring an existence worthy of human dignity: Define "worthy of human dignity"/ This right also appears to be void.

Right to unionize in trade-unions: Earned by non-abusive behaviour as a union. I remember a case in Quebec where a large store unionized and the company (I think Walmart or one of the other big chains) deemed that with the usual behaviour of unions there, the store would become a money-losing operation, so the place closed.

Right to rest and leisure: Earned by getting sufficient income during working-hours to afford it, and maintaining employment with appropriate conditions and hours. No taking an hour off when you're a soldier actively engaged in operations. No taking an hour off when you're a camp-counsellor expected to maintain order in your vicinity even when "off-duty".

Do you really want me to go through Articles 25 - 30?

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday August 2, 2012, 12:31 am
Hi again Kenneth,

My point was that the unconditional granting of rights to one group necessarily implies the denial of rights to another. Unconditionally granting liberty to one group of people means its members cannot be punished with imprisonment for committing crimes against another. Adding personal security and property-rights as universal means no corporal punishment, execution, fines, or confiscation of property either. With all historically used enforcement-mechanisms gone, do you have any idea how the rights of others are supposed to be protected? This is also why I said that what Abdessalam demanded was that Israelis be turned into second-class citizens in their own country: If Palestinians are universally granted unconditional (rather than earned) rights like he suggests, Israelis would lose protection under their own laws.

Hi Kit,

Do you really only see me on articles about Israel? I guess we must have coincidentally done our condemnations, or opposed unjust condemnations, on other threads. There are some cases where I refrain from speaking on a thread because I don't really have anything more to add than what others have already said, but the list I gave was not just a general "I do this". I was referring to specific cases where I have done so.

Also, Romeny's statement won't make much sense to many posters here, but only because most posters here don't bother learning the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism. Search this thread for "The primary division in Western politics " to see how conservatives really differ from liberals. If you relax the liberal assumption, Romney's statement about cultural differences driving economic ones just looks like commonsense.

Kenneth L (314)
Friday August 3, 2012, 2:32 pm
Stephan, I take it you have given some of your viewpoints regarding some of the various articles in the UDHR. Are you personally trying to encompass every conceivable situation or view that could be taken regarding the implementation of human rights? That's quite adventurous considering 7 billion other human beings could potentially do the same thing and have their own interpretations and viewpoints of a whole truckload of various situations.

The UDHR is about INDIVIDUALS, not groups. These aren't about rights of 'groups'. .

Another thing, you are interspersing various terms such as 'unconditional' and 'universal' and 'absolute as though they have the same meaning. They don't. They have different definitions. Nowhere in the UDHR can I find the terms 'unconditional' or 'absolute'. Universal means applicable to all individuals, not limited to a few. It doesn't say absolute or unconditional.

Quoting from you to illustrate that point--- "Unconditionally granting liberty to one group of people means its members cannot be punished with imprisonment for committing crimes against another". That's NOT what the UDHR says or implies. In fact, Article 30 addresses that..

You keep making complexities out of what the simple INTENTION is of the UDHR. It doesn't get into complexities of HOW or WHEN or WHY, it states simply WHAT.

As for your continual insistence that human rights have to be 'earned', that immediately puts it into the category of being open to evaluation, judgement, approval, agreement, etc. by others. Which could be a whole witches brew

To extrapolate your idea of 'earning' everything, nobody could breathe air unless they 'earned' the right. No wife could have sex with her husband unless she 'earned' the right. (lol) And vice-versa. If Johnny is bad, he doesn't have the right to use the toilet, he has to use an old can. Or something. It makes for an endless circus, this idea of 'earning'.


Stephen Brian (23)
Friday August 3, 2012, 3:12 pm
Hi Kenneth,

I just went down the list of articles and explained how the rights described in them are earned. As the UDHR tries to encompass everything, I guess that leads to the kind of ambitious approach that you described. Other people could have their own interpretations and viewpoints. However, my requirements for earning rights are not arbitrary. They all follow from two principles: First, the right being granted must not be abused, and second, it must be practical to grant that right without endangering the rights of others.

It's true that the UDHR refers to individuals, but many rights are earned by communities on behalf of their members. A single individual will usually not render it impractical for an authority to grant a right. However, a community can easily do so.

Strictly speaking, "universal" and "unconditional" do not mean the same thing. However, in this context and especially as used earlier in this thread, they are exactly interchangeable. If a right is definitively universal, then it is granted to everyone with no distinction made between one person and another. If a right is unconditional, then it is not denied to anyone regardless of conditions. When discussing the universality, or non-universality, of rights, I was primarily responding to posts earlier in this thread, not the preamble nor any other part of the UDHR.

I don't entirely disagree with the content of the UDHR. Half of my position roughly matches Article 30 and the other half roughly matches Part 2 of Article 29.

You didn't ask what I thought the UDHR meant. You asked me to use articles from it to give examples regarding how, when, and why a right may be granted or denied.

Yes, the idea of earning rights does open a can of worms. Many people very close to me have been personally affected by that exact can of worms, including my own family. Specifically, false claims that their communities had forfeited their rights gained traction in the international community so the world stood by as many were murdered. On the other hand, refusing to address practical realities and demanding universal granting of all rights opens another can of worms, and one which I believe is far tougher to close.

Like you said, extrapolating from my idea about "earning" everything, people don't get to breathe without earning it. Guess what happens to non-productive members of communities during famines, when there is not enough food to go around. While there is no shortage of air, we can let everyone breathe. If there were a shortage, the conditions of the shortage would dictate the requirements to be met. In most modern societies, a wife does not have a right to have sex with her husband. He can consent so that she may have sex with him despite not having a right to it, but she cannot demand it. (The relevant law refers to her independent exercise of this right as "spousal rape".) If Johnny destroys toilets when he gets into the bathroom, then yes, he gets to use a can. This is an endless circus, but I would rather see this one than one involving greedy negligent murder (by consumption of vital resources in a shortage without work to replenish them), rape, and no toilets.

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday August 3, 2012, 3:29 pm
Hi again Kenneth,

I should probably explain my comment about a woman having no right to have sex with her husband. When you have a right to do something, that means you are permitted to do it regardless of the approval of others. For example, I have a right to eat the food I buy, but no right to eat my friend's food. In my home, barring special circumstances, nobody can legitimately forbid me from taking food from my refrigerator. If I go to his home, it is likely that he would permit me to eat his food, but I cannot demand access to his pantry. On a larger scale, I am not a U.S. citizen so I have no right to reside in the U.S. indefinitely. If the government here permits it, then I might remain here for a very long time, but it also has every right to kick me out the day after my current visa expires.

Kenneth L (314)
Friday August 3, 2012, 4:13 pm
So in the end Stephan, you are simply debating how and when the UDHR can be implemented.

The UDHR is all I've been commenting on, nothing to do with any other person or topic on this thread.

IMO you're still getting into way too much complexity. You realize there are thousands upon thousands of situations and instances concerning human rights. I would bet that even the term 'rights' could be debated endlessly, just the meaning and definitions of the word. So either endlessly debate something or do something is what it might boil down to.

The UDHR has to be looked at as a starting place. Everything has to have a starting place and a clear statement of intention if anything is to be done. "I'm going to the store for a loaf of bread' is a clearly stated intention. The intention has to be there before the person goes to the store for a loaf of bread. (Unless one is a leaf blown about by the wind and the total effect of their environment as in modern Psychology). The stated intention doesn't get into HOW to get to the store to get a loaf of bread. All that comes after.
Hence the UDHR is an apparent agreement by many individuals to come up with a basic starting point for individual human rights.

Jelica R (144)
Friday August 3, 2012, 5:36 pm
I agree, Kenneth.

Awkward situation for the apologists. Trying to justify the inexcusable they get the toxic mixture of ideas and principles; amorphous muddle of vague rules that may or may not apply, depending on the discretion of those in positions of power. It would be much easier to say: "I am a racist," or "might makes right" instead, but that the whole world condemns. With good reason, I will add, because violence, injustice and suffering accompany lawlessness.

The whole fabricated confusion about human rights and citizens' rights was applied here to deter us from the real topic of discussion (read title!). The matter is simple:

1.) Every human being has some universal rights, defined by the UDHR, which should be respected by all states, regardless of whether they signed the UDHR or not. This is why these rights are called "universal". The concept that universal rights must be earned and someone can deny them is perverse.

2.) As a citizen of a state, everyone enjoys some rights, defined by the laws of their state of citizenship. These rights other states do not have to respect, depending on the legislation of each specific state.
It is important to emphasize that states signatories of UDHR in its laws shall stipulate equal or higher level of human rights than those provided by the UDHR.

Kit B (276)
Friday August 3, 2012, 6:05 pm

Stephen said: "Also, Romney's statement won't make much sense to many posters here, but only because most posters here don't bother learning the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism. Search this thread for "The primary division in Western politics " to see how conservatives really differ from liberals. If you relax the liberal assumption, Romney's statement about cultural differences driving economic ones just looks like commonsense."

You really do assume you have upper hand intellectually, and you are wrong. Not only have people "bothered" to learn and understand the old traditional views of a conservative, most have taken the time to fully understand and reject this modern form of fanaticism.

Romney is not only wrong he is dead wrong, not shred of real evidence supports his statement.

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday August 4, 2012, 10:16 am
Hi Kenneth,

I agree with you about the UDHR. Other posters, like Charles, were talking about universality of human rights, regardless of circumstances. I was responding to them when I explained that rights must be earned (or, if you would prefer an exactly equivalent but slightly more politically correct statement, that they can be forfeited.)

Hi Jelica,

I think you missed my point earlier: The UDHR does not say that every human being has certain rights. It says that if we earn them, then we gain a right to them. Read articles 29 and 30 here:
Some people genuinely do forfeit certain rights, so they do not, and should not, receive them. Those rights are not universal.

Hi Kit,

If you have really bothered to learn the old traditional views of a conservative, please explain their philosophical underpinnings to me. I am confident that most posters here would provide a something which conservatives would not recognize.

The trouble with claiming that no evidence supports his statement is that the same data, analyzed by a liberal or a conservative, will lead to different conclusions. There is an obvious disparity of wealth. If we follow the liberal assumption exactly, then we conclude that the difference is driven entirely by the relevant power-structures. If we don't, then we conclude that the differences are driven by internal factors, like the value given to education, work-ethics, home-environments, or whatever other cultural differences exist.

Let's take a look at what happened before current power-relations began:
How many universities did Palestinians or their Arab rulers found in the West Bank and Gaza Strip before 1967? ... Zero.

When did Palestinian mass-literacy begin and how long does it take to adapt a culture to a modern economy once that starts? What about the rest of the Arab world? I really don't know, but I'm sure you've checked this before saying there is "not a shred of real evidence" supporting Romney's statement.

What is the West Bank GDP-per-worker? (GDP / (labour-force x (1 - unemployment-rate)) As of 2010, according to the CIA factbook, 10,667 USD. I haven't run many comparisons, but try using CIA data to compare it to poor African countries. I'm sure you've checked that too before saying there is no evidence for Romney's statement.

Kenneth L (314)
Saturday August 4, 2012, 2:27 pm
I agree Stephan, and as I have said, human rights are not unconditional or absolute, which is what Article 29 lays out. Which is why they have differentiated between the meaning of universal and unconditional or absolute and called it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not The Universal Declaration of Unconditional or Absolute Rights.
An example where someone's right is not unconditional to 'security of person' (article 3) would be if they are about to murder your child, then they can certainly be harmed physically by you/someone else/police in order to stop them..
I think the common sense of people realize most of these things, in a democracy.

Article 2 however I notice condones no waiving of rights because a country is not a democracy or a theocracy etc. Which means communist or dictarships or any country that is not a democracy needs to become one essentially for human rights to be implemented universally across the planet.

I still think there is some tendency for confusion about 'universal' such as Stephan stating "The UDHR does not say that every human being has certain rights" and " Those rights are not universal.".

Unfortunately the word 'universal' has two different definitions:
1.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole
2. applicable everywhere or in all cases

I go by the first, not the second. Which using that definition means everyone DOES HAVE RIGHTS SIMPLY BY BEING A HUMAN BEING, first and foremost, not limited to a few human beings, but all human beings of the human race. Meaning in that definition, UNIVERSAL.

It does not mean unconditional or absolute.

However, if the second definition of 'universal' is used, then it's all screwed up. Universal then would mean the same as unconditional and absolute. Though I don't see how anyone could think that since no one lives alone on the planet and therefore what they do can affect others. If you were the only one living on this entire planet then you could do anything you wanted without any conditions or limits. Other than that, you can't.

Perhaps what the creators of the UDHR SHOULD have done is say what definition of 'universal' they were using for the declaration so there would be no doubt or confusion.

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday August 4, 2012, 2:57 pm
Hi Kenneth,

Do you not see a contradiction between "everyone DOES HAVE RIGHTS SIMPLY BY BEING A HUMAN BEING" and "It does not mean unconditional or absolute"?

Certainly there is no problem if some people only forfeit rights under specific episodic circumstances but generally ought to have them. However, what happens when there is a persistent condition under which some people forfeit a right? at least some of those communal conditions which I mentioned may persist so long that the condition of having the forfeited rights may no longer be characteristic of the members of that community. In that case, a condition is met under which people, despite being human, cannot be said to have those forfeited rights, or normally forfeit them under conditions when they would be exercised.

The authors of the UDHR really ought to have been more specific about what they meant. Then the UDHR could not be so easily abused. This may be particularly cynical of me, but I suspect that is why they were not more specific. Then again, it doesn't really matter: Without any enforcement-mechanism written in, the UDHR holds no binding power and no legal weight. The conditions it lays out are just a goal to which states claim to aspire.

Jelica R (144)
Saturday August 4, 2012, 7:08 pm
I still think it is a perverse idea to "earn" human rights.

Citing from Preamble: UDHR is "...a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, ..."

Article 29. specifies duties to the community " which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."

Limitations to one's freedoms are "...determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others...".

Article 30.:
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Notably, UDHR does not provide measures for the enforcement of implementation. Declarations seldom, if ever, have them.
Declaration is a statement of intention, attitude or opinion on some subject. How to earn/loose some right is a matter regulated by a legislative provision, and an obligatory part of it (or some subordinate law) contains measures for the enforcement of a specific law.

UDHR is simply a "...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and INALIENABLE rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world", or a standard of human rights which should be implemented in legislation of member states.

I've emphasized the word INALIENABLE. Human rights are mine, acquired by being born as a human being, limited only by equal and inalienable rights of other human beings. I don't have to "earn" them. Accordingly, no one can give them to me nor take them away. One can violate them, though. This does not imply that I don't have human rights after they were violated. It simply means that someone infringes on my rights, and that person is the offender.

Jelica R (144)
Saturday August 4, 2012, 8:05 pm
Back to the topic.

It was said that other persons are our mirror, which we often tend to blame when we do not like our reflection. It is only for the brave in hearth to face one's own fears and shortcomings. To accuse others for one's own failures, to seek excuses in other people's actions and blame them because one does not have what s/he wants; never realizing the consequences of our own actions or inactions; behaving like a 5 year brat, complaining and whimpering once the world does not turn to suit your whims ... this is always easy.

To grow up is very hard, but rewarding accomplishment. It takes a lifetime, and many never succeed. Still, this noble goal gives life a meaning.

Kenneth L (314)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 12:40 am
Well Jelica has said better what I was attempting to say about the UDHR. Point after point in her second last post..
As she says, you are BORN with rights. First and foremost. And they are universal, meaning for every human being period. Not limited to a few. Inalienable meaning no one can disenfranchise you of them intrinsically. AND they may be SUSPENDED because of ons's violations of them (not unconditional or absolute therefore).
People I notice ascribe connotations to various terms beyond their definitions, which can tend to confuse things as well.

Stephan, you ARE being cynical if you think there was some ulterior motive to being intentionally vague by the creators of the UDHR.
IStephan you say "Then again, it doesn't really matter:" tt DOES matter regarding the UDHR. Again, you're being cynical. Is it the fault of the UDHR or the fault of human beings not applying them? I'm starting to think you're apathetic about the entire world. Which is fine except it doesn't help anything.

As for your second paragraph Stephan, "what happens when there is a persistent condition under which some people forfeit a right? at least some of those communal conditions which I mentioned may persist so long that the condition of having the forfeited rights may no longer be characteristic of the members of that community. In that case, a condition is met under which people, despite being human, cannot be said to have those forfeited rights, or normally forfeit them under conditions when they would be exercised."
Now there is a differentiation to be made about the word 'have'. They still DO HAVE their human rights intrinsically regardless of the conditions around them or the laws of whatever country they're residing in. Regardless of oppression they still intrinsically have their rights and WOULD if the oppression was not there. So the solution comes down to CHANGING the oppression so everyone's rights CAN be exercised, not simply bemoaning they CAN'T be or criticizing or debating the UDHR.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 8:19 am
Hi Jelica,

If the granting of rights is limited, then there are cases where those rights may not be granted. That pretty thoroughly undermines their whole "inalienable" aspect. There is one inalienable right, and that is the right to the opportunity to work towards earning the rest as a member of a community and as an individual in good faith, and a timely response in good faith from the rights-granting (or would-be non-denying) agency.

On the other side of things, I am absolutely with you on the matter of taking responsibility for the consequences of our own actions. I think we are far closer philosophically than many discussions tend to imply.

Hi Kenneth,
I guess I got a little cynical when I saw the content of other such "omnilateral" declarations and what following their policy-prescriptions would necessarily imply. The worst of the lot essentially declares open-season on civilians in war by any organization that doesn't care about the enemy's civilians' well-being (ratified by 176 countries) by outlawing the only known effective measure to prevent such killing, explicitly sets a particular group of militias above the Geneva Conventions, and demands that all wars be spread to previously neutral countries. (Essentially it says "It's illegal to murder. It's also illegal to enforce rules against murder.") There is no such thing as the "fault of the UDHR". It's a piece of paper. The organization which endorsed it claims to speak for the entire world, including all of those who fail to apply it.

You are born not having individually forfeited any rights. If your community has rendered it impractical to grant you, as a member of it, those rights, then you are born without them. If you insist on using capital letters like that, I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT OPPRESSION. Oppression is the ARBITRARY denial of rights which have been earned, I am talking about cases where communities render it IMPRACTICAL for an authority to grant them rights while protecting ThOsE of others, leading to the UnFoRtUnAtE situation of a totally REASONABLE denial of rights. (That was fun.) Now, using your definition, to have a right is to be able to justifiably demand the freedom to have or do something. If the justification no longer applies, then people don't have those rights.

Jelica R (144)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 6:16 pm
There is a big difference between "to have a right" and "to have a possibility to realize a right." For example, it is my right to endlessly prate on Internet forums, but if the power goes out, I will not be able to execute my right until the obstacle that prevents me in realization is removed. Thus, my right still exist while the realization of it suspended.

BTW, you can't earn a right. You can earn a reward for something you've done. Inalienable human rights are not a reward. Rights which are not equal for everyone are de facto privileges.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday August 5, 2012, 10:07 pm
Hi Jelica,

The loss of a right is not only limited to cases of practicality. For example, one loses the right to personal security when one threatens the security of others. This may just be a difference of wording: What do you call it when loses the ability to realize a right, even a passive one like that to personal security, through the loss of moral grounds on which to demand that it be respected? What do you call it when this happens through a condition so persistent or common that such a loss is the norm rather than the exception?

Earning and forfeiting things are two sides of the same coin. saying that one earns something by abiding by certain rules is the same as saying one forfeits something by violating them. To say that rights need not be earned is the same as to say that they cannot be forfeit. Going back to the example of forfeiting the right to personal security when others can reasonably expect you to violate theirs, I hope that you see the problem with this.

Kenneth L (314)
Monday August 6, 2012, 1:00 am
(Stephan, I use caps for emphasis of certain words, not having any vocal means, that's all. Don't get stuck on it. Some people use italics.

Stephan, you're simply invalidating everything, one thing after another. You invalidate the UDHR---as "a piece of paper"' that "doesn't matter'" You invalidate the organization that created it as a response in the wake of the attempted world domination by Germany in WW2, the U.N.

You simply invalidate the 'UDHR continually with semantics.

You continually simply qualifyi everything.. Someone says "There's a dog" you say what do you mean by dog? Qualitfy it, qualify it, qualify it. What kind of dog? In what circumstances is it a dog? etc.

You take everything literally.

You create complexities that amount to no solutions.

Why do I feel there is some specific current world issue you're personally involved with that doesn't like human rights? You seem to be simply complaining. You do know that if someone can't do anything about something at least they can complain about it.

Anyone is perfectly free to create something better than the UDHR. Anyone can criticize anything, simply by the viewpoint one takes. So, if you think you can come up with something better, that is more practical or workable, or just simply inestimably BETTER because of your greater intelligence then please do so. Then you need to get it agreed with and implemented just like anything else by anyone else.
So time to put your money where your mouth is.

Btw, that's false that the UN "claims to speak for the entire world, including all of those who fail to apply it.". What the UN is a collection of nations who are part of it. What the UDHR is a document with a purpose, that is agreed upon by many individuals across the planet almost one for one when they read it. You could keep the creator of the UDHR a secret and people would still agree with the UDHR for the most part. Unless their religious beliefs do not include human rights for all, or are undemocratic, or wish to be slavemasters.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday August 6, 2012, 10:56 am
Hi Kenneth,

I don't mean to invalidate the UDHR. As an aspiration, I believe it to be a fine guiding document, but it is not a matter of law to be enforced, nor is it an entity separate from its violators.

I don't create the complexities. They arise naturally when we try to go from setting goals to meeting them. "Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized." is a fine statement, but it's pretty obviously easier said than done. I want it done, so I look at the complexities of implementation.

These complexities generally do have known and well-established solutions, some of which have been in place for centuries, though they have lately been ignored. For example, the system of reprisals following violations of the Geneva Conventions establishes what it takes to forfeit certain protections as a guide to the community that seeks those protections. At the same time, it establishes what it takes not to forfeit those protections, establishing restrictions on the behaviour of those communities' enemies which may be found reasonable and practical by entities which care about such things. There are other examples as well, regarding issues of international trade, aspects of the "welfare state" and how to avoid its unintended consequences, and other issues. Some of these have been agreed to for centuries. Still, I am putting my money where my mouth is to some degree. I have gotten involved, a bit, in politics back home, doing what I can to help a minor party, so that a major party can co-opt its ideas and do some good in this regard.

I am actually personally involved in a few situations where people have claimed certain rights unconditionally after abusing them or rendering it impractical to grant them while protecting the rights of others. As a result of this, for example, recent changes to access to public services, officially a matter of protecting certain people's rights, may have rendered it dangerous for me to go home. (I may have just lost access to health-services due to language-related issues because while I speak French, I do not believe that I speak it well enough to address issues of health-care.)

When I commented about the UN claiming to speak for the entire world, which it really does, I was explaining why I do not see the something being "the UDHR's fault" as being terribly different from it being the fault of its violators: Normally when I think of something being an initiative's fault, whether that initiative is a matter of human rights or an attempt to change the music at a party, I think of whether it is the fault of the initiative's formal supporters. As the whole world officially stands behind the UDHR, any violations of it by people in the world are acts of its formal (even if not effective) supporters.

Vlasta M (7)
Tuesday August 7, 2012, 5:15 am
Islam is a supremacist ideology similar to Nazi supremacist ideology, with its delusional Jew hatred,m which had infected most of the Muslims around the world. How can anybody "negotiate" with somebody who had murder in their heart and wants to behead you just because you are a Jew or a Christian?! Gaza was an experiment done by Ariel Sharon to see how Arabs self-govern if left on their own. We saw results. When Hamas ( a terrorist organization, an off-shoot of Muslim Brotherhood), was :"elected" in supposedly "free" election, they first killed their Fatah opponents and then started sending suicide/homicide bombers and rockets to Israeli towns and villages.

How would any of you like to have to run to a shelter every day because your neighbors are shooting rockets to kill you? Would you empower somebody to live in your neighborhood if their stated goal is to murder you and loot the house which you worked your whole life to make livable? Jews project their noble feelings and ideas onto Muslims, who also project on Jews THEIR ideas and desires. The only difference is that while Jews project their own goodness on those who don't deserve it, the Muslims project their own vile aspiration and deeds and blaming it on Jews. The recent terrorist attack on Egyptian soldiers is another example of Muslims blaming Jews for their own vile deeds. Delusional Jew hatred is a mental illness and having mentally ill people run anything is really crazy. Israel would be nuts to allow those who want to destroy it more power Uri Avneri, Noam Chomsky, J-street Jews are armchair intellectual out of touch with reality. They should go to Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan and Sudan and practice their ideas there...if they survive longer then a week in those countries run by sharia.

Jelica R (144)
Tuesday August 7, 2012, 6:57 pm
Vlasta, zlato, budi originalna. Ovo su rekli mnogi prije tebe, skrolaj malo gore, ima toga...

Jelica R (144)
Tuesday August 7, 2012, 7:07 pm
Stephen, you continue to claim that the right can be "taken away" to support your prior position that the right must be "earned", without giving any valid arguments. "Because I said so" does not prove anything.

I deliberately gave an example in which a right can not be achieved due to technical difficulties, to exclude any human intention. Your opinion that vis maior can be attributed with conscious intent may have some gravity in religious matters, but in a logical debate does not mean anything.

Furthermore, you do not understand the meaning of "inalienable". It is possible that you did not read my comments, or you do not understand the meaning of the text you've read. In both cases, it is futile to continue a conversation with someone who does not respond, but perpetuates his previously rebutted claims.

You failed to bring anything of substance to this discussion. Thus, I assume that there's no point to waste time here.

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday August 7, 2012, 11:04 pm
Hi Jelica,

I think I see the source of misunderstanding here.

My statement was not only that a right could be taken away, as we see regularly in cases of oppression, but that it could be justifiably denied by an authority. I don't just mean "It is possible to get into an accident on the way to vote and be physically unable to cast a ballot on Election Day", a practical impossibility of exercising a right which one still has. I mean "This person can be denied liberty by an authority because he has committed a crime" or "Members of this community may be subject to additional security-procedures because they are statistically significantly likelier to engage in crime." Human intention is a vital part of the denial of rights, the loss of the ability to justifiably demand the ability to exercise of those rights, as opposed to the general denial of the ability to exercise them where it is not necessary.

The vis maior is vital in this discussion because it addresses the denial of rights by a decision-making authorities, rather than directly by practical realities. Prior to your example, practicality entered the issue primarily in terms of whether an authority could justifiably deny individual rights in response to practical realities which it faces. In cases where it was a matter of practicality of exercising the rights, that arose in questions of long-term conditions, like a community's failure to produce an authority which cares about respecting individual rights, not just individual cases of exercise. If a person is unable to exercise a right as a result of a condition, which results from a moral failure by that person or his/her community, so long-term that the inability to exercise it is the norm, can that person really be considered to have that right at all? Does an imprisoned murderer have the right to travel freely, but just lack the means to do so? Do members of a community where assembly, even those advertised as peaceful, cannot be trusted to be so retain the right to assemble, but just lose the ability to do so as authorities break up assemblies?

I repeated the previous claims because you did not actually address them, let alone rebut them. You addressed something related, certainly, but not the claims, arguments, nor even really the issues under discussion themselves. My reasoning goes very far beyond "because I said so". Read my response to Kenneth on August 2nd. Search for "the unconditional granting of rights to one group necessarily implies the denial of rights to another". (In fact, it necessarily implies the denial of rights to all other groups in their interactions with that one.)

I understand the meaning of "inalienable". I just don't believe that rights are, as a rule, anything of the sort. I have read your comments, and they're just wrong, even explicitly contradicted in the text of the UDHR (Article 29, Clause 2) as I pointed out. earlier. If even the UDHR says there must be limits on people's rights, how do you support your position that they are inalienable? All I have seen is a "because I said so" and a reference to a document which, in turn, is also supported only by a "because they said so". I have presented two practical reasons why authorities ought not treat rights as inalienable: First, penalties for the violation of others' rights are all denials of rights, so if authorities treated rights as inalienable, that would make it impossible for them to give those penalties, and that, in turn, would make it impossible for them to protect the rights of others (including themselves). Second, as we do not live in a perfect world, a person or community may render it impractical for authorities to both protect its rights and that of others (again including themselves) simultaneously. Short of disappearing entirely and leaving people to a bloody free-for-all, it is therefore logically impossible for authorities to grant equal inalienable rights to all, and the granting to any one group amounts to the placement of that group above the law. Do you see a flaw in this logic, or will you simply reiterate the rebutted claim that I have not presented valid arguments? Is there any practical or logical reason why rights must be inalienable, or why having them be so would create a better world, rather than just one where the rights of others are thoroughly denied?

Antonia Windham (6)
Wednesday August 8, 2012, 3:14 am
No 'right' is ever absolute all the time for everyone in every circumstance. For example, your right to freedom of speech doesn't exist in my home unless I'm willing to allow the speech, just as my right to full self-expression doesn't exist in your home without your permission.

And rights sometimes conflict. People've generally a right to life. But wave a gun in my face while trying to steal my purse, and your right to life vanishes.

marie C (163)
Wednesday August 8, 2012, 4:06 am
Well said Antonia

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday August 8, 2012, 6:26 am
I think you are taking this post in a certain direction that serves your own point of view away from the subject of this issue.That is why I am quoting from my friend Jelica's comment as a final word to you."You failed to bring anything of substance to this discussion. Thus, I assume that there's no point to waste time here." PERIOD

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday August 8, 2012, 8:38 am
Hi Abdessalam,

I think I will quote my response to Jelica: "Do you see a flaw in this logic, or will you simply reiterate the rebutted claim that I have not presented valid arguments? "

I guess we know the answer.

Perhaps there is not point in wasting time here. PERIOD.

Kit B (276)
Wednesday August 8, 2012, 11:01 am

While Antonia is correct, as far as "rights" as defined in the United States. We all have a right to live reasonably and fairly under the rights granted by the UN and then of course by our own country. In some countries these rights are broader and more well defined. Human rights lose all sense of meaning when only a select few in any country are allowed those rights. Then it becomes nothing more then political farce.

Richard Forer has a right to his opinions and feelings, as do others that have left their opinions. Opinions are like noses we all have them. Simply because a few chose to bang their drum "louder" and more repeatedly than others does not make them any more correct then others.

marie C (163)
Wednesday August 8, 2012, 3:34 pm
Can not send a green star to Kit as I have done so within the last week

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday August 8, 2012, 11:33 pm
Hi Kit :)

Forer certainly has a right to his opinion. However, in his article,he speaks about matters of fact, not only opinion. For example,check the second paragraph of his excerpt:
"For some Jews, support for Israeli policy is unconditional, even if it conflicts with traditional Jewish values. For other Jews, these values are primary and ought to be associated with Israel’s compliance with international law. If the former would make an effort to discover why the latter campaign for Palestinian equality, they would learn that they are making a conscious choice not to remain silent when witnessing one group’s denial of basic human rights to another group. "

Here he totally dismisses all Jews whose support for current Israeli behaviour is not due to unconditional support for Israel, but due a perception that Israel is not, in fact, acting immorally. He falsely attributes thought-processes to positions held by large numbers of people. He may not be deliberately lying, but he is at least mistaken on a matter where, if he had done due diligence in research before publishing his book, he would not have erred. The explanation most charitable to Forer for his behaviour which I can produce is that he fails to realize that his research is done within an echo-chamber which ignores input from anyone who disputes its narratives. That explanation would also explain a lot of other literature on the matter, as well as the posts above by Jelica and Abdessalam, who also seem to learn about this topic within the same wilfully ignorant echo-chamber, where they pretend not to have seen any logical argument opposing their position regarding the nature of human rights.

Of course, in Forer's case, had it been only that one error (upon which the central thrust of his article is based), that could just have been a blip in an otherwise well-researched work by a fine scholar. Shortly after that, he says "If they [any "defender of Israeli policy"] had the decency to do so, most would discover that they have character assassinated the Palestinians and facilitated their misfortune. " Once again, this is not an opinion. It is simply a false statement. I know that I, for one, do not engage in character assassination of Palestinians. Palestinians are, for the most part, fine people. Their biggest problem is in their political culture, where they uphold the values of democracy as advertised without the seeing the need for something a bit uglier and scarier which it needs to function (a fascist support of the democratic system itself or the rules under which it functions, though thankfully at least not a fascist support of any particular policy or ideology).

To be a little less charitable and more realistic, it looks to me like Forer projected his own former lines of logic onto an entire political faction, assuming that everyone who supports Israeli behaviour must think as he used to in order to reach their current political positions. Then he had this published under the guise of a well-researched discussion of a current topic, and that's a mix of false advertising and academically negligent misinformation.

Jelica R (144)
Thursday August 9, 2012, 9:51 pm
Selected citations from Stephen's comments. Welcome to 1984:

Wednesday August 1, 2012, 10:52 pm

"Liberty is earned by obedience to laws ..."

"Right to an impartial trial: ... it must be earned individually by refraining from crimes against the judiciary."

Friday August 3, 2012, 3:29 pm

"When you have a right to do something, that means you are permitted to do it regardless of the approval of others."

My favorite: Sunday August 5, 2012, 10:07 pm

Stephen: "... For example, one loses the right to personal security when one threatens the security of others. ..."

This blood-chilling statement reveals a dreadful worldview - that just an impression of a threat is sufficient to take away not just one's possibility to fulfill a threat, but to actually declare the perceived person a free game. With this stance, and there's a lot of paranoiacs around, we'll get a bloodbath in a split second. More important, nobody will never ever be safe.

My point; if one is a threat to the other, he keeps his right to personal security, but looses possibility to fulfill the threat by limiting some of his rights (free movement etc.). Second point: a threat alone is not sufficient, it has to be at least some preparation for, or an aggressive action against other person to prove that threat is present.

Stephen: "... This may just be a difference of wording: What do you call it when loses the ability to realize a right, ..."

I call it "limitations on a right". For example, everyone has the right to education (article 26.), and the right to work (article 23). Let's say, I want to be a painter, but I've lost eyesight in an accident, so this line of work is off limits in my situation. There are lots of other options, though. I could be a sculptor if I want to stay in visual arts, or move to entirely different field. Important is that my rights to education and work still exist, only my options are limited.

Stephen: " ... even a passive one like that to personal security, ..."

I would not say that personal security is passive; it is a vital base for all human rights.

Stephen: "... through the loss of moral grounds on which to demand that it be respected? "

I don't think that one needs a personal moral ground to demand his human rights to be respected. I don't even think that any human being needs to demand his/her human rights to be respected, ever. Human rights should be respected by default, not by demand.

Moral issues are not uniquely defined across different cultures, or even groups within the same culture, and are generally arbitrary. (Oxford Dictionaries definition: moral; adjective, 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour, 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct; noun, (morals) standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong.)

Further, for something "immoral" to be prosecuted, it has to be implemented in a law " the time when it was committed." (UDHR; Article 11 (2).)

UDHR, Article 11 (1) "Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

I didn't find anything about necessary moral ground needed to demand respect of one's human rights, presumed innocence and fair trial in this case. I did find this:

Article 18.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; ..." and

Article 19.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; ..."

I suppose that those articles also cover moral issues which are not penalized by laws.

Thus, "the loss of moral grounds on which to demand that it (human rights) be respected" has no legal justification. It is grounded in prejudices, a calling for a lynch mob. And yes, even the most disgusting villains have the right on due process and presumed innocence until find guilty. Only then, some of their rights can be limited to protect others' rights. Is this fair to the victims? They get their justice by punishment of the offender. Question should be: is this fair to the accused if court find him/her not guilty? Victims have nothing to gain if an innocent person is punished.

To conclude:

1. Human rights are inalienable and universal, every person has rights under any conditions. Although human rights can be violated, they are not taken away, as I pointed before. Nor are they "earned".

2. One's human rights are limited by equal rights and freedoms of others. This does not imply that they do not exist. UDHR, 29 (2).

3. If implementation of UDHR was easy, it would be already implemented everywhere. Instead of questioning semantics, we should engage in breaking obstacles.

4. Human rights are clearly itemized in UDHR, leaving enough space for every state to regulate implementations and limitations regarding local customs, legal practices and international covenants.

Jelica R (144)
Thursday August 9, 2012, 10:05 pm
Excuse me, Kit. I went off-topic, with too long comment which only a few can find interesting. Sorry.

Stephen Brian (23)
Friday August 10, 2012, 2:15 pm
Hi Jelica,

I could go through your post point by point and demonstrate how silly it is, but there seems to be no point in doing so. you just keep repeating the same things and selectively quoting parts of the UDHR which, if taken out of context, seem to support your point, as though that would somehow make it correct. Your persistent and exclusive argument by reference to a self-declared authority only suggests that you actually have no logical basis for your position. Yes, you tried a genuine reductio ad absurdium with your 1984 reference, but that was a false argument. It's not "Welcome to 1984". It's "Welcome to Rousseau's social contract".

I'm still waiting for you to even try to address the logical arguments which I presented earlier. You started to address one with our acceptance of limitations on rights. However, even there you managed to avoid the question: I did not ask what you about your language for an attribute of a right. I asked you about your language for the status of a person who has, by his own actions or by those of a community of which he is a member, gotten some right completely limited in a long-term way. For example, the right to swing a knife is limited to swinging it far enough from others that nobody could reasonably expect to be hurt. That is a limitation on a right which you still have as long as you follow the rules. After you have been found to habitually stab people and are no longer permitted to touch a knife, what do you call your status of regarding the right to swing a knife? I would say that at that point, you would have lost that right. What would you call it?

Don't worry about getting off-topic: This is actually directly relevant to the article. Forer assumes that Israel's treatment of Palestinians, and the relevant denial of rights, is immoral. I argue that in many cases (though not quite all), Palestinians have forfeited those rights. I also argue that Israel in fact grants Palestinians many rights which they have morally forfeited, and that as a result, on balance, it is ridiculous to call its overall treatment of Palestinians unjustly harsh. The error which you persist in making is precisely the same as one of those upon which Forer's book is based.

Jelica R (144)
Monday August 13, 2012, 7:58 am
Yes, I keep repeating the same things. I found them to be true, and a clearly support my point. What you call "selectively quoting parts" is how I quote. I am not aware of any other way of quoting. I could put my interpretation instead, but it will inevitably be subjective. Or, I could post the full text of UDHR, which is unpractical. There is a link to UDHR for anyone to check it. The whole UDHR supports my stance, anyway.

Before I proceed, will you, please, explain who "self-declared authority" I refer to is. I have no idea that I relay on a non-existing authority. There is no purpose in discussing when crucial basic points are blur.

Nancy C (806)
Monday August 13, 2012, 4:07 pm
Thank you, I'm bookmarking to read article and comments later. What I most appreciate, now and hopefully always, is the fact that we can all have a voice to attempt to get to the heart of the matter. Thanx Kit and all contributors.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday August 13, 2012, 9:58 pm
Hi Jelica,

Again you seem to have missed the point: It's not the selectively quotation that causes problems. It's the removal from context. Articles 29 and 30 are part of the context for everything else in the UDHR and your point only seems to get support from it as long as you totally ignore relevant parts of them as they apply to the parts which you quote.

The "self-declared authority" on matters of justice, in this case, would be the authors of the UDHR and those who idolize it. I, for example, believe it to be a fairly well-considered document as far as these things go, but far from the perfection it would need to be Word of God regarding rights, as you seem to take it. Support from the UDHR does not make something morally right, or even logically consistent, any more than would support from "because I say so". Now, make your point with an explanation of the logical underpinnings, not just out-of-context references to a moral guiding document which, even with full context, has its flaws.

Jelica R (144)
Tuesday August 14, 2012, 2:50 pm
I am aghast by your proclamation of "... the authors of the UDHR and those who idolize it" to be "self-declared authority".

Do you know who Ms. Eleanor Roosevelt who chaired the commission was? Far from being an insignificant little wife, Ms. Roosevelt was a hero on her own. She was appointed to lead a group of 18 international intellectuals partially because of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech (1941.), in which four basic freedoms that could never be legitimately abridged were proclaimed; freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. After the UDHR was adopted by General Assembly, Ms. Roosevelt received a standing ovations.

The UDHR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, developed for almost 30 years, now ratified and acceded to by more than 160 states. Do you think those states are "self-declared authority", too?

What about many human rights organizations, advocates and activists?

Are numerous people around the world also "self-declared authority" regarding their understanding of scope of their human rights? Don't they have their rights codified in laws?

Are all those people bowing to the fake idols... except you?

As I stated before, I am aghast.

I didn't miss the point, it is you who keep twisting the meaning of the UDHR and it's purpose.

Regarding point-by-point explanation -- you claim that rights can be given, earned and taken away. You did not show me anything that would make me daunted in my opinion. I've found in the UDHR explicit formulation that basic human rights are both inherent and inalienable; and only limited to protect equal rights of others. You rejected it as "quoting out of context" to back your point that "Palestinians have forfeited those rights" and Israel's treatment of Palestinians is not immoral. I won't go into moral issue here. Legal aspect will suffice. Israel signed the constitutive covenants of the International Bill of Rights in 1966., ratified it in 1991., thus accepting the legal obligation to respect human rights of every human being, not only of the chosen ones.

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday August 14, 2012, 7:23 pm
Hi Jelica,

Yes, I know who Eleanor Roosevelt was. I am also familiar with the "four freedoms", all of which are regularly abridged throughout most of the world, and for good reason.

Do you really think Freedom of Worship (commonly called "freedom of religion") should be absolute? I should probably point out that for many people, worship of deities is primarily conducted through their "honouring the creations" of the deity or deities, through their everyday conduct, so the two really are equivalent.

Do you really think Freedom of Speech should be absolute? What about advocacy of violent crime against identifiable targets? I'm quite glad that's illegal where I come from.

Absolute Freedom from Want is a joke, and a sick one. Say hello to the modern entitlement-culture and goodbye to even the concept of economics before embracing Freedom from Want.

Freedom from Fear was a goal towards which to strive, but frankly, any realistic attempt to achieve that one would also set the stage for tyranny like the world has never known. As much as I would like to see it, that one has always been ignored, and I don't see any remotely safe way to pursue it.

Even if they had the sort of brilliance to which you seem to ascribe them, that would still not make the UDHR anywhere close to perfect. Are you familiar with the concept of a "science of jurisprudence"? Laws have been under development for thousands of years not because people of the past were evil or crazy and we must correct monstrosities which they wrote into the law. They simply did not know how to achieve the benevolent goals which they sought. Like in the natural sciences, we see their methods, we see how their results differ from the intended ones, and we improve upon them. Even if Eleanor Roosevelt were the ethical and intellectual giant which you claim she was, you and I could still end up being greater authorities on the subject because, to paraphrase Newton, we can stand on her shoulders.

The 160 states you mention hold authority which is certainly more than self-declared. It's just not any sort of moral or intellectual authority. Read my comments above about Additional Protocol 1 to the 4th Geneva Convention. That one has 176 states. the signers may have been moral people, but no moral person would have signed after recognizing its implications. The fact is that the book is not closed in the science of jurisprudence. We all have a lot left to learn so no, even a consensus of hundreds of states, organizations, and activists, means nothing without clear logical arguments directly supporting the matter of consensus. Do you have one of those? I haven't seen it.

I don't pretend to be an authority to whom references can uphold an argument either. If I did, then I would not have bothered offering logical supporting arguments for my position on the matter. I did, and I repeated them together in one post just in case you missed them earlier. If I have not shown you anything that would make you "daunted" in your opinion, then it is because you ignore logic, because that is what I presented earlier.

Going to the legal arguments, there are two major problems: First, what Israel signed included Article 29, paragraph 2 of the UDHR, which permits limitation of rights for the purpose of protecting the rights of others, maintaining order, purposes of morality (left to the signatory's definition) and general welfare (again left to the signatory's definition). Even under the UDHR, if a community has established that if permitted to exercise some right, it will pose a threat to any of those, that right may be denied until relevant conditions change, which may take generations. Palestinian groups have demonstrated repeatedly that they pose a threat to Israeli public order and the rights of Israelis so long as they are given certain rights, and have rendered it impossible for Israel to deny them those rights without doing the same to the rest of the Palestinians in the region so, even under the UDHR, the denial of those rights is permitted. Second, if you insist on ignoring that paragraph which limits the scope of the preamble's "inalienable", taking the rest out of context as you have done so far, then go ahead and demand that every enforcement clause in the UDHR be applied, in full force, against Israel. All zero of them. A declaration without an enforcement-clause, as I noted earlier, holds no legal force. Its signing is only a unilateral statement of intent, not a binding agreement.

Kit B (276)
Tuesday August 14, 2012, 7:46 pm

How sad to be you Stephen, to live surrounded by self perceived thoughts of negativity. In your mind there is no hope and no redeeming value in being human.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Wednesday August 15, 2012, 8:04 am
Well said Kit.You actually summerized/analized in less than two line that haracter.

Jelica R (144)
Wednesday August 15, 2012, 2:15 pm
Stephen, you keep implying I said something I didn't. Where I put "inalienable", you interpret it as "absolute"; my "limitation of rights" is "no rights" for you...

Your wish that I logically analyze your claims won't happen. You see, when you start with a false premise, logical process will lead you to a false conclusion. As far as I can tell, you uphold your premise that rights are earned, given and taken away. No logic can correct this error.

The UDHR is a base for international covenants and treaties implemented in the International Bill of Rights. This is ongoing process, still far from perfection. State of human rights today is lagging far below standards set by the UDHR. In any specific case of human rights' violation, culprits and their apologists can list numerous reasons. Well, those reasons are mainly a poorly masked attempts to avoid responsibility. Interesting only to understand one's mental pattern, if you're inclined to it.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday August 16, 2012, 3:03 pm
Hi Kit :)

Being human alone does not offer redeeming value to any of us any more than being a squirrel ought to offer them. Why should it?

Hi Jelica,
The denial of a right is a natural extension of limitation. As I wrote earlier, the long-term total limitation of a right is identical to its denial. The line between a general right with many manifestations and a collection of related rights tends to be drawn arbitrarily, so a limitation of a more general right, forbidding some manifestation of it, is the same as the total denial of a more specific right. For example, Articles 5 and part of 9 of the UDHR can be easily redefined as manifestations of Article 3. Then a "limitation" of Article 3 could involve the total denial of the right described in Article 5.

Do you have some better, systematic, way of defining where a limitation ends and a total denial begins in terms of scale of limitation (rather than duration)? Do you have some explanation as to why short-term limitation should be permitted, but not long-term (if the condition under which the limitation applies lasts for the long-term)? If not, then "no right" as you say I put it, is the same as "limitation of rights" as you put it. To call rights "inalienable", such that they cannot be lost, then means exactly the same as calling them "absolute", such that they cannot be limited.

I do not begin with that premise. Perhaps you are used to circular logic, but don't try projecting that. My logical arguments begin with the nature of law-enforcement, the non-omnipotence of the state (and resulting issues of practicality), and the role of law in the protection of rights. They end with the position that rights are earned. Do you have a problem with the idea that laws are enforced by the conditional denial of rights? Do you have a problem with the

I'll deal with the rest of your post later.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday August 16, 2012, 6:12 pm
Hi again Jelica,

There is something more wrong with your post: Your logical inconsistency implies a much larger problem. Unless you have some real logically consistent distinction between the denial and limitation of rights that you just haven't mentioned, it looks to me like you define them case-by-case. It's "limitation" when you like it, and "denial" when you don't. Unless you have some logical basis, I will have to conclude that the morality of a restriction, as far as you are concerned, seems to depend upon which side you have taken on whatever issue, rather than determine it.

There is another forum where the question keeps getting raised, "Do liberals actually follow a moral paradigm, or do they just have a system of rationalizations of whatever positions make them feel good today?" I regularly argue that liberals have a sense of morality and follow it, rather than a series of self-deceptions to make them feel good about whatever cause is in style any given day. You're not making it easy.

Jelica R (144)
Saturday August 18, 2012, 7:45 pm
Hello! Didn't I say that morality is mostly subjective? I've deliberately avoided all moral and practical issues to focus exclusively on text of the UDHR. Yet, you managed to conclude that my "...logical inconsistency..." "...seems to depend upon which side you have taken on whatever issue, rather than determine it.", because I "...just haven't mentioned..." "...some real logically consistent distinction between the denial and limitation of rights...".

I haven't mention "...some real logically consistent distinction between the denial and limitation of rights..." because I persist that RIGHTS CAN NOT BE DENIED. Rights can be violated or limited to accommodate the equal rights of other persons. In a case of limitation of one's rights, those rights are limited to ALL persons, not just to a few selected. As a rule "Do not do onto others that which you would not have them do onto you." Being a hardcore individualist, when I do "onto others that which I would have them do onto me" I will still politely ask for permission. Just to stay on the safe side.

Let's define:
a) limitation of rights = limitations imposed for all;
b) denial of rights = violation of rights.


Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 8:09 am
Hi Jelica,

First, morality is not exactly subjective, though ethics depend upon perceptions of what the moral course of action is and may vary from person to person. Whatever. Regardless of whether or not it is subjective, you still presumably have some sense of it, subjective or objective. One assumes that this determines which side you take on issues ... until one reads your posts.

I know that you persistently say that rights cannot be denied without drawing a logical distinction between their denial and limitation. That's part of the problem: If there is no distinction and they cannot be ldenied, then they cannot be limited either.

Limitations are imposed for all, but the normal mechanism of their enforcement is that rights be denied in the future to those who have gone beyond the limits. For example, as I noted earlier, it is a limitation on all identifiable groups which demands that they conduct themselves, as communities, in such a manner that normal law-enforcement is practical while they retain all rights which are generally granted. Once a community goes beyond this limit, its rights get denied. There is nothing systematically discriminatory in that system, but the asymmetry in behaviour of different communities leads to a corresponding asymmetric granting of rights. Thus limitations imposed for specific groups arise from limitations imposed for all. If those limitations involve the total denial of some identifiable right, then that right has been denied.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 8:10 am
Hi again Jelica,

Here's the problem with your definition: You simply define yourself to be correct and work from there. Denial of rights is not necessarily a violation of them.

Kit B (276)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 8:57 am

Denial of human rights is most certainly a direct violation of human rights.

I will list just a few: (though anyone could find many transgressions of the denial or violation of human rights)

Documents asserting individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the US Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today’s human rights documents.

In April 1945, delegates from fifty countries met in San Francisco full of optimism and hope. The goal of the United Nations Conference on International Organization was to fashion an international body to promote peace and prevent future wars. The ideals of the organization were stated in the preamble to its proposed charter: “We the peoples of the United Nations are determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”

The Charter of the new United Nations organization went into effect on October 24, 1945, a date that is celebrated each year as United Nations Day.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

By 1948, the United Nations’ new Human Rights Commission had captured the world’s attention. Under the dynamic chairmanship of Eleanor Roosevelt—President Franklin Roosevelt’s widow, a human rights champion in her own right and the United States delegate to the UN—the Commission set out to draft the document that became the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Roosevelt, credited with its inspiration, referred to the Declaration as the international Magna Carta for all mankind. It was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948.

Whether or not one makes the personal choice to recognize the human rights of each human being is a personal choice. I can not force any one to acknowledge any form of human or even legal right. Nor will I justify the act or thought process that leads any one to justify the denial and thereby, violation of the human rights of each human.

In its preamble and in Article 1, the Declaration unequivocally proclaims the inherent rights of all human beings: “Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people...All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

The Member States of the United Nations pledged to work together to promote the thirty Articles of human rights that, for the first time in history, had been assembled and codified into a single document. In consequence, many of these rights, in various forms, are today part of the constitutional laws of democratic nations.

denial - refusal to recognize or acknowledge; a disowning or disavowal

violation - a breach, infringement, or transgression, as of a law, rule, promise

Whether or not one makes the personal choice to recognize the human rights of each human being is a personal choice. I can not force any one to acknowledge any form of human or even legal rights. Nor will I justify the act or thought process that leads any one to justify the denial and thereby, violation of the human rights of each human.

There is no need to post again the list human rights adopted by the United Nations, nor its' simple reasoning to attempt to find peace for all countries.


Kit B (276)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 9:01 am

It is just too difficult to properly edit in these small boxes so I apologize for the repetition of my own statement.

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday August 19, 2012, 5:01 pm
Hi Kit :)

Violation of human rights by a state normally takes the form of their denial. However, the denial of rights is not necessarily violation. I haven't checked the cases you cited, but, given your history regarding accuracy, I am fairly confident that they are genuine cases of violation. However, it is also entirely possible for a state to completely and effectively permanently refuse to recognize a right without infringing upon the system of rights (or law). Therefore a right can be denied without a person's rights being violated. This is simply because the system by which rights are granted includes the possibility, in cases of abuse of those rights to deny others' rights, in cases where a person or group is responsible for conditions where it is impossible to grant it rights while protecting those of others, or in cases where it is not practical to grant some rights, of a right being denied. I know Jelica insists that this is a "limitation" and not a "denial", but so far I have seen no logical distinction between the two for reasons which I stated in an earlier post. (The "complete" denial of a right is indistinguishable from partial limitation of a broader right of which the right in question is can be considered a manifestation. The "effectively permanent" part arises because the conditions under which the right must be denied can outlive the person whose rights are being denied, especially when the right is forfeited by one's community on behalf of its members.)

Jelica R (144)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 4:58 pm
Off topic; I tried to open this post for a week, and today it finally opened. So, I will post a brief answer, hoping that page won't close out of a blue while I type. I am not sure that I would be able to return to this page again, therefore I conclude my part of the UDHR discussion here.

Stephen, you are attributing human rights to groups. The UDHR covers personal rights, which groups might enjoy only as a derivative of individual rights and are therefore subordinate to individual rights.

Read the UDHR and try to find where rights are designated to communities.

Also, you were referring to denial of some rights for groups of persons. Collective punishment is strictly forbidden under the Geneva Convention and some other international treaties.

I didn't, as you put, "... draw a logical distinction between their denial and limitation... (of rights)". How many times do I have to repeat? I specifically said in almost every comment I made here that basic human rights, as itemized by the UDHR, are inherent and universal to all human beings; and that denial of rights is VIOLATION. You created this distinction in support of your theory of "earned, granted and denied" rights. You also insist that long-term limitation of a right is their denial, as if any limitation of a specific right is total elimination of that right. By its very nature, any limitation is gradual; like drive speed limit on various roads, which depends of zone, traffic density, road and weather conditions, and any other factor which might be significant for public safety.

You created confusion by switching between the UDHR and binding laws which prescribe practical implementation and limits of some rights. I am discussing the UDHR only, which I have said before, but let it be repeated here. To go into details of some law is frivolous if we don't state about which specific law we are talking.

The rights and duties of citizens and the authorities are the matter of philosophical debates since before Plato, and I have no desire to get into this subject, either.

"Here's the problem with your definition: You simply define yourself to be correct and work from there." No, Stephen, it is not me who is correct. Blame the UDHR, which I've read several times, in 2 different languages to be sure I've got it right. Basic human rights, as itemized by the UDHR, are inherent and inalienable. There is not a word about earning a right, granting a right, or revoking a right. There is not a single one "earn grant, revoke a right" provision.

Jelica R (144)
Saturday August 25, 2012, 5:47 pm
Still here. OK, that speed limit example is not good in this matter. Let's take a right to free movement (Article 13.(1): Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.)

Example: I want to live in my neighbor's house. There are only 2 ways I can do this legally: my neighbor invites me to live there, or he sells/rents his house to me. Does that mean that my right to free movement is denied? Not at all, I can still find lots of other available houses whose owners are willing to meet my freedom of movement and sell/rent me their house. My right to move to my neighbor's house is limited and, reciprocally, so is his right to move to my house. This principle is specifically noted in the UDHR under Article 12. (No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.).

In this example, as Stephen interprets it, I would have my right of free movement "long-term limited, thus denied". Rubbish! Both me and my neighbor (and every human being) have limited the scope of a right to protect this individual right; our equality in dignity and rights (Article 1.) and our right to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3.); as stated in Article 29.(2): "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday August 26, 2012, 2:16 pm
Hi Jelica,

I am not attributing rights to groups. I am attributing to communities the ability to forfeit rights of their members.

You missed the point again: If you hold that their denial is a violation, but limitation is not, then you must draw some distinction between the two. Yes, I understand that you deem one to be a violation and the other not, but that leaves your line of logic totally circular in any given case: "It's a denial of rights so it's a violation, and it's a denial rather than just a limitation because ... it's a violation." That doesn't fly.

I actually didn't create any distinction between denial and limitation of rights. I usually define a limitation as the condition under which a right may be granted or, equivalently, the condition under which it may be denied. You insisted on using it as a condition wherein a person's rights have been reduced, and I have asked you repeatedly to distinguish between appropriate cases of this and inappropriate violations. I'm still waiting for that answer.

What I have been discussing here, consistently, is the nature of rights. You claim to stick to parts of the UDHR, but the crux of this discussion is in vital aspects which the UDHR does not even attempt to address, those of law-enforcement and the practicality of maintaining rights ... unless you somehow believe that the "inalienable" part is a matter of practical implementation. The rights and duties of citizens and the state of central here: A right is earned by fulfillment of one's duty to society and forfeit by a failure to fulfill it. Your refusal to get into that, nor even look at arguments stemming from it on this thread, appears to be the reason why you have maintained your absurd position.

In the example you gave, your right to move into your neighbour's house is limited by your neighbour's consent. When your neighbour refuses to grant that consent, then it is denied. The "long-term" and "total" aspects of the loss of a right are actually independent, as I have stated earlier. The "total" aspect arises from the fact that "rights" include manifestations of other rights as I described earlier. For example, your "right to move to my [your] neighbor's house" is a manifestation of your "right of free movement". A limitation on your right of free movement would, in this case, be exactly equivalent to the total denial of a "right to move to my [your] neighbor's house", whether long-term or short-term. The reason I concentrated on long-term total denial of rights is because that applies to the issue of the article and because if the legitimacy of that is established, then the legitimacy of short-term total denial of rights is as well. (I opted not to "move goalposts".)

Now consider this: What happens if, regardless of your neighbour's lack of consent and relevant law, you decide to trespass and live there anyways? How does the law appropriately respond to this? What happens if you establish a pattern of this behaviour, demonstrating that as long as you possess sufficient freedom of movement, you will trespass in this manner? This is where substantial denial of rights usually arises, not just protecting your neighbour, but society in general from your abuse of your freedom of movement. What happens if you come from a community in which such trespass is so common that it is not practical to protect the rights of others (who are entitled to such protection) while maintaining the presumption that members of your community will not abuse your freedom of movement?

Vlasta M (7)
Monday September 17, 2012, 8:41 am
Accusations of politically correct bleeding hearts against Isral is a way to cover up self-ecamination of their anti-semitism and anti-Zionism. When 73% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza desire to annihilate and loot Israel, rather then crating better society, you have to question their right to have another Muslim country, filled with hatred of Jews and Western civilization.

How may terrorist attacks and murders of Americans around the world does it take for politically correct bleeding hearts to understand that Islam is INCOMPATIBLE with the US Constitution and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and MUST REFORM rather than being white washed by political correctness..

If you neighbor openly proclaimed that he wants to murder you and loot your home, would you let him in? That is what Israel is dealing with, when accused of mistreatment of "poor Palestinians" who have hatred in their hearts and murder of their minds.

Abdessalam Diab (145)
Monday September 17, 2012, 11:12 am
Vlasta writes "If you neighbor openly proclaimed that he wants to murder you and loot your home, would you let him in?"
This is exactly what Zionist have done to Palestinians in and before 1948 and are still doing.They didn't only murder them or looted their homes,but also drove them out of their towns,villages,houses,land and property using the Zionist terrorist gangs like Stern and Haganah.Around 400.000 Palestinians were driven away at the creation of the Zionist entity called Israel in 1948.Looting Palestinians land is still going on by stealing the land which Israel doesn't own and give it to Zionist settlers to build settlements.Did you know who is looting what?.
Shame on all those who give a blind eye to the crimes of Zionism in Palestine.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Society & Culture

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.