naomiglover

You can listen to Bob's foaming from the mouth or you can visit the web site and find out more about these Jewish Organizations yourselves: http://jewishvoiceforpeace.com/ http://www.youngjewishproud.org/ Racist Zionist Jews such as Bob, who is part of the problem by living in the illegal settlements in East Jerusalem know that things are changing. More and more Jews are speaking out against the racist, unjust and illegal treatment of the Palestinians by the Zionist government. The biggest change is apparent in North America.

Our Young, Jewish, and Proud leaders made headlines around the world when they disrupted Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the country's largest gathering of Jewish leaders in New Orleans. We have struck a nerve among Jews everywhere and among people who care about human rights.

Is this how you justify comparing Israel's military actions and violations of international law to Canada? By saying they are both Sovereign? How is being a sovereign state justify violating human rights and committing war crimes? It's too bad that Israel would not be able to continue doing what it's doing without the extremely generous economic and political help from the United States.

So, Canada = Israel. Excellent comparison.

Issuing a 50/50 blame game may seem like the right thing to do to distance yourself from being considered biased, but sometimes it's okay to be biased towards the truth. The truth is that the ball is in Israel's court and they're the ones who can change the course of this conflict by following international law. There is nothing wrong with being brutally honest and saying that, in this day and age, everything else happening is a reaction (accessory) to Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians and their rights.

It's not a theory. It's what the system is about. Kennedy/Johnson (1961-1964) Spending Grew by 6.5% YoY (Year over Year) Spending Grew by 5.28% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) Lyndon B. Johnson (1965-1968) Spending Grew by 10.93% YoY Spending Grew by 7.74% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) Richard Nixon (1969-1972) Spending Grew by 6.7% YoY Spending Grew by 1.97% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) Nixon/Ford (1973-1976) Spending Grew by 12.85% YoY Spending Grew by 4.44% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) Jimmy Carter (1977-1980) Spending Grew by 12.32% YoY Spending Grew by 2.37% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) Ronald Reagan, First Term (1981-1984) Spending Grew by 9.62% YoY Spending Grew by 3.46% YoY (Inflation Adjusted Ronald Reagan, Second Term (1985-1988) Spending Grew by 5.79% YoY Spending Grew by 2.33% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) George H. W. Bush (1989-1992) Spending Grew by 6.75% YoY Spending Grew by 2.24% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) Bill Clinton, First Term (1993-1996) Spending Grew by 3.1% YoY Spending Grew by 0.31% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) Bill Clinton, Second Term (1997-2000) Spending Grew by 3.48% YoY Spending Grew by 1.15% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) George W. Bush, First Term (2001-2004) Spending Grew by 6.41% YoY Spending Grew by 4.02% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) George W. Bush, Second Term (2005-2008) Spending Grew by 6.82% YoY Spending Grew by 3.4% YoY (Inflation Adjusted) Barack Obama (2009-2012) Spending Expected to Grow by 6.71% YoY (according to White House projections) Put down the pompom's. They're all the same.

Bush may have preached 'lower taxes' but his spending was through the roof. How can you lower taxes when you're going to spend billions on unnecessary wars and a big government? Don't you guys realize that you're always cheering for and going against two teams that are pretty much the same? Put down the pompoms and start looking for alternatives to the same people you keep alternating in the office.

I am no fan of Iggy, but he's correct to say that the Conservative government does not deserve a seat at the United Nations Security Council. When the Harper government decided not to condemn Israel after the Goldstone Report which concluded that Israel committed war crimes during its attack on Gaza, he showed his true colours. Respect for international law and human rights should be a priority. Harper lacks that.

He is obviously making fun of Americans like you who are complacent and pretend that it's okay for your government to hand out welfare money to another country with 0 benefit to you.

It's like saying, attacking Israel may save many innocent people from incineration at the hands of a group of madmen. You do not miss an opportunity to salivate and advocate military attacks against anyone who criticizes Israel. By the way, why should anyone take this Radical Leftist Lawyer thing seriously? You're neither a leftist or a man who respects law. Perhaps you should just leave the word Radical there.

Israel's military hierarchy has been cleared of significant wrongdoing after an inquiry concluded that the deadly naval raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla six weeks ago was error-free. The probe, conducted by the Israeli armed forces and led by a retired general, found that there was more to praise than to condemn in the naval operation that claimed the lives of nine Turkish activists on board the flotilla's lead ship, the Mavi Marmara. In his report, General Giora Eiland lauded the "professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness" of the commandos involved in the raid and ruled that the use of live fire was "justified". "To my relief, the investigation found no negligence of failures on any significant matters," Gen Eiland told reporters after submitting his report. Link This is from a couple of months ago but it's still funny.

It doesn't matter what organization or which person it is, the blind supporters of Israeli policy, will go to any length to try to discredit those groups who criticize Israel. One of the worst displays was the reaction towards Judge Goldstone, a zionist and one of the most respected and experienced international figures in international law and human rights. It's quite pathetic. United Nations, 1947, Resolution 181 approves the creation of Israel, the Jewish State Link Holocaust and the United Nations Outreach Programme Link General Assembly Resolution 273 11 May 1949 General Assembly Resolution 273 welcomed the State of Israel as a full member of the United Nations. The resolution states: “Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter [of the United Nations].” Resolution 273 signified Israel’s acceptance into the community of nations. Link Security Council Resolution 1559 2 September 2004 UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calls upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and for “foreign forces” to withdraw from Lebanon and cease intervention in the internal politics of Lebanon. Link General Assembly Resolution 60/7, “Holocaust Remembrance” 1 November 2005 Resolution 60/7 was a landmark resolution for the United Nations and for Holocaust Remembrance. For the first time, the General Assembly designated 27 January –– the day that the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp was liberated in 1945 –– as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Link

Israel's military broke international laws during a raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, a UN Human Rights Council investigation says. Its report said the action by commandos, which left nine dead, was "disproportionate" and "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality". It said there was clear evidence to support prosecutions against Israel for "wilful killing". In a 56-page report, the UN panel of three international lawyers said: "There is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health". The Convention is an international treaty governing the protection of civilians in times of war. The UN fact-finding mission also said the Israeli blockade of the Palestinian territory was "unlawful" because of a humanitarian crisis there. BBC Israel, of course, gave their typical response to investigations that find Israel to have broken international law.

I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain.

Red Herring. It is/was required by the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as according to resolution 242. They did. Anything else is just more tactical stalling and more excuse by Israel to continue to annex more land. After this comment, nothing else you say has any credibility. If you cannot recognize the large problem with the settlements and the annexation of Palestinian land, then you're also a problem.

Looks like the Christians in Gaza want to put the blame on Israel and not on the Muslims. But you go on ahead and tell us how they Christians in Gaza are lying: Father Musallam explained why Christians in Gaza do not feel singled out or oppressed. “Palestinian Christians are not a religious community set apart in some corner. We are part of the Palestinian people,” he asserted. “Our relationship with Hamas is as people of one nation. Hamas doesn’t fight religious groups. Its fight is against the Israeli occupation.” When asked about Western media reports that Gaza’s Christians are considering emigrating because of Islamic oppression, Father Musallam sighed. “If Christians emigrate, it’s not because of Muslims,” he emphasized. “It is because we suffer from the Israeli siege. We seek a life of freedom, a life different from the life of dogs that we are currently forced to live.” Link Why is it so tough for you to accept facts?

Okee dokee Dancer. You have won again with another one of your nonsensical, vague responds that misses the whole point. Thumbs up to you. As mentioned; This is a lot more reading than Dancer is used to and since he's not here to engage in a real debate on this topic, I am adding this information for anyone else who cares to know more about this situation.

Do you have a Jew problem? Because I don't. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews who recognize justice and have no problem acknowledging all the problems that are involved in this conflict. Here is an article by a Jew. No, he doesn't hate himself: The progressive media watchdog group, FAIR, has published a statement joining Electronic Intifada and Tikun Olam in questioning the stonewalling approach the NY Times has taken to the issue of whether Ethan Bronner’s son’s induction into the IDF raises questions about his objectivity and conflict of interest: Link Bronner's son serves in the IDF and he writes about a conflict that his son is involved in. This creates a conflict of interest. Even Clark Hoyt, the public editor, concluded an apologetic piece with this: But, stepping back, this is what I see: The Times sent a reporter overseas to provide disinterested coverage of one of the world’s most intense and potentially explosive conflicts, and now his son has taken up arms for one side. Even the most sympathetic reader could reasonably wonder how that would affect the father, especially if shooting broke out. Of course, Keller, rejected this and Bronner continues to write about a conflict in which his son serves in. This is a lot more reading than Dancer is used to and since he's not here to engage in a real debate on this topic, I am adding this information for anyone else who cares to know more about this situation. In regards to the NYT and its coverage of the Middle East: Although the paper has a Palestinian reporter in Gaza, Abunimah notes: “[Taghreed] Khodary is allowed to report only on Palestinians. Neither she nor any other Arab reporter is allowed to report on Israeli Jews. While Jews/Americans may report on Palestinians, the converse is not true. Why is this? It must be – I assume – because there is an inherent, perhaps unacknowledged assumption that an Arab/Palestinian is or will be automatically biased against Israelis/Jews. Whereas, we are supposed to accept that in no case is a Jewish reporter who identifies with Israel biased even when his son has joined an occupation army that is raiding Palestinian refugee camps and communities dozens of times per week.” Link

1988 called: December, 1988: Arafat recognizes Israel's right to exist Link It's interesting how you've put all blame on "Palestinian (and other Arab-Muslim) terrorists". Ever considered recognizing the problem with the settlements? What about the wall that has been ruled to be illegal under the ICC? What about Bibi's party which has vowed to never allow a Palestinian state? Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land? It's not easy to take people like you seriously when you blame the derailing of peace talks on "Palestinian (and other Arab-Muslim) terrorists" while forgetting to mention some extremely important variables that are involved.

I cited a Christian web site that interviewed the High Christian priest in Gaza and numerous other Christians who have repeated that Christians and Muslims live in peace in Gaza. There are many other articles where The high priest speaks about the peace and tolerance between Christians and Muslims. Even in your own article, this was repeated. So tell me why you have lowered yourself into Shady territory.

What are you talking about? Be a little more coherent please. How did I admit that my facts are second and false?

What deaths? The one death that Shady keeps repeating and, in which, the Gazans, both Chrisians and Muslims, have said was a unique act and that no group has taken responsibility for? What proof? Show me this rift between the Christians and Muslims in Gaza. Try to be a little more honest, instead of lowering yourself into Shady territory.

You also failed to read your own article. Either that, or you are just as dishonest as Shady and Dancer with your selective posting. From your own article: Jan Sa'ad, 42, said: "This has never happened before in Gaza. If somebody thinks this murder will make Christians leave, they are mistaken. This is our homeland. We are as patriotic as anyone."

This has already been covered. But because you like to comment on things that have already been covered because you have failed to read, I will repeat: The Bookseller's Murder It is well known that one of the most effective tools for rendering a society subservient is the tactic of divide and conquer. Thus the October kidnapping and murder of Rami Ayyad, the manager of Gaza’s only Christian bookstore, presented a dangerous challenge. Speculations about the motive still abound: Was it a hate crime or simply a random tragedy? Father Manuel Musallam, the senior Roman Catholic priest in Gaza, doubts the attack was religiously motivated. “Rami was not only Christian,” the priest explained. “He was Palestinian. Violent acts against Christians are not a phenomenon unique to Gaza.” Immediately upon hearing of what he described as a “murderous crime,” Ismail Haniyeh, Palestine’s elected prime minister, ordered the Ministry of Interior to dispatch an investigative committee to “urgently look into the matter.” “We are all one people who suffer together for the sake of freedom, independence, and restoration of our inalienable citizenship rights,” Haniyeh said publicly. “We are waging a single struggle and refuse to allow any party to tamper with or manipulate this historical relationship [between Muslims and Christians].” Contrary to the picture that Shady is trying to paint, Christians live in peace with Muslims in Gaza.

Why are you posting Israeli propaganda videos from youtube as your proof, instead of accepting what the High Catholic priest has said repeatedly about Christians in Gaza? I repeat, I am quoting the High Christian priest from Gaza who says that Christians are not persecuted in Gaza and they live peacefully with Muslims. Here, I will post this again, for the third time: http://www.culturalcatholic.com/ChristianGaza.htm