Rue

I read the above comment and gagged. Are you serious? How can you read the Military Commissions Act and say that? In fact there is a reason why the American Bar Association and every leading law school and lawyer in the United States is arguing the Military Commissions Act violates both the US constitution and international law. There is a reason the Canadian Supreme Court just rendered a decision which states procedures under the Military Commissions Act violate Canadian constitutional law which has the same meaning as US constitutional law. There is a reason the British pulled all their citizens out of Guantanamo Bay and their top courts and legal bar denounced this act. Get real. This act was implemented three months after the US Supreme Court rendered a decision in Hamden v. Runfeld stating the military tribunal system was defective and flawed and had to be thrown out. This act in fact passed legislation to undo the decision. It was a direct reaction to undo a US Supreme Court decision as to fair procedures in legal and military tribunals. Let's be specific as to how it violates the US constitution and Geneva Convention and is specifically designed to do just that. First of all it invents a new classification, alien unlawful enemy combatant. It creates this new definition so it can be exempt from the US Supreme Court decision in Hamden and to be able to violate S.3 of the Geneva Convention which would otherwise stipulate how an enemy combatant is to be tried. It also is designed to violate other UN conventions on the treatment of child combatants. Let us be clear the US is the first country in modern times to try a child combatant in war as a civilian combatant no differently then an adult. Under the Geneva Convention, Article 3, any one engaged in war is to be detained in a prisoner of war camp until such time as hostilies are over. What the U.S. did is invent a new definition of combatant. They did so unilaterally rather then wait for the proper courts of international law to define a new treaty or convention as to detaining and trying civilians engaged in war or terrorism. It did so because it did not want to follow the Geneva Convention. It also did so to violate the U.S. Constitution. Its a law designed to justify disobeying the law. No more, no less. In regards to violating the US Constitution, the first and most blatant violation is its allowing people to be detained indefinitely without trial. This flies in the face of everything the US constitutional system stands for and is the corner stone of the legal systems of all Western nations. It means no one who is detained has the right to the write of habeus corpus and could in theory remain in prison until they die with no trial. It does something else. If it was a U.S. citizen caught engaged in unlawful activities against the U.S. they would have to be tried by a civilian court. However it says, these civilians, since they are not US citizens will be tried in a military tribinal not a US civilian court and that is another blatant violation of the US constitution guaranteeing all civilians be treated in the same manner. Its a pick and choose system that on the one hand says, you are not a civilian and we treat you as a military combatant in a military tribunal system, but even though you are not considered a civilian, we still get to ignore s.3 of the Geneva Convention and reinvent the rules on how to try and treat you. For that it is a blatantly defective law. It picks and chooses when it treats the combatant as a soldier, and then as a civilian. But it doesn't stop there. It retroactively goes back nine years and says any act the US engaged in that is a war crime, is now not one. The blatant violation of the US Constitution goes furtehr. It holds admissable any evidence obtained by illegal torture that would otherwise be in violation of both US constitutional and international laws concerning torture and in particular makes admissable evidence obtained by simulated drownings, inducing hypothermia, electric torture and beatings. It then further violates the US constitution and all known international laws by stating not just coerced evidence is admissable, but that heresay evidence is admissable. But why stop there. As a final insult to the US constitution and all international law, it states the person on trial is not allowed to see or hear the evidence being used against them which is the most basic of violations of every Western legal system's rules of natural justice. So for you to say it comforms to the US constitution with due respect is a crock. Its a disgrace. It is in the entire history of the US next to the Patriot Act, an abomination of everything US lawyers and Judges and its constitutional creators stand for. It spits at the Geneva Convention. I again state, if the U.S. was doing the right thing, it would have conformed to s.3 of the Geneva Convention and placed Kadr in a prisoner of war camp and not created a new tribunal to avoid dealing with conventional US military law which upholds and honours the US Constitution, the Geneva Convention and the military code of honour of all soldiers. Its why JAG officers wish nothing to do with this flawed system. It turns the US military into controlled puppets for political theatre. A true US military court is seperate and distinct from civilian law. The Supreme Court of Canada and every ally of the US will not abide by whatever finding comes about from Kadr. Guantanamo Bay will be dismantled and this fiasco eventually undone. Not even the right wing Supreme Court Judges who defend Bush defended it. Kadr should have been placed in a prisoner of war camp. Either that or he should have been sent back to Canada and tried under Canadian law which conforms to the international law as to treatment of child combatants. I do not like Kadr or his family. I detest everything they stand for and what they have done. But this is not the way to deal with such people. Dismantling the very fundamental principals that set us apart from terrorists and turn us into kangeroo courts is not the answer. There is absolutely no difference between this Act and its tribunal system and the very councils and legal systems the US and all democratic countries criticize countries like China and Iran for. Its a disgrace. It insults the honour of soldiers and those of us sworn to uphold the law and prevent society from debasing itself to such a primative and barbaric level.

The point is Buffy, some of us try debate it as honestly as we can.

No. Peace is never pointless. All it means is peace is fragile and precarious.

Lol. He is. Look in the ideal world he should not have been deported simply because of his political opinions. Problem is his trip was organized by Hamas and his agenda was to go to the West Bank and engage in a deliberately provocative series of comments to trigger off extremist Jewish settlers and Palestinians fighting one another. There are many self-loathing Jewish foreigners who actually live in Israel and do nothing but engage in anti-semitic commentary. The difference is they do not travel to the West Bank and do not have the high profile he does. The reality is if he was an extremist ultra right week racist Jew going to the West Bank they would have given him the boot too. Its not so much his opinion. The fact that he is very anti-Israel is not so much the factor as it is his extreme views which would provoke incitement and endanger both Israelis and Palestinians. In regards to his specific opinions he's been dismissed by academics because of quoting non existent references or misquoting references or presenting subjective opinions as facts. But then he is a political scientist not an historian so while his technical academic methods are extremely lacking they are not as significant as if he were claiming to he an historian. He doesn't. He calls himself a forensic political scientist. His entire academia consists of taking other peoples' works and pointing out why he thinks they are wrong. He does not and has never proposed his own ideology or ideas. His entire thesis is an anti-thesis of others. That in itself makes his premises very questionable. But he is entitled to his opinions. His actual opinions are not the issue. The real issue that comes up when he's criticized, is the fact he's one dimensional i.e., hejust denes others works, he never proposes any original or constructive alternatives. What he has done, is to argue that those who discuss the holocaust, do so in a way to explout it to justify the existence of Israel. To do this, hetakes other peoples' works and counter argues using such claims. He also makes accusations that not just Israelis but all Jews are involved in a financial conspiracy to misrepresent the holocaust for financial gain. The problem is when he has done this he presents subjective remarks without reference and tries to suggest they are facts. When he has made references to his arguments, they have been exposed as false, or misquoted. Not all of them, but enough of them to give serious question to his credibility. Because he is the son of a holocaust survivor he has become the most quoted anti-semite next to Naom Chomsky his mentor. Every neo-Nazi quotes him arguing since he is a Jew he can't be criticized. They say since he is a Jew, his anti-semitism is acceptable. The point is the only reason he has gained as much attention as he has is precisely because he is a Jew. If he was anything but a Jew he would have been dismissed as a sad anti-semite. Ironically the argument that a Jew can't be anti-semitic is in itself an anti-semitic concept in that it makes a gross generalization about all Jews being the same and therefore can then be used negatively against them and its precisely why David Duke and so many other avid anti-semites and Hamas and the President of Iran embrace him. He has repeatedly been caught misquoted Hanah Arendt, Eli Wiesel (holocaust survivo) and Jerzi Kosinzki (non Jewish holocaust survicor, Polish)and likes to quote David Irving a holocaust denier verbatum. His views would be highly offensive to holocaust survivors anywhere, Jewish or not, i.e., would also be offensive to gay, Roma, 7th Day Adventist, Jehova's Witness, holocaust survivors, Russian prisoners in the concentration camps and all the righteous gentiles that died saving Jews and others from the Nazis. They have all condemned his comments on the holocaust for various reasons/ He has openly called for Israel being dismantled and encouraging Hamas to continue to engage in terror to achieve its political goals. He's one of those guys that loves getting attention by negative behaviour-shock behaviour. He is entitled to his opinions but there is a time and place and the West Bank which is a powder keg is not the time or place. By the way If you want to read harsh critiques of Israeli policies that do not engage in holocaust denial or suggesting holocaust survivors are manipulative whores, all you have to do is talk to any Israeli who has to pay taxes or drive a car or read its Supreme Court decisions, its newspapers, or listen to the comments of any of its politicians in the Knesset. Nothing he has said can compare to what Israelis say about each other. The real issue is that his comments could incite violence against both Palestinians and Israelis. He is as rude about King Abdullah of Jordan and Abbas as he is about Israel. He tries to antagonize many people not just holocaust survivors.

His Self you did state; "Ha ha. Buffy is right." Why areyou laughing at Buffy. That is not nice. "Where did I say "the U.S. and Israel and no one else is interfering in Lebanon"?" Oh look let's play dumb. You playing or is it the real thing? Reminds me of a game show.... " Speak oh mighty toothless one." Oy now you are a dentist. Here's a hint. There's no teeth cuz you are looking up something else. Might also explain why you find it smelly too. Keep your day job. Anatomy doesn't seem your forte. "The other points you say I make are most certainly true." Now I am getting Papal dispensation. You are a man of many roles. Here's a hint, I don't need any dispensation. Thanks I have enough fibre in my diet. " Let's review them one by one shall we?" Now you sound like me. Lol. I had no idea you wanted to emulate me. "1-the U.S. and Israel are interfering in Lebanon. Well what was your first clue? Ha Ha. Are we all supposed to deny it because you say we say ... :blink." You assume. Do check out the first three letters of that word and the last two. At no time did I say the U.S. and Israel have not had a role in the internal affairs of Lebanon. My point was your simpistic black and white depiction of only those two nations as having any role in Lebanon and then blaming them for the conflict in Lebanon wasin my opinion disingenuine. Lol. Weasels can be tricky varmints when they try wiggle loose after getting caught in the kosher chicken pen but I have big Zionist gloves that get a good strong grip on things. "2-the U.S. and Israel and no one else is interfering in Lebanon I love this one. Well hey, get a clue, Rue. The Lebanese are Arabs." Can you pull your foot out of there? No Lebanese are not all Arabs. Some are Shiite, some are Sunni, some are Christian, some are Druze, some of all these there categories may be "Arabs" but not all. Here's a hint. Before you puff up and try show off for Buffy and try impress her, go find out what an Arab is. That might help. Also might help you find out where Lebanese could originate from. Now let's get to the next silliness. Using your analogy, interfering in another nation's soverignty is o.k. provided people are of the same ethnicity or religion. Now there is a brilliant way to reinvent international law. More to the point it means oh my God...did you tell Buffy this...it means Hamas and Hezbollah and Syria and Iran and all those other "Arabs" and "Muslims" and for that matter anyone who is NOT Jewish or Israeli should not interfere with Israel's right to exist! Wow. Do you intend to call Hamas and Hezbollah up and tell them that? You going to tell the President of Iran his repeated calls for an invasion to wipe out Israel is inappropriate? Can't wait. "What did you expect? OK.There are a small number of Christians. Woops." Oh look you keep showing me what an ingenius cognitive process you engage in. Small number of Christians. Woops. So now dismiss an entire group of Lebanese citizens with the word "woops". My we are non chalante when we are discuss other peoples' existence. "3-the U.S. and Israel are responsible for the internal conflicts in Lebanon No they just make them a whole bloody lot worse." Care to share with us how you know this to the case? That was the original point of my comments that continue to ignore. You are quick to make such comments but provide no examples. So do tell us. How did you ascertain that its the US and Israel and not Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria causing the current conflcit? Oh wait this is the same analyst who describes the Christian population in Lebanon as a small number and says woops as if they are a joke. Here is a hint, you might when you try figure out what an Arab is and why not all Muslims or for that matter Lebanese are Arabs, perhaps at the same time figure out what Iran and Syria have been doing in Lebanon the last oh 50 years and who has assassinated 4 leaders of Lebanon and whose army invaded and occupied Lebanon and set up a secret police apperatus that still pulls Lebanese citizens off the street and murders them? Here's another hint before you giggle some more, its not Israel but it starts with an S. "4-the Arab League has been acting as a benevolent peace broker in Lebanon to resolve the internal conflicts. They have been trying, but the keyword here is Arab. What did you expect? That they would all convert to Judaism?" Ah but you save the most brilliant of your comments until the last. Again you show your ignorance and assume all Arabs are Muslim. Then you make some idiotic comment about me wanting to converting them to Judaism. You just had to make some insulting remark about Judaism right? Just can't discuss any topic in the Middle East without turning it into some kind of dispariging comment about Jews right? The topic has and had nothing to do with religion. In fact the civil war in Lebanon is similiar to the one in Sri Lanka. While the feuding groups are distinct religiously, its not their religion that is the primary cause for the conflict. The comment I made about your simplistic assumption the Arab League has been acting honestly again seems to have slipped past you. Here let us make it even clearer. The Arab League has never been a credible neutral body for the specific reason it is unable to control the different political agendas of its members. Currently its dominated by Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Syria and Iran consider the Arab League a stooge of the Egyptians and Saudis who they in turn consider stooges of the US. So no in your simplistic world where all Arabs are the same and all are Muslims and they all have the right to abuse each other which is specifically what you suggested, it is not all peaches and cream and the Arab League actually has lacked any credibility and has been using your earlier dental analogy, toothless. In fact its been the Lebanese Army that has played the role of mediator or peace broker and its been their role that has been the principal one in bring about peace. Of course you would know that if you were not so quick to come on this forum and try act like an expert on a complex conflict and did a bit more reading. One last thing, Jews do not believe in proseltyzing people. You have us mixed up with Christians or the forced conversions Muslims have engaged in of others. We prefer to engage in one world conspiracies and mind control people through the control of all Hollywood movies-why as I speak Don't Mess with the Zohan starring Adam Sandler is carrying out this nasty deed and one-quarter Jew Harrison Ford and that other agent of mind control Steven Spielberg are at it with Indiana Jones and veiled references to the Jewish God. Also in the Sex and The City Movie one of the 4 leads is Jewish although she plays an Episcopalian in the movie and marries a gay Jew. See its all there. Simple. Do me a favour, leave the Jew baiting to my people. You clearly are out of your league. Your wonder bread to my rye is no match bubkus.

Sprry Kuzadd I just read your response to mine . I concede I may have taken your comments out of context. You stated: "Ya know what Rue, i think your all hot and bothered that Einstein heaped disdain, on religion in general and that he included Judaism in that." No actually I subscribe to Einstein's approach to religion although I also agree with Dog on the Porch its just an opinion no different then anyone else's. I actually totally agree with this comment you made; "....Jews were like everyone else, just people, just human beings, who mess things up , and are as capable of good and bad as everyone else...." What got my kickers in a knot and still does is you insist that the word "chosen" in Judaism connotates superiority. It does not. It does suggest a personal obligation to God, not superiority. The reason that gets my knickers in a knot is because in the past you have stated Zionism is racism because it is based on the Jewish religious concepts that Jews are chosen, i.e., superior to others. I would agree if Judaism did teach its people they were superior to others this would be morally problematic. I also agree any religion teaching that has a moral problem. Its why I criticize Christian and Islam doctrine for promulgating such concepts and also clash with orthodox Jews on the definition of who is a Jew. Its also why I hate all organized religions equally and why my colon gets twisted when I hear the usual platitudes about jews believing they are superior and that is why they have a state. On the latter point, I need not refresh your memory as to who has argued it. But I do think you are right and I took most of your words out of context.

In regards to Islam, its foolish to say its not prevalent in certain Muslim societies and being conducted by those using their religion to justify doing it on the other hand the fact that some use Islam to justify doing it does not mean that all Muslims do or that it is legitimate inerpretation of the Koran. But its like talking about terrorism. Technically Islam forbids it, but it certainly does not stop Muslim clerics from using the Koran to preach it. From my readings from the women's groups in Egypt, I am aware and people can check it out themselves there is a huge conflict in the Muslim world about this practice and it can be see in three Fatwas that were issued in Egypt the first on May 28, 1949, the second on June 23, 1951 and the third on January 20, 1981. The first declared its not a sin to reject female circimcision, the second said its desireable and that any medical concerns against it were irrelevant while the third issued by Sheikh of Al-Azhar University stated that parents must follow the lessons of Mohammed and not listen to medical authorities because the latter often change their minds and follow their duty and have their daughters circumcised but then on June 24, 2007, the Grand Mufto of Egypt probibited this practice. If you follow one school of thought you could point to the Koran's verse An-Nisa': 119 and argue this passage forbids it with the following words; "And I will surely lead them astray, and arouse desires in them, and command them and they will cut the cattle's ears, and I will surely command them and they will change Allah's creation." For me this passage seems to rule out any alterations. Then again other Muslims quote the Sunnah (Tradition of the Prophet) to justify it, i.e., 'Um Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (pbuh) said to her: Do not cut too severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband'." 1,8 To verify the above I found a source; http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm, but my info comes from listening to young Islamic women from Pakistan, Somalia and Egypt who explained to me all of the above when I was working in the family courts. We were very well aware that it was a wide spread practice in Muslim African countries and in particular Somalia and Sudan as well as Egypt and that young Islamic women were trying to bring awareness to it to have it stopped and denounce it as not being part of the religion. Its practiced by the Kikuyu in Kenya and they are not Muslim. What is known is that it appears to be practiced by certain Muslims in the name of Islam but non Mulsims too and can range from partial to total removal of female external genitalia and/or injury to the female genital organs for non-therapeutic reasons. For me in the above equation culture and religion are the same thing although I appreciate the technical difference and the point some make not to assume all Muslims do it. I appreciate not suggesting all Muslims do it, because as a Jew I am very familiar with those who quote the Talmud and other reliable sources to suggest we Jews take the blood of gentile children to make matzah. I think though the point is many organized religions and cultural practices have taught the woman's body is evil and to be controlled. Certainly anyone who does not notice such messages in Judaism, Christianity or Islam is probably already had to much of their brain circumcized in my humble opinion. I note an interestingd discussion of the above practice in the New England Journal of Medicine Volume 332:188-190 January 19, 1995 Number 3, where its described as being practiced by Christians, Muslims and Felashie Jews of Ethiopia and then a physician points out its forbidden in the Jewish religion. You may find the following exerpt of interest from Maroodi Jeex: Somaliland Alternative Newsletter Issue number 7 (Winter 1997/1998) Female Circumcision: Women's Rights vs. Tribal Identity. The Case of the Darod of Somalia "Over 80 million women in more than 30 countries have undergone female genital mutilation, also called female circumcision, according to the World Health Organization estimates. According to Gallo (1988), about 80,000 operations are performed annually in Somalia alone. Female circumcision is performed across Africa in a broad triangular east-west band stretching from Senegal to Egypt in the northeast and Tanzania in the southeast. The operation meaning "cutting around" it accurately describes the Sunna form of circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris. This is analogous to male circumcision as it causes no impairment of sexual function. However, only a small number of circumcised women have the Sunna type. The majority undergo pharaonic circumcision which involves excision of the clitoris, the labia majora and the labia minora and infibulation (sewing up) of the vulva. The operation is commonly performed on girls between the ages of four and nine, although in Ethiopia, it may be done on girls as young as one year old."

Oh Man Rem I knew youw ould keep asking. Please remember I am only giving you my personal opinions. I make no claims to being an expert on any of this and I understand why you are asking the questions and yes its hard to reconcile this multiple concept of what a Jew is because as you can see its a bit religious, a but cultural, a bit national but not specifically any of the three but a mix of them and to what degree and component remains the question and my comments only provide my subjective opinions. O.k.s o you ask; "1. Would you count a militant atheist (someone who thinks people that believe in the divine are morally or intellectually stunted) as someone who would not be a Jew, under your definition?" Me personally yes, unless he denounces the concept of a Jewish identity. The Jewish world has a growing Jewish humanist component of atheists and agnostics some I suppose could be called militant but they very much celebrate their Jewish identity and culture and the right to express it through universal sufferage, art, etc. So for me yes. I think I would be safe in saying for most rabbias no and I would also hesitate to guess in the picture of the entire Jewish world, I might be in the minority on this view point although on the latter I really do not know. " 2. If asked about the ethnicity of someone who was Jewish but converted to an incompatible religion, what would you say they are? " Me personally I would refer to them by that religion's name, i.e., Christian, Muslim precisely because that is what their religion would require they be referred to as. Where I have a huge argument is with Jews for Jesus. They are Christian but they try claim they are Jewish. To me the two concepts are incompatible as their Christian identity necessarily contradicts the Jewish one-me personally I think they are just trying to confuse people to try convert them. However I know many Jews who practice Buddhism. One example is Leonard Cohen. I mean you could easily be a Buddhist and be Jewish. One is veryc omptabile with the other. Likewise someone could coexist as a Unitarian and a Jew at the same time-its quite possible. Nothing in Unitarianism would prevent a Jew from remaining a Jew and doing both. Unitarianism and Buddhism or say Taoism would not call on a Jew to denounce their identity or a vital component of it. Now for me personally the distinction between a jew who converts to Christianity and a Jew who is an atheist is the one who becomes Christian necessarily believes he is a Christian-his Jewish essence becomes necessarily subordinated. An atheist Jew who does not follow the Jewish religion does not have to subordinate their Jewish identity and deny part of it. To me there is a difference. To a more traditional Jew you need to engage in a certain minimum level of Jewish religious precepts to be Jewish so they would exclude atheists as well. So it often depends on who you ask. I mean I know a very wierd man who claims he is Jewish and a Satanist at the same time. He was born Methodist. Far be it for me to suggest he is confused. I mean in my world Satanism and Judaism are incompatible but not according to this person who tells me all Jews are Satan's children. What-ever. "3. What would be your position on someone who was Jewish who found substantial value in a text like the Jefferson Bible, which divorces the teachings of a religious figure from the religion itself in order to create a secular reading?" Me personally, I find it compatible but then I am bias because I subscribe to that concept just as I do say the unitarian approach or certain Taoist or Buddist approaches to defining enlightenment. I personally believe the less attention we spend on hero worshipping the message giver and the more we contextualize such thoughts or passages in secular terms the more we can incite compatibility but I don't see traditional religion and this approach as necessarily being exclusive-for me on one level I would like to retain my jewish religion and traditions but on another level when interacting with others be able also to converse through the approach you raise as an example of how we can find neutral approaches for all religions and cultures to converse with one another so we can get along. I see them as both potential parts of an enlightenment process. You stated; "Also, on a side note, I am skeptical of claims that an ideal world would be one without religion or nationality of any kind." I hear you. Anything to its extreme is not healthy I think. I think religion and nationality if taken to an extreme to define who we are becomes unhealthy, i.e., racist, facist, terrorist, but then a complete lack of it, would make it easier to adapt some very bad habits as we would forget the valuable lessons behind these traditions and what they intended to teach us. As I know you are already at head space wise, this key to balancing our past, present and future is a balancing act and the key is to be flexible and inclusive in how we communicate and value things-at least I think so-but again I am no theologian, prophet or lecturing-that's just my humble opinion-I would never presume to make t-shirts and create a sect to have people worship such thoughts-well at least not yet. "I forsee that it would have a number of serious problems of its own, merely of a different nature. At the very least, people could probably find something else to discriminate based on." Again Rem and I am just one person sharing an opinion, I would personally agree with your last statement. I think humans by nature discriminate-its what we do. Its part of a cognitive process we use to make the world around us seem understandable-its how we try make patterns from what otherwise seems like chaos. Discrimination I think is a natural cognitive process. Its when its used to incite or justify hatred or making assumptions as to what is without the need to be objective and establish what is through neutral corroborated sources, i.e. scientific methodology, logic, where I get nervous. I see humans as primates. As apes we need to live in tribes and we discriminate no different then different species smear themselves with feces to mark their scent or piss on trees. We discriminate to make it clear what pack we are in. Now mind you some primate tribes or packs don't fight over territory, others do. I suppose if nothing else learning to discriminate different life forms such as those that can eat us from those that would compete for our food supply and those we would eat and those that are harmless to us is all part of the natural process. However I think where we human primates have gone astray is in the fact that our discimination is no longer natural but has taken on a dimension I would best describe as killing for the sake of killing, a trait no other species on the planet seems to have. Even when killer whales play with seals before eating them or fox or wolf cubs chase after mice or cats and bat them around and leave them half mutilated it would appear such exercises are designed to develop their primal hunting skills they will need to survive. When we humans do it, we don't do it because we need to survive-we seem to have evolved to a level of discrimination without any real purpose. I used to think it was caused by a territorial imperative, now I just see it as a pathological trait we have developed and a symptom if a behavioural illness we have developed arising from our having lost touch with the natural rules of order and emersing ourselves in a non natural material world of values where life is defined by what we possess and control not what we learn to be compatible and mutually coexistent and interlated to.

I have argued intensely about your other comments but I forgot to state I agree with the above comment for the same reason I debate you on the others. Gross generalizations of any behaviour are not helpful. I also think the word hate is a misused word. Sometimes what we really mean is intolerant or disrespectful but we use the word hate. I have met Muslims and Christians who have said things I consider hateful and extremely ignorant, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind in their minds, they were not saying anything hateful or intending to be hateful. I would say the same thing about my fellow Jews and most certainly myself. Sometimes what we intend to manifest and how its perceived are labelled by others. That is why we debate and most times my positions claim to rebutt general stereotypes although I concede I am as ignorant if not more ignorant then anyone I challenge. My intent is to treat everyone as I want them to treat me, but I admit there are some days I like any other human can be a stink weed making that problematic. And so this is why they invented fibre. So we listen to William Shatner and eat Bran Flakes and be more tolerant of others.

Its a great question. The Law of Return would not apply to someone born of a Jewish mother who converted to Catholicism for example. Believe it or not that same exclusion is no different then for all the other countries that have laws of return when defining which ethnic group is to be fast tracked for citizenship based on their ancestry and for example its the same situation in Canada where we had a huge legal debate as to whether an aboriginal woman should lose her aborginal rights if she marries a non aboriginal. The Law of Return is based on a definition of being Jewish. The definition of being Jewish requires the person to be considered a Jew and that definition of Jew or who is a Jew, has caused a debate within Jewish and Israeli society. For example many orthodox Jews would not consider reform or reconstructionist Jews as true Jews. When Felashie Jews came to Israel these same orthodox Jewish Rabbias in the rabbinical courts said Felashie Jews had to perform a ceremony if they wanted to be considered Jews. That to me is nuts. I consider Felashie Jews more Jewish in the sense of how they pray then me. They are more close to the old ancient ways of Judaism then some of these Rabbias who presume to be more Jewish-at least I think so. For me as a secular Jew, my definition of what a Jew is, is probably different then what it is for an orthodox Jew. For me personally, I would argue a Jew is anyone who either converts to Judaism, or who is born of a Jewish mother, or born of a Jewish father and may not practice Judaism as a religion but does not renounce their Judaism by joining another organized religion which is incompatible with Jewish identity. This is why I accept humanist Jews who do not practice Judaism because they are atheists as Jews. To me they remain Jews because they have not denounced their Jewishness. How they practice their Jewish identity is their business. So you ask why then can not a Jew who becomes a Christian still be considered a Jew? I would explain it this way and keep in mind this is my personal opinion. Under the law of return its the Rabbinical courts who define what a Jew is and I do not agree with their definition which is more restrictive then mine. For me, aJew born of a Jewish mother, who practices Buddism or Taoism would not be engaged in a faith that denies their Jewish identity but in fact simply helps advance it in a positive way. However if they become Catholic or Christian or Muslim they can no longer be considered Jewish as those kinds of religions define Jews as morally incorrect and inferior. To me if you accept an organized religion whose precepts necessarily deny the existence of Jews as a people, you can't expect to have your cake and eat it to. For me Taoism, Buddhism, are disciplines that do not tell you what God to believe in or comment that Jews are wrong and mistaken. They in fact contain principles that are very compatible with mystic Judaism in the Kabal and also found in the Talmud. Certain aboriginal faith beliefs would do the same thing-they don't contradict or deny the Jewish collective identity but in fact help define it. Now in the law of return the Rabbinical courts would consider humanist Jews not to be Jews. Humanist Jews do not renounce their Jewish indentity or join other religions which define Judaism and therefore the jewish identity as wrong or defective or morally unacceptable, they are atheists or agnostics. They do not deny their identity they just do not practice the religious part of it. If you become Christian or Muslim your religion says Judaism is wrong and Jews are cursed (coing to hell). Atheist Jews do not say that-they accept their Jewish identities and do not ridicule the religion they do not follow. Rabbinical courts would disagree and say, no not good enough, you have to say certain prayers and do certain things first. The bottom line is today, Jews range from atheist to ultra-orthoodox who believe Israel can't exist until the messiah returns-it can include anyone who is a converted Jew and practices the religion or anyone who is of a Jewish mother and does not engage in any practice that calls Jews cursed or going to hell or morally wrong or inferior. I also include children of Jewish fathers. The Rabbinical courts are strict on it being on the mother's side. I am very wide open on what is a Jew. I draw the line personally on someone who accepts the Christian or Muslim faith but tries to say they are Jewish. Its not possible to accept a religion that says Jews are cursed and you must denounce your Jewishness and then say in the next breath you are Jewish. But this debate as to who is a Jew can get absurd and its no different then when people start defining whether they are black or white, aboriginal or not, on and on. Hey even if the gay community has the same debate with bisexual people and transgendered people. Defining identity aint exactly the most rational of exercises. Personally I think we are all mutts and sluts and all the product of rape and pillage and inter-racial mixing and shennanigans. Tribalism? Well no I am not comfortable with it. I sympathize with a Jewish state, but the truth is I could not live in Israel. Having been born a Jew in the diaspora, and in a country that accepts me as a Jew, I have grown up in a system where being different is tolerated. Had I been born in Europe forced to flee the holocaust, had I been born in Arab countries forcefully expelled or harassed, I would have a far different approach to being Jewish. I am not comfortable living anywhere where everyone is the same or with any organized religion. For me as a Jew I see Israel as a spiritual necessity that came about because of the holocaust and persecution and was a refuge for Jews not fortunate enough like me to be born in Canada. In an ideal world of no religions and tribalism, we wouldn't have any religious nations or discrimination now would we. For me Israelis exist because they had to exist-for Jews to survive they had to come about. They live a hardship so that people like me in the diaspora can survive and vice versa. We are both parts of the Jewish identity. Neither could exist without the other. But no I define myself as a human first, Canadian second, Jew third and I do not find the three contradictory or conflicted. I do not see my being Jewish as making me superior or better-its just part of a legacy I honour and respect and by remembering and respecting that legacy add it to the bigger human picture, one ingredient in a large soup. Take a look at the law of return in Ireland to see how it determines whether someone is considered entitled to Irish citizenship based on their ancestry. You will see it does nothing different then what Israel's law of return does. You will also find the same anomole in the Japanese law of return, the Liberian law of return, and all the other laws of return, i.e., Austria's, Bulgaria's, Slovakia's, etc. Its also no different then sharia law and how it defines Muslims or for that matter how people of organized religions differentiate themselves from followers of other religions.

The original post threw out a subjective remarks with no basis for their conclusions lending to the appearance it was inferring; 1-the U.S. and Israel are interfering in Lebanon 2-the U.S. and Israel and no one else is interfering in Lebanon 3-the U.S. and Israel are responsible for the internal conflicts in Lebanon 4-the Arab League has been acting as a benevolent peace broker in Lebanon to resolve the internal conflicts. So yes Buffy we all know you accept the original poster's subjective remarks as absolutee truth and therefore anyone who questions them is in your opinion obtuse but some of us Buffy live in a world that is a bit more then one line sound bites followed up by cheer leading.

I completely apologize. I did not know you were Jewish. If that is the case, I am absolutely, completely and utterly wrong and apologize. Likewise in all my other comments to you which I am debating forcefully, I have assumed you are not Israeli. If you lived in Israel or for that matter if you were a Muslim Israeli, I would concede right now, my tone of intensity is inappropriate. I am debating you as forcefully as possible. I do not intend to question your religious or personal beliefs, just the positions you present. I am in no position to comment on or Judge anyone's personal or religious beliefs and yes of course as a Jew you have a moral obligation to scold another Jew if you think what they do is wrong. For that matter I totally respect you feel it your moral obligation to criticize Israel as you do. That is not the issue for me nor should it ever be. However, I think it is great as a Jew you feel confident enough to be so frank and candid as to what you see are Israel's short-comings. That is a good thing. My arguments may sound like a blanket endorsement of Israel but they are not. I just want the same standard of criticisms applied to all, and that is when I get my gonads tied up in a knot. Please believe me I show respect and deference to anyone who lives in the Middle East who talks to me about their life experiences whether they be Palestinian, or any kind of Israeli. I do get prissy when others outside the immediate conflict start imposing their agendas. I again profusely apologize.

I respond JB Globe to this comment you made; "My point is that life as a minority in Israel is worse than life as a minority in other countries based simply on the amount of economic and social marginalization they face." The point to me is it appears your point is based on a subjective preconception of what life as a minority in Israel is, when you are not a minority in Israel or a "majority" in Israel and are basing your conclusions not on facts or anything objective but simply your preconceived stereotypes as to what life is like in Israel for anyone. I w ould suggest before you make assumptions as to what the experience is for Jews, Muslims, Christians, Bahaiis or anyone else in Israel you do something more than simply engage in promulgating stereotype assumptions based on your subjective feelings. That is precisely what I am calling you out on. What you do is simplistic and nothing more then an exercise in negative stereotyping. Your above statement is absolutely incorrect. Muslim Israelis live with the highest standard of living in the Middle East. So your statement your comments are based simply on the amount of economic and social marginalization they face is nonsense. Go find out for yourself how their standard of living compares to Muslims elsewhere. In fact your statement is based on you assuming Jews hate Muslims in Israel and Israel discriminates against Muslims because they are Muslim. That stereotype comes from your ignorance as how how the law operates in Israel in regards to all Israelis and what in fact makes it difficult for people to get work regardless of whether they be Jewish, Muslim or Christiana nd how it affects them all. In fact if you made an effort to really find out what is going on within Israel you would know more Israeli Jews are leaving then Muslim Israelis because of economic hardship. You would also realize that when people can't find jobs it's because of a security clearance issue and that problem affects Muslims, Jews, Christians or anyone else who has not joined the IDF-it has nothing to do with discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs and everything to do with the fact that in Israel, if you don't get security clearance many good jobs can not be obtained. Again you do not understand what causes the security clearance issue and assume the restrictions are based on religious or ethnic discrimination. Muslim Israelis or Druze Israelis or Christian Israelis who serve in the IDF have no security clearance issues. Jews that do not serve in the IDF have the same security clearance issues as Muslim Israelis who do not serve in the IDF. You also seem oblivious to the fact that there is no majority of Jews as you try to suggest. That is you engaging in this simplistic black and white stereotyping of jews. No it does not work that way. Within the Jewish population are Ashkanazi (European, Russian, U.S.,) Jews, Tsfardic Jews (Jews from the Arab world), Felashies, each with their own problems depending on whether they are newcomers or were born in Israel. Then there are divisions based on whether a Jew is atheist, agnostic, reform, conservative, orthodox or ultra-orthodox (of which certain sects do not believe in the state of Israel because they feel it should not exist until the Messiah comes back first). Your inference that Jews are all one neat simplistic group who all enjoy equal access to economic opportunity and all are in a superior position to Muslim Israelis is an absolute crock. In fact in many economic sectors Muslim Israelis to far better off then Jewish Israelis. More to the point the animosity or friction within the Jewish community between all these groups is no different, absolutely no different then between Jews and Muslims or between Muslims and Muslims within and outside Israel. " And we shouldn't be comparing Israel's treatment of it's minorities to other dictatorships...." Again that is absolute nonsense. Of course we should compare how Israel treats Muslims within its nation with the same Muslim nations that criticize Israel. Absolutely. It is absolute nonsense to suggest Muslim nations which violate human rights law and discriminate through the apatheid state system of sharia law and dhimmitude are ignored but you engage in the suggestion that Israel be criticized without any comparison to them. Why? Because it doesn't suit you? Why because it evidences the double standard you engage in and how you demand one thing of Israel but look the other way on anyone else in the Middle East? For that matter you made the statement that Israel should be compared to other "democracies". Then does that mean all countries that are not democracies can not criticize Israel at all because they can't be compared? Follow your absurd comment through to its conclusion. More to the point, Israel's legal system, its political system, its social system, its economic system, all of it is scrutinized with a standard of expectation no other "democratic" nation is subjected to. When Israel creates a law of return for Jews, its called racist. When 80 other countries in the world create a law of return for specified ethnic groups including Jordan with Palestinians, its ignored. When there is a human rights offence in Israel its played out as if its the only nation in the world with such problems. Name one democratic nation in the world that is as you would infer in a position to lecture Israel on human rights or democratic rights? Who? You? Oh wait now. You are Canadian. You are perfect. You can point your finger right? Never mind those aboriginal people right? Never mind the legacy of Canada and how it treated the Chinese, Sikhs and so many other minorities. Right. You get to Judge. Oh wait now Britain can its a democracy. Oh wait now. It does have some problems doesn't it. Say I know France. Belgium. Holland. Oops oops and oops. See the problem is when you presume to be in the position to be able to lecture others on morality it assumes you are morally perfect. Imagine that concept. Democratic nations that are perfect and can criticize others. What a crock. There isn't a "democracy" or "non-democratic" nation in the world without unresolved moral problems and issues of internal equality and human rights. You want to criticize Israel be my guest but enough with this ridiculous comment that it should only be compared to democracies. That is illogical. All countries, all humans should be measured by the SAME standards for that criticism to have any meaning. Your attempt to subjectively select when you will apply the standards and who you will apply them to is what I challenge as defective. You state; "Israel has a lot of work to be done" How about you look in the mirror first.

Instead of asking the question as to what the difference is (indicating you do not know what the difference is) then expressing a subjective opinion based on guessing..you went on to say..."it seems to me"...you should try find out for yourself what the two processes are, BEFORE you render an opinion based on an erroneous assumption they are the same. Female circumcision involves cutting most or all of the clitoris off. Go on the web site and find out what is cut off and why. Its designed to prevent women from experiencing any pleasure or sensation when being penetrated. Geez have you finished high school? Do you know what a clitoris is? A clitoris is a body organ that consists of many nerve endings and its these nerve endings that cause sensation when touched. That is why they are all cut off. Now you might also want to try just try find out what a foreskin is. Its skin. A layer of skin. It does not prevent men from experiencing sexual pleasure if its cut off. That si why wayne Bobbit's wife a few years back cut off his entire penis. She knew better then to simply cut off his foreskin. In fact the reason it was originally done was for a basic sanitary reason. In the hot climate of the desert, sand and swet caught underneath the foreskin would irritate the penis and lead to infections. So it was removed so the penis could be cleaned easier and not develop infections. Most religious ceremonies such as circumcision like the Islamic and Jewish diets were based on the fact people did not wash their hands and would mix bacteria from meat and milk products which would prove lethal or could eat the kind of meat that could not be preserved properly in the heat or was more prone to become infested with worms or in the case of shell fish toxic substances such as red algae which were fatal. The circumcision of women unlike the circumcision of men did not originate for health reasons and unlike male circumcision which is minimally invasive-it is extremely invasive and unlike circumcission for men its based on the concept of a woman's clitoris being evil. In fact even referring to it as a circumcission is incorrect. It in fact is far more then removing a layer of skin. When men cut off their forskin no one is suggesting they are doing it because their pee pee is evil and its to prevent them from orgasming. With women, they do. Now that is a simplistic explanation, but you really do need to get out and find out the difference between a foreskin and a clitoris. Trust me they are not the same. How do I know? God told me. Also I am fine. I survived my mutilation. Honest. To compare what happened to me to the physical pain and suffering being inflicted on young women based on an ideology that assumes women are evil and spiritually not to be trusted if they orgasm is ludicrous. And I will share this secret with you, when we Jews orgasm we do not necessarily say Oy Oy Oy. Sometimes we say; Oy my back, Oy my back, Oy my back.

Just what exactly is the "lot of crap from the US and Israel"? Care to provide references and specific examples or is this simply your subjective opinion and the same kind of subjectivity that leads you to completely ignore the role of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, China, North Korea, Russia, France, and numerous terrorist groups financed by Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran that operate in Lebanon. Your simplistic attempt to scapegoat the US and Israel for the internal dissension and tribal/civil war in Lebanon is absurd. This one size fits all blame Israel and the US for any inter-Muslim dispute is silly. Then again of course Hezbollah are simply a boy scouts organization in Lebanon. Nothing to do with Syria and Iran.

Imagine that the Arab League blaming Israel and the U.S. for inter-Muslim nation political conflicts between themselves. Gosh.

You present an interesting series of comments. This person who supports Israel's right to exist appreciates your efforts in pointing out the pitfalls or practical limitations of any form of nationalism. One of the reasons I particularly agree with your last sentence is the following. Israel made in my opinion a serious legal error when it breached international law and began administering West Bank Israeli settlers through its civilian government but continues to administer the remaining West Bank, i.e., Palestinians through its military governorship apperatus. Israel is technically not violating international law governing the West Bank through a military administration provided that military administration governs and applies the exact same laws to Israeli settlers as it does Palestinians. The decision to split the rule and use two different legal standards is in violation of international law and its something the IDF specifically told the Israeli government not to do but was over-ruled on. The practical reality was this. On the one hand you had terrorists coming in from the West Bank providing a security nightmare. That was one issue Israel had and still has. The other issue were Jewish Israeli settlers who argue the West Bank is part of Judea and Somaria which is rightfully their land robbed from them by Muslims. Its a biblical argument that incites and fuels religious fundamentalism and therefore extremism in not all but certain Jewish Israeli settlers. Those settlers hate the IDF. They despise them. One of the reasons Israel then placed Jewish settlers under civilian rule violating international law was because of the political conflict of the IDF having to battle its own citizens which it has done time and time again. It did not make for good political optics. The powers that be in Israel said, lets kill two birds with one stone. We have a bunch of extremist Israelis who won't listen to us and we have a serious terror problem. Let's send them to the West Bank and isolate them from mainstream society where their extremist views are not going to mesh in Israel proper and by so doing we remove the problem and we can use them as a buffer against incoming terrorists. That was what really led to the decision. It was a pragmatic attempt to dump an internal conflict and deal with terrorism at the same time. The problem is it has exasperated the situation. It fueled terrorists and now Palestinians who were once apolitical found themselves of course assisting terrorists who they otherwise would not have, in response to the new settlers on what they perceive is their land. That is the long and short of it. Technically the West Bank was part of the original League of Mandate promised to Jews for a homeland, but its also a place where Palestinians have always lived. Its also a place where the British flooded the area with non Palestinians from 1920-1948 in a bid to prevent a Jewish homeland. The practical reality is many of the people of the West Bank are not true Palestinians. They came there from outside Palestine. In fact there are ancient jewish communities in the West Bank that have always been there since biblical days who have far more right to argue they are Palestinian then some of these people who now claim to be Palestinian and who are not Jewish. That is not the issue. We can argue until doomsday as to whose history is more relevant or n ot relevant. Its not going to solve things. The practical reality is for their to be a comprehensive peace there needs to be another state for Palestinians other than Jordan which many Palestinians will not accept as their state even though it has a law of return for all displaced Palestinians (but not people born on the West Bank since 1988). The practical reality is this as well. Neither Jordan or Israel wants terrorists in the West Bank. Both approved and were well aware that placing Jewish settlers would cause problems but also served their short term purposes of providing a buffer against terrorism and it has. These same Jewish settlers that fight with the IDF and Palestinians have also prevented numerous terrorist attacks. More to the point not all these Jewish settlers are extremists. Many are moderate people. They went there because they were dirt poor and were given tax subsidies to go leave there. It wasn't necessarily a religious thing for them. Likewise not all Palestinians on the West Bank are terrorists. Most are simple dirt poor farmers. They became polarized first by the Jordanians then the Israelis. Tehy actually were quiet content to simply be a bunch of farmers able to sell their produce in Jordan or Israel. The terrorists who exploit them, i.e., Islamic Jihad, Fatah Hawks, Hamas, Hezbollah ridicule them and have contempt for them. The IDF is a reluctant middle man spat upon by both Jewish settlers and Palestinians. The vast majority of Palestinians and Israelis on the West Bank keep to themselves. If you venture out of your local zone the IDF might stop you, a terrorist might kill or stop you, etc. The reality is just as you say Israel has never ever been interested in annexing the West Bank exactly for the reasons you say. It would diminish the majority margin of Jews within Israel which is ironically next to terrorism the biggest factor that threatens Israeli existence. Ironically all terrorism has done is make Israel stronger and more capable of surviving. Without it as the pressing unifying factor, Israel's population naturally would have become majority Muslim. Terrorism and extremism fueled the expulsion of 700,000 Jews to Israel from the rest of the Middle East and segregated Palestinians into refugee camps. Those two developments were Arab not Israeli initiated. Ironically the Arab League that the use of Palestinians as captive pawns and the expulsion of Jews would hasten Israel's death, and it did the exact opposite and so has terrorism. It just unites people who would otherwise be fractured by huge internal debates as to who is a Jew. The practical reality is if you want to live as a national state with a prevalent religious identity as all Muslim countries do and as Israel does, if you want to be democractic you have to assure the minority religious groups have the exact same legal rights. Israel has and does within Israel proper and in the Muslim world there is no attempt by any regime to be democratic and treat non Muslims as equals. Where Israel's democracy is strained is it can not be a democracy and prevent Muslim Israelis from giving birth as they are and continuing to grow until they become the majority. So do you expel all non Jews to prevent this. Israel will not do that. But what it will want to do is make a peace deal that sees Jews from the West Bank brought back to Israel, but in return, Palestinians and Israeli Muslims to take over the settlements Jews leave behind. It will also want safe borders to protect it from terrorist attacks. As much as people hate the wall put up, it actually has stopped terror attacks cold and actually makes it possible for the Israeli government to argue to its people it no longer needs Jewish settlers on the West Bank to protect it from terror attacks. The practical reality is that wall, conceivably would come down after a prolonged period of time if there was no terrorism. Sometimes to resolve conflict you need to seperate the sides from one another clearly and let them live seperate and apart and cool down, before you then start establishing new networks of interaction on a non violent level, i.e., a common market, shared water and road projects. The reality is pre-1967 Israel is a small land and will be sufficient in size for the Jews there now and the minorities who exist there now but no one else. The West Bank is needed as a new home for Palestinians who may not want to remain in camps. The Arab League if it was genuinely interested in peace, would have disbanded all terror groups and its anti-semitic rhetoric years ago. It would have resettled all Palestinians who wanted to be resettled in Arab League nations and then financed a state in the West Bank and Gaza. It has chosen not to and use the conflict as a distraction from the its own internal corupt regimes and serve as a scapegoat for its ills. That scapegoats Israel but it scapegoats Palestinians just as much. Palestinians used to come into Israel and work until Hamas threatened people with death and destroyed all the grass-roots projects between Israelis and Palestinians. There is no reason that could not be established again. There is no reason Israel and Palestinians and Jordan, and that is the key, its three entities, not two, can find a way to move Jewish settlers back to Palestine and Palestinians from refugee camps to the West Bank. That is not easy because many Palestinians want to take back Jordan and or Israel and will never accept anything else. As well the Jews of Hebron and other settlements who have lived there since ancient days uninterupted are not going to want to go anywhere. There are a lot of obstacles. Iran and its proxy agent Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad and over 300 other terror cells would love to sabotage any peace deal, kill Abbas, King Abdullah, etc., and make all Palestinians fear for their lives if they get along with Israel and Jordan as they do today. Its a complex series of relationships and underlying it all is one pressing factor, a shortage of fresh water that Jordan, the West Bank and Israel all face and need to work together to resolve. Is it possible to be a democratic state but build into it one religious context different then the others? Well we know in the Muslim world under sharia law, it does not happen. We know for centuries in Europe when Christian religion and state were not seperated it simply resulted in the persecution and mass genocide of non Christians. In Israel in 60 years within Israel proper it has worked but the practical reality is Muslim Israelis if they do not serve in the IDF can't get security clearance and that makes many jobs unavailable to them and when there is a terrorist attack, they feel the brunt of distrust or anger from their Jewish neighbours. It also causes anti-semitism to be broadcast throughout the Arab world as normal every day fodder and fuel animosity that fuels terrorists and their sympathizers world wide who finance elaborate netoworks of organized crime to launder and raise funds for weapons. For Israel which wishes to follow a Western democractic model, it has found security issues have compromised its belief in fundamental human rights and legal values and particularly in the West Bank where arbitrary search and seizure of everyone is the practical result of on-going terror. Its a complex series of issues where there are no rights and wrongs just variables and ever changing conditions that exasperate or enhance the possibilities for peace. As we speak Israel and Syria are making peace overtures and Hamas and Egypt are involved in a vicious internal conflict where Egypt is threatened by the Muslim Brotherhood which sides with Hamas-and so Egypt is anxious to have Hamas cool it and stop attacking Israel and inciting Egyptians who each day become more and more polarized through the repressive Mubarak regime. For all we know Israel and Syria could come to a peace deal then the next day, Egypt becomes a Sunni version of Iran taken over by fundamentalist fanatics who undo any peace arrangements between Israel and Palestinian. It is that volatile and unpredictable.

No but I think you would agree it effects access in regards to the legal process. We all know the legal system is not accessible to most of us given how expensive it is. In theory it doesn't stop anyone from having legal rights but in practical reality it makes them unreachable for most of us unless we remain in Small claims court.

Another problem with his words is that it enables someone like you to gloat as well and lecture a Jew about being a bad one. The point is you could have made your point without the bad Jew reference and it appears you engage in the exact exercise you criticize him of. In fact your comment that a good Jew would not do that is 100% accurate. No Judaism would not teach this. My point is not what you said, but why you said it and why you felt it necessary to put it in your response. He stated an opinion. If you disagree with it go ahead. But its kind of silly to get all hoighty toighty about being politically proper but stoop to the same political impropriety you claim is wrong. Say now is it possible to criticize anything these days without getting a politically proper lecture on morality? Far as I am considered we are all moral sluts.

Your argument has become so general now, that it applies to any society anywhere. With due respect your attempt to simplify the complex social conflicts in Israeli society with the blanket concept of discrimination by the majority against the minority is about as useful as stating there is inequality in the world. The point is the problems within Israeli society are far more complex then the simplistic scenario you are trying to paint.

Nice try but you have deliberately taken what he was stating out of context by deliberately ignorning the next paragraph which states: "In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism.But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary." The concept of "chosen" Einstein criticizes is in reference to is the priviliege of monotheism NOT the concept of chosen you suggest he is criticizing and that you claim you agree with him on. You deliberately removed the "chosen" he was criticizing it from its actual context and reference. What he criticizes is the concept that a Jew and for that matter a Christian or a Muslim or any other person believing that a monotheistic religion makes them chosen, i.e. different then others. Because he is dialoguing with another Jew they are discussing this in reference to Judaism in general not the specific doctrine you think he is criticizing. When talking to another Jew they would not as you do misuse the concept of "chosen Jew" as you do. They would know better. That is why one has to look at the actual context his "chosen" refers to which is monotheism in general. His criticism does not specifically assume or state which doctrine from which religion, he feels creates a superiority complex. He would not engage in such simplistic criticism that would take a doctrine out of its actual meaning and context. The "chosen" or "special" status he refers to is not specific to any one Jewish doctrine or any Christian doctrine or Muslim doctrine but all of them in general and for the same reasons-he does not feel it possible to have a personal relationship with God nor does he believe God would judge people. His criticism of Judaism and Christianity are much more general and sweeping then the specific meaning you have given them. He has not stated he believes the concepts of Jews having a covenant with God causes them to believe they are superior.Anyone taking the time to read it can see that. Einstein isn't confused you are. Given your earlier references to Judaism and Zionism being racist I don't even think you are confused. I think you see and project what you want to see into dialogue and then assume the dialoguers have the same beliefs as you. They would find your trivialization of Jewish doctrine or Zionism annoying not to mention completely removed from what they are discussing. Einstein makes reference repeatedly to Spinoza. Why don't you try understand why Spinoza would influence him and how it would lead him to hold the abstract concepts he would about God which would lead him to criticize all religions equally. The fact you take a dialogue between him and another to single out Judaism I suppose is politically oppotune for you but he never singled out Judaism any differently then he did all other monotheistic religions, despite your efforts to take a letter out of context to suggest it does.

Thanks for the Editorial. The fact you agree with Norman Finklestein also seals the deal. Is it the same Norman Finklestein I know. The Norm I know is a bookie. Looks like a balding Frank Zappa. Say not Buffy were you born yet when israel offered all of the above to Yasir Arafat and was told to fuck off and that he would only settle for all of Israel and Jordan? Say Buffy how about Hamas, and Islamic Jihad and the other 350 or so Palestinian terror cells that have stated the only solution is to take back Jordan and Israel and create a Muslim fundamentalist theocracy and kill or expel all Jews- did you speak to them Buffy and make sure they agere to this by any chance? Israel is the reason for all the problems. Just Israel. Let's just ignore everything else and pretend it does not exist. Its simple really. Israel is poo. Gee Buffy where have I heard that song before. Buffy the Zionist Slayer slays me again.

First of all King Abdullah has no interest in dismantling Israel and absorbing it into Jordan. Secondly you might try explain to us all where you get off presuming to lecture Israelis and Palestinians they must all agree to live under the King. To start with Jordanian law has never allowed Jews the right of citizenship. Secondly Sharia law in Muslim nations including Jordan as you are bloody well aware does not afford Jews the exact same legal rights as Muslims. Thirdly, Palestinians tried to overthrow and murder King Hussein causing the Black Sabbath uprising and to this day a complete disconnect between Palestinians and Jordanians. As you are also very well aware in 1988, the King of Jordan passed a new law saying any Palestinian born on the West Bank as of that time onwords, is not entitled to the law of return to Jordan. As you are also aware since 1948 any Palestinian could return to Jordan and be granted automatic citizenship and the vast majority did not return believing BOTH Jordan and Israel should be disabanded. You know full well King Abdullah and King Hussein have never had an interest in absorbing Israel or the West Bank or Gaza. Do not presume to talk on behalf of the King and what is good for him and Israelis. Your idea is absurd and nothing more then a couched reference at wiping out Israel but playing a game about it. Your coyness I do not buy nor your trying to suggest because I think your idea is absurd to the point of stunned it means I hate King Abdullah or do not think he is a friend of Israel. You are well aware King Abdullah lives in a world where his existence depends on a strong state of Israel to counter Muslim fundamentalists and the Syrians which would if given the opportunity and still might-try kill him and create a civil war in his nation. Unlike you King Abdullah has stated Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for Jews just as Muslims have their own states. See some of us have actually been to Jordan. We know better. Save your shtick for your "fans" who haven't been there.

Oleg and his breasts. Problem is Oleg your breast theory is not even close to what actually happened. Israel did not take two tits. Just one. The other is still out there for the other to suck on. Problem is the other side still says after sixty years, I won't suck this tit, as long as you suck the other. I want both. Your assumption as to Israelis desiring two tits at once is another one of your subjective assumptions which I can only assume is how you approach such situations. Why you analogize Israel and Palestine as tits in the first place is amusing. Your attempt to turn the Middle East conflict into Fellini's obsession is bizarre but then at this point not suprising.

Nowhere in any Zionist doctrine does it state that the self-determination of Jews, or universal sufferage for Jews denies the self-determination of Palestinians. It never has. The reason Palestinians do not have a state is because they have chosen to pursue a position where it will not allow a Jewish state and a Palestinian state can only exist if a Jewish one does not. Its interesting though how you try revise history and pretend the above never happened and its simply Zionism that caused the Arab League to place Palestinians in refugee camps as political pawns to gult the world into undoing the Israel it could not prevent by war. Provide one Zionist document that says Zionism believes no other peoples should have universal sufferage. Right.