Rue

Back to the topic. Hezbollah has been outlawed as an international terrorist organization. As a result freedom of speech is not an issue. Placing a poster of an outlawed international terrorist organization is the issue. If we placed a poster of a mass murderer on the loose on a billboard and it stated the mass murderer was a good person is this freedom of speech? What next, someone place a poster of Paul Bernardo up extolling his virtues? This poster was not about expressing political opinions it was about importing to Canada political views sympathizing with an international terrrorist organization. Yes this country is a democracy and yes democraciess limit freedom of speech when idiots come to this country and think freedom of speech means openly screaming fire in a crowded theatre. Terrorism has no place in our democractic society precisely because we are democratic. Keep this shit and hatred out of Canada. This has nothing to do with peacefully expressing political opinions and everything to do with thinking freedom of speech protects those who wish to preach hatred and violence. Wait, next we will place child porn pictures on billboards or posters advocating rape. After all its freedom of expression. Never mind what we are advocating is criminal.

That is absurd. You are saying the victim of a rape shares equal responsibility with the rapist. You are mixing up moral and ethical culpability with questionable war management. Hezbollah started the war and has 100% moral culpability since it started the war and deliberately used civilians, hospitals, community centres, schools and civilian apartments and sites to launch its missiles. It deliberately placed civilians in harm's way. For you to suggest Israel should sit back and not fight back is idiotic. It has a moral responsibility to defend its people and yes if need people kill innocent civilians in other nations to defend its people if there is no other means to protect its citizens from attacks it did not start. That said, I would concur, Olmert's failure was in not properly taking the time to respond in a more measured manner that could have avoided undue civilian deaths. Olmert's decision to rely on an air war and not consider a combination of a series of strategic precision missile attacks and commando raids came about because of his refusal to listen to the IDF and because he panicked and did not want to take the time to plan before responding. Did Olmer'ts ineptitude expose civilians to unecessary death, yes probably but to say he is morally on the same level as Hezbollah is bull. No one excuses Olmert for being an inept military commander but to suggest he is on the same moral level as Hezbollah ignores how ethics is determined. Ethics for culpabiliuty for decisions originates and ends with the person initiating the unethical action. What Olmert did is questionable but not morally. He did not deliberately choose to kill Lebanese civilians. In is bungling mind, he thought the air war would in the long run prevent more deaths by demonstrating Israel would not allow Hezbollah to hide behind civilians. He honestly felt if he did not make the big air show he did, Hezbollah would be tempted to hide behind civilians over and over again which in the long term would expose even more to death. Hezbollah on the other hand do what they do for one reason-to exterminate Israel and kill Israelis and Jews. That is their mission. Olmert failed in that his air war relied to heavily on fighter jets and did not use helicopters. Israel could not use tanks. Hezbollag which consists of numerous engineers constructed an elaborate maze of anti-tank tracks and mobile missile launchers that could be hidden after picking off tanks. This also made them mobile anti-tank missile launchers on disguised track invisible to fighter jets. What was needed were commando units to spot the missile tracks and then helicopters coming in taking them out. Such a war would require months if not a year of planning and Olmert did not feel he could wait that amount of time. Some of us believe small commando units of 10 to 15 operating as eyes and ears for swift precision helicopter attacks is the preferred method of anti-terrorist warfare. Others believe in shock and awe air war (its the old Vietnam mentality where fire bombing was felt the way to beat guerillas). As for you Andrew, when someone rapes you and you fight back and then are put on the stand and the lawyer for the rapist states you committed battery on his client, we shall see how your react.

You still angry over Fergy leaving you? I thought you got over that. So tell me, when someone shoots a missile at you, what should they do Andrew? Do tell us what one does when one is shot at. And do try not to turn this discussion into Elmer Fudd versus the Wasally Wabbit. Israel is not Bugs Bunny dealing with Elmer Fudd although from the sounds of it some of us do tend to think missiles are just buck shot from a lisping bald man.

Marcinmoka you responded with great care and I appreciated you taking the time to clarify and thank you. I also must concur with your logic in that for the same reason I criticize any assumptions made simply based on blood lines, I in reverse can not automatically discount it either. Logic dictates no assumptions either way just an open mind and certainly that was your point and mine and I appreciate your comments and acknowledge them. As you are aware tone on these posts often comes across worse then it sounds because we can't see our expressions as we right or put the right light touches to it as we would if we speak and can smile and adjust the sound of our voice. I sound far more facist in writing then in person. In regards to Gascognny I must defer to you on that. I particularly enjoyed this comment; "Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data!" Touche.

While I appreciate the point you are making I have no problems admitting I am a pig either. Testosterone makes us men hogs. Being a hog is not the problem - keeping it in its proper pen or perspective is. Oink. And to think I should be kosher.

On a more serious note, yes it would appear the rates of sexually transmitted diseases including herpes, the vd's and aids indicate this. Certainly the women's clinics which study health patterns among women have statistics to indicate this. I am told by health care nurse friends there has been an obviousincrease in certain oral sexually transmitted diseases with young women who have the impression it is safer then regular sex and are being pressured by boys in school. All kidding aside, my concern is not such absurd stories but that any young person or for that matter any person practice safe sex. I will save the moral judgements for others. As for men, being one of them, I would say, I never met a man who hasn't lied about his sexual prowess. It comes built in with the pee pee. Usually the smaller the pee pee the bigger the tale.

Oh you would have to go and get logical on everyone. Actually Harper's position right now if you are not an Israeli basher, is a lot more clear then Dion's that is for sure. Its also interesting that many Jewish liberals became quite aware of a sentiment spread at the LIberal convention that people should nopt vote for Bob Rae since his wife was Jewish and that makes him pro-Israeli, at least so the simplistic anti-semitic slur went. I think Liberal foreign policy is something giving concern to many Jewish Quebecers who once could be counted on as loyal Liberal supporters due to their admiration of either Lester Pearson or of course Pierre Trudeau. Now its a crap shoot. Jewish Quebecers know what Harper has stood for and they see him managing quite well with Charest. Me thinks many may vote for Harper not just because of the assumption he is pro-Israeli (he is in fact also a supporter of Mr. Abbas) but because of his good relations with Charest and Dion is seen as someone who may stir up seperatist sentment. Dion's unpopularity in Quebec is not limited to just Jews that is for sure...but you are right it makes an interesting sub plot line say in Outremont where yes 10% of a population might be expected not to appreciate someone who supports Hamas-and by the way not just because he is anti-Israeli, but because he is sympathetic to a group that does not distinguish its hatred of Jews from Israelis.

Hang on Moxie. He actually is not being sexist at all. Its absurdity masquerading as fact he has his issues with and I say hunbly he has proverbally hit the nail on the head with the hammer and I bow to his superior logic. As for the word slut, I always liked the sound of the word. I wish I was a slut. I am too old now and I can not afford plastic surgery.

Thank you for your kind comments. And by the way Vives Le France. Vives Le Quebec au Canada.

I would like to focus back on the original issue which deals with anti-semitism in France. There is an article entitled; France Goes Vichy On Its Jews, written by Andrew L. Jaffe, dated June 3, 2004. It discusses anti-semitism going on in France today including synagogues that have been burned down, Jewish schools that have been torched and hundreds of attacks against Jews. It discusses how the old anti-semitism was perpetuated by Christians in France and the new anti-semitism is now being perpetuated by North African Muslims, who themselves are often the target of racial attacks as well. This article discusses how Le Consistotoire de Paris and the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (the body representing the Jewish community of France) have compiled a long list of anti-Jewish acts in France. Examples of 6 personal attacks were provided in the article; A 14-year-old boy wearing a yarmulke came out of the Ourq metro station and was followed by two young men. They called him a "dirty Jew" and robbed him in front of a crowd of witnesses. The men knocked the boy down, beat him on the head and broke his nose. The boy begged for help from passers-by, who simply walked away. In central Paris, a teacher from a Jewish school was beaten up by young men, who ripped the Star of David from the teacher’s neck and trampled her. They called her a "dirty Jew" and lit her hair on fire. They also told her, "We’re going to burn all you Jews." A group of four young men interrupted a class in the auditorium of the University Medical School of Saint-Antoine in Paris. They yelled, "We’re going to kill all the Jews" and, "We’re armed and we’re going to take you all down." When a Jewish student confronted the men they beat him and robbed him. The professor who was teaching the class said nothing and the men walked out without a care while the class looked on in silence. The dean of the University has been told of the situation but has not yet responded. On the walls of the Rue Des Rosiers (in the Marais, the Jewish quarter), once again there are signs of the Star of David in yellow paint accompanied by the slogan, "And don’t forget the showers of Zyclon," referring to the gas used in Nazi death camps. Also in Paris, a 12-year-old girl coming out of a Jewish school was attacked by two men. They beat her, held her down and slashed her face with a box cutter. They carved a swastika into her face and walked away. Her parents have filed a police report. What we know about today’s version of anti-semitism in France is that it is fueled by animosity the French have towards Israel which in turn is subjected on Jews in France. For example, the French Ambassador to Britain stated in 2002 and I quote; “ Israel is a shitty little country… Why should the world be in danger of World War Three because of THOSE PEOPLE.” Interestingly in her response to this topic, Buffy stated the anti-defamation league provides no information as to discrimination in France. Had she done the research she claimed she did she would have realized the above organizations I mentioned and not the ADL have been documenting the incidents of anti-semitism. She would also have known that based on the Eurobarometer survey conducted in 2000, it found when it came to considering its minorities; • 19% of French respondents were classified as intolerant • 26% as ambivalent • 31% as passively tolerant • 25% as actively tolerant. It also found that only 31% of French respondents favoured laws outlawing discrimination against minorities. In an article that can be found at; http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsoc...s_With_Hate.asp you can find these two portions of it which are self-explanatory; “Anxiety is gripping French Jews. They've seen synagogues ablaze, cemeteries vandalized and walls painted with swastikas as they face what observers have called the worst spate of anti-Semitism since World War II. Hate crimes rose from just one in 1998 to more than 700 in the first five months of 2002. Observant Jews live in a state of siege. Police now patrol in front of the Jewish schools. Graffiti and swastikas appear almost nightly in Strasbourg. Rabbis exhort congregants in Marseille to cover their kipas in public. Jewish men guard the front of synagogues during services, walkie-talkies in hand, revolvers hidden in their pocket. Parents forbid their sons to play soccer because of a vicious attack in Paris. And the number of Jews considering leaving for Israel has skyrocketed in recent months, according to the Jewish Agency office in Paris. “ “In two dozen interviews conducted in French with Jews in Paris, Marseille and Strasbourg during a two-week period in mid-May, a portrait emerges of a complex French Jewish community splintered by the specter of anti-Semitism. The Jews of France became unified briefly in fighting Le Pen. With that threat over, the ongoing anti-Semitic events have exposed differences along fault lines of religious observance, social class, politics, age and origins. “ My point is France is not a tolerant society. It has always discriminated against its North Africans (Muslims from Algeria, Tunisia, Morrocco, Syria, Lebanon) and its Africans and Vietnamese. Prior to its discrimination against these immigrant groups, there has always been a long standing element of anti-semitism flowing from the Catholic Church. Today’s anti-semitism can be from the right (La Penn and ultra right wing Christian groups) or the left and from French Muslims(those claiming to be anti-Israeli but attacking anything Jewish ). Having lived in France I understand how people react to being Jewish. I went to L’Universite de Montpelliers and was the subject of anti-semitic remarks by North African French students as well as alleged leftist anti-Israel professors. Interestingly an Algerian who when finding out I was a Jew from Canada spit on my food became my friend as I came across him being beaten up by some French students and pleaded with them to stop. I lied and told them he was mentally ill and was a patient I was treating at a hospital. (you think fast when you want to avoid a beating) I hold my tongue when I hear the Buffy’s of the world lecturing people about France. That said, France is no different then any other democracy. It has its share of hate mongers. Do I hate all French people, of course not. These hate mongers are a minority. The point is they do exist and when they do discriminate against Jews, it is particular to Jews, although it has similarities with discrimination against others. Discrimination in finding an apartment doesn’t only happen in France, it happens here in Canada as well but for someone like Buffy to pretend it doesn’t exist or suggest it doesn’t exist with Jews is idiotic. I have had doors slammed in my face because I am Jewish in Paris and Marseilles but then I also know many wonderful French people. I blame today’s anti-semitism in France as a combination of anti-Israeli anger from North Africans which has fused with a left wing bias against Israel in France which fails to distinguish between Jews and Israelis and can be traced back to anti-semitism as promulgated in the past by the Catholic Church and therefore French government officials and yes the Vichy regime and Nazi collaborators. The Nazis had no problems finding French to assist them in deporting Jews during World War Two.. Unlike the Danish, Dutch or Norweigans, the French who did help Jews were very much a minority and could not count on wide spread support from their fellow citizens. The anti-Israel policies first advanced by Charles DeGaulles and then Valerie Giscard D’Estang and Jacques Chirac most certainly incited and inflamed a new form of anti-semitism. Many French people have spoken out against anti-semitism and other forms of discrimination-they are the people I prefer to keep in mind and embrace and I believe they are the majority. It is also ironic because Napoleon was the first European leader to support a Jewish independent state in Israel and treat Jews with respect and dignity. I doubt he would have approved of Charles DeGaulles, Vichy, Petain, Chirac, Pompidou, Giscard D’Estang or Chirac.I think would have found them to be cowards and opportunists. Nicholas Sarkozy appears to be making a considerable effort to distance himself from these predecessors. You will note I omitted Francois Mitterends from the list. Yes he was socialist but he fought in the under-ground and although surrounded by trendy anti-Israel leftists chastised anyone who engaged in anti-semitism. I can’t say the same for Chirac who made a speech condemning it but looked the other way as his Ministers made deliberately anti-semitic speeches inflaming riots against Jews as a result of alleged criticism against Israel. Then again Mr. Chirac claimed Arafat was a freedom fighter and when Hezbollah murdered 55 French commandoes, pretended it never happened.

Buffy made a point of responding to a post about discrimination against Jews in Nice, France by suggesting the allegations of discrimination are false but she has yet to provide any evidence to suggest the allegations as stated in the articles are false. She then contradicted herself, and said discrimination happens against many people in France not just Jews thereby unintentionally admitting there is discrimination against people including Jews. She then falsely stated I stated only Jews were being discriminated against in France. In Buffy’s response,there is a clear inference that since other target groups and not just Jews are discriminated against this lessens the value or experience that should be placed on what happens to Jews in France. Buffy also raised the argument that Israelis discriminate against Arabs in Israel. She provided no basis for this allegation nor did she explain how it is relevant to Jews experiencing discrimination in France. Again the inference made was that since Israelis are Jews and they discriminate against Arabs in Israel according to Buffy, this negates the experience of discrimination Jews may be undergoing in France. I responded by stating that when you make allegations against ALL Israelis that do not distinguish them from other Jews, this is an act of anti-semitism. I stated, that when you try trivialize the experience of discrimination Jews are feeling, this is anti-semitic. I suggested that when you take two unrelated incidents and try link them together simply because of a suggested commonality of being Jewish and you try negate the discrimination experience being reported by turning the person complaining of the discrimination into a villain or discriminator, this is anti-semitism. I would suggest all three counts of anti-semitism, are classic examples of anti-semitic comments or thought. They are anti-semitic in that they assign negative assumptions and generalizations about all Jews, all Israelis, and seek to denigrate or deny the fact that Jews experience discrimination. I specifically wrote a post under the religious posts explaining why some of us will feel the need to point out when we feel comments or thoughts expressed are discriminatory or hateful against Jews and this is why we refer to those comments as anti-semitic. Buffy made a point in her response to tell me she did research and found no proof that Jews are being discriminated against in Nice, France. On the one hand she said she did research, but on the other, stated she did a cursory search. I would suggest had Buffy made any effort to research anti-semitism in France she would have noted the following inter-net articles she seems to have missed; http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights...pe/France01.htm http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights...pe/France01.htm http://www.christianity.ca/news/internatio...003/06.000.html http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsoc...nd_its_Jews.asp http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51552.htm http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/france.html I point the above articles out because Buffy inferred that I deliberately cherry picked and only pointed out one piece of information and suggested I did so because I was arguing only Jews are discriminated in France and tried to misrepresent this to this forum by selecting only certain information. The alleged information she accused me of selecting to suggest only Jews are discriminated against didn’t even mention Jews!!!! I quoted it for one reason only, to prove the UN had found that discrimination in apartment searching did exist. I conclude this post by stating for Buffy to suggest I am cherry picking on this forum topic is absolutely untrue for if I did I would have in fact produced information suggesting ONLY Jews were being discriminated against. I deliberately chose a neutral source of information. Now since Buffy was the one to accuse me of being selective, I now ask the question-how is it she claims to have done research on discrimination against Jews in France and has found none but the above articles, are simply ignored by her in her cursory research as she called it. I found all the above with a cursory search within 5 seconds.

Scrib I have a predictable position on this. I do npot believe ANY religious school should be funded. I think the way to fix this is to do away with the Catholic School Board and merge it with the other public school board and delete any reference to religion. In regards to religion, all religions should be taught in a neutral curriculum. It is my strong opinion that if you want to bring your child up as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, you should not expect public funding-that is your private responsibility. Giving grants to community centres for after school religious programming if done fairly is the way to address the issue. It was absolute discrimination of the worst kind allowing Catholics their own public schools and everyone knows it. That said it is nonsense to think the Ontario government can now fund anyone who has a religion. Where will it end and on what principles of equality will funding be provided? Do you fund based on population? Do you fund based on whose lobby is more powerful? There is a time and place for religion and I would contend it does not belong in public institutions that must remain neutral to everyone and not appear favouring one group over another. I think asking the government to fund private religious schools is nothing more then government funding of segregration. Democracy and segregation do not mix.

You made some excellent points. I appreciate your distinguishing situational from moral equivalency and your historic accuracy and defer to your points. Well said.

Interesting how once again a topic started by Leafless turns into an attack on people for not being white Christians from England. The original post was absolutely idiotic. So was Geoffrey's comments and I specifically use the word idiotic, i.e., nonsensical. Everyone who is capable of reading at a garde 5 level understands the Prime Minister of this country represents ALL Canadians and under the Charter of Rights ALL Canadians have the right to worship in peace. To suggest the Prime Minister can not go to any house of worship is stupid. As for you Geoffrey suggesting minorities would complain if Harper showed\ up at a Christian church, that is deliberate baiting and inciting of hatred by suggesting minority religious groups hate Christianity. Its as bull as the original post from Leafless and you know it. DO you reall think I givbe a flying f...ck as a Jew if Harper shows up at an opening of a Christian church? First of all he is Christian so his going to Church is not a problem for me or any minority. Secondly most of Canada with the exception of Geoffrey and Leafless have no problems with any elected politician showing tolerance and respect to various religious or other communities. That is precisely their job. But then in the world of Geoffrey and Leafless we engage in these pretentious debates which are nothing more then a pretense to single out minorities and complain Canada is no longer white English Christian. Pathetic.

Where is BC to comment on this? Oh yah I forgot it can't be used to criticize Israel. Oops how silly of me to think she would comment on it and denounce rocket attacks.

Lol. Don't hold your breath.

In some of my responses I may have crossed the line and instead of criticizing the comments of Buffy or Higgly gone too far and criticized them as people. If I did I apologize. My intent was to forcefully debate their comments NOTHING else.

I was advised by Charles Anthony in my responses to Buffy and Higgly in a line of posts about Israel when responding to their criticism of Israerl to take care not to inflame with name calling. I appreciate the job of a moderator is to try stop people from inciting hatred or heating things up so they get out of control. In my specific case while trying to criticize specific comments as anti-semitic I may have used words that went to the next step to imply the communicator of them was an anti-semite and I appreciate it is the moderator's job to keep comments non personal, so in my specific case I apologize if I went over the line. I appreciate when criticizing a comment, icare must be taken to limit the criticism to the comment and not the person. I am the first to admit to Monsieur Anthony I probably have crossed that line but not intentionally and that is precisely why he is there to caution and kick one's butt back to the other side of the line so to speak and remain objective and not subjective. Because of the above I thought it important I try to explain why when criticizing Israel some of us feel the alleged criticism is anti-semitic and our intent when using it is not meant to use the allegation lightly and how we feel people may be in fact making anti-semitic comments intentionally or unintentionally when criticizing Israel. Some of us believe some people deliberately make anti-semitic comments then try package them as simply being innocent criticism of Israeli policy and hide behind that veil to avoid condemnation. I now want to try explain why some of us feel that it is one thing to criticize Israeli policies it is another to use that criticism as an exercise to in fact demonize all Israelis or blur the line between Judaism, Zionism and Israelis and alleged Israeli government policies and make comments that inflame hatred towards Israelis or Jews or denigrates the holocaust. Before I do that may I give an example of someone who is a strong critic of Israeli policies but in my opinion is a classic example of how one can do it effectively and striongly without becoming anti-semitic and that is Black Dog. If you read his posts on Israel he is a harsh critic of Israel but never in a way that could be construed to discriminate against Israelis and Jews and so I respect his manner of debating very much and appreciate it and point out yes some of us who are Jews are not as sensitive to criticism of Israel as you think-its not the criticism, but someonetimes how certain people phrase it and the implications that flow from the words used. The anti-semitism I now refer to I contend overlaps with classical anti-semitism, and can be distinguished from it. It can I would contend be defined as the discrimination against, denial or assault upon national particularity and peoplehood anywhere and in this specific case it is against Jews. Before I go furtehr all my comments are not original and first advanced by Prof. Irwin Cotler in his article Identifying the New Anti-Semitism and my arguements borrow directly and heavily from his thesis. I would contend in classical anti-semitism, the discrimination is expressed against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; while the newer form of anti-Semitism uses the concept "anti-Zionism" to discriminate against, deny, denigrate, demonize and insult the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. I would then contend that with the creation of Israel, discrimination against Jews which used to be limited to discriminating against Jews can now under the pretense of criticizing Zionism be used to discriminate against Jews as people. So when I examine peoples’ comments who claim they criticize Israeli policy, I look to see do their comments simply criticize Israeli policy or do they in fact make commentsvthat go further then that and demonize Jews and Israelis for having a country-can the comments made be construed as negative generalizations that lump all Jews or Israelis in one category of criticism simply because they choose to support or live in a Jewish state?vThis is why I have been very clear only to use the term anti-semitic, when I feel the alleged debater has crossed the line and then I explain clearly why I feel the poster crossed the line. For many of us, including some of us who happen to be Jewish, the above concept of when anti-Israeli criticism crosses the line is a painful one. We don’t use the phrasevunless we feel we have good reason. In my case it is not used lightly. I would contend that anti-Semitism can find expression not only such comments such as "Zionism is Racism" but in the exercise of the singling out only Zionism, which I would contend using trendy left-wing terms is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and suggesting it is by its very nature wrong but no such standard is used for anyone else. I contend that he singling out of Israel and Jews for wanting to live in their own country is by its very nature anti-semitic and racist as it creates a standard no other people or nation is expected to follow BUT Jews. I now ask-is it necessary when criticizing Israeli policy for the writer to take care not to make comments that demonize all Israelis? I would suggest if someone expresses alleged criticism of Israeli policy and it can be construed to make a negative generalization against Jews or Israelis, I or anyone else has the right to call it anti-semitic if it is a comment that expresses a negative generalization. So for example suggesting Israel as a nation is engaging in genocide or ethnic cleansing in my opinion, is by it s very substantive nature anti-semitic because it necessarily suggests Israelis are racist and carrying out a deliberate plan to exterminate another people. I contend it is anti-semitic because it deliberately infers Israel’s right to engage in actions to prevent terror are necessarily simply racist because Jews as a people do not have the right to protect themselves. Look at the comments Higgly and Buffy made for example. They do not limit themselves to criticizing say the amount of force used by Israel and providing constructive alternatives, instead they suggest Israel is evil because it uses children as shields or because Israel is made up of European foreigners who wrongfully took land away from Muslims. It is no longer criticism of Israeli policies, it goes further and brings in anti-semitic stereotypes to utter assumptions and those specific anti-semitic stereo-types are; 1-Jews when making land transactions are dishonest 2-Jews deliberately create policies to kill and hurt children 3-Jews create policies to deliberately invade and occupy land that does not belong to them All of the above precepts are anti-semitic in that they make assumptions based on subjective negative generalizations that are not based on objective fact but necessarily based on the subjective opinions of the persons expressing them. I use the word “Jews” above because if you look at Higgly and Buffy’s line of comments and reasoning, any Jew who believes in the right of Jews to live in their own state, as well as all Israelis get lumped into the target of the negative generalizations. If you also look at their comments, you can also see how they make assumptions predicated on misunderstandings of the Jewish religion and those misunderstandings are not innocent but deliberate. For example, the assumption Zionism is based on racism is a classic example. Nowhere in Zionist ideology is their any expression of religious or political superiority nor does it talk of treating Muslims as inferiors. This is precisely what I stated the example that within Israel proper Muslims are afforded the exact same legal rights as Jews unlike what Jews are afforded in the Muslim world or in the past in most Christian countries. The reckless use of the word Zionism to be used in a subjective sense anytime one wishes to criticize a Jew for wanting to live in their own state is discriminatory and therefore anti-semitic since it singles out Jews. This is also why I take it very seriously when people whether they be Higgly or Buffy or anyone else toss around further concepts that insult all Jews. Specific examples would be when the nation of Israel and the right of its people to live in a free state, is portrayed as necessarily unjust and therefore any attempt to defend it can then be criticized using terms that suggest Israelis are no better then Nazis. Accusing Israelis of committing genocide and ethnic cleansing as Buffy did equates them with what Nazi Germans did or what the Serbs did or what the Turks did to Armenians or what Stalin did to Ukrainians, etc. It necessarily suggests people who escaped to Israel precisely to escape ethnic cleansing and genocide are morally equivalent for starting their nation with the people they escaped from. It necessarily suggests the 900,000 Jews forcefully expelled from the Middle East for no reason other then they were Jews of whom 700,000 thousand of them had no choice but to come to Israel are guilty of ethnic cleansing because they were ethnically cleansed! So this is why I take exception to people who criticize Israel and present in my opinion deliberately one sided comments that are designed to inflame intolerance or hatred against not just Israelis as a nation of people, but any Jew or non Jew who believes Israelis have a right to a country and that Jews have a right to a Jewish country. I can not sit by in silence when I feel for example the holocaust is used inappropriately in a reference to criticize what Israel is doing. I would argue that it should be considered odiousto any reasonable or rational person when a person uses the holocaust in a manner that trivializes it and uses ito place Israelis on the same moral level as Nazis. That by its very nature does not just insult ALL Israelis but it denigrates ALL Jews and all survivors of the holocaust.

Thanks Scrib. One last one. Damn these Rube apologists. Zionist infidel!!!! Now that I have responded to all the historic misrepresentations I will be pleased to respond to the original post. Buffy posted information with the specific intent to showcase that Israel is killing children. She then stated Israel uses children as human shields. Its interesting she has no concerns about Hamas using children as shields, just Israel. In Buffy’s exercise, she asks us simply to assume Israel is evil and has no justification for what it does. The posts are designed to inflame hatred against Israelis and portray them as child-killers and like a moth to a flame Higgly was soon there telling us that ALL Israelis are psychopaths. If someone is interested in the other side of the accusations they can go to the following web-site which provides analysis of how Hamas deliberately uses civilians as shields; http://www.ajcongress.org/site/PageServer?pagename=secret2 They can also go to the following site to see with pictures how Hamas uses children as shields. http://www.geocities.com/palestiniansareli...manShields.html The human shield stories Buffy made reference to in fact originated from the statements of 15 year old Amid Omeira and his 24 year old cousin Samah. There was a further eport from an 11 year old Jihan Dadush. In those testimonies, these individuals claimed when the IDF went door to door in search of Palestinian terrorists they used them as shields. It is true when the IDF went door to door, looking for terrorists who hide in civilian homes and build their bombs and pile up their weapons in civilian homes and hide behind civilians rather then fight in the open, they have used children as “shields” so the IDF started using the same children as shields as well. Of course Buffy completely ignores the context as to why the IDF did this. The IDF has a military code that does not allow this, but they have done it in the past in an effort to avoid having to throw grenades or kill other civilians while searching for Hamas or terrorists. It slowed things down just enough to prevent instant fire killing anyone caught in between. The Supreme Court of Israel made this practice illegal . It happened as a natural response to terrorists using children and humans as shields and it in fact saved lives as morally repugnant as Buffy finds it. I personally believe as I would think any pro or anti Israeli person does that no child for any reason should be used by terrorists or the IDF in any way. Unlike Buffy I do not simply infer only one side did it or that Israel initiated it and simply did so because they are evil child killers as Buffy would have us believe. It was done to save lives not terrorize children. As cruel as it may seem it makes sense if you are in close quarters and you are desperate not to kill anyone else and neutralize the exercise of Hamas using civilians as shields. I also state that Buffy’s inference that Israel for no reason goes into the Gaza and West Bank and arbitrarily kills people simply because it is evil is a deliberate mirepresentation of the terror the IDF tries to defend its people from. In Buffy’s world, when Israeli civilians die from terror, when Israeli children and citizens are siubjected to terror attacks and constant missile attacks, she pretends this does not exist. If Hamas uses children and humans as shields she remain silent. If Hamas has a deliberate policy of placing its civilians in the line of fire to kill them to augment sympathetic reaction to its agenda to eradicate Israel, that’s o.k.. If Hamas calls on its people to exterminate all Jews not just Israelis, and to terrorize and murder as many Israeli civilians as is possible, that is o.k. because in Buffy’s world, we only speak when it is to criticize Israel. What makes Buffy’s one sided selected exercise of demonizing Israel for trying to defend itself against terror and portray it as cold blinded child killers despicable, is aside from the obvious-inciting hate against Israelis, it deliberately ignores why Israelis must defend itself against terror. It is a fact that 1 of 5 Israeli Jews has lost a loved one to the cyrrent Palestinian terrorist campaign. That is the equivalent of 60 million Americans being killed by terror. Over 14% of the Israeli Jewish population has witnessed a terrorist attack or seen dead bodies from a terrorist attack. The above percentage of a country’s population murdered and terrorized by such attacks is unprecedented in human history. The above information was obtained in a survey conducted by Professor Gavriel Ben Dor and Dr. Daphna Kanti-Nissim at Haifa University and you can get it by going to the university’s web site or googling their names. They randomly surveyed 1,630 Israelis by phone. Based on their survey it would appear of five million Israeli Jews, more than one million registered the loss of a loved one to terror in the past four years. Israelis die and suffer as much as Palestinians. Why doesn’t Buffy tell people when considering the innocent people dying in the Middle East to also go to; http://www.all4israel.org/index.cfm?fuseac...ry&catId=69 OR http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/. Oh I forgot, if we point out with these sites show which Israelis have died from terror that doesn't offer context, it according to Buffy changes the subject and is spam and propaganda. It is also probably according to Buffy spam and propaganda to point out that between Sept. 29/00 and May 1, 2006, the Magen David Odom reported treating a total of 7,844 causualties in Israeli including 999 killed, 642 severeky injured, 9540 moderately injured and 5.263 lightly injured including 11 medics. (watch it now these statistics include 18 Israelis jilled abroad and 3 American diplomats in Gaza) Never mind 1 of every 26,392 Israelis has been getting killed in terror attacks. That in Buffy’s world is spam and propaganda. It is truly unfortunate any Palestinian child or civilian dies or is caught in the cross fire of the terrorist wars and has to live in violence. It is equally as unfortunate Israel chidlren and civilians must die from terrorism or be faced with it as a constant threat, What is even more unfortunate is that sheltered safe protected people like Buffy fuel the hatred by engaging in comments that inflame hatred and incitement against Israelis for wanting to defend themselves against terror. It not only denigrates Israelis, but it patronizes Palestinians.

Thank you to Bon, White and Dance. Please note all my responses were in direct response to what Buffy and Higgly raised and not one response I made initiated any discussion it simply responded to their comments or the information they presented as "truth". As for my responses to Higgly's comments, Buffy may want to portray him as a victim but I personally find his comments anti-semitic and deeply offensive to Jews and so I take great care to explain why. Who and what Higgly is as a person is not my concern, what he states is. I respond to the words he places on this forum whether they be a sarcastiuc reference to New York being the homeland of Jews, throwing the holocaust in with inappropriate references that have nothing to do with the issues raised theyeby ridiculing it's signifigance and insulting holocaust survivors, or when he makes deliberate hate inciting comments suggesting all Israelis as psychopaths. His negative slurs and generalizations need to be confronted and exposed for what they are-hatre mongering against Jews and no trying to pretend these comments only go to criticizing Israrel policies is a crock. Higgly's comments slurred ALL Israelis as psychopaths and his comments deliberately define Zionism, Judaism, Jews and Israelis in one lump categoiry. You want to discuss Israel and criticize its policies do so and expect a debate. Throw in slurs that denigrate the holocaust and Jews as a people or misrepresent Judaism and blur the difference between whether you refer to Jews or Israelis, and any of us have the right to challenge such things as being anti-semitic and bigoted. I have yet to see Higgly refrain from making slurs that attack Judaism,a ll Israelis, and all Jews when he discusses Israel. As for you Buffy no you can't cut and paste or present simply one side of the stiory then name call (its propaganda, its spam) when people respond and debate you amd show you there is more then one side to the issues you raise. You Buffy chose to portray yourself as an expert who can lecture this forum on who they should read and what they should consider. As such I have the right to challenge what I think is your lack of intellectual integrity. I specifically state to you Buffy that for you to come on this post and lecture people to read Benny Morris and then respond when you are provided clear evidence he is a charlatan that people should read him anyways-shows exactly why I question whether you have any intellectual integrity. Eithe take what I or Bonham presented to you and debate it with information to challenge it or refrain from the accusations of spam or proganda. When you engage in such name calling all you evidence is that you are in an intellectual panic. Try reading something other then the hate sites you go to and you might find a way to debate people like me or Bonham meaningfully.