Slashdot Mirror
In France, Most Comments on Gaza Conflict Yanked From Mainstream News Sites
An anonymous reader writes with
an unpleasant statistic from France, quoting David Corchia, who heads a service employed by large French news organizations to sift through and moderate comments made on their sites. Quoting YNet News:
Corchia says that as an online moderator, generally 25% to 40% of comments are banned. Moderators are assigned with the task of filtering comments in accordance with France's legal system, including those that are racist, anti-Semitic or discriminatory. Regarding the war between the Israelis and Hamas, however, Corchia notes that some 95% of online comments made by French users are removed. "There are three times as many comments than normal, all linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," added Jeremie Mani, head of another moderation company Netino. "We see racist or anti-Semitic messages, very violent, that also take aim at politicians and the media, sometimes by giving journalists' contact details," he added. "This sickening content is peculiar to this conflict. The war in Syria does not trigger these kinds of comments."
So, we have discovered that the whole western world is pretty much the same as any other dictatorship with regards to censorship in sensitive questions. Sure, we can write whatever we want about unimportant stuff, but what good does that make? This is so sad.
Captcha: repress
Maybe, if you could say the word Israel... without being called an anti-semite....
This entire conflict is Evil... it doesn't matter, if one side is Jewish and the other side is Islam...
It has nothing to do with that...
Having said that... the Israeli apartheid state needs a wake up call... because they are doing what the south african's did before them.
And, yes I am going there... and what the Nazis did before that.
They mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... anti-Semitic includes all Semitic people/languages. Antisemitic seems to only include jews.
Won't someone think of the racists?
Also, it doesn't say they don't take down racist comments against Palestinians.
The problem with most of these comments is that they are vile and hate-filled toward not just a country, but an entire religion.
Europeans have laws against hate speech. That's why these comments are being deleted.
Personally, I'd leave these comments in place. It shows the hatred that is being fomented in many Islamic middle eastern countries. We should know what they really think and why.
I think deleting those comments is actually masking a terrible problem.
The big issue is that one group of refugees from an attempted Genocide is creating another group of refugees from their attempted Genocide.
All else is lies.
But refuses to take them into their own countries.
The fact is that this has nothing to do with Israel, but the Jews. The Koran and the hadiths brim over with hatred for the jews. The origins go back to the founder himself - He Who Must Not Be Drawn - when the Jews of Arabia rejected him. Until then he was praying in the direction of Jerusalem, and then flipped over to Mecca.
Presuming someone is a Muslin or an "ignorant atheist" doesn't sound ignorant or perhaps discriminatory? Just asking, I don't want to be your next target.
Here in France we have:
- Massive immigration from Arab countries (1)
- Extremely stupid and obedient journalists (2)
- Very active Jewish lobbies that successfully implanted the equation "criticism of Israel = antisemitism" into the brains of said journalists and politicians.
It's only logical a lot of people support the Palestinians and hate the journalists. It's also expected that journalists will describe these people as antisemitic.
(1) more accurately Maghreb i.e. Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria
(2) they make the US mainstream press look like an example of professionalism, rigor and skepticism towards government propaganda
This war is one that might never end... there's two groups who seem to have equal claim on the same territory, and there's no good way to split it in half or otherwise avoid it... what are we in the USA supposed to do about it:? Doesn't seem like a problem we can solve right now.
The problem is that in terms of mathematical relativity, the fighting in Gaza is not a terribly important ongoing conflict.
There are an *exponentially* larger number of ongoing casualties in Syria. Where is the outrage?
There are more ongoing casualties in Sudan, Pakistan and other non-reported conflicts as well. Where are the street protests?
Selective outrage is inherently indicative of a motivation *other* than humanitarian concern.
Great stats here: http://notquant.com/the-israel...
We must care about civilian casualties. But we must not care more about some casualties over others.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
It *used* to be that the religious issues were just a distraction, but that is no longer the case. Islam is reverting to what it was originally: A fascist political movement aimed at world control, masquerading as a religion. It is utterly impossible to compromise with hard-line Muslims because their very religion rejects the idea of compromise with non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are to be killed or subjugated; that is prescribed directly in Islamic religious writings.
On the Jewish side, there has been a similar move to hard-line positions, though to a less dangerous degree than in Islam. The hard-line Jewish extremists want to take over the whole of "Eretz Yisrael." They are not interested in subjugating the entire world.
Care to explain what was wrong about what he said? Or are you just going to call him anti-Jewish? Mel Gibson style.
This is so true. While it is true that Israel is blocking one part of the border, the other side is being blocked by either Qatar or Egypt. All US allies in the region.
From the Israeli Declaration of Independence:
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries of their dispersion; will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew Prophets; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
From the Hamas charter:
Ye are the best nation that hath been raised up unto mankind: ye command that which is just, and ye forbid that which is unjust, and ye believe in Allah. And if they who have received the scriptures had believed, it had surely been the better for them: there are believers among them, but the greater part of them are transgressors. They shall not hurt you, unless with a slight hurt; and if they fight against you, they shall turn their backs to you, and they shall not be helped. They are smitten with vileness wheresoever they are found; unless they obtain security by entering into a treaty with Allah, and a treaty with men; and they draw on themselves indignation from Allah, and they are afflicted with poverty. This they suffer, because they disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew the prophets unjustly; this, because they were rebellious, and transgressed.
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.
Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.
It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.
Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."
The Islamic Resistance Movement consider itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road. The Movement adds its efforts to the efforts of all those who are active in the Palestinian arena. Arab and Islamic Peoples should augment by further steps on their part; Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews.
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
This sickening content is peculiar to this conflict. The war in Syria does not trigger these kinds of comments.
The war in Syria doesn't involve a nuclear state casually bulldozing civilian houses, complete with civilians inside, all because a handful of pesky terrorists keep lobbing ineffective bombs into empty fields.
Israel's problem really boils down to a matter of proportion. Yes, they have an unenviable situation to deal with; but they have chosen to respond in a way that makes them look like monsters (to the point that even many Jewish Israelis consider their government's behavior nothing short of reprehensible). When you cook ants with a magnifying glass, no one blames the ants, even if one or two do manage to sting you.
As for the FP's hypothetical French forum moderator - You count as part of the problem. When people can freely say things such as what I wrote above, they can contribute to the discussion, sometimes even vent a bit, and move on. When, however, fairly peaceful discussion vanishes under some bullshit pretense of racism - People then feel the need to escalate the impact of their few words making it through to other eyes.
Qatar is quite a ways away from the Levant. I think you meant "Jordan".
And for what it's worth, Israel controls the border between the West Bank and Jordan.
The government of Syria has killed more of its civilians in the past few years than israeli army has killed Arabs and Palestinians in every war and struggle in its entire history of 64 years. Where is the outrage? The Syrian government targets people based on politics but also religion. It uses chemical weapons, it uses fuel air explosives, and wide dispersal shrapnel bombs in civilian neighborhoods without warning. It uses widespread rape against men, women and children as a weapon of government control. It even lay siege to Palestinian refugee camp containing thousands in Syria for weeks intentionally cutting food and medical starving thousands of civilians because they supported the opposition. Where is the outrage? Where are the marches and protestors? Where are the anti-fascists and human rights organizers? Why doesn't anyone bother comment on this?
It's not because the Syria story is under reported. When people express selective extreme outrage about Israel, and ignore far worse there is a word for it, and the word isn't pretty.
By the way, just for the record, Syria is still a member in good standing of the un human rights council and was the first country to speak to condemn israel when the council voted a new commission to condemn israel. Keep that in mind when you think about the farce that is the UN and its pronouncements.
If you look at military spending as a percentage of GDP, Israel spends 1.5x as much as the US. 2% of Israel's population is active military. If you include reservists, that goes up to 9%. Compare this to 0.2% and 0.4%, respectively, for the US.
Israel is a country that is largely lead by war heros from the 60s and 70s and their acolytes. Let's look at the recent PMs of Israel: Netanyahu (former IDF commando), Ehud Barak (former chief of staff of the IDF), Shimon Peres (former defense minister), Ariel Sharon (former IDF general, former minister of defense), Yitzhak Rabin (former chief of staff of the IDF), Yitzhak Shamir (former Mossad agent). The only PM in the past 40 years who didn't have significant connections to the Israeli defense establishment was Ehud Olmert. (He didn't do anything significant beyond the compulsory military service.) If you look at the financial ties between Israeli government officials and major defense companies, things get even more mixed up.
The fact is that ever since the Camp David Accords and the agreement with Sadat, Israel was never again in danger of being wiped off the map. Sure, there were sporadic threats from groups like Hezbollah, but in these conflicts, Israel was always orders of magnitude more powerful than it's opponent. The Israeli government should have begun massively downsizing it's military, but it did not.
When you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. When you have a huge military, every problem begins to look like one that should be solved by force. When you're country is led by dozens of ex-military and next to no one that was, say, ex-foreign ministry, macho man diplomacy becomes the rule. When you have a former commando negotiating prisoner swap with Palestinians rather than a former diplomat, you end up with commandos going in and rearresting the released prisoners. This incident is just once symptom of a larger problem. The Israeli government hasn't just fallen victim to the pressures of the military-industrial complex; it is the military-industrial complex.
" ... We see racist or anti-Semitic messages, very violent ... This sickening content is peculiar to this conflict"
That is because the Muslims are getting very bold in Europe
Proofs below -
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/ima...
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/ima...
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/ima...
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/ima...
And if any of you in Europe think that you are safe, may God have mercy on you !
Whereas the palestinian Hamas terrorism and the various shananigan and threat from the various neighbors of Israel (or at least political show off) is undeniable, Israel policy is not that innocent either : the colonizing settlement do certainly poison further the situation.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
... then what's the problem?
"Moderators are assigned with the task of filtering comments in accordance with France's legal system ..."
The only concern on the table is whether the moderators are, indeed, complying with the law.
All the other stuff is just irrelevant noise.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Bit of history in the "creation" of the Palestinians (as they stand today): When Israel was formed and the Arab nations that surrounded it declared war, the Arab nations told the Arabs who lived in Israel: "Flee from Israel to us. When we drive Israel into the sea, we'll give you your land back."
Many fled, but not all. When Israel won the war, the Arabs who fled found they were blocked from returning. (Would you allow someone back if they supported the people who just tried to destroy you?) The Arabs who stayed, though, kept their land and businesses. Today, they (or their descendants) own businesses, are full citizens, and one even is on the Israeli Supreme Court.
The idea that Israel kicked the Palestinians out is completely false.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Did anyone actually expect to read a single interesting comment on this article?
As opposed to hundreds of angry people pushing either one political view or the other?
Bullshit.
Jordan is majority Palestinian. Lebanon has a huge Palestinian minority.
They don't give the refugees citizenship, but the refugees generally aren't asking for citizenship. They're asking to be allowed to go home. And home is currently controlled by Israel (mostly in Israel proper, but the rest of the former mandate created a lot of foreign refugees, too).
But refuses to take them BACK into their own countries.
FTFY
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
@Lowly AC: The "palestinians" are various personae-non-grata deported to the Israel area, from the various local arab governments. Dual benefits (1) an easy way to be rid of those local troublemaking dbags we're so sick of (2) giving the Israelis the headache of these now somehow "indigenous" troublemaking local dbags.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Theocratic is not fascist. The Muslim groups were originally theocratic, and that is what they appear to be headed towards again.
Just because it's vile and evil doesn't make it Fascist. Fascism involves commercial entities (usually corporations) having power over the government, and the government having power over the commercial entities, in such a tight bond that both do wha tthe other desires. In the original fascism this was the unification on Italy, and the creation of a powerful military so that nobody will laugh at it. (It did unify Italy, but the military wasn't all that great.)
Note that Fascism is not at all the same as nazism. I'm not even totally convinced that nazism is even a form that fascism can take. They did have certail similarities in methods of operation, but many of those are used by most governments, which makes them useless for categorization. Nazism seems to have been a combination of dictorship and theocracy, though I can't really say I understand it well enough to be sure.
Also not that just because I'm saying the Muslims are drifting towards theocracy doesn't mean I think they're heading towards nazism. I don't. What they *are* headed towards might, however, not be any more pleasant. They seem to be headed towards a "reestablishment of the Caliphate" whatever that means, but it seems to include a divine dictator at the center, with his sucessor chosen by a violent internal power struggle whose details are hidden. This seems calculated to pick the slimiest schemer as the successor. The one benefit is that he'll almost certainly be intelligent.
OTOH, just because they are currently drifting in a particular direction doesn't mean that they'll ever get there.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
From mainstream news, you would think this is a conflict Muslim Palestinians and Jewish Israelis. While that element exists, there are a lot of Israelis who do not support the actions of their government. There are massive demonstrations in Israel right now and a very strong contingent of JATO (Jews Against The Occuppation)
http://countercurrentnews.com/...
In my opinion this is a conflict between pro-peace people and pro-war people.
From the Hamas charter:
Well, how about your Torah:
1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
Bit of history in the "creation" of the Palestinians (as they stand today): When Israel was formed and the Arab nations that surrounded it declared war, the Arab nations told the Arabs who lived in Israel: "Flee from Israel to us. When we drive Israel into the sea, we'll give you your land back."
Many fled, but not all.
Citation needed. From a reliable source. Not a "pro-Israeli" website.
The censorship happens all around western world. I'm censored in many spanish news sites that happen to allow comments just on banal headlines, and just sometimes on important matters. They don't allow comments on news regarding inmigration or islam. News site don't think it is politically correct to allow comments on this. But they keep publishing we live in a democracy. THere is no democracy, but total manipulation. People is fed up with inmigration problems but no one is able to speak this loud. Censorship is today as worse as hollywood movies portrait it in Nazi Germany
One problem is that while the french government (and therefore the mainstream medias) supports Israel, most french people consider palestinian people as the victims.
Actually, the reason people are quiet about Syria is that it's a Taqfeer war i.e. a war b/w different groups of Muslims. That's why there hasn't been an unanimous opinion one side or the other. The US vs Russia/China angle is an extension of that conflict.
Assad's Syria, like Saddam's Iraq, is a unique case in the Arab empire. Unlike the Arab Spring revolutions in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt which happened in homogeneous countries where the dictator belonged to the same ethnic group as the majority, it was different in the 2 Baath countries. In Iraq, Saddam led a Sunni minority regime that suppressed the majority Shias, while in Syria, Hafez Assad, the current president's predecessor & father, led an Alawite minority regime that suppressed the majority Sunnis. In both cases, it was important to the survival of the minority groups that the regime stay in power, since in Muslim countries, the idea of 'live & let live' is non existent when it comes to rival Muslim groups. If the Sunnis in Iraq didn't try killing Shia, they'd be persecuted themselves. Same goes w/ the Alawites & Shias in Syria. Incidentally, this also answers why Saddam & Assad, despite both being Baathist dictators & pro-Soviet rulers, hated each other and supported each other's enemies.
So unlike in Tunisia, Libya & Egypt, where we now have as close to democratic regimes as can be expected in an Arab, if not Muslim, country, in Syria, it hasn't happened. Why? B'cos the various ethnic groups that owe their protection to the regime - Alawites, Shia, Druze, Kurds, et al would stand to get massacred if the Assads lose power. In case one doubts it, one can look at the massacres that happened in Hama and Aleppo when the Sunni rebels had taken control of those cities. So those groups are not unjustified, from a survival standpoint, in supporting the Baathist regime.
The geopolitical extensions of the conflict are locally along sectarian lines, and more globally along the lines of their respective supporters. The Baathist regime had been a supporter of Iran from 1979, since this regime was Alawite & that one Shia. In the 80s, Syria was a strategic country in the region, bordering Lebanon, and thereby being Iran's connection to Hizbullah. After the fall of the Soviets, the equation turned, w/ Syria becoming a client state of Iran. Once the US replaced Saddam w/ a 'democracy', it ended up giving a gift to Iran, since democracy in Islamic countries means a majority dictatorship, which is there in both Iraq & Afghanistan. As a result, there is now the Shiite crescent of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hizbullah in Lebanon. This is what the Saudi led Sunni coalition, which includes KSA, Qatar, Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria, Egypt & Jordan, is trying to disrupt.
Now, behind these countries are their respective allies. Russia, which has fought Sunni insurgencies in Chechnya and afaik even Tatarstan, and has watched Serbia come under another Sunni onslaught from Bosnia and Kosovo, has thrown its lot w/ Iran. Also, both Iran and Syria are the largest customers of both Russian and Chinese weaponry, left over from the Cold War. The fall of Libya disrupted Russian arms sales a great deal, which is why they're fighting tooth & nail to make sure that nothing happens to Assad.
The West is allowing the Saudis to lead them here, just like they let Egypt lead them in support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. While it's stupid, there is a silver lining to all of this.
The silver lining is that Jihadis, who'd normally be causing mayhem elsewhere, are converging on Syria to back up their respective sides. This is a welcome development. Hizbullah has been quiet on the Israeli front, not just b'cos of the pummeling they took last time, but also b'cos if the Syrian regime falls, a Sunni regime in Syria would target Lebanon, which Syria regards as a part of itself, and that would mean the end of Hizbullah. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which is
It is self evident that killing people will make enemies of their families. [...] If you came and killed my child I would not report those trying to kill you to the police or army. I would do everything I could to support those trying to kill you. As I said above, it is self evident that the Palistinian survivors of this will do everything they can to kill Israelis in the future.
You can not be an enemy if you are dead. This idea that you would get revenge is silly.
This conflict will end because one side will die. The sooner this happens, the lower the body count. (the number of dead can greatly exceed the total population if the conflict drags on for generations)
The Koran and the hadiths brim over with hatred for the jews.
Let's see what the Bible has to say about the Jews:
Looks like early Christians weren't to happy about Jews that refused to convert either. Does this mean that the US, France, and UK hate Israel? No, in fact, they supply Israel's armies with state-of-the-art weaponry. While I won't deny that antisemitism is rampant in Egypt, Syria, and other Arab countries, it is not because of what is stated in the Koran. It is because many Muslims were booted from their lands by Jewish settlers in the first half of the 20th century. This doesn't mean that invading the country in 1948 was an appropriate response, or that shooting rockets into Israel now is an appropriate response, but suggesting that the conflict is a result of Islam is xenophobic. And false.
Right, so according to you the years 637 AD - 1948 AD are a myth and Muslims never lived in modern day Israel. Haifa, Beersheba, etc. just conveniently popped out of the ground when Israeli settlers began streaming in. You can live in your fantasy world if you like, but please stop spewing this mentally deficient rhetoric all over this site.
Isn't anti-Semitism a subset of racism? Why not just say "We see racist messages" or "We see anti-Semitic messages"?
Getting the world to equate being anti-Israeli with being anti-semitic was a central strategy in the new Israeli state's international policy - one of Israel's first ambassadors (I *think* Israel's first ambassador to the US, Eliyahu Eilat) openly admitted as much when interviewed on the BBC by Michael Parkinson, saying that he regarded his success in that field as the crowning achievement of his career. And in the US in particular, that's hardly exactly been weakened by the degree to which the influential Jewish lobby has consistently demanded that successive governments of every political persuasion back Israel to the hilt, whatever its excesses and however odious its behaviour.
However. There's a biblical saying about reaping what you sow (New Testament, mind - so not necessarily familiar to Israeli politicians, which is perhaps a pity). Put otherwise: equations work two ways. If you want the unthinking, great unwashed to think of "Israel" and "Jewish" as the same thing when the consequences suit you... ...good luck with trying to convince them that's not the case when you'd rather they understood the distinction.
The hard-line Jewish extremists want to take over the whole of "Eretz Yisrael." They are not interested in subjugating the entire world.
They may or may not be interested in "subjugating the entire world", but they do appear to have managed to influence governments in many places. Such that it can be very important that a politican support "Israel". Sometimes even more so than the US, Germany, UK, Australia, etc.
How is this not a form of "subjugation"?
Do you really not understand the difference between a foundational legal text for an armed movement and a religious text for a faith?
Here, let's spell it out for you: a foundational legal text sets the policy of the armed movement. In the case of Hamas, the policy is to work towards the destruction of Israel. A religious text does not set the policy of the country or countries of the faith's adherents. So the State of Israel does not have a policy of destruction of Amalek even though it's in the Torah. Not least because there aren't any Amalekites.
Do you also have trouble distinguishing your arse from your elbow?
Do you also have trouble distinguishing your arse from your elbow?
I was going to respond to you seriously until I saw that.
For the benefit of any intelligent people who might be reading this, the "Hamas Charter" is one of Frank Luntz' talking points for the right-wing "The Israel Project," where he tells pro-settler supporters to keep repeating it, because it tested well in the polls.
In fact, Hamas had other documents that set those statements aside, and Ahmed Jabari, head of Hamas's military wing, who negotiated the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, was communicating with Israelis and preparing a long-term peace agreement with Israel in 2012, when the Israelis assassinated him with a missile attack on a car he was riding in.
If there's one thing Netanyahu doesn't want, it's peace with Hamas. Then he'd have to deal with the settlements. Now (not sometime in the vague future, as Luntz tells him to do).
There's a long list of Palestinians who took risks for peace and were killed by Israel.
The context of that Titus quote is:
10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”[c] 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
From my reading, it sounds like those being talked about are Christians who are paying too much attention to what the Jews say, not the Jews themselves. You might recall that most all the books of the New Testament after Acts were letters written to certain congregations telling them to "hold firm in the faith" and advising them what their stumbling blocks were.
And then the Revelation passage is about those who falsely claim to be Jews, not True Scotsmen^WJews.
Not that I'm saying anything about current politics (in this post) but Jesus' attitude towards nonbelievers was usually one of pity and desire to convert. He did complain about obstinate ("stiff-necked") people, too, though.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Review, Refine. Rewrite Quran/Torah.
And amend https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... to encourage inter-faith marriages.
Casteism
Wait a minute. You have in-depth context and knowledge, and yet you deliberately choose to quote from the Torah as though it's an equivalent document to the Hamas charter? Yet you go on to talk about other people's propaganda? That is not exactly a principled stand now, is it? It makes you seem fairly duplicitous.
There are indeed some elements within Hamas that are pragmatic, and some of them have been killed for their pragmatism (and not only by the Israelis, either). But they are not exactly a dominant force within the movement, which overall is still ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel.
I really cannot for the life of me understand why someone who clearly knows about this conflict would quote Torah as an equivalent to the Hamas charter. It makes no sense. You were obviously going to be called on it.
On a number of sites (especially thelocal.se) in Sweden, the recent denial of appeal for WikiLeaks' Julian Assange generated an extraordinary amount of negative response to the Swedish courts and government, yet checking back a short time later, I would find these comments all deleted, and this was the case repeatedly.
For any still clueless about this situation, please read:
http://www.nnnn.se/nordic/assa...
Recently, a legal action by Wikileaks was invoked against the FBI in Denmark, which is illegally conducting activities there without the consent of the Danish government --- which is against the law.
Because it is as accurate to claim that the Hamas Charter represents Hamas' unchangeable views as it is to claim 1 Samuel represents Jewish unchangeable views.
The Republican pollster Frank Luntz in his The Israel Project memo popularized the idea of promoting the Hamas Charter as the literal beliefs of Hamas today. If you read his memo you'll see he says that you shouldn't say things because they're true, but because they'll convince people. One of Luntz' students became an Israeli citizen and is now Israel's ambassador to the US.
Hamas has made repeated peace offers to Israel, and they've been repeatedly rejected. Ahmed Jabari was head of Hamas' military wing, had arranged the Giliad Shalat exchange, and was in charge of keeping the non-Hamas militant movements under control when Hamas was trying to keep a cease-fire with Israel. Jabari was working on a permanent peace agreement with Israel, and had just received the final draft, when the Israelis killed him with an air-to-surface missile in his car. That was no accident. The Israelis didn't want peace, because then they'd have to give up the settlements.
Quoting the Hamas Charter to prove that you can't make peace with Hamas is one of Luntz' strategies to avoid dealing with the facts. Luntz tells his clients that they should lie, and they do.
That is a spectacularly half-baked justification. The Hamas charter is not some remote document. It was written about 30 years ago. It is hardly at odds with Hamas thinking.
Everything about this situation is contested. Your picture of Ahmed Jabari as a peacemaker belies what is, to put it mildly, a more complex picture. He orchestrated not only the release of Gilad Shalit, but his capture as well. At the time of his death, there had been a very large escalation in rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel, which is at least as plausible a factor as to his targeting as his role in peacemaking.
The charter remains of importance because it is wildly unlikely to be modified in the foreseeable future, and it won't be modified because it is supported in its current state, and in its current state it calls for the destruction of Israel. Not all of Hamas may be irrevocably committed to the destruction of Israel, but a large part is.
And I for one couldn't give a hairy fuck about Frank Luntz, and am not one of his clients.
Get real. There are not very many people trapped in Gaza compared with the population of Israel and they have very little in the way of resources. That ghetto is no threat and the current episode of shooting fish in a barrel just happens to coincide with an election, just like the last time.
There is no threat to Israel's survival from that quarter and I find it disgusting that you are insulting everyone's intelligence by spewing propaganda along those lines.
Your extreme example of somehow Hamas magically becoming more powerful than Israel, or even remotely comparable, is an utterly ridiculous fantasy.
it is awful to consider that Jewish people in Israel are today doing the same thing to others that they suffered in the not so distant past
Oh, I didn't realize that Israel was systematically exterminating other ethnic groups, by the millions, in gas chambers. Thanks for enlightening me.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I thought you had started keeping your company to those too stupid and racist to see that your eliminationist propaganda falls apart at the merest scrutiny.
Hey, racist fool, you're responding to a post that debunked the propaganda point you're trying to use. Not only were those rockets not fired by Hamas, but Hamas were the ones who arrested those who did.
Hey, racist fool, does that mean that Tel Aviv should be leveled in the same way as Gaza, because of murders committed by squatters in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and everywhere by the IDF? As the occupying power, Israel would be responsible.
Hey, racist fool, by your own reasoning any violence against Jews in the Middle East doesn't count, because far more Jews live in the United States. Which racist, genocidal flag flies over you house, cold fjord?
Report them to the IDF? Are you insane? If you came and killed my child I would not report those trying to kill you to the police or army. I would do everything I could to support those trying to kill you.
That's a very bad analogy. It has led you to the wrong conclusion, as bad analogies often do.
A far better analogy: I live in Bellingham, Washington, and my government, the United States Government, stockpiles rockets in my child's school and starts firing them over the border into residential areas of Vancouver, British Columbia, for no good reason. To try to stop the rocket attacks, Canada launches some airstrikes on Bellingham.
In this situation, I would be completely ashamed of my government, the United States Government, and I would be rooting for the Canadians, because I'm a civilized person.
And then if the airstrikes failed to stop the rocket attacks, and Canadian troops arrived in Bellingham, you bet I'd help them find the jerks launching the rockets.
And if the Canadians dropped leaflets begging civilians to evacuate the school before they bomb the rocket-launching site, I would have even more admiration for the Canadians, because that type of concern for civilians is nearly unprecedented in warfare.
And if American leaders called those evacuation warning leaflets "psychological warfare, and urged people to stay put," my disgust for my own government would multiply.
And if my child was killed because a school administrator obeyed the duplicitous order to stay put, would I suddenly lose my grip on logic and rationality, and lash out at the Canadians? Nope. My anger would be entirely directed at the Americans who instigated this conflict.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.