bleh – what a dull topic.

And yet the president is sending 20K troops to Afganhistan….
isnt that going to be seen in the arab world as a double standard and an incosistency between words and actions?
Rather it may be criticized as the continuation of the Bush policy against the muslim world….

China declared Dalai Lama and his organization “Terrorist”.

Bush and Congress (under pressure) declared Hamas and Hizbullah “Terrorist” organization.

What is the difference?

By the way, what did Hamas do to a single American?

When was the last time Hizbullah harmed a single innocent American?

What did Iran ever do to us, before or after we hit one of their passanger planes with innocent people inside?

Who told USA to declare other countries that are surrounded by foreign soldiers as Terrorists?

Who invented the phrase “three Axis of Evil” (Syria, Iraq, Iran)? What was David Frum’s background and belief and relition? He was a Canadienne, eeeh? What in the world he was doing at the White House?

This is a very important topic. I missed much of it and will listen again.

I come from a non-theistic/agnostic world-view, but I deeply appreciate the sensation of theism and its role in history. I respect the, ‘leap of faith, of believers.

I am fascinated by the spread of religions;

Particularly how and why a sect(s)within a religion can go bad/evil. Contemporaries may be witnessing this on a massive global scale with the spread the evil subset of Muslims.

How do observers balance being, ‘pc,’ with objectively quantifying the values and social dynamics of religious populations?

Most importantly there need to be more popular examples of the, ‘good Muslims,’ those people who share universally accepted ideals.

Frederic C is wrong!!!

There is no spread of bad/evil subset Muslims.
We are told that there is a bad/evil subset of Muslims.

You are uneducated, you are poor, unemployment is 72%, your kids are hungry, you are either under occupation or ruled by a corrupt guy who is a friend of Washington or the Money Guys; what the hell would you do?

A recent documentary on PBS about Jerusalem explains clearly the history of the genesis of the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Unfortunately, many believe that Western Civilization as we know it is threatened by immigration into the west of Islam and much lower reproduction rates in Jewish and Christian nations. There is in the west a great belief that “have not” nations want what we have, and a great and growing fear in the west that they are getting it.
Fear, suspicion and xenophobic foreign policy have brought us back to the McCarthy era as evidenced by the BushII-Cheney Administration. President Obama augurs optimism that Religious War is oxymoronic. The future of the world must not be determined by fearful strategies and threatening diplomacy. Dialogue must be a central characteristic of the new era of international relations.

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=0861ff3eabea1ceb73e4

as charlie mc noted above.

here r.m. our arab hating internet troll,

who wants to push fear and hated to all arabs.
Yes arabs has extremist, just as the u.s. and all other country’s do, normally a small percentage of the population. e.g. Michael savage,Avigdor Lieberman,Dick chenney.

After the whole show to talk about what we can do to move forward and obama’s chances to reach out to arabs, and moderate ones to bat,

we have someone like r.m. who trys and instill hated, fear.

contrary to what some like there are many arabs/muslim who are good people and live life day to day and who wish to find common grounds with the west but due to a horrible previous u.s. policy its going to be tough.

Lilya look up the names:
Ira Weinstein and David Boim

There is no Israeli occupation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#The_question_of_late_Arab_immigration_to_Palestine

Nebel et al. regard their findings in good agreement with historical evidence that suggest that “Part, or perhaps the majority, of the Muslim Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD… These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistoric times.[203]

yes and let them speak up !!!!

without fear of retaliation .

The double standard is so ironic , the same so called “radicals” who demand that Palestinians take over Israel , deny the right of Cubans to go back and get all their properties taken away by Fidel Castro .

Hi Lilya,

your actually right, under internatinal law east J. is under Occupation, and even if there is no troops in gaza occupation still consist because gazan airspace,sea, and borders are controled i.e. occupation.

fyi frederic

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of people out of or into occupied state’s territory:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. … The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

or

check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_101

but the above is off topic, needed to make the corrections, this thread is for the betterment of u.s. muslim relationships.

By the way, what did Hamas do to a single American?
They didn’t kill a single American, they killed tens to hundreds.

Whereas, Hamas terrorists are responsible for the murders of at least 26 American citizens, including teenagers, children and infants;

Source below.
http://www.house.gov/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Berkley_condemn_Hamas.html
—————-

When was the last time Hizbullah harmed a single innocent American?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

Mike.

Yes, you are right, there is a military,’ occupation,’ by Israel in some areas in the Levant. And there isn’t an occupation. Depending on your point of view.

It’s (almost) beyond imagining but, imagine in the year 2230 c.e. the south-western American states and Texas are annexed by South American/Mexican Superpower made rich by vast new oil reserves and drug money and held for three hundred years.

In 2530 c.e. America has regained her power and you are present at the eve of the vote to authorize military action to return to the borders that we are familiar with now.

How would you vote?

u can also look up the U.S.S. Liberty 1967 where americans were loss as well,

we can focuse on the evils of some or we can focuse on the good of the many.

the latter will benifit both sides, the first will spread diversion and more evil no matter what side your on.

Why can’t we look at the American-Muslim relationships from the “muslims” point of view for a change.

Can we have an Iranian Military Base right outside of Quebeq or Somali fighter jets and bombers right below the border around Laredo? How about Soviet Nukes in Cuba and Chinese Rockets in Haiti?

Beirut Baracks: yes, if you start bombing people from the U.S. Bases in Lebanon (“observing” a civil war), there is a good chance that your Barracks and perhaps your Embassy will suffer an attack.

Hostages in Iran: If you overthrow a democratic government with CIA hocus pocus; of course, you Embassy staff will be under suspicion and may even be taken as hostage for National Security.

Daaaaaa
Please folks, think as if you grew up in Tehran or Gaza or Mogadishu. What right do Americans have over us?

If you push some people around so much (on behalf of your “allies” -shouldn’t be plural), there is a good chance that they may push you back.

There was an excellent show on NHPTV, last night. It was called “Recycle” on Independent Lens. Here’s a synopsis from their website:

“Zarqa is Jordan’s second largest city and birthplace of Abu Musa al Zarqawi, the brutal leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia before being killed by American forces in 2005. Many in town knew al Zarqawi and Zarqa continues to be a source of new recruits to the jihadist cause. There, Abu Amar, an ex-mujahideen struggles to reconcile his faith and reality. But he faces setbacks at every turn as he is forced to collect cardboard in the streets of Zarqa, an occupation barely sustaining his family.

“Abu Amar found himself disillusioned with the chaos Afghanistan was left in during the 80’s and tried to clear this confusion by writing a book on Jihad. However insightful and moderate, he has failed so far to publish his work. In the meantime his attempts to build a normal life in the impoverished town are failing. While the locals share their insights on Al Zarqawi and the current situation in the Middle East, the effects of their constraining environment become clear as Abu Amar has to make a radical decision to save himself from humiliation.”

by Loolwa Khazzoom

Dispelling the Myth of White Colonial Israel

The vicious anti-Israel hostility we witness today can be partially attributed to a cycle of misinformation along these lines: All Jews are white Europeans; therefore, Israel is a white, European, colonizing nation. As such, Israel is a racist, apartheid state, which makes Zionism racism. For this reason, anyone who is against racism must stand against Israel.

Given the destruction that countries such as France and England caused to native populations around the world, activists merely need to hear the phrase “white European” pitted against “indigenous people,” and they are out rushing to the defense of the underdog, colonialist alarms ringing in their ears.

In one stunning example, students at San Francisco State University staged a large pro-Israel event in May 2002 which included speakers from JIMENA (Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa). The speakers addressed the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries–many of whom were absorbed by Israel. At the same time as the pro-Israel rally was underway, counter-demonstrators screamed from the sidelines, “go back to Europe,” a knee-jerk reaction deeply embedded in the anti-Israel rhetoric and hopelessly removed from much of Israel’s reality.

Whereas campus human rights groups have offered detailed coverage of the struggles of Arab refugees from Palestine, they have made barely a peep about the plight of Jewish refugees from Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, and other countries throughout the region. How many people are aware that the ancestors of these refugees lived on those lands since 586 BCE, when the Babylonian Empire destroyed ancient Israel and took the Israelites as captives to the land of present-day Iraq? Or that these Sephardic refugees and their children have comprised the majority of Israel’s Jewish population for decades? This information is pivotal to understanding the historical context of the current Arab-Israel conflict, and to having wisdom about how to solve it.

Palestinian Link to Jewish Refugees

In fact, Palestinian leaders had a significant hand in the terrorizing and expulsion of Jews throughout Arab lands, leading to the flight of at least 850,000 Jewish refugees.

In 1941, for example, numerous Palestinian leaders–most notably Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the mufti of Jerusalem–arrived in Berlin, as guests of the Nazi regime. Al-Husayni asked Hitler to apply the same methods against the Jews of the Middle East then being directed against Europe’s Jews. The mufti drafted a political declaration, which he presented to the Axis allies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, in the hope they would adopt it. In paragraph seven, he would have Germany and Italy “recognize the rights of Palestine and other Arab countries [to] resolve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and the other Arab countries in the same way as the problem was resolved in the Axis Countries.” That is, through genocide.

Furthermore, in a meeting between Hitler and al-Husayni on Nov. 28, 1941, Hitler promised the Palestinian leader that the

Fuhrer would offer the Arab world his personal assurance that the hour of liberation had struck. Thereafter, Germany’s only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands.

With these assurances, al-Husayni voiced his hope for a “final solution” to the Jewish presence in the Middle East in a speech given at a rally in Berlin on Nov. 2, 1943. The speech was carried by Nazi Germany’s official radio network, Radio Berlin.

“National Socialist Germany knows the Jews well and has decided to find a final solution for the Jewish danger which will end the evil in the world,” al Husayni said. “The Arabs especially, and Muslims in general, are obliged to make this their goal, from which they will not stray and which they must reach with all their powers: it is the expulsion of all Jews from Arab and Muslim lands.”

Not long after, severe anti-Jewish riots erupted throughout the Arab world. Jewish citizens were assaulted, tortured and murdered. In a few Arab countries, Jews were expelled outright. Throughout the region, Jewish property was confiscated and nationalized. Jews were forced to flee from their homes of thousands of years. The majority of these refugees were absorbed by Israel.

Jewish Dhimmitude in Arab Lands

Further back in history, when Arab Muslims conquered the Middle East and North Africa, Jews were one of the few indigenous peoples that resisted conversion to Islam, the result being that the Jews were given the status of dhimmi. According to this status, Jews were a tolerated yet inferior people who should be forever punished for rejecting the vision of Mohammed. What this meant was that Jews suddenly lost the autonomy they had enjoyed from their non-Muslim neighbors.

Jews were commonly forced into ghettos, prohibited from owning land, prevented from entering numerous professions and forbidden from doing anything to physically or symbolically demonstrate equality with Arab Muslims. This basic attitude of contempt, oppression and humiliation permeated the daily life of Jews. In addition, massacres were not uncommon, at times wiping out entire Jewish communities.

When dhimmi laws were lax and Jews were allowed to participate to a greater degree in their society, the Jewish community would flourish–socially, artistically, and economically. In many cases, however, the response to that success would be a wave of harassment or massacres of Jews instigated by the government or the masses. Once disempowered and weak, the Jewish community would experience a period of relative quiet. This dynamic meant that the Jews lived in a basic state of subservience. They could participate in the society around them, they could enjoy a certain degree of wealth and status and they could befriend their Arab Muslim neighbors, but they always had to know their place.

The Arab-Israeli relationship and the current crisis occur in the larger context of a history in which Arab Muslims have oppressed Jews for 1,300 years

The question still stands … “Who speaks for the moderates in the Moslem world?”—in Gaza, as an example, was Hammas speaking for them when they deliberately called-down Israeli fire upon the heads of those that elected them to lead? Yet those that elected them to rule knew full well of their objectives and rabid fury. Someone has to do the Moslems a kindness at some point in time, and tell them that …‘time goes not backwards nor tarries with yesterday’; lest they heedlessly continue to move onward while looking backward, to a past they can’t have, traveling through a present they can’t control, and blind to the possibility of any kind of true, bright and glorious future they can’t as of yet even imagine—for our beloved President Barack Obama has so much on his plate right now, that he needs sideboards—and solving the problems of global Islam, aside from focusing on the specific problem of Islamic terror aimed at the west, may fall into place as a lame dessert at best … if he gets to it. Furthermore, if no epiphany comes to the world of Islam, what Rudyard Kipling wrote in his poem may very well prove to be true … ‘Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the two shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;… . P.P.

Note in this program the complete absence of confrontation about such things as the absurdity of Hamas as a negotiating entity for “peace” when, by its own ‘charter,’ it’s clearly committed to the destruction not only of Israel but of the Jews in general (i.e., everywhere) — exactly the same point of view held by the Nazis, who by the way get the unmitigated admiration of Hamas.

Note the usual claims, unsupported by any actual evidence, that the large majority of Muslims are loving, peaceful souls and the extremists only a tiny minority.

Note the complete lack of any actual criticism of both secular Arab regimes and Islamic fundamentalist religious leaders.

How familiar it all is.

Most criticism of Israel in the U.S. comes from ignorance. People there don’t know the true state of things, don’t like to bother to think critically of what they see and hear on the media, and so are easily convinced by distortions, outright lies, suggestions that Muslims and Muslim nations are somehow abused by western countries, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

That situation is as great a threat as the Islamists themselves, especially since they (the Islamists) are so clever about knowing how to spin propaganda to take advantage of that ignorance.

with my young age of 26, not sure I am qualified to give lesson of history….

Before World War II, there were no international laws; other than bi-lateral or tri-lateral agreements.

Leauge of Nations had serious problems.

The bottom line is right after the formation of United Nations, this planet has International Laws.

Whichever country violated International Laws and UN resolutions is guilty as charged.

Please let us not bring medieval ages, the Vikings and Adam and Eve into the conflict in the Middle East, OK?

“spin propaganda to take advantage of that ignorance”.

amazing that u can even say that being we have seen that from israel.

note that pro-israel supporters use the self-defense, hamas charter, iran statement of wiping isreal off the face of the map, anti-semite, people just dont know whats going on, not occupying land,no human rights violation, everyone else is wrong except israel.hamas is a terrorist organization therefore anyone involved or killed is now i.e. a terrorist and nothing done. or the muslims treated jewis people bad in the past so israel has the right to do the same if not more.

Okay so lets look at them

1. Self defense= is it really self defense when u are building settlement and taking resources from someone else land. answer is no. Do u expect someone to have content for u when u bulldoze there home, answer is no.
we have seen countless acts of aggression from israel and provocation for people to respond back. not giving hamas a free ride but both hamas and israel are equally disgusting but hamas was created from israels collective punishment. If israel felt so threaten than it should erect barrirs and walls on the internationally recognized 1967 borders, not on occupied territory. Makes logical sense which for some i often doubt have.

2. Hamas charter, what should it say “thank u for forcing us off our land and giving people the right to return as long as they are jewis who never been to israel, based on the bible that over 3k years ago, slaughter and ethically clense the inhabitant to have there promise land. Where hamas charter stated it will not recognized israel so has israel not recognized hamas, instead resorting to state sponsored assignations, kidnapping and collective punishment. where hamas says there wish for israel not to exist israel is trying to make that reality for the gazans and west back to be slowly ethically cleanses. The not talking to the enemy is just plan dumb and gets u no-where.

3. irans statement, if u are not aware of this but irans prez cleared out what his statement was here it is.

The Actual Quote:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:

“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “regime.” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh” is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s president threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” despite never having uttered the words “map.” “wipe out” or even “Israel.”

The Proof:

The full quote translated directly to English:

“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad’s web site

The Speech and Context:

While the false “wiped off the map” extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad’s actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the “map” comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a “world without Zionism.” One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

the only country that has been threatening the middle-east has been israel, where israel states it will do whatever it takes to stop iran. So if israel went into iran and kill hundreds or thousands because it believed iran had nukes justified. NOPE. As iran has the right to develop civilian nuke plants under the agreement they sign where Israel is not, but actually has a stock pile of them.

4. Occupation and Land grabs, under international laws it states u cannot take land of a occupied territory and move the occupier civilians onto it, how do people not understand this i find amazing. If israel controls, there air-space, sea, means of movement than it is still occupying gaza and the west bank, otherwise there be no check points on the west bank. Because israel is still occupying than it is in charge of the people being occupied welfare and human rights, which it has failed to do so.

5. Pro-israel blaming acts of Muslim county’s in the past to justified doing the same if not worse to muslim now is not a excuse and should be called what it is a hate-crime for previous hate crime. maybe it is israel who should look to the future not the past. It seem they are still stuck in america’s 1960 on treatment on other races and cultures and sub-human and aspect the outcome to somehow be different. U practice a eye for a eye and at the end everyone’s eyes our point out.

heres a article to read

he Israeli left died in 2000. Since then its corpse has been lying around unburied until finally its death certificate was issued, signed, sealed and delivered on Tuesday. The hangman of 2000 was also the gravedigger of 2009: Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The man who succeeded in spreading the lie about there being no partner has reaped the fruit of his deeds in this election. The funeral was held two days ago.

The Israeli left is dead. For the past nine years it took the name of the peace camp in vain. The Labor Party, Meretz and Kadima had pretensions of speaking in its name, but that was trickery and deceit. Labor and Kadima made two wars and continued to build Jewish settlements in the West Bank; Meretz supported both wars. Peace has been left an orphan. The Israeli voters, who have been misled into thinking that there is no one to talk to and that the only answer to this is force – wars, targeted killings and settlements – have had their say clearly in the election: a closing sale for Labor and Meretz. It was only the force of inertia that gave these parties the few votes they won.
Advertisement
There was no reason for it to be otherwise. After many long years when hardly any protest came from the left, and the city square, the same square that raged after Sabra and Chatila, was silent, this lack of protest has been reflected at the ballot box as well. Lebanon, Gaza, the killed children, cluster bombs, white phosphorus and all the atrocities of occupation – none of this drove the indifferent, cowardly left onto the street. Though ideas of the left have found a toehold in the center and sometimes even on the right, everyone from former prime minister Ariel Sharon to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has spoken in a language that once was considered radical. But the voice was the voice of the left while the hands were the hands of the right.

On the fringes of this masked ball existed another left, the marginal left – determined and courageous, but minuscule and not legitimate. The gap between it and the left was supposedly Zionism. Hadash, Gush Shalom and others like them are outside the camp. Why? Because they are “not Zionist.”

And what is Zionism nowadays? An archaic and outdated concept born in a different reality, a vague and delusive concept marking the difference between the permitted and the proscribed. Does Zionism mean settlement in the territories? Occupation? The legitimization of every act of violence and injustice? The left stammered. Any statement critical of Zionism, even the Zionism of the occupation, was considered a taboo that the left did not dare break. The right grabbed a monopoly on Zionism, leaving the left with its self-righteousness.

A Jewish and democratic state? The Zionist left said yes automatically, fudging the difference between the two and not daring to give either priority. Legitimization for every war? The Zionist left stammered again – yes to the beginning and no to the continuation, or something like that. Solving the refugee problem and the right of return? Acknowledgment of the wrongdoing of 1948? Unmentionable. This left has now, rightly, reached the end of its road.

Anyone who wants a meaningful left must first air out Zionism in the attic. Until a movement that courageously redefines Zionism arises from the mainstream, there will be no broad left here. It is not possible to be both leftist and Zionist only in accordance with the right’s definition. Who has decided that the settlements are Zionist and legitimate, and the struggle against them is neither?

This taboo must be broken. It is permissible not to be a Zionist, as commonly defined today. It is permissible to believe in the Jews’ right to a state and yet come out against the Zionism that engages in occupation. It is permissible to believe that what happened in 1948 should be put on the agenda, to apologize for the injustice and act to rehabilitate the victims. It is permissible to oppose an unnecessary war from its very first day. It is permissible to think that the Arabs of Israel deserve the same rights – culturally, socially and nationally – as Jews. It is permissible to raise disturbing questions about the image of the Israel Defense Forces as an army of occupation, and it is even permissible to want to talk to Hamas.

If you prefer, this is Zionism, and if you prefer, this is anti-Zionism. In any case, it is legitimate and essential for those who do not want to see Israel fall victim to the insanities of the right for many more years. Anyone who wants an Israeli left must say “enough” to Zionism, the Zionism of which the right has taken complete control.

6. hamas is a terrorist organization therefore the people deserve what they get. but what u fail to mention is that isreal have in the past and recently committed the same and if not worst acts as well. But israel is engaging with the PLO which in the pasted called it a terrorist organizations.

here a time-line of the acts israel commited.

August 20, 1937 – June 29, 1939. During this period, the Zionists carried out a series of attacks against Arab buses, resulting in the death of 24 persons and wounding 25 others.

November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants (see below).

November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.

July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved.

October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.

June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.

September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)

December 11, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons.

December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.

December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

December 30,1947. A mixed force of the Zionist Palmach and the “Carmel Brigade” attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 Arabs.

1947 — 1948. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and land, and forced to live in refugee camps on Israel’s borders. They have been denied the right to return to their homes. They have been refused compensation for their homes, orchards, farms and other property stolen from them by the Israeli government. After their expulsion, the “Israeli Forces” totally obliterated (usually by bulldozing) 385 Arab villages and towns, out of a total of 475. Commonly, Israeli villages were built on the remaining rubble.

January 1, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked a village on the slopes of Mount Carmel; 17 Arabs were killed and 33 wounded.

January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee, killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.

January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons, among them Viscount de Tapia, the Spanish Consul. Haganah admitted responsibility for this crime.

January 7, 1948. Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.

January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.

December 13, 1947 — February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.

February 15, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children..

March 3, 1948. Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa (a 7 story block of apartments and shops) by Zionists who drove an army lorry ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured. The Stern Gang claimed responsibility for the incident.

March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.

March 31, 1948. The Cairo-Haifa Express was mined, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.

April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, supported by the Palmach forces, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children. Older men and young women were captured and paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then shot in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.

April 16, 1948. Zionists attacked the former British army camp at Tel Litvinsky, killing 90 Arabs there.

April 19, 1948. Fourteen Arabs were killed in a house in Tiberias, which was blown up by Zionist terrorists.

May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.

May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.

April 25, 1948 — May 13, 1948. Wholesale looting of Jaffa was carried out following armed attacks by Irgun and Haganah terrorists. They stripped and carried away everything they could, destroying what they could not take with them.

some more

Terror was a policy first adopted by Zionists. The first airplane hijacking was committed by Israel in 1954 when a civilian Syrian airliner was hijacked shortly after the plane took off. Zionists invented the car bomb, and Zionists were the first to assassinate United Nations personnel as well as attack their own allies, such as the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. Today no one seems to remember the Zionist truck-bomb which blew up Jerusalems King David hotel killing around 200 in 1946. Not many even know that on October 14, 1953, an elite unit under command of current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon attacked the village of Qibya in Jordan. Army officials stated that intelligence stated the village was evacuated, but the UN found bullet holes in the debris. The bullet holes were made from Sharon and his men shooting at the houses to make sure the inhabitants stayed inside while the time bombs went off. Around 66 houses were blown up killing over a hundred civilians, mainly women and children. Zionist terrorism in the 1930s and 1940s has been forgotten because it is obvious that the winners write the history books. There are however many instances of Zionist terrorism that would be impossible to fit in one measly article.

Terrorism was the only policy of the Zionists, which were determined to scare all Arabs from what they believe was their land. Cafes and restaurant were favorite targets of Zionist along with poor residential neighborhoods. More than 500 civilians were killed in the years of 1937 and 1938 alone. On April 16, 1939, Zionist terrorists randomly shot two Arab civilians near Betah Takfe settlements setting up many similar instances where innocent civilians were randomly shot week after week. A study showed that the 6 months before the birth of Israel, over 1,000 Arabs were killed and almost a million scared or evicted from their homes. This is not only terrorism but mass terrorism, designed to force Muslims to migrate elsewhere.

These operations became more cruel when Zionist realized that a Jewish state was a possibility. The problem for the Zionist was however the security of the Jews. The world however can obviously see that the Zionist did not want to mix with Arabs. How could Gods chosen people mingle with inferior race anyhow? Around the second half of December 1947, Zionist attacked civilians in villages within the Haifa sub-district and soon they moved to villages in the sub-district of Safad and Tabaraya. Over 170 men, women and children civilians were killed in these attacks. Although many Arabs were scared away at this point, this did not stop Zionist from attacking residents of Al-Tireh, Saasa, Kfar Husseiniya, Sarafand, Kalounya, Beyt Sourik, Aylaboun, Al-Shajara and Nasser Al-Dine killing 250 civilians. Israel however shocked the world when they slaughtered a few hundred civilians in the village of Deir Yassin, on the 19th of April. Even after the establishment of the Jewish state, Zionist still did not believe Israel to be pure.

In the summer of 1953, Israel attacked the camp of Bureig in Gaza, and then the village of Kubeiya killing 60 and wounding 90 Arab civilians. Every week seemed to bring another massacre at the hands of Zionists. The more famous of these were the massacres at the village of Nahalin and the coast of Tabaraya lake killing around 20. In the 1956 war, Israel showed its love of human beings by bombing villages in Gaza killing hundreds of civilians. The 1956 massacres of Kfar Kassem and Khan Younus saw the deaths off 450 civilians which were mainly workers and farmers. In 1966 and 1967, raids on Al-Nakib and Al-Sumu saw the deaths of 50 civilians. Palestinians were not the only targets of Zionist however.

Zionist terrorism spread across the borders whenever Israel felt like they needed to retaliate against Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. In September of 1967, around 200 Egyptian civilians were killed in Al-Suise, the port of Tawfik and Al-Ismailiya. Around 100 were killed in raids on sub-districts of Arbad and Al-Salat. Israel stated that these villages contained Palestinian fighters and followed with more attacks the following year.

Around 130 civilians were killed in the summer of 1968 in Al-Suise and Al-Ismailiya, and 1969 saw the deaths of 60 civilian in attacks on Al-Hama and Meysaloon, in Syria and Bour Said, in Egypt. An attack of a factory in Abi Zubel saw the deaths of 70 civilians in 1970, and 50 school children were killed when Israel attacked Baher Al-Bakar school in Egypt.

Palestinians have never attacked an Israeli school yet they still call Palestinians terrorists. The massacres in Lebanon alone should bring massive condemnation of Israel from the world but generally has not. Seems like the holocaust is Israel’s excuse for repeating the evil.

When Israel invaded and occupied the southern part of Lebanon in 1982, it was clear they truly wanted to add to their nation of hatred. There were reports of civilians rounded up in Mosques and murdered as well as daily rocket attacks, shelling, air raids, naval bombings, mines, car bombs, home demolitions, assassination and napalm attacks. The targets of these atrocities were hospitals, mosques, gatherings, market places, lone houses and schools. Ports were also closed devastating the economy and not allowing medical supplies and other aid to reach needy civilians. Israeli settlers reportedly also poisoned water supplies while Israel disrupted electricity and stole water from Lebanese rivers. To view just some of the atrocities performed by Israel against Lebanon, go to http://www.qana.org. There are far too many to list here, and the website mentioned only brushes on the mentioned massacres. In conclusion tens of thousands of Lebanese were killed, wounded, and missing. Many of these were men, women, children, the elderly, journalists and even religious figures. Some of the more discreet weapons of terrorism were cluster and vacuum bombs, shrapnel, phosphoric and napalm, and (I still cannot believe this) booby trapped dolls. If these actions by Sharon, which masterminded the invasion and occupation, were not ethnic cleansing and very cruel, then you may need to check weather or not you were born with a heart.

Israel has always been a sneaky type of country. They want to kill as many Arabs as they can, but will dodge the blame whenever possible. UN reports stated that in 1982, Maronite Christians supervised and helped by Israeli soldiers killed around 3000 civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Israel was also known to squash cars full of civilians with tanks and bombing houses. In 1973, Israel also shot down a Libyan civil aircraft over Sinai killing all 106 civilian passengers aboard. Israel also has an obsession of killing Muslims while they practice their faith as shown in one of the more famous cases in 1994 where 50 Arab Muslims were killed in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Al-Khalil. Israel has even committed these types of war crimes against its own allies in the past. This actually goes to what josha did in the bible when the isrealite where killing the cainites to have there choosen land.

This is not propaganda but simple facts. Israel committed many of these atrocities and many more, some personally performed by Sharon himself. To kill civilians for political reason is terrorism. The assassination of activists is terrorism. The shooting of kids when all they do is throw stones is terrorism. The two sides may have switched but Israel’s cruel past can be seen in its cruel treatment of Arabs by its military.

Israel does not want peace, it wants all the Arabs to leave the land they believe is theirs. Hundreds of kids have been killed by Israel and they call us terrorists. Villages have been destroyed with dynamite while the inhabitants were asleep inside, and they call us terrorists. Thousands of houses have been bulldozed over the years with countless photo, videos as has the events been documented

FYI israel would not have to censor its reporters nor not allow foreign reporters in gaza if it did not have something to hide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfFWr8hxh3I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCKD6u1gGzs&feature=PlayList&p=54D26FAF611291C8&index=9&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

media lack of retraction after lies .
30/01/2009

Most people remember the headlines : Massacre Of Innocents As UN School Is Shelled; Israeli Strike Kills Dozens At UN School.
They heralded the tragic news of Jan. 6, when mortar shells fired by advancing Israeli forces killed 43 civilians in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. The victims, it was reported, had taken refuge inside the Ibn Rushd Preparatory School for Boys, a facility run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The news shocked the world and was compared to the 1996 Israeli attack on a UN compound in Qana, Lebanon, in which more than 100 people seeking refuge were killed. It was certain to hasten the end of Israel’s attack on Gaza, and would undoubtedly lead the list of allegations of war crimes committed by Israel.

There was just one problem: The story, as etched in people’s minds, was not quite accurate.

Physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses, including a teacher who was in the schoolyard at the time of the shelling, make it clear: While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed. The 43 people who died in the incident were all outside, on the street, where all three mortar shells landed.

Stories of one or more shells landing inside the schoolyard were inaccurate.

The teacher, who refused to give his name because he said UNRWA had told the staff not to talk to the news media, was adamant: “Inside [the compound] there were 12 injured, but there were no dead.”

News of the tragedy travelled fast, with aid workers and medical staff quoted as saying the incident happened at the school, the UNRWA facility where people had sought refuge.

Soon it was presented that people in the school compound had been killed. Before long, there was worldwide outrage.

John Ging, UNRWA’s operations director in Gaza, acknowledged in an interview this week that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that “no one was killed in the school.”

“I told the Israelis that none of the shells landed in the school,” he said.

This is the same John Ging, who had stated something very different the day after the alleged attack

“There’s nowhere safe in Gaza. Everyone here is terrorized and traumatized. These men, women and children are all seeking safety and there is no safety in Gaza at the moment, even in an UNRWA school. This is unacceptable,” Said Ging in a statement.

Some questions need to be addressed:

1) Why did Ging make a statement he knew to be factually incorrect?

2) Why is UNRWA not allowing its staff to talk to the news media about the incident?

3) Why is Ging’s recent retraction finding little press attention when the original false information made headline news across the world?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_b13cVqiB0
Chas Freeman
Focus on Gaza – Factional Fighting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X1inuRHCWU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2FAlJazeeraEnglish&feature=player_embedded

Palestine Right of Return – A Nation Forced Into Exile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihE4sXv9lVM&feature=channel

explains it pretty well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihE4sXv9lVM&feature=channel

as well as Norman F.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbJ1MHLLkQ&feature=related

Norman Finkelstein: is criticism of Israel Antisemitic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm5OvSeiAHc&feature=related

U.N. Agency That Runs School Hit in Gaza Employed Hamas and Islamic Jihad Members
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
By Joel Mowbray

Reuters

The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past, has no system in place to keep members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad off its payroll, and provides textbooks to children that contain hate speech and other incendiary information.

A growing chorus of critics has taken aim at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in recent years, although momentum on Capitol Hill has been slow. But last week’s incident, which Israel maintains was prompted by Hamas operatives firing mortars at Israelis from a location near the school, has prompted some lawmakers to scrutinize the U.N. agency.

Rep. Steve Rothman, D-N.J., introduced a resolution in the fall calling for greater transparency and accountability at UNRWA. The bill called on the agency to make its textbooks available on the Internet for public inspection and to implement “terrorist name recognition software and other screening procedures that would help to ensure that UNRWA staff, volunteers, and beneficiaries are neither terrorists themselves, nor affiliated with known terrorist organizations.”

Rothman said he plans to re-introduce his UNRWA resolution in the coming weeks because, “as timely as this bill was before, it is even more timely now. It is urgent that Congress can be assured that U.S. taxpayer money is not being spent to support Hamas and its murderous activities.”

A spokesman for UNRWA adamantly said that the agency is now free of terrorist connections. “We’re composed of social workers and teachers,” the official explained. “We take every step possible to have only civilians inside UNRWA facilities.”

But the U.N. Personal History form for UNRWA employees does not ask whether someone is a member of, or affiliated with, a terrorist organization such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad. And there is no formal screening to ensure that employees are not affiliated with terrorist entities.

Asked about this, the UNRWA spokesman replied, “Palestinian staff sign an undertaking confirming that they have no political affiliations whatsoever, and have not and will not participate in any activities that would violate the neutrality of the U.N.”

There is no formal enforcement, however, to monitor possible terrorist activities by employees after they sign the pledge at the time of hiring.

UNRWA official Chris Guinness told the Jerusalem Post this week that the agency screens names of new employees against the relatively small U.N. database of Taliban and Al Qaeda figures. Extremist Palestinians, however, are far more likely to belong to organizations, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, that are not on that watch list.

In 2004, former UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen told the Canadian Broadcasting Company, “I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don’t see that as a crime.” He added, “We do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another.”

There have been several high-profile examples of terrorists being employed by UNRWA. Former top Islamic Jihad rocket maker Awad Al-Qiq, who was killed in an Israeli air strike last May, was the headmaster and science instructor at an UNRWA school in Rafah, Gaza. Said Siyam, Hamas’ interior minister and head of the Executive Force, was a teacher for over two decades in UNRWA schools.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill say they are also concerned that terrorist propaganda is being taught in UNRWA schools. A notebook captured by Israeli officials at the UNRWA school in the Kalandia refugee camp several years ago glorified homicide bombers and other terrorists. Called “The Star Team,” it profiled so-called “martyrs,” Palestinians who had died either in homicide bombings or during armed struggle with Israel. On the book’s back cover was printed the UNRWA emblem, as well as a photo of a masked gunman taking aim while on one knee.

There is evidence that students educated in UNRWA schools are much more likely to become homicide bombers, said Jonathan Halevi, a former Israeli Defense Forces intelligence officer who specializes in Palestinian terrorist organizations. Halevi has spent several years building an extensive database for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs of terrorist attacks by Hamas and other Islamic extremist groups.

Though he cautioned that estimates are tricky because the identity of an attacker is not always made public, Halevi estimated that over 60 percent of homicide bombers were educated in UNRWA schools. By comparison, roughly 25-30 percent of Palestinian students in the West Bank, the origin of almost all homicide bombers since the start of the intifada in 2000, attend UNRWA schools, according to the agency’s figures.

A UNRWA spokesman strongly disputed any connection between the agency’s schools and a greater likelihood of terrorist activity later in life. As proof, he pointed to UNRWA’s “special efforts in our schools to teach tolerance, human rights and peaceful conflict resolution.”

UNRWA sent an eight-page brochure that speaks about the group’s tolerance, human rights and peaceful conflict resolution curriculum. But it makes no mention of tolerance toward Jews or Christians or of peaceful coexistence with Israel. Rather, it is geared toward student interaction, the rights students should expect in society, and learning to express emotions through acting, painting, and storytelling.

October 10, 2005 by Deborah Passner

Norman Finkelstein’s Fraudulent Scholarship

Campus anti-Israel activists copy many of their arguments from two main sources – MIT professor Noam Chomsky, and his acolyte Norman Finkelstein, a DePaul University political science professor who never misses an opportunity to inform readers that his parents were Holocaust survivors. For example, following the Palestine Solidarity Movement’s conference in October 2004 at Duke University, the student paper published a column that included anti-Semitic slurs such as “Jews must own up to their privilege in America, and use it more wisely” and ” the Holocaust Industry’ uses its influence to stifle … the Israeli-Palestinian debate.” The student supported these canards by citing Finkelstein’s book The Holocaust Industry.

Anti-Zionists and anti-Semites often reference Finkelstein’s books despite the fact that they are marred by factual inaccuracies, omissions and selective mention of fact. Much of his work is seemingly shaped by his antagonism toward the Jewish establishment and his avowed anti-Zionism. Thus, he routinely accuses pro-Israel writers of being “frauds” and “plagiarists,” and labels their work “hoaxes.”

In his controversial book The Holocaust Industry, Finkelstein argues that “Jewish elites” have created an “industry” to perpetuate the memory of the Holocaust as a ploy to extort money and to gain influence, as well a tactic “to crush any dissent, any criticism, of the State of Israel.” The New York Times’ review of the book described its premise as a “novel variation” of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the fraudulent essay concocted in the late nineteenth century by the Czarist secret police which purports to uncover a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Accordingly, the Times’ reviewer described Finkelstein as “juvenile,” “arrogant,” and “stupid” (Aug. 6, 2000).

In Finkelstein’s portrayal no one “unerringly articulates” the Holocaust “dogma” more than Nobel Laureate and human rights activist Elie Wiesel, who is himself a Holocaust survivor. Finkelstein mockingly describes Wiesel as the “resident clown,” and charges he is responsible for creating a “meaningless version of the Nazi Holocaust” and for only exposing “genocides that serve the interest of the US and Israel” (Salon.com, Aug. 30, 2000). While Wiesel’s work on behalf of those suffering around the world is generally well-respected, Finkelstein denounces his lack of “humanitarian commitments,” and his “shameful record of apologetics on behalf of Israel.” A more mainstream view was expressed by Ted Koppel of ABC’s Nightline, who called Wiesel “one of the most compassionate human beings alive.” Koppel specifically praises Wiesel for showing as much compassion for other people as he does the Jews (April18, 2002).

Other Jewish leaders are similarly slandered by Finkelstein. For example, he calls Abraham Foxman, who heads the Anti-Defamation League, “the Grand Wizard,” a term typically reserved for a leader in the racist Ku Klux Klan.

Finkelstein on Israel

Finkelstein tries to convince readers that the “Holocaust Industry” exists as an ideological weapon to gain unqualified support for Israel against the Palestinians. He unconvincingly argues that both the Holocaust and Israel became important to American Jews only in 1967 because:

Israel now becomes the United States’ strategic asset in the Middle East. It’s safe to be pro-Israel. And suddenly American Jewry, Jewish intellectuals and so forth, become fanatical towards the State of Israel. It’s one of the enduring ironies of the whole conflict. That of all the Jewish intellectuals who are now fanatical stalwarts of the State of Israel, until 1967 there were only two public Jewish intellectuals who are publicly identified as supporting Israel. There are only two. And they were Hannah Arendt … the second one was Noam Chomsky.

Finkelstein’s assertions are simply bizarre. In fact, many Jewish intellectuals supported the Jewish state before 1967.

Thus, Albert Einstein, perhaps the preeminent intellectual of the 20th century, co-wrote an article in the 1944 Princeton Herald strongly supporting a Jewish state:

In speaking up for a Jewish Palestine, we want to promote the establishment of a place of refuge where persecuted human beings may find security and peace and the undisputed right to live under a law and order of their making. The experiences of many centuries have taught us that this can be provided only by home rule and not by a foreign administration. This is why we stand for a Jewish-controlled Palestine, be it ever so modest and small. (Jews Among the Nations, pg. 137)

Several American-Jewish intellectuals were deeply involved in the Zionist movement even before the Holocaust. In 1915, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote about the importance of a Jewish state for the Jewish people:

The glorious past [of the Jews] can really live only if it becomes part of a glorious future; and to this end the Jewish home in Palestine is essential. We Jews of prosperous America above all need its inspiration. (Menorah Journal, January 1915)

Even before Brandeis became chairman of the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs, he proclaimed in a 1913 speech that “we should aid in the efforts of the Jews in Palestine. We should all support the Zionist movement.” In many of his speeches in that period he stated “to be good Americans we must be better Jews and to better Jews we must become Zionists.”

Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter also actively promoted the establishment of a Jewish homeland. In an article for the April 1931 Foreign Affairs magazine, he wrote that he supports a Jewish state:

not only as a Jew. But as one who believes in the wisdom of the policy embodied in the Palestine Mandate for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

Finkelstein in particular singled out Norman Podhoretz, the former editor-in-chief of Commentary, as a Jewish intellectual who did not support Israel before 1967:

What is very striking is everyone says, everyone says Israel played no role in my life up until ‘67. . . . Take the editor of Commentary Norman Podhoretz. . . . He writes a famous memoir called Making It. I reread Making It. Israel gets exactly four words in the whole book, it’s nothing.

Finkelstein is once again sloppy in his research. A full 10 years before the Six Day War, Podhoretz wrote a well-known article for the Zionist magazine Midstream about the importance of American Jews making the case for Israel. He wrote:

Failing active restraint by America, the Arabs will continue to provoke, and Israel, under the inalienable right of self-preservation, will be forced to move. It is in the interest of the United States to insure that justice is to be done to Israel, and American Jews, who should be alerted by their interest as Jews to the special danger of the situation in the Middle East. . . are the ones to make that point clear to their fellow Americans.

Support for Zionism by such luminaries as Brandeis, Franfurter, Einstein, and Podhoretz, all apparently missed by Finkelstein, exposes his shoddy research and proves just how unreliable he is when it comes to Zionism and its history.

Flawed Book

Just as inaccurate as the Holocaust Industry is Finkelstein’s book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Dedicated to the proposition that Israel and Zionism are illegitimate, the book relies largely on anti-Israeli secondary sources and virtually ignores contrary evidence.

For example, Finkelstein’s chapter “Born of War, Not by Design,” about the 1948 Palestinian refugees, relies almost exclusively on Benny Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, which has been seriously challenged by mainstream historians for selectively using Israeli archival material. Finkelstein relies on information found in The Birth, but often distorts already questionable material. For example, Morris claims in one of his endnotes that Ben-Gurion said:

[a return] is out of the question until we sit together beside a [peace conference] table…and they will respect us to the degree that we respect them and I doubt whether they deserve respect as we do. Because, nonetheless, we did not flee en masse. [And] so far no Arab Einstein has arisen and [they] have not created what we have built in this country and [they] have not fought as we are fighting…We are dealing with a collective murderer.

Rather than checking the original source, Finkelstein distorts the secondary source. In order to demonstrate Ben-Gurion’s “extreme” “racis[ism],” he shortens Morris’s citation to read, “Arabs were not entitled to the same respect accorded to Jews because ’so far no Arab Einstein has arisen…We are dealing with a collective murderer.’ ”

Benny Morris himself has long been critical of Finkelstein’s scholarly research as it relates to his [Morris's] work. He criticizes Finkelstein for “selectively quot[ing]” from his book and for not knowing “anything …beyond what is found” in his books. His sources, according to Morris, are “dubious,” and he adds that Finkelstein fails to marshal “sources or materials from elsewhere that could serve to contradict my findings” (Journal of Palestine Studies, Autumn 1991). According to Morris, “for Finkelstein the only good Israeli is an evil Israeli.”

Finkelstein routinely compares Israelis with Nazis and told the Jeruslem Report that he “can’t imagine why Israel’s apologists would be offended by the comparison” (Aug 28, 2000).

While Finkelstein expresses nothing but contempt for Israel, he lavishes praise on the terrorist group Hezbollah. In a letter posted on his Web site he states, “I did make a point of publicly honoring the heroic resistance of Hezbollah to foreign occupation …Their historic contributions are…undeniable.” He appeared on the official Hezbollah television network al-Manar, because, he said, “If I’m willing to appear on CNN – the main propaganda organ for America’s terrorist wars–why shouldn’t I appear on al-Manar?”

Al Manar’s expressed mission is to wage “psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy.” Al Manar producers boast of creating programming to recruit Palestinian suicide bombers. In addition, Ibrahim Mussawi, director of English-language news for al Manar, in an interview with the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg, labeled Jews “a lesion on the forehead of history.” Al Manar TV was banned by European Union satellites for airing racist programming such as the series “The Diaspora” based on The Protocols.

Attacks on Pro-Israel Writers

Finkelstein routinely calls those he disagrees with “frauds” labeling their work “hoaxes.” Alan Dershowitz, a renowned Harvard lawyer and author of the best selling book The Case for Israel, is his latest target. Finkelstein claims Dershowitz’s book is “sheer, unadulterated, complete, total, comprehensive, from beginning to end, from the first uppercase letter to the last period, a complete fraud” (March 8, 2005, lecture at the University of Illinois Law School). He accuses Dershowitz of plagiarism and has said that Dershowitz “almost certainly didn’t write the book and perhaps didn’t even read it prior to publication.” The allegations were investigated and rejected by former Harvard President Derek Bok. In an upcoming book on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Finkelstein was going to accuse Dershowitz of plagiarism, but, under threat of lawsuit, he was forced to omit the allegation from his book.

In March, Dershowitz was asked why he thought professors are reluctant to publicly defend Israel. He said they fear:

Finkelstein going all over campuses of the world making up stories about them. The whole Finkelstein-Noam Chomsky-Alex Cockburn attack team has succeeded in intimidating many young professors around the country and around the world. Because if you write a pro-Israel article or book, they will call you a plagiarist…They will make up quotes about you…The hit team claims that they already prevented and destroyed the reputations of two pro-Israel writers.

It’s hardly surprising that Finkelstein’s fabrications and attack strategy intimidate. All the more reason that the facts about his reckless charges be widely disseminated. Finally, the grossly flawed writings of the DePaul “professor” point to yet another example of the failure of the academic world to uphold genuine standards of scholarship–such as accuracy, truthfulness and rigorous sourcing.

some more Norman F.

Who actually gives facts, and backs it u something that R.M. sources does not. watch for yourself.

I see that R.M. is only anti-semite when it comes to jews who critize israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWMZvozow0g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ76R7War0w&feature=related

R.M. again this video u should watch since u show this signs. since u take one source out of 100 saying the opposite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmRBIIW0laI&feature=channel_page

Norman talks about what r.m. alleged

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ENawcSliA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7AtO_KGE-I

also along with this where israel had lobbist try and discredit Norman F. for his criticism of israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MON2HL02mec

But again our lovely internet troll R.M. is at it again

Extremists Seek to Delegitimize Israel During “Apartheid Week”

The week of March 1 is the week for indoctrinating students to hate Israel. On March 1-8, Israel’s most virulent adversaries will concentrate their attention on campuses from San Francisco to New York, and Edmonton to Atlanta, spreading falsehoods and encouraging boycott of the Jewish state, or even its destruction. Students will be told that the Jewish state is, by nature, a racist, colonial and oppressive state. They will be told this by activists who ignore genuine racism and oppression by Israel’s neighbors. It is time for “Israeli Apartheid Week.”

One need look no further than the event’s title to understand its malignant nature. The canard that Israel is an apartheid state is an assault on the country’s very legitimacy. The South African apartheid regime was rightfully dismantled and this campaign seeks to cast Israel as guilty of similar racist policies and equally deserving to be dismantled.

The Extremists’ Message

The outrageous comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa is part of a campaign to delegitimize and dismantle the Jewish state. But the calls for an end to Israel will not just be insinuated; they will undoubtedly be explicit. Omar Barghouti, who is slated address students at the University of Ottawa, Montreal’s McGill University and in New York City, does not bother to hide that his goal is to replace Israel with “a unitary state, where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.” (Samir El-youssef, a Palestinian writer who criticizes both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict and genuinely seeks reconciliation, has written that Barghouti’s boycott calls are “full of questionable assumptions, biased assertions, reductive and dismissive statements, condemnations and accusations against those who disagree with him.” Barghouti has “other concerns than peace on his mind,” he added.)

Hezbollah supporter Norman Finkelstein will appear at Emory University in Atlanta and at Fordham University in New York to talk about Israel’s recent Gaza operation. One need not guess what he will say. In an interview published last week in the Teheran Times, Finkelstein called Israel a “vandal state,” an “insane state,” a “lunatic state” and a “terrorist state.” And those were the nicer things he had to say about the country. He also referred to the Jewish state as a “satanic state” from “the boils of hell” which “is committing a holocaust in Gaza.”

This theme will likely be echoed by Ronnie Kasrils, who argues that Israelis are “baby killers” who “behav[e] like Nazis.” Kasrils will be speaking at Carlton University in Ottawa, McGill University in Montreal and the Vancouver Public library.

There Are Apartheid States – Like Saudi Arabia

Although these and other “apartheid week” activists cleverly use the public’s revulsion with the word “apartheid,” it is apparent that their aim is not to fight genuine oppression, but rather to bash Israel, the Middle East’s only liberal democracy and the only country among its neighbors designated as “free” by Freedom House, a non-partisan group that monitors the status of political, human and civil rights around the world.

Why is there is no apartheid week or protest regarding, for example, Saudi Arabia, ranked “not free” – the worst designation – by Freedom House? After all, according to the State Department, that country of nearly 28,000,000 lacks freedom of religion, assembly, movement and speech.

Discrimination against women includes, for instance, prohibition against voting, driving and traveling without a male relative.

In Israel, which the State Department notes “generally respected the human rights of its citizens,” none of this is true. Israel’s many Arab, Muslim, Christian and female citizens share equal rights with their Jewish neighbors. But it is this free and democratic country, not any of the truly oppressive and bigoted regimes worldwide, that is falsely being accused of apartheid.

In short, Israel is being lied about and discriminated against.
It is essential that all students hear a counterpoint to these voices of grotesque demonization. To understand why, it’s instructive to look overseas, where the anti-Israel chorus has been more organized and persistent than it is here. A recent column in the United Kingdom’s Jewish Chronicle explains the consequences of silently enduring the attack on Israel:

To be sure, the Palestinian narrative is prevalent among outspoken professors and others in academia. But there nonetheless are many students who understand that Barghouti, Finkelstein, Kasrils and other like-minded commentators seek to distort rather than inform. They see the lies and double standards that are applied to Israel.

Benjamin Pogrund, a South African-born Jew who was instrumental in the anti-apartheid movement and now lives in Israel, noted that

Apartheid is dead in South Africa but the word is alive in the world, especially as an epithet of abuse for Israel. Israel is accused by some of being ‘the new apartheid’ state. If true, it would be a grave charge, justifying international condemnation and sanctions. But it isn’t true. Anyone who knows what apartheid was, and who knows Israel today, is aware of that. Use of the apartheid label is at best ignorant and naïve and at worst cynical and manipulative. …
“Apartheid” is used in this case and elsewhere because it comes easily to hand: it is a lazy label for the complexities of the Middle East conflict. It is also used because, if it can be made to stick, then Israel can be made to appear to be as vile as was apartheid South Africa and seeking its destruction can be presented to the world as an equally moral cause. (From the December 2005 issue of Focus, published by The Helen Suzman Foundation.)
Israeli historian Benny Morris explained

Israel is not an apartheid state — rather the opposite, it is easily the most democratic and politically egalitarian state in the Middle East, in which Arab Israelis enjoy far more freedom, better social services, etc. than in all the Arab states surrounding it. Indeed, Arab representatives in the Knesset, who continuously call for dismantling the Jewish state, support the Hezbollah, etc., enjoy more freedom than many Western democracies give their internal oppositions. (The U.S. would prosecute and jail Congressmen calling for the overthrow of the U.S. Govt. or the demise of the U.S.) ”
And in a piece entitled “Campus Hypocrisy,” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman called those involved with anti-Israel campaigns similar to apartheid week “dishonest,” “hypocrites,” and even anti-Semitic:

Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction — out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East — is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.
Although none of the above have shed away from criticizing Israel in the past, they all recognize the egregious dishonesty propagated by the “apartheid week” bunch, and the need to speak out against the falsehoods.

Happy Passover to Geithner, Summers, Greenspan, Rubin, Levitt, Ezra Merkin and Madoff.

Let’s learn about Brooksley Born : $800+ Billion worth (our money) of regulation was killed by these criminal clowns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_E._Born
…..
Brooksley E. Born is a former American public official who, from August 26, 1996, to June 1, 1999, was chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency which oversees the futures and commodity options markets as well as the individuals who participate in those markets. In 2008, she appeared on the Legal Times list of “The 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Last 30 Years” and was described as a “Champion”.

While on the commission and after becoming its chair two years later, Born sought comments on the need to regulate derivatives, specifically swaps that are traded at no central exchange, known as the dark market, and thus have no transparency except to the two counter-parties (no actual regulatory scheme was proposed at the time). The request for comments, called the “Concept Release,” stated that the growth of trade in derivatives had prompted the CFTC to re-examine its regulatory scheme. [1] The request for comments was opposed by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.[2] Specifically, on May 7, 1998, former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt joined the other members of the President’s Working Group – Treasury Secretary Rubin and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Greenspan – in objecting to the issuance of the CFTC’s concept release, in which Born attempted to shed light on the dark market, citing grave concerns about the possible consequences of the CFTC’s action. In particular, these concerns focused on the risk that such discussion would increase legal uncertainty concerning swaps and other OTC derivative instruments and, thus, destabilize what had become a significant global financial market. They claimed potential turmoil created by the report and concerns about the imposition of new regulatory costs also might have stifled innovation and pushed transactions offshore.[3] As the financial crisis of 2008 gained momentum, newspapers began reporting on what might be some of its causes, including the adversarial relationship Greenspan, Rubin and Levitt had with Brooksley Born, [4] with Greenspan leading the opposition, and how Born’s recommendations were suppressed.[2] …

On a separate note, hedge fund manager Ezra Merkin, feeder of Funds to Bernard Madoff, was charged with fraud by Andrew Coumo.

“You are uneducated, you are poor, unemployment is 72%, your kids are hungry, you are either under occupation or ruled by a corrupt guy who is a friend of Washington or the Money Guys; what the hell would you do?”

If someone is uneducated, poor and unemployed, how do they get the skills to use a gun and explosives, as well as means to get those guns and explosives? I doubt that AK-47 and RDX grow on trees.

My father didn’t go to college and came from a poor family. He didn’t take up arms, but worked hard and made sure that his children got the education he never got, as well as supported his many siblings.

So, if someone is giving them guns, explosives as well as training, that means they have money. Why they’re not using that money and energy and smarts to impart education and/or other skills and to encourage democracy, is a mystery to me. Besides, if one is honest, does some research and goes by facts instead of ideology (or ‘an enemy of my enemy is my friend’), one will find that many of the terrorists – Mohammad Atta, his fellow hijackers, Osama Bin Laden, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, London subway bombers, Glasgow airport bomber, Ayman Al Zawahiri – all of them are/were college educated and didn’t come from a poor family or were poor. Osama Bin Laden is/was a millionaire. Omar Sheikh studied at London School of Economics, for crying out loud!!

Besides, poverty exists all over the globe. Why aren’t we seeing poor, uneducated and unemployed people in other countries taking up arms, killing non-Muslims and blowing themselves up? Slum-dwellers in India, and favela-dwellers in South American countries are not going around killing people and blowing themselves up because they’re poor. And since when is violence a solution to the problems we’re facing as a humanity? I find it astonishing that the very people who praise Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela and their non-violent and peaceful methods to bring about change in one breath, do not hesitate to turn around and become apologists for violent acts. Where does this disconnect and dissonance come from??? What’s the framework??

Why are Shias and Sunnis – both Muslims – blowing each other’s mosques and each other, if it is indeed about poverty, and US hegemony? How does that solve the problems of poverty and lack of education?

This justification (by their apologists, who otherwise are promoters of non-violence) of violence by Islamic radicals/extremists needs to stop, otherwise we won’t see any solution for a long time. Instead of being politically correct, let’s call a spade a spade, and agree that Islamic ideology (with its homophobia and persecution of gays, inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, dhimmi status, lesser rights for non-Muslim minorities, second-rate status of women, putting sharia law over secularism) is incompatible with modern, secular democratic principles at a very fundamental level; and unless that is resolved and Islam undergoes a reform, we are unlikely to see any progress.

And this is not a defense of American foreign policies or its hegemony – I am critical of, and will continue to be critical of US foreign policy that is unfair, and will continue to push for peace in the middle-east through democratic means and to the best of my ability, but not by justifying a second wrong (violence by Muslim extremists) because of one wrong (US foreign policy). That way lies madness of justifying violent acts, and there’s no end to that cycle of justification.

One may simply look at the facts to see the argument Norman F. and critcs of israel have.

Does israel state it a western democray? yes so therefore like the U.S.,UK should be challenged and called on its violations of human rights.If so santion.

Does the IDF censor free reporting in the gaza and west bank? Yes a free the press press should not be told by its military on what to report.

Did israel expel arabs from there land for political reasons? Yes

is israel occupying the west bank? Yes Jerusalem would not be divided if that was the case.

is it against international law to move a occupying civilians on occupied land? yes

Did not the FM of israel state he is against a 2 state solution, and for additional settlements? Yes

is it a crime to not allow civilians to escape a conflict? yes

is it a crime to use white Phosphorus in heavyly compacted areas? yes and people have both picture and video of this.

In a western democracy is there freedom of speech? yes
so therefore trying to silence dissent is against democracy. As seen in a rally against what israel has done by israelie, arab women that was not broadcast to the rest of the world.

In a conflict does the native people have a right to return after the war? yes yet this is denied

Is israel in violations of international law? Yes

Has the demonstration of muslim and arabs resulted in the killing of innocents? yes

Is israel the only nation to box up a another ethic group

Did iraq get santion for human rights violations? yes

Does a state for only Jewish people smell of racism and superiority of others?yes can u imagine if the u.s. or u.k said that now on only christians can live in there county’s.

Does killing civilians create more hated for the occupying county? yes as we have seen in the shift in u.s. policy in afgan.

Are Israeli settler still moving onto occupied land? yes, inflaming the situation even more.

Does Western Democracys have the duty to uphold humans rights and hold human rights abuser accountable? yes

These are all FACTS and to say otherwise is intellectually dishonesty.

As for muslim and the U.S. need to find common grounds to promote moderates even ones we dont agree with and have a even hand on issue concerning the Middle East to show that America, only than can we break from conflicting paths. Indonesia and Turkey are good examples though not perfect. Killing does not bread peace but more Killing and Not talking to a enemy does not solve the problem as well.

Does a state for only Jewish people smell of racism and superiority of others?yes can u imagine if the u.s. or u.k said that now on only christians can live in there county’s.

-Mike

Arabs, Christians, Zoroastrians, Atheists, Buddhists, and more live in Israel, the problem is there is a massive-massive number of people who live in that region who could give two shifts about democracy. In fact, democracy is an abstraction if not antithetical to the masses.

To all the anti-Semites (whether you know it or not) who post on this page remember that Christianity and Islam were patterned (copied from) after Judaism.

Your unconscious animus towards Judaism clouds your judgment.

“To all the anti-Semites (whether you know it or not) who post on this page remember that Christianity and Islam were patterned (copied from) after Judaism.”

Frederic, I see both these labels – “Islamophobe” and “anti-Semite” – used to control debate and shut people up when there’s a valid criticism. I hope that we can stick to debating the issues based on facts, instead of resorting to such labels for all criticisms. While there are definitely anti-Semitic and Islamophobic feelings going around, using these labels without distinguishing between valid criticism and invalid one doesn’t help, and is based on faulty logic. You may agree or not, but there’s plenty of blame to go around for all sides – Palestinians, Israelis, Lebanon, USA, Arab states, UN etc., and still have some left over. No one’s hands are clean in this affair, and if we start with that honesty, there’s a chance we can move forward.

another example

Mayor of Ariel Ron Nachman stands on the security road between the settlement of Ariel and the West Bank. Nachman is one of the original founders of the now sprawling settlement. (David Gilkey/NPR) Israeli Settlement Seeks Protection
By Eric Westervelt
Audio for this story will be available later today
Most every Palestinian in the West Bank says the biggest obstacles to a better economic life are the hundreds of military roadblocks and barriers that separate the West Bank from Israel. Israel’s wall and fence project has dramatically reduced suicide bombings and other attacks inside the country. But the barrier, which will stretch some 450 miles when completed, also has had a severely negative effect on the lives of ordinary Palestinians. NPR’s Eric Westervelt and David Gilkey traveled the length of the barrier to explore how it has affected the lives of people on both sides.

April 8, 2009 · Ariel is one of Israel’s biggest settlements deep inside the West Bank. For the moment, it lies outside the barrier, a fact that its mayor and other local leaders are not happy about. The settlement has become something of an issue in relations between Israel and the U.S., as well.

Mayor Ron Nachman sounds a little like a resort tour guide as he shows off Ariel’s sprawling recreation and sports center.

I called it not a barrier. I don’t call it a fence. I don’t call it a wall. I call Ariel as a ‘gated community.’ And the whole state of Israel is one big gated community.
- Ron Nachman, mayor of Ariel, one of the largest Israeli settlements in the West Bank
It’s a far cry from the hot August days in 1978 when Nachman led a small group of settlers to found Ariel. Back then, there was no running water and no electricity, just tents on a rock-strewn hilltop.

Today, Nachman is proud of how far Ariel has come — proud, too, of its Olympic-sized pool, gymnasium, Jacuzzi and more.

“It’s beautiful. It’s the best in Israel. Not in Tel Aviv, not in Jerusalem, you don’t see such a project!” he crows about the sports center.

Much of Ariel’s state-of-the-art facility was paid for by donations from American evangelical Christians. It’s a move that some find ironic, given that many evangelicals want the Jews to populate the West Bank to fulfill their interpretation of prophecy that sees Jews converting to Christianity on Judgment Day.

The main building of the sports complex was named for John Hagee, in honor of the U.S. evangelical leader.

But rotund Russian Jewish immigrants ignore the apocalypse in favor of the rec center’s scenic wooden deck and a light breeze blowing in from the rocky West Bank landscape. More than 9,000 Russian Jews, most of them secular, have moved to Ariel since 1990. Nachman is pleased.

(above) The Israeli settlement of Ariel sits on a hilltop deep inside the West Bank, some 10 miles from the Green Line, the pre-1967 war border. The separation fence runs around the settlement but is not connected to the main route of the 450 mile barrier. (David Gilkey/NPR) “The Russian immigrants here, for them, that’s heaven. You know, they never expected to come to a new country and to have such, you know, facilities and leisure. All the project is made from contributions from private people because the establishment doesn’t give us anything,” Nachman says.

Touring Ariel underscores the enormous obstacles to forging a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ariel is gigantic. It sits some 11 miles deep into the West Bank and is home to nearly 20,000 settlers. An additional 11,000 students attend a local college. There are a hotel and two large industrial parks that include factories for plastics, metalworks and mattresses.

People like Ron Nachman are bringing the end to the two-state solution possibility.
- attorney Michael Sfard, with the Israeli human rights group Yesh Din
Strolling through Ariel’s park, with its fountains and walkways, Nachman uses the biblical name for the West Bank and insists the term “settlement” is not accurate.

“This is a city. It’s not a settlement at all,” he says. “When I was in Orange County [in California] at a press conference, they said to me when they saw the video on Ariel, they said, ‘Is that a settlement in the occupied West Bank?’ I said, ‘No, it is the main city in the region of Samaria.’ They say it looks like a new neighborhood in Orange County. When you come here and see then you understand. You see those little kids there? They grew here. They have no idea what is a security problem.”

The children don’t know real security challenges, he says, because of the fence — built by the Israeli army — that now encloses Ariel.

Mayor Ron Nachman walks past fountains and a man-made stream that runs through a new central park in the settlement of Ariel. (David Gilkey/NPR)
An Israel Defense Forces Jeep patrols the road in the security zone separating the settlement of Ariel from the West bank. (David Gilkey/NPR)
Children play in the new central park of the northern West Bank settlement of Ariel. The settelment features some of the most modern and expansive recreational facilities in Israel. (David Gilkey/NPR) “I called it not a barrier. I don’t call it a fence. I don’t call it a wall. I call Ariel as a ‘gated community.’ And the whole state of Israel is one big gated community,” he says.

And gates and fences mark Nachman’s preferred solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. He strongly opposes any Palestinian state on West Bank land he believes Jews have a historic and biblical right to control. He says no to peace talks, which he thinks are a waste of time.

Instead, he would like Jordan to eventually oversee Palestinian villages and cities while Israel would maintain security and border controls and continue to expand settlements. Essentially, in Nachman’s view, Israel keeps all the settlements but hands responsibility for the Palestinians to Jordan.

“Those stupid politicians. They don’t understand the region,” Nachman says. “There was no peace before we came, and there will not be any peace after we came. Because the way of Annapolis, the way of the road map, cannot bring peace. The slogan ‘land for peace’ cannot work.”

The mayor shows off the electronic fence topped with barbed wire that encloses most of Ariel. Suddenly, Israeli soldiers approach in a military Humvee; they don’t want people walking in this “closed security zone.”

But it’s good to be the mayor. The soldiers let Nachman and his guests walk on. The fence, the mayor says, has proved essential in stopping sniper fire and hit-and-run attacks from nearby Palestinian villages.

“The Palestinians used to come here, they used to come and shoot our high school. You see the red roof there? Imagine you stand with me here and there is no fence, no nothing. They come, they shoot and they run away. And when they started to shoot at us, we have to protect ourselves,” Nachman says

But because of challenges before the Israeli Supreme Court, as well as financial and political factors, Ariel’s fence is not as yet linked to the larger north-south barrier that separates the West Bank from much of Israel. Nachman says he hopes Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s new prime minister, makes that happen, instead of dithering as past Israeli leaders have done.

“It is not connected yet to Israel. Now, when something will happen, somebody will have to be responsible for that. I wrote to the minister of defense, I wrote to the prime minister, to the generals. I said, ‘Listen, when crisis will come and disaster will be, you will not be able to claim not guilty. Each one of you will be guilty, because you cannot abandon the security of the people,’ ” he says.

The fact that Ariel is not yet connected to the larger barrier is a rare case of American political pressure on Israel affecting settlement policy, says attorney Michael Sfard with the Israeli human rights group Yesh Din. Sfard calls the proposed extension of the fence to include Ariel a “finger.”

“The Americans thought that such a finger would be a barrier to a viable, future Palestinian state. The plan is to build the finger. It’s just not being done, and it’s not being done because of the international pressure, mainly American pressure,” he says.

Sfard has done legal battle with Nachman and other settlers many times over the route of the barrier. Sfard sees Nachman as part of a rigid, ideological movement that he says threatens the entire Zionist enterprise of a Jewish homeland by holding on to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, expanding settlements and denying self-determination to nearly 2.5 million Palestinians living there.

“People like Ron Nachman are bringing the end to the two-state solution possibility,” Sfard says. “And then we will have to face a different dilemma: that is, between a … democratic, one-state, binational state, which I’m sure Ron Nachman doesn’t want. And the other option, that Ron Nachman probably would support, is a real apartheid!”

Asked about the efforts by Sfard and other Israelis to help Palestinians protest the barrier, Nachman replies, “In some countries, they would have hanged those people by now

millard-fillmore i agree,

all sides need to reconize the ills they committed and move ahead to work together no matter what side u are from and reconizes the human rights that everyone is entitle to have.

Facts not name calling is the way forward, along with understanding the otherside point of view aswell as working with people u dont agree with in hopes to make a better future for the children.

nobel peace prize Jimmy Carter who was one of the key factors and had a even hand moderated peace for egpyt and israel should be able to help with a 2 state solution.

also a good point

Adams urges talks on Gaza visit

Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams is on a visit to the Middle East
Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams urged Israelis and Palestinians to hold direct talks as he visited Gaza on Wednesday.

Israeli officials are unhappy about Mr Adams’ visit as he has not ruled out meeting officials from Hamas.

Hamas, which rules Gaza, is listed as a terrorist organization by Israel, the US and EU.

Mr Adams toured parts of northern Gaza devastated by the Israeli operation in the Palestinian territory in January.

He said: “The obligation is that what happened here doesn’t happen again,”

“And that means there needs to be negotiations and that means that the leadership in Israel and the leadership in the Palestinian territories need to be involved in a direct dialogue.

“The international community, particularly the US, need to be actively encouraging that.”

Mr Adams met John Ging, director of operations in Gaza for the UN Refugee and Works Agency, which supports Palestinian refugees.

He also visited an ice cream factory which was destroyed during the war and spoke with its owner.

On Tuesday Mr Adams visited Sderot and Kfar Aza – a town and Kibbutz – in southern Israel that have been the targets for rocket attacks from Gaza.

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams urges Israelis and Palestinians to hold direct talks
Before Mr Adams set off for the Middle East Israeli officials said they would not meet him because he would not rule out meeting Palestinian militants.

They had threatened not to allow him to enter Gaza.

The Sinn Féin leader, who met Hamas members when he last visited the Middle East in 2006, said he regretted the Israeli government’s refusal to meet him.

“As the leader of a party which was censored and demonised and whose members were killed, I see dialogue between all sides as key to building a successful peace process,” he said.

“So I will meet with all sides and urge all sides to end all armed actions and to engage in meaningful dialogue.

“I believe there should be a complete cessation of all hostilities and freedom of movement for everyone.”

Mr Adams said there were “similarities” between the Northern Ireland peace process and the Middle East, but “there are also significant differences”.

“But it is clear that finding solutions will require leadership on both sides, and a willingness to take risks, initiatives, and compromise,” he said.

also worth checking out

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102880913

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Adams

For those of you who dream about Two State Solution:

Ok, you have a house, right.
One day, I come with my baseball bat and say: Your house is my house. Your family can freely live in the outhouse. I will tell you when to come and go to the poop hole and you cannot have TV and phone; and I will tell you what you will be eating in the stink hole.

Congratulations.
We can get along in a two-family situation.
Please stop complaining.

So, Mike. What’s your solution to the Islamic ideology problem that I mentioned above? It’s a fact that Islamic ideology is incompatible with modern, secular, democratic principles, as well as the principles of human rights that you and I champion. If its very theological core irrationally divides the world into two – Muslims and non-Muslims, and places Muslims as the superior people and non-Muslims as the inferior with lesser rights, who is going to challenge and correct that? And how is reform going to happen in the Muslim world, when anyone who challenges their belief system is either jailed or killed, or they self-censor themselves?

The problem we have today is that even in modern democratic Western societies with freedom of speech as one of the underlying values, this logical, conceptual truth (of incompatibility) is either not realized or intentionally not acknowledged by intellectuals, because, well, we all know what happened to Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, Geert Wilders and Theo van Gogh who spoke out, and everyone loves their lives. Recently, the Islamic countries succeeded in passing a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council where criticizing Islam is now a human rights violation. [http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/26/1004038/human-rights-body-passes-religious-defamation-resolution]
That does not engender hope in me that Islamic countries are serious about progress or dialog, and I see it as cowardice on the part of western societies to cave in, or a failure of their value system where they don’t protect these values from external threat. It raises the question of why should I help someone when they are enemies of the very values I hold dear? And if the value I hold dear prevents me from defending myself from external threat, then maybe we need to re-examine this value and its practicality in a world where not everyone is willing to play by the same rules.

So, to give rights to Islam to exist in Western democracies and societies means compromising on, and eroding of one of the core values that is the very foundation of the western societies. Contradictions galore.

So Mike, who is going to bell that cat?

BTW Mike. May I ask what framework are you using to criticize Israeli actions, and if you use the same framework for Islamic countries, what results do you come up with?

Real roadblocks to peace

Instead of blaming Bibi, condemn those who silenced Palestinian ‘Peace orchestra’

Abraham Cooper, Harold Brackman Published: 04.08.09, 01:02 / Israel Opinion

Pundits are atwitter over Avigdor Lieberman’s first speech as Israel’s Foreign Minister wherein he committed to the 2003 Roadmap to Peace, but rejected the 2007 Annapolis Accord. The BBC reports that diplomats “shifted uncomfortably” when the Russian-born leader posited that “the other side also bears responsibility” for peace.

As the international community draws up its list of demands for the Right-leaning Netanyahu government to prove “it’s serious about making peace,” they should also give this one to PA President Abbas — “re-instate the Strings of Peace Orchestra.” For the question of the fate of this ensemble will reveal more about the future of the Middle East than any speech or position paper.

Last week, 13 Palestinians, ages 11 to 18, belonging to the Strings of Freedom Orchestra took a brief journey from a West Bank refugee camp in Jenin. Their trip brought them to Holon, Israel to perform a “Good Deeds” concert honoring 30 Holocaust Survivors. “We Sing for Peace,” was performed in Arabic and audience members reciprocated with an impromptu Hebrew song.

If there ever was an example of “the audacity of hope” – this was it. But the Palestinian Authority moved swiftly to quash a small initiative that for a few moments cracked carefully nurtured stereotypes of the Israeli enemy. The concert, insisted an official in Jenin, was a “dangerous matter” threatening the cultural and national identity of Palestinian children! The gesture to elderly Holocaust victims was denounced; the Holocaust, he warned, was “a political issue.” The orchestra was promptly disbanded, its conductor, an Israeli Arab woman, Wafa Younis, barred from the camp and her apartment-studio boarded up.

The silencing of this little orchestra did not occur in a vacuum. It’s echoed by the stony silence of Mideast peacemakers, accompanied by the deafening din of global ritualized Israel bashing.

Is it too much to expect a word of protest from Jimmy Carter, the Mideast Quartet, or The European Union? How about a resolution from UNESCO (E = Education, C = Culture)? Might we hear a note of solidarity from the London Philharmonic or music icons and activists Annie Lenox or Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens)?

And what of the thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that constitute the vanguard of international “civil society” or the distinguished academics chairing well-endowed chairs in Middle East or Peace Studies?

No, self-anointed peacemakers don’t applaud the young Palestinians’ peace concert. They do remain willfully blind, dumb, and deaf to human rights outrages – small or large – if the culprits are Arabs or Muslims.

Embracing Hamas’ genocidal narrative
Evidence the upcoming Durban II UN World Conference Against Racism where chair Libya, aided by Iran, Pakistan, and Sudan will erase any record of their own dismal Human Rights records, even as they lip-sync pre-canned anti-Israel resolutions.

Ditto for the UN Human Rights Council (HRC): Mute about Hamas deploying Palestinian women and children as human shields and using mosques, schools, and houses as depots and rocket launching pads, it’s Special Rapporteur for Palestine, Richard Falk, leads the chorus to deny Israel every member state’s right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Will academics take up the rights of these Palestinian kids? Not likely. The same Richard Falk, an international law professor emeritus at UC Santa Barbara, just signed a new petition that would deep six the Education Abroad Program linking the University of California and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, an institutional beacon for outreach to the Palestinians. The petition ratchets up the decibel level of a carefully orchestrated anti-Israel campaign on American campuses – one that increasingly embraces Hamas’ genocidal narrative in the Holy Land.

To bring real change to the Middle East, President Obama’s Special Envoy, Senator Mitchell, needs to break new ground. A good place to start is by re-directing American taxpayer-dollars currently supporting the United National Refugee Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) – which just hired Hamas teachers committed to creating new generations into a culture of death in Gaza.

Mitchell should add two stops on his next visit: First, a solidarity session with Wafa Younis, the beleaguered conductor. It’s the best way for the US to signal the Palestinian Authority to finally dismantle its infrastructure of hatred toward Israel inculcated by West Bank schools, mosques, and media. Then he should pay a condolence call to the family of 13 year old Shlomo Nativ, axed to death by a Palestinian product of that culture of death.

Music’s potential as a universal healer is being played out, not only by Palestinian youngsters silenced in Jenin. Native American musician-composer Bill Miller is currently performing his Grammy Award-winning composition, “The Last Stand,” on tour with Israel’s Kibbutz Chamber Orchestra. The best first – and “last stand” – for true peace resides not in any grandiose road map or political photo-ops, but with people who truly seek coexistence and mutual respect. It is those still small voices that demand our protection and nurturing.

Hi Millard,

Ultimate Answer separate the State from religion. I admit something hard to do.

i disagree with you that the muslim religon is incomparable with modern society. As a argument it can be said about Christianity and judism.

In which often all 3 religions do not practice to the T what was wrote thousands of years ago and should not, where all 3 believed killing non-believers. As in current times the moderates of the reliogon have taken out or changes interpretation of what these scriptures say.There are extremist that still believe everything but even the stachest believe knows the scirpture counterdicts itself As imposing ones religous beliefs on another leads to war and violence.

As a solution i would say turkey has a good version for the Muslim world where (like the U.S.) church and state is separated. Where crazy beliefs can not make policy.

As for terrorism and the Muslim world there are major issues which instead push people to moderation(Indonesia) to more extreme means or support for it. This can be seen along in the Jewish and christian religions as well.

Nation building and supporting such fascist or dictator in the middle-east and around the world because of common interest or preceded to be and ignoring the human rights and dignity of the country’s inhabitant.

U can agree that after Sept 11 the demonetization of all Muslims occurred.

Un-apologetic response when this happens produces more hated and a more extreme view of the perpetrator who committed these acts. Often so causing the inhabitants to support more right-wing people instead of moderates or left because of the feeling there concerns are not meet.

I critize israel as nation who, in not my words states it the most moral army, yet countless violations has occurred, as for the frame-work of israel and muslim country,U would use the U.N. and U.S. frame-work where every person is entitled to there basic human rights.

If your not aware of this after WW1 the allied nations imposed unreasonable conditions on Germany inturn leading to a extremist view and eventually WW2, as Israel is imposing on the gazans and people in the west bank,erecting walls to separate the population and collective punished the Germans on the east, and israel has done. As also not recognizing the destruction and un-apologetic israel has caused to the pali’s it prolongs the hated on both sides and peace cannot not come and guarantees a support for the extremist.

This was shown in the previous U.S. administration failed to see that not talking to your enemy’s does not work in iraq and once they realized and worked with people they once called terrorist to end debate more progress was made and less violence and support for extremist was curved.

We are watching what Israel saw in the u.s. during its expansions from coast to coast where as force the inhabitants out and populate it with your own people. This is ethic cleansing in modern times, something u cannot say the the top Muslim country’s are doing.And Muslim countries who commit u.n. violations and human rights are often sanction for it.

Sadly unless the U.S. has a vested interest in it, like Saudi A. Egypt, and Israel

Millard please explain how building settlements on the west bank(U.N. law is illegal) justified.

Please explain how the right to return is given to all Jews even if they never been there but not to the people who actually lived there.(biblical maybe)

or during a war(like gaza) to trap the inhabitants with no escape not a war crime.

Please explain how it is self-defense when u are defending yourself on someone else land. (I could not break into your house and u try and stop me i shoot u and than u go to jail)

Or a democratically elected government and assassinate another democratically elected government. (which is outlawed in almost every modern day country)

i disagree with you that the muslim religon is incomparable with modern society. As a argument it can be said about Christianity and judism.

Mike, let’s stay in the present – I am aware of the history regarding the other two religions, and there isn’t any Christian nation today, and Israel has people of different religions – not just Jews – living and enjoying the same rights as Jews in a democracy that gives equal rights to all citizens. That is not the case with Muslim countries, with a few exceptions like Turkey, where the secularism was enforced by military and not willingly adopted by the citizens. And you prove my point that Islam needs to undergo a reform. My question is: who is going to do that reform? Where are the signs of that reform, when real-world scenario (I gave the example of UN Human Rights Council) tells us that we’re actually regressing? You should also look up the record of some Muslim countries in persecuting Ahmaddiyas. I believe Amnesty International has documented some of those atrocities. And we’re not talking about the past, but of the present.

Mike, to add to my earlier comment, first of all, I used the term “Islamic ideology” because it is an ideology with complete directions on how to live and how to rule – straight from god, the ultimate authority. There’s no separation between religion and state. There’s no such thing as “Muslim religion” – there’s Islam, and there are Muslims.

We are discussing Islamic ideology, not Muslims – I want to be very clear on that because it’s easy to get confused and conflate the two.

I’m also not sure why you think that Islamic ideology is compatible with modern societies. Have you done your research into the tenets of Islam, and what it has to say about:

1. Muslims and non-Muslims.
2. Rights of non-Muslims in Islamic countries.
3. Rights of women in Islamic countries.
4. Gay people and their rights in Islamic countries.
5. Secularism.
?

I’d love to hear your views on how these tenets, and practices stemming from such tenets, square up with a modern, democratic, secular society where everyone has equal rights, irrespective of religion, gender or sexual orientation.

I’d invite you to read up on the theory as well as practice in Islamic countries related to these five issues, and what rights and freedoms do non-Muslims, women and gays enjoy.

I’m surprised that you would cite (past history of) Christianity as a justification for what’s happening today. Just as you would criticize stance of Christianity on gay issue, why stop at criticizing not just the same/similar stance, but actions stemming from Islamic ideology? One needs to be consistent in applying the framework, right? One can’t say that I will criticize Christianity, but not Islam, for the same issue. That’s not a hallmark of a free society or a citizen in a free society who is consistent.

Hi millard,

U misinterpt that i am not claiming all muslim, islam culutre are right but there are many who are moderate and to demonize the islam religon is just silly.And u along with myself could not and would not defend everything in the name of islam just as judism, and christain acts.Hope u understand this

U neglect to realize in the U.N. it was reversed that zionism(a choosen group above other) was first declared racist than

U neglect that in western countrys islam is practice and updated without the extremes u so expect from islam.

u neglect the answers and question i purposed to u i stated that like islam other reilgion do not follow they religon like u propose islam does and often time mordenify it to suit the societys as it grow.

This can be seen in all modern society ,how u do not see this. granted 3 world countrys be it muslim, christians have extremes as well.

U also neglect the point that u can go to any religon and fine extrems in its text.

U neglect that there are muslim countrys who islam is intergrated into there societies with tolerance of other religons

1. Muslims and non-Muslims. Lived in peace before the crusades, agian after the formation of israel. also in the western world,

2. Rights of non-Muslims in Islamic countries. contray to what some might believe even iran lets non muslim practice there religon,

3. Rights of women in Islamic countries. as we can see as the a muslim country becomes more developed this rights are expanded and I think it is wrong the acts that happen to women as well.

4. Gay people and their rights in Islamic countries.
of course this is a issue, along with almost any other country in the world. It wasnt till the 1980’s the U.S. had laws to protect ones in america. This i agree with u that its a issue that needs to be address,

5. Secularism is happening slowly yes in the middle-east far slower than i like, yet if u prefer and promote a demonization of islam and muslim as a whole than it will be even slower.

The frame-work is that every person has a right have there basic rights no matter what race, culture, there are based on your culture after that is up for debate.

if violated be it muslim,jewish, christian the violaters so be critized, or sanation, or arrested and jailed. “Basis Human Rights” is the Key point that maybe u misinterupted what i said.

As my prior statement it was good obama is reaching out the the muslim world, as the previous admin did not and breed more extremist.

DID u not wish to the respond to the valid question i asked or was it i selective picking of information u wished to relpy to if so i fully understand since it be hard to validate your view if u done so.

U misinterpt that i am not claiming all muslim, islam culutre are right but there are many who are moderate and to demonize the islam religon is just silly.

Yet, isn’t the entire Christian religion demonized in America by liberals for extremist stance of a few?

Palestinian Arab children dying to kill: Purposely sacrificing children.

by Eli E. Hertz

What kind of society consciously and purposely sacrifices its own youth for political gain and tactical advantage? Suicide bombers are an escalation of a small-arms war introduced and championed by Palestinian Arab leaders, even prior to Arafat’s arrival from Tunis to Gaza in July 1994.

Today the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs nurture a blind hatred of Israel. They created a cultural milieu of vengeance, violence and death — preparing their children to be sacrifices in a death cult. Proud parents dress up their toddlers not in clown costumes, but with suicide belts,[1] and countless others celebrate their children’s deaths with traditional sweet ho liday cakes and candies.

Palestinian Arabs are killing their children because they make effective delivery systems for killing Israelis. They also sacrifice them because wounded or dead children paint Israelis as heartless and cruel in the eyes of the world and the Israelis themselves.

This so-called success encouraged Palestinians to enlarge the role of their children by using them as human shields, direct combatants and suicide bombers — glorifying, rather than mourning their deaths.

The death of Arab children on the front lines — extolled as shahids or martyrs — has become a cynical weapon in the arsenal of Arab leaders. They have learned that when their children are killed, they gain world sympathy, especially in Europe and North America — where the death of any child is viewed as a tragedy and portrayed as such in the media, regardless of circumstance.

While Palestinian leaders exhort the public into volunteering their children for suicide missions, they make sure their own children are not among the volunteers.

International law prohibits using children to fight. Article 38 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted in 1989) condemns the recruitment and involvement of children in hostilities and armed conflicts. In 2000, the UN General Assembly adopted a treaty that raised the age limit for compulsory recruitment and participation in combat to age 18. Article 36 of the same UN document calls on states to protect children against any kind of exploitation.[2]

Former United Nations Under-Secretary-General Olara Otunnu condemned terrorist groups’ use of children as human shields, gunmen and suicide bombers. At a UN Security Council debate on January 14, 2003 devoted to measures to protect children in armed conflict, he said:

“We have witnessed child victims at both ends of these acts: [Palestinian] children have been used as suicide bombers and [Israeli] children have been killed by suicide bombings. Nothing can justify this. I call on the Palestinian authorities to do everything within their powers to stop all participation by children in this conflict.”[3]

A Washington Post editorial headlined “Death Wish,”[4] following a conference in which 57 Islamic nations rejected the idea that Palestinian ‘resistance’ to Israel had anything to do with terrorism, said:

“In effect, the Islamic conference sanctioned not only terrorism but also suicide as a legitimate political instrument. … It is hard to imagine any other grouping in the world’s nations that could reach such a self-destructive and morally repugnant conclusion.”

The Post castigated Muslim states and suggested their behavior was liable to be the seeds to their own destruction. It concluded:

“The Palestinian national cause will never recover — nor should it — until its leadership is willing to break definitely with the bombers.”

A criminal Palestinian Arab leadership, along with cowardly and intimidated Palestinian parents on the West Bank and Gaza, exploit their children to engage in armed conflict — in opposition to values held by the rest of the civilized world and in flagrant violation of international law and common decency.

There is no excuse — nor any widespread precedent among the wretched of the earth — for sacrificing the youth of any society for political gain and tactical advantage. If this is to stop, the culpability must be put squarely on the shoulders of Palestinian society and others who legitimize, support and ‘understand’ such child sacrifice.

FOOTNOTES

[1] “Baby Bomber Photo ‘Just Fun,’” BBC, June 29, 2002, at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2075072.stm.

[2] Justus Weiner, “The Recruitment of Children in Current Palestinian Strategy,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 1, 2002.

[3] See “UN urges Palestinian leaders to stop child suicide bombings,” Agence France-Presse, January 14, 2002.

[4] “Death Wish,” Washington Post, April 4, 2002, at: http://www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=11482.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=road%20to%20jenin&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

(better sound)

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=road%20to%20jenin&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQpj2bFM7s0&NR=1

Beware of the U.N. Human Rights Council
Obama should be careful about lending legitimacy to bad actors.

By RONAN FARROW
Last week the Obama administration announced its intention to seek membership in a body America has for years shunned: the United Nations Human Rights Council. It is perhaps the starkest illustration yet of what officials have billed as a “new era of engagement,” and it was breathlessly hailed as a toppling of Bush-era isolationist tactics.

But the Human Rights Council is far from the symbol of positive engagement proponents of the decision would like it to be. Joining plunges the U.S. headlong into one of the most notorious quagmires in international politics. American officials will have to walk a razor’s edge between instigating reform and legitimizing the Council’s colorful, often sinister, history.

The Council’s most recent session saw the body voting to end its mandate to investigate the Democratic Republic of the Congo, even as that nation lurches into ethnic bloodshed. A Pakistani resolution against “defamation of religions” passed with ease despite being universally decried by human rights groups as a thinly veiled effort to curtail freedom of expression and suppress minority sects.

The news was unsurprising for anyone familiar with the Council. The body has declined to issue a single condemnation of Sudan for its ethnic cleansing in Darfur. As fresh violence convulsed Darfur last year, the Council responded by dismissing the team of experts tasked with monitoring the region, then disregarding reports from a fact-finding mission that implicated the Sudanese government in torture, rape and mass murder.

According to Human Rights Watch, at least 26 other countries — including China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe — have been ignored by the Council. It has instead diverted an implausible portion of its resources to the constant, fevered condemnation of Israel: 26 of its 32 condemnations have been against that country. During its most recent session, the Council issued no fewer than five resolutions condemning Israel — more than all its resolutions concerning other countries combined.

The recent addition of “Universal Periodic Reviews” — compelling the Council to examine all U.N. states, not just a narrow selection of their choosing — sparked hopes for improvement. But periodic reviews of China, Cuba and other systematic rights abusers have been farcical displays of politicized whitewashing. The Council, even U.N. Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon conceded, “has clearly not justified all the hopes that so many of us placed on it.”

The Bush administration took a hard line on the Council, subjecting it to withering invectives. It even withheld America’s share of the body’s budget last year. That served to reinforce perceptions of American isolationism and left the Council’s few reform-minded members, such as Canada, stranded.

The Obama administration’s shift is a welcome step; the U.S. is overdue to apply its diplomatic weight to improve the behavior of Council members. But the merits of formal membership are less obvious. America’s bid to join may represent too hasty an embrace of a body that still needs fundamental restructuring, not incremental improvements.

The U.S. is already able to flex its diplomatic muscle both behind the scenes and via a right for nonmembers to testify before the Council at will. Formally wielding a vote is unlikely to increase American influence. Because the Council is structured according to geographic bloc, America’s seat will simply supplant another member of the “Western Europe and Other States” group, which already votes along almost uniformly progressive lines.

What’s needed is an immediate call for serious reform. Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., should urge that the review of Council policies by the General Assembly — currently slated for April 2011 — be undertaken as soon as possible. She should work to ensure that the Universal Periodic Review system, still in its infancy, be strengthened and made less politically manipulable. She should fight for expanded scrutiny of countries beyond Israel, and for specific condemnations of regimes responsible for mass atrocities, starting with Sudan.

How diligently the Obama administration pursues these goals will determine whether America will act as a catalyst for change — or lend its imprimatur to the world’s most discredited international body as it spirals destructively out of control.

Mr. Farrow, currently writing a book on America’s use of proxy armies, has worked on human rights issues at the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the U.N. He is a student at Yale Law School.

R.M. i laugh at how sad u are. your ramabling would actually mean something if it was factual or not so unbelivabe faulty.

maybe a independent source could help your cause. which i highly doubt it.

the information u present is about as facutal as what foxes news presents. and we all know foxes is trash