Hudson Jones

Meh... The Catholic church have clearly stated that they were against child sex abuse but were also against doing anything to stop it. In fact, they not only did their best to cover the incidents, but allowed it to continue by moving the priests who liked doing children to other parishes where they re-offended.

Not sure what the reason is for posting that like you've hit some jackpot. Personally, I have thought about this and at the end, I'm still not sure if I would economically boycott Israel, but I do fully support boycotting any Israeli products that are coming from the settlements in the occupied territories. Regardless, CJPME supports boycotting Israel for violating numerous international laws. So what? This is a lawful stance and a legitimate way to protest against Israel's human rights violations. The rest of your jibberish about Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi, is just that: Jibberish.

What jibberish.

It is either "anti-semitic" or "Israel bashing". That's a familiar response by the Israeli apologists when any criticism of Israel is made. If I wanted to start a thread for every human rights violation that Israel does, then I'd be sitting here all day. Since there was no thread about the proposed plan to transfer the Bedouins, I added the good news that it was cancelled in here, since this is a thread that shows how Israel continuously discriminates against the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and the non-Jews in Israel. I'm glad that both the internal and global pressure forced the racist regime to back down from the plan.

I'm not attempting anything. You are the one who is saying that life was better during the apartheid years than it is now. This is why I asked you a few times to make sure where you stood on the issue and you confirmed that you think life was better under apartheid than it is now.

I guess the higher crime rate would make a good argument to keep people from being able to vote and to keep them in black only bantustans and to make sure that the whites continue to keep control of the blacks. Like keeping the animals in their cage, eh? You are a champion DogOnPorch.

Really? The blacks have it worse in South Africa? So you are saying that living in bantustans and not being able to vote is better than how their lives are today. Interesting view of life.

Pressure from the world has worked! The Prawer Plan has been cancelled. At least for the time being. However, this does not mean the Bedouin communities in the Negev will be treated as equal citizens, or hooked up to the basic services they require, or have their ancestral land claims will be recognized. Dozens of Bedouin villages remain unrecognized by the Israeli government, lacking basic infrastructure such as water, sewage, and electricity, and Bedouins continue to be forbidden from building, buying or selling a home, receiving full government services, or running for or voting in local government elections. Many Bedouin homes and villages are still slated for demolition (the village of Al-Araqib has already been demolished over 60 times).

Is that so? Are you saying that the blacks had it better when they lived in bantustans and were not able to vote and not able to hold many jobs because of the colour of their skin.

Sigh.. if only things have stayed the same... then things would have been so much easier and better for the whites.

Economic pressure was one of the reasons Apartheid South Africa was brought down. Things are moving in the right direction: Dutch water giant cuts ties with Israeli counterpart due to settlementsThe Netherlands’ largest supplier of drinking water said Tuesday it was severing ties with Israeli national water company Mekorot because of the “political context” of Israel’s West Bank settlements. In the Dutch media and the parliamentary debate, Mekorot was mentioned as a company that drills for water in the West Bank. It was also accused of discriminating against Palestinians in supplying water.

Unfortunately you have been duped by misinformation. The Iranian government, headed by some of the same negotiators did offer pretty much the same thing to the P5+1. Most of the countries were on board but the U.S. wasn't. This was back in 2003 and Bush's two wars were still fresh. Bush and his people thought he had enough momentum that he could push the Iranian regime out of power as well. Bush had a lot of neo-cons around him, who engineered the war in Iraq and had plans to go to Iran as well. So it was the U.S. government that rejected diplomacy and instead, Iran went from a few hundred centrifuges to over 16,000 today. All along, Iran has maintained that they want to continue to have the right to enrich uranium and according to the deal, they've been able to do that. More on this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html So it wasn't the sanctions that did this. It was the new Iranian government who seem to be better communicators than Ahmadinejad and Obama's willingness to resist the pressure from the neo-cons and AIPAC. Could be because this is his last term and he has nothing to lose, as there is no election.

A great man has left us but his achievements will never be forgotten. He became a symbol of resistance around the world and in later years a symbol of reconciliation. This one man gave us hope and taught us that justice can be achieved no matter how difficult the path may be. May we be inspired by this man and learn to better ourselves and work together to better humanity. Link

You're all over the place and continue to become more incoherent. You can be proud of your tribe and want the best for your tribe without violating other people's rights. Many Jews want the best for Israel, but not at the expense of other people's human rights. Why not strive to be a better person like them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWo5CBNe5LU

Conservative MP Michael Chong has introduced legislation to make party leaders more accountable to their caucuses. This bill is seen to be taking away the power from the inner elite and shift in favour of MPs and their riding associations. the "Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (reforms)" would: Give MPs the power to trigger a leadership review Give MPs the power to oust a leader if 50 per cent plus one of the caucus desires Allow MPs to select committee chairs and give them decision-making powers with regard to who to retain or to boot out of caucus Take away a leaders' power to sign-off on election candidates Most seem to be in support of this bill, but some argue that the power may go to a small gang of MPs. And some argue that the bill will not make a difference as the MPs already have the power to push their leader aside. As they did when Joe Clark was turfed and a handful of other party leaders have seen party members turn on them. The big question here will be if Harper would survive if the bill goes through. We will not find out until Spring rolls around.

Mercer makes a point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=750WMkyWeuA

Where does he talk about your religion? Are you playing the sad little victim again? As Bud has mentioned, your ultra-nationalistic feelings has blinded you and has created this unconditional support for Israel. Same can be said of an Iranian who blindly supports his government or a Saudi who does this.

As usual, Rue is trying to do what he can to help the Zionist PR machine by making things up and then when called on, try to weasel himself out of it. Let's look at a few of the links: The link you have provided, attributes all chemical weapons attack to Iraq. Nothing about Iran using them. 0/1 There has never been any concrete evidence showing that Iran used chemical weapons. Just accusations, including the ones from the Americans, which were later shown to be invalid. This is pretty much the only information in this piece that says Iran used chemical weapons: "..there are reports that Iranian forces also began to retaliate with chemical attacks either from captured Iraqi chemical stores or indigenously produced agent stockpiles." "There are reports".. The above refers to American reports which were later shown to be made up. Why? Because U.S. was on the side of Iraq and was even giving Iraq intelligence to use its chemical weapons (as it has be revealed from U.S. government papers). Another case of U.S. being an 'honest broker' in a war that they've picked a side and are active in. Here is information from the same link: Skeptics argue that the only evidence for the claim that Iran used chemical weapons during the war were unsubstantiated claims of the US government. There were allegations by the US Government at the time that Iran had used chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja in March 1988. Subsequently, these attacks were attributed by the US Government to Iraq alone. 0/2 So what if they had a chemical weapons program? So do hundreds of other countries including Israel (who happen to have a nuclear weapons program as well). This is not proof that Iran used chemical weapons. What a desperate attempt at trying to prove something else. 0/3 You are an irresponsible poster and not a good person for trying to spread misinformation.

I believe intellectually dishonest is when people like you, throw around blatantly false statements and then try to defend it. Liars are liars.

If it's this important to you what my background is, then just say so. No need to get hysterical about it. My Mother's side is Irish and Scottish and father's side is English and German. Apparently there is some Jewish blood on my father's side, but we haven't really looked deeply into it. Now back to the topic at hand, before you exploded into yet another emotional drivel: There are many Jews who are against Israel's occupation, colonialism and the terrible treatment of the Palestinians. Speaking out against Israel's bad policies is criticism of Israel's bad policies. They're not against Jews. It doesn't matter how much you try to shut down conversation about Israel, by obsessively flashing the anti-semite card, it's not going to work. Look at these Jews, who understand that Israel and aggressive, warmongering Zionists do not represent them. You could learn a few things from them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWo5CBNe5LU

Of course it's not. Israel always needs a boogyman to take attention away from its colonialism in the Occupied Territories.

Oh but I am. I am in the position to say what I like to say. Your response proved my point again. Tell me when you are able to let go over your zealotry and tribalism and start seeing and treating others as you would yourself. If you're unable to do that, you will be sidelined, just like other extremists have been in history. Israel's discriminatory treatment of Palestinians and other minorities in Israel and the Occupied Territories have continued for decades. The world does not have the stomach for it anymore and it will end, with or without your support.

Dude. You're emotionally unstable and that's where this so-called passion comes from. When Israel is forcibly transferring the Beduins, against their wishes, from their homes, and you come in here to back up these actions, this makes you a supporter of a policy that discriminates. There is no way around this. Some Jews' wish to have their own, pure, Jewish only state is no excuse for discrimination and the violation of human rights. You have accused me of being an Arab, an Iranian agent and other things. So all this about you not making comments about my background and your emotional cries about me bringing up the fact that you're Jewish is kind of weird. When you can't even follow what you say yourself, how can anyone expect you to follow the conversation? You haven't been able to. People continuously call you on your inability to stay consistent and follow the conversation, without going into different incoherent tangents. But you refuse to accept it. When I ask you to abandon tribalism, this is not anti-semitic. This is a plea for you to see and treat people as you would treat yourself. The Palesitnians and the Beduins are not being treated the same way the Jews in Israel and in the Occupied Territories. This is why it's legitimate to say that Israel is discriminating against another group of people. Not only are the laws discriminatory and racist but the whole, overall policy and their actions are discriminatory and racist. I have shared numerous number of facts to back this up and there is no amount of denial by you or the Israeli PR that will change the facts on the ground.

Oh fantastic. You have been with Beduins and so now you know what is best for them. Even though the Beduins themselves DO NOT want to be transported to somewhere else. How about you ask the Beduins who you became BFF's with, how they feel about being moved? Or does what they think matter to you and the rest of the Zionist/Colonialist thugs? You realize that, once again, Israel is destroying homes and villages in order to transport people and to claim their land? Thank you for posting a link to the Israeli government web site so we can see what their PR is saying. Does their PR, or you, ever acknowledge that the reason the Beduins do not have access to the grid is because Israel refuses to give it to them? Does it ever acknowledge that, despite thousands of requests for permits, the government refuses to give the Beduins permits, while Ironically, in 2010, the Knesset retroactively legalized around 60 individual settlements in the Naqab that were established without permits and contrary to planning laws. These individual settlements, all but one of which are Jewish owned, are connected to all the basic services and are often located near the “unrecognized” Bedouin villages. Israel wants these people's land and that's why they've done everything they could to drive them out. A percentage of them have been moved to the ghettos, but the rest have not and continue to live there. This is why this ethnic cleansing plan came into effect. This is land that Beduins have been living on way before the European Jews migrated and settled in Palestine and way before Israel became a State. Go ahead, ask a Beduin how he or she feels about being forcibly transferred. As far as what my nationality is. Would it disappoint you to know that I'm a whitey with European background? And stop getting all emotional and sensitive about your ethnic background being brought into this. Many people are blinded by nationalism and tribalism. Don't get me wrong. There are many many Jews who are not blinded by what Israel and Zionism is doing. Some of the biggest leaders speaking out against the thuggery and the brutal treatment of Palestinians by the Zionists are Jews.

I'm not Muslim and I'm not Arab. I'm a well-informed, stable and caring person who loves all of humanity. I stand up for humanity and justice and speak against those who side with injustice. I don't pick sides based on the person's religion or background. I pick the side of justice. My remark was never acknowledged, so I will post one last time, in case you want to have a real, coherent debate, using facts, with citation and links to back-up my claims: AIPAC still has a huge influence when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, especially when it comes to the middle east. Why? Because they hold this power over the congress and senate. Look at the way the senate, both dems and republicans are responding to Kerry, who is asking the senate to hold off on 'new' sanctions on Iran. This is no conspiracy theory since there is proof in their actions and proof in the amount of money these guys receive from the pro-Israeli lobby groups. Stop pretending otherwise. In the article you responded, it's mentioned the same thing. So there is no contradiction on where I stand and what I have said in the past. You need to improve your attention span and stop imagining things in your head. Kerry and his White House entourage had a chat with U.S. senators and it was like trying to convince Bibi to give negotiations a chance. Here is one of AIPAC's favourite poodles, senator Mark Kirk: “I was supposed to disbelieve everything the Israelis had just told me, and I think the Israelis probably have a pretty good intelligence service,” Kirk said. He revealed that the Israelis had told him that the “total changes proposed set back the program by 24 days.” Kirk also adopted the Israeli comparisons of the Iran deal to the Munich Agreement, saying: “Today is the day I witnessed the future of nuclear war in the Middle East.” Makes you wonder which country he is representing. A final note, Rue: Pay attention to what is being discussed and stop misrepresenting people.