.
I see the BBC delights in telling us that Israel is concerned about the number of violent attacks happening in Judea/Samaria (or “West Bank” in BBC talk). The attacks flagged up are being carried out by Jewish settlers. The BBC helpfully shows an accompanying still from the alleged video taken by a pro-Palestinian group Yesh Din to demonstrate just how vicious the Jews living in this area can be. One could be forgiven for thinking that the Palestinians are innocent little lambs. There is never any mention of the barbarity that Palestinians show towards these “settlers. Then again, presenting these people as the aggressors is all part of the ongoing Palestinian propaganda campaign- lapped up and regurgitated by the BBC.
Sounds like the BBC’s got it right for a change.
The so-called ‘settlers’ have no right to be there. They are on land unlawfully occupied by Israel.
fuck you zoran.
why dont you spew out some more anti jewish “facts” from your facist masters. the jews are there, live with it and nothing you or your gay killing, woman stoning mob of scum do will change that.
its amazing how anti semites will tell us all about israels law breaking, but never mention the legality of iran killing gays, or saudi murdering children.
till you scum do, dont say anything about legality you hypocritical tool
How predictable that this post would bring out the first two comments.
The issue is that the BBC the cherry picks news that reinforces their mission – to misinform us that Israelis are more brutal than Arabs.
Someone at the BBC trawls the Israeli press to pick out items that show Israelis in a bad light. Not too hard, as Israeli media is openly self-critical.
There wouldn’t be many self critical items to choose from in the Arab press, and even if there were, the BBC wouldn’t choose to feature them.
So the BBC alights upon an item like this, matches it with an emotive and possibly faked image, insinuates that Israeli attackers go unpunished, omits context and background, and voilà, people inevitably pop up with their chorus of ‘rights’ and ‘illegal settlements.’ Mission accomplished.
We know settlements are a contentious issue. They are as controversial in Israel as they are here. More so.
Tom and Zoran just have to take the opportunity to crow.
Sue,
Excellent post. Can we just confine ourselves to the actions of the Beeboids and not who or what they are not reporting?
Typical BBC article, as I asked yesterday “Is there a department at the BBC devoted to minimising stories that show Russia or any other ex-“communist” state and to denigrating the one democracy in the Middle East, or is it just second nature to the BBC? “
Not a sheep – it is second nature. Paul Reynolds- to take just one- has been drawing from a lot of old experience of minimising Russia’s threat
That brace of sages at the start of the thread look and sound like a tag team riding point and doing clean-up for the Friends of Vlad. They likely just saw an easy target for a cheap shot, and took it.
Too smelly to be a coincidence, and likely more than just a reflex. You can take it as a compliment of a sort — you’ve got them rattled.
Another example of the BBC’s steady drip-drip of anti-Israel propaganda.
If they did a piece on Arab brutality it would fill the schedule for a year.
listened to the radio4 news earlier today Israel we are told is releasing about 250 palestinians we were also told that Israel is still holding about 10,000 palestinians including children. I always thought this was just lies put about by the palestinians.If Israel is holding children in jail how many, how old are they exactly.It just seemed strange for the bbc to mention it the way they did as if it were a fact first time I recall them doing this
The end of the article is rather clever.
“All settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
There are thought to be around 430,000 Jewish settlers living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”
They mention the alleged illegality of the settlements, although as we know this is a complex area of law. And then they segue directly to mention East Jerusalem. This seems to be linking illegal activity and the Jewish presence in East Jerusalem, which I am pretty certain is not illegal occupation or anything like that. It’s an area where both Jews and non-Jews live.
Can anyone clarify and let me know if I’m wrong? Does the UN or any other tranzi think that there should not be Jews living in EJ?
If Israel is holding children in jail how many, how old are they exactly.
fredd | 17.08.08 – 10:58 pm
Any “children” in Israeli jails are there because their mothers are imprisoned for terrorism and have themselves requested that their offspring be allowed to live with them.
Israel, like any decent, civilized country doesn’t lock up children.
There are many young men, teenagers, in Israeli jails, they deliberately try to get arrested because in jail they get good food and an education.
See here:
Children choose prison over misery
As families struggle with spiralling violence and crippling poverty in the West Bank and Gaza, a growing number are using a new tactic to feed and shelter their children: sending them to an Israeli jail. Hundreds of parents are encouraging their offspring to get arrested for petty crimes, such as carrying a knife or verbal harassment, because life in jail is seen as better than life at home.
Children go willingly into Israeli custody because prison provides them a temporary escape from the endless boredom and harsh violence of life in the occupied territories.
Their parents, in turn, receive financial compensation for their hardship from the Palestinian Authority, money that often amounts to their only income. “They come to the checkpoints with weapons that aren’t really dangerous, just to get arrested,” said Fouad Halhal, the head of Israel’s civil administration office in Nablus.
He estimates that more than two hundred Palestinian children have got themselves arrested in the past two years. “It’s a known phenomenon among the Palestinian youth. It’s something they want to do.”
Read the whole thing:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1528104.ece
Don’t be surprised that the BBC repeats “Palestinian” propaganda – it’s what they do.
Don’t be surprised that the BBC repeats “Palestinian” propaganda – it’s what they do.
Biodegradable | 18.08.08 – 2:30 am | #
The BBC not only repeats Palestinian propaganda it actively disseminates it. It should come as no surprise that the Pallywood production supposedly captured on film (digital camera?) as part of a human rights project was handed to the BBC for distribution.
The Palestinians knew the BBC would publish it worldwide, as the French did Mohammed al Dura, completely uncritically, as if it had been videoed by their own cameraman. It then becomes credible with the BBC stamp of approval.
If this isn’t a piece of Labour Propaganda by the BBC regarding the conservatives Broken Society agenda, I don’t know what is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7566979.stm
Off Topic and maybe already pointed out by others but a good holiday game is to count the times BBC comentators at the Olympics use the word “English” to describe any competitor.
A number of team GB members are labeled as “welsh”, “Scots” or “Irish” but if you come from anywhere between Hadrians wall and the Isle of Wight you are labeled as “British”
So far I have never heard the word English – have the BBC commissars banned it?
Actually Sue its you who ‘cherry picks news that reinforces their mission’.
Why don’t you search google news. I know you don’t pay for them, but if the BBC is biased for merely covering the story then so are all these sources.There’s literature out there you can read that will help you better understand the news.
Dear Joel,
I didn’t understand your point exactly, but as you apparently didn’t understand mine, we’re quits.
Dear Joel,
Are you the only one on duty? Have you been left to defend the BBC all on your own?
I’m sorry about your predicament – having to deal with two threads at once by yourself. However GCooper’s comment (see thread below) will do for this one too.
News editors makes decisions about what stories they run, on an hourly basis. The BBC chooses what to include and what to exclude according to an undefined, yet clear, ‘liberal’ agenda.
This means stories supporting AGW are carried, while those opposing it are not. It means stories about British troops being killed in Afghanistan or Iraq are run, but those about the victories of British troops are ignored.
One more thing, when they run a story which shows Palestinians in an indefensibly bad light, the BBC are sure to include a gratuitous reminder of an Israeli ‘wrongdoing’ just in case anyone might be swayed into sympathising with Israel.
“We’re just supplying context!” they cry when you ask why it was necessary to include an irrelevant reminder of some historical fact or myth.
Well, where’s the context here?
The article that this thread is concerned with, which suits their case to a tee, stands alone, don’t you see. No gratuitous reminders necessary.
I still don’t really understand your earlier comment, but of course I cherry pick what reinforces my case. I have an agenda, which is that I want the BBC to stop abusing its increasingly threadbare reputation for reliability and impartiality, and start presenting a fair and honest representation of Israel, Jews, Islam, Britain, blah blah you know the rest. If you don’t, “there’s literature out there that will help you better understand the news.”
‘Are you the only one on duty? Have you been left to defend the BBC all on your own?’
No, but if I want to publish a comment, I only get one go,then I get banned, regardless of the content. Dissent is not permitted in Vance world.
‘It means stories about British troops being killed in Afghanistan or Iraq are run’ – do you really thinks that’s the reason these stories are reported? I don’t think you’re serious.
Israeli security officials are reported to have raised concerns about an increase in violence by Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Everyone else on the planet, the hundreds of publications and broadcasters who covered the story are all biased too, even the Israeli security officials are biased against themselves. All except you. You just want honest representation of Israel, Jews, Islam.
Joel
“Actually Sue its you who ‘cherry picks news that reinforces their mission’.”
Where’s your evidence for that sweeping statement?
If it is the privilege of the BBC to comment on news items, it is the FUNDAMENTAL responsibility of the BBC to report that news and not simply cut out news items that it cannot rebut, or does not fit its preconceived notions of how the world should be run.
The BBC Charter makes Auntie very, very different. It has a statutory duty to be objective. Hence this site.
I would be happy to pay a fee for the BBC just as I pay a fee to Mr Murdoch. We object to paying a poll tax over which we as ‘customers’ we have no control, and then being bombarded with biased output in flagrant disregard of the Charter obligation.
Go away and try and get some real facts and figures and engage in the debate rather than trying to be a clever clogs will you? Thanks.
Joel
“Dissent is not permitted in Vance world.”
Is that why you are commenting here, freely and completely unhindered?
Joel | Homepage | 18.08.08 – 1:54 pm
Israeli security officials are reported to have raised concerns about an increase in violence by Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Everyone else on the planet, the hundreds of publications and broadcasters who covered the story are all biased too, even the Israeli security officials are biased against themselves.
Please re-read my posts. At no time did I say they shouldn’t have reported it. Why can’t you understand that?
I misread your first remark re cherry picking – I thought you had written ‘reinforces your mission’ but you said their mission – still it makes little or no difference. With that in mind, perhaps you misread my whole post. And the other one.
Bias aint reporting something bad. Bias is when you select certain things, omit certain things, include supposedly mitigating factors in certain reports and exclude them from others.
One thing you did get right You just want honest representation of Israel, Jews, Islam.
Certainly do.
‘it is the FUNDAMENTAL responsibility of the BBC to report that news and not simply cut out news items that it cannot rebut, or does not fit its preconceived notions of how the world should be run.’
what news should it report? The choice is always going to be selective. The BBC hasn’t reported what I had for my breakfast this morning. What else should include.
Yes, it’s always a tricky one, and there are certainly no clear answers. Russia threatens to nuke Poland, for instance.
Is it news? Hard to say.
The fact is that there are fairly frequent examples of stories the rest of the media covers in a big way that the BBC ignores or underplays, and vice versa. That begs the question, why?
Of course it’s subjective, but the issue is whether those editorial choices seem to fit a pattern.
Russia threatening to nuke Poland, or what Joel had for breakfast. Now that is a difficult one.
Was it a politically correct breakfast?
Ur breakfast is more interesting than reading about the ugga buggas and the ooga boogas beating the crap out of each other…again.
Joel:
‘it is the FUNDAMENTAL responsibility of the BBC to report that news and not simply cut out news items that it cannot rebut, or does not fit its preconceived notions of how the world should be run.’
what news should it report? The choice is always going to be selective. The BBC hasn’t reported what I had for my breakfast this morning. What else should include.
I don’t mind what news you report but I and countless others want you to report it fairly and without bias.
Joel,
here’s a dilemma.
Which of your enemy’s enemies do you regard as more of a friend?
You have a choice. The odious Ady with his baby-talk and ooga booga fixation, or myself who you mistake for a loathsome rightwing islamophobe?
Very sorry to hear the BBC declined to feature your breakfast menu. I had a piece of toast and a cup of tea. They probably wouldn’t be very interested in that either.
firefoxx | 18.08.08 – 12:02 am |
Can anyone clarify and let me know if I’m wrong? Does the UN or any other tranzi think that there should not be Jews living in EJ?
If one takes the position that East Jerusalem and the West Bank still belongs to Jordan, then technically the settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (the occupier shall not move their own ethnics into the occupied territory).
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/EVIU-69HJYR?OpenDocument
Of course, by that reckoning, China has much more to answer for than Israel.
However, since Jordan refused to negotiate with Israel and by default ceded the territory (according to what used to be international law), Israel gets to keep the land fair and square. But that’s only as long as one thinks Israel took over the territories of Syria and Jordan.
In 1995, the UN made it very clear that they wanted to change that reality, and decided that the West Bank belongs to the (then) recently created concept of a “Palestinian people”. There was no such thing in 1967 (except among Arafat cronies), and they had no claim to any of the Occupied Territories at that time. Before then, the land was under the entirely legal control of Jordan. They eventually gave up that right, which meant that under previous interpretations of international law, Israel could control that real estate.
To solve that problem, the UN decided this:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/50/plenary/a50-262.htm
That’s the problem with the myth which has now become, by repetition, a reality. Once one believes that a sovereign Palestinian state existed, then Israel can be accused of occupying that territory illegally. As usual, the UN leapt at the chance to demonize Israel. They declared the West Bank to be the sovereign territory of a State which only existed in people’s imaginations, and thus permanently created the opinion espoused by the BBC and most everyone else.
(I should point out that Syria still likes to claim the Golan, so in that case Article 49 would apply.)
At the heart of all this is the “ethnic” angle. Even though Israeli settlements cover less than 3.5% of the territory in the West Bank, everyone can cry “ethnic cleansing”, because some ethnic Arabs might be displaced. Thus the key issue is the alleged violation of Article 49.
Excellent analysis David. Many thanks for taking the time.
Do any of our lefty contributors have any comments or refutations? Always bear in mind that many readers here are happy to hear evidence on all sides. Reith may be gone but at least he did use civil language and debated using facts.
David Preiser (USA) | Homepage | 18.08.08 – 8:46 pm
You seem to be ignoring a couple of major points though.
If Israel has a legal right to the territories, then it also has an obligation to give full citizenship to those who live there – along with voting rights and seats in the Knesset. But Israel does not want to do this – the Palestinian birth rate would soon see Jews a minority in their national home. So it frankly doesn’t suit Israel (if it wants to remain a Jewish state) to annex Judea and Samaria.
Second, there is the tricky business of the right of peoples to national self-determination (upon which the Jewish claim to Israel is itself based). If that right exists, then the Palestinians would have the right to secede from Israel if that’s what the majority of them wanted – in the same way that Scots would be entitled to independence, if a majority voted for that.
The Palestinian ‘victim status’ is founded on the fact that they have neither democratic/civil rights and equal citizenship within Israel NOR a state of their own. The problem cannot
be solved until they have one or the other.
i wonder how much Dick Black gets paid for pumping out his green propaganda on the tinternet
Olympics – sorry where’s the general thread.
The BBC have sunk to new lows now with the Olympics. The British are racing in the cycling that has just started and the BBC are showing highlights of the Tour de France, and on the interactive there is no sound
Now a Bradley Wiggins interview again…
DAW:
Olympics – sorry where’s the general thread.
Two down.
For at least the second time that I know of the BBC lie about ultra-orthodox Jews and the army:
Set apart for God and Torah
Currently Haredim make up about 10% of Israeli society, and have a less than positive reputation among secular Israelis, many of whom view their customs as primitive and disapprove of their choice to study at seminaries and thus avoid the mandatory army draft.
“It’s an ancient concept in Judaism that the spiritual and the physical are united, that to win a war you need both spirit and strength,” says Moshe Eliahu, a Haredi father of two and full-time student at a Jerusalem seminary.
“You need people fighting, but you also need people learning and praying.”
While it’s true that Haredim are not drafted into the army many of them volunteer:
Military to double enlistment of haredi soldiers
Recent successful integration of ultra-Orthodox youth in IDF corps prompts effort to increase numbers of those joining service, double roster by year’s end
Netzah Yehuda Battalion
The Netzah Yehuda Battalion Hebrew: גדוד נצח יהודה (also known as Nahal Haredi נחל החרדי ) is a battalion in the Kfir Brigade of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The purpose of the unit is to allow religious Israelis to serve in the IDF in an atmosphere conducive to their religious convictions. The battalion’s main action area is the Jordan valley.
The battalion was founded in 1999, and originally contained only 30 soldiers. As of 2006, the battalion had grown to over 1000 soldiers, and appears to rapidly be reaching the threshold of a fully functioning brigade.
http://www.nahalharedi.org/background_about_nahal_haredi.phphttp://www.nahalharedi.org/background_about_nahal_haredi.php
Biodegradable | 19.08.08 – 1:19 pm
Imagine recruiting a battalion of hardcore religious fundamentalists and stationing them in a sensitive location.
Irresponsible or what?
I thought only Hamas did that.
BBC is not biased. The reality is anti-semitic in Occupied Palestinian Territories, which, according to International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body in the world, include, unambiguiously, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem. If BBC is were the only source of information on obscenities of occupation, one could legitimately question if BBC is biased. However, the avalanche of information, from every direction possible, including Haaretz, largest Israeli newspaper with English edition, and BTselem, the Israeli human rights organisation is freely available for anyone with access to internet and a search engine.
I don’t have any sympathy for Israeli settlers in the occupied territories, but I also don’t see why a story in the Israeli press justifies a big BBC splash other than because it gives an(other) excuse to stick the boot in. I don’t remember the Beeb picking up on some ultra hawkish Jerusalem Times piece and flogging it as gospel recently??
The International Court of Justice is not the “highest judicial body in the world.” The ICJ’s jurisdiction and authority are quite limited. The sovereignty of nation-states is still the most fundamental principle of international “law”.
Anonymous | 19.08.08 – 9:18 am
You too seem to be ignoring a couple of major points though.
“A two-State solution to the conflict requires all participants in the democratic process to renounce violence and terror, accept Israel’s right to exist, and disarm”
And away we go!
(Bye-bye victim status; they’ll just have to try and manage without it.)
Imagine recruiting a battalion of hardcore religious fundamentalists and stationing them in a sensitive location.
So are you saying the BBC is pro-Israel for stating that orthodox Jews are exempt from military service?
If BBC is were the only source of information on obscenities of occupation, one could legitimately question if BBC is biased. However, the avalanche of information, from every direction possible, including Haaretz, largest Israeli newspaper with English edition, and BTselem, the Israeli human rights organisation is freely available for anyone with access to internet and a search engine.
Eva Smagacz | 19.08.08 – 2:03 pm
Quite right!
Have you seen this?
In one town, Gazans yearn for previous Israeli presence
Anonymous | 19.08.08 – 2:00 pm
Imagine recruiting a battalion of hardcore religious fundamentalists and stationing them in a sensitive location.
Pardon me for my ignorance but although ultra orthodox Jews do seem to live a life of bizarre sounding obstacles, I have yet to hear anything threatening, violent, hateful and destructive about their objectives that is in any way comparable to the other religious fundamentalist hardcore bunch you seem to be equating them with. Mr Anonymous. Please enlighten me if I am wrong.
Palestinian Territories, which, according to International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body in the world, include, unambiguiously, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem.
RUBBISH!
See: “Mandate for Palestine” The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights
In particular see: The “Mandate for Palestine” is Valid to This Day
Continued (post contained too many links)
As for the International Court of Justice, it is only empowered to give its “Advisory Opinion” and then only when asked to by a member of the UN. It was asked to give an opinion by the Palestinians who are neither members of the UN nor a state.
Its opinions have no legal standing in international law and are not enforceable by the UN or anybody else.
See this regarding the famous opinion the ICJ gave regarding the separation barrier and the reasons why the opinion itself is illegal and worthless:
International Court of Justice – Ruling on Israeli Security Wall – Buergenthal Declaration (dissenting opinion) July 9, 2004
1- The court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case, and that it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and the Palestinians or another party.
2- The court ruled that provisions of international law regarding right to self defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel:
3. On the other hand, the court ruled that the West Bank is occupied territory, asserting that:
95. The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. If those two conditions are satisfied, the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties.
Thus, to achieve its finding, the court held at the same time that there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state, but also and at the same time asserted that Israel has no right to defend itself in that conflict, because there is no other state involved.
Read it all
Palestinian Territories, which, according to International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body in the world, include, unambiguiously, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Please provide a link to prove that. I can find no evidence to back it up.
FROM “OCCUPIED TERRITORIES” TO “DISPUTED TERRITORIES”
Sue | 19.08.08 – 3:36 pm
Pardon me for my ignorance but although ultra orthodox Jews do seem to live a life of bizarre sounding obstacles, I have yet to hear anything threatening, violent, hateful and destructive about their objectives that is in any way comparable to the other religious fundamentalist hardcore bunch….. please enlighten me.
OK
Some of the violence which has taken place in Israel has, in fact, been perpetrated by Orthodox American Jewish emigres. In 1980, a terrorist band known as the Jewish Underground, including an American émigré named Ezra Rapaport, tried to assassinate three Arab mayors of West Bank towns with car bombs. Two years later, another American, Alan Goodman, opened fire on Muslim worshippers at the Dome of the Rock, killing one Palestinian and provoking rioting.
“The lineage of American extremists,” writes Freedman, “led directly to Kiryat Arba’s doctor, a former New Yorker named Baruch Goldstein. Goldstein studied with Meir Kahane. He closely followed Alan Goodman’s attack at the Dome of the Rock. And on Feb. 25, 1994 he enacted a more successful version of it, shooting to death 29 Muslim worshippers at a mosque in HebronÅ An American Hasidic rabbi in the West Bank city of Nablus, Yitzhak Ginsburg, oversaw the publication of a memorial book glorifying Goldstein as ‘the Saint, may God avenge his blood.’ One of those who read it was Yigal Amir.”
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/us-movement.html
Democracy and Judaism are two opposite things. One absolutely cannot confuse them. The objective of a democratic state is to allow a person to do exactly as he wishes. The objective of Judaism is to serve God and to make people better. These are two totally opposite conceptions of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane#cite_note-4
Haredi Jews blame Lebanon war on homosexuality and their Rabbi blames the Holocaust on sexual bad behaviour among Jews,
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3316776,00.html
The Halakhic instrument promoted by ultra-Orthodox rabbis, both in Israel and the U.S., that ultimately convinced Yigal Amir that he should kill Yitzhak Rabin was the ancient Jewish doctrine of zealotry. The doctrine maintains that under the most extreme circumstances, a God-loving Jew can kill another person without asking permission.
The doctrine of zealotry goes back to the first biblical Jewish zealot-Pinchas Ben-Eleazar. As told in the Bible, Pinchas, acting in awe of God, killed Zimri, who had prostituted in public with a Midianite girl. Pinchas’s problem was that the killing was totally unauthorized and he acted out of an uncontrollable momentary drive. And yet, in spite of the severity of the act, which was denounced, according to the Talmud, by the people’s elders, it was forgiven by God.
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/us-movement.html
In sum violence is the direct outcome of haredi society’s definition of its situation.
Title: ‘Haredi Violence in Contemporary Israeli Society’ in Jew and Violence, Image, Ideologies, Realities
Author: Menachem Friedman
Publisher: Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002
URL: http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/Haredi-Violence.pdf
They {Haredim} are the direct counterpart of Moslem extremists. Haredim claim to follow the Halachi rules as forever binding. The Halachi gives licence to kill secular Jews, to show no kindness to them. It also relegates women to being the property of their fathers and husbands
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/israels-haredi-god-of-war-religious-extremism-in-israel/
Sound eerily like their equivalents in the RoP to me.
Sue | 19.08.08 – 3:36 pm
Pardon me for my ignorance but although ultra orthodox Jews do seem to live a life of bizarre sounding obstacles, I have yet to hear anything threatening, violent, hateful and destructive about their objectives that is in any way comparable to the other religious fundamentalist hardcore bunch…please enlighten me.
OK
Some of the violence which has taken place in Israel has, in fact, been perpetrated by Orthodox American Jewish emigres. In 1980, a terrorist band known as the Jewish Underground, including an American émigré named Ezra Rapaport, tried to assassinate three Arab mayors of West Bank towns with car bombs. Two years later, another American, Alan Goodman, opened fire on Muslim worshippers at the Dome of the Rock, killing one Palestinian and provoking rioting.
“The lineage of American extremists,” writes Freedman, “led directly to Kiryat Arba’s doctor, a former New Yorker named Baruch Goldstein. Goldstein studied with Meir Kahane. He closely followed Alan Goodman’s attack at the Dome of the Rock. And on Feb. 25, 1994 he enacted a more successful version of it, shooting to death 29 Muslim worshippers at a mosque in HebronÅ An American Hasidic rabbi in the West Bank city of Nablus, Yitzhak Ginsburg, oversaw the publication of a memorial book glorifying Goldstein as ‘the Saint, may God avenge his blood.’ One of those who read it was Yigal Amir.”
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/us-movement.html
Democracy and Judaism are two opposite things. One absolutely cannot confuse them. The objective of a democratic state is to allow a person to do exactly as he wishes. The objective of Judaism is to serve God and to make people better. These are two totally opposite conceptions of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane#cite_note-4
Haredi Jews blame Lebanon war on homosexuality and their Rabbi blames the Holocaust on sexual bad behaviour among Jews,
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3316776,00.html
The Halakhic instrument promoted by ultra-Orthodox rabbis, both in Israel and the U.S., that ultimately convinced Yigal Amir that he should kill Yitzhak Rabin was the ancient Jewish doctrine of zealotry. The doctrine maintains that under the most extreme circumstances, a God-loving Jew can kill another person without asking permission.
The doctrine of zealotry goes back to the first biblical Jewish zealot-Pinchas Ben-Eleazar. As told in the Bible, Pinchas, acting in awe of God, killed Zimri, who had prostituted in public with a Midianite girl. Pinchas’s problem was that the killing was totally unauthorized and he acted out of an uncontrollable momentary drive. And yet, in spite of the severity of the act, which was denounced, according to the Talmud, by the people’s elders, it was forgiven by God.
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/us-movement.html
In sum violence is the direct outcome of haredi society’s definition of its situation.
Title: ‘Haredi Violence in Contemporary Israeli Society’ in Jew and Violence, Image, Ideologies, Realities
Author: Menachem Friedman
Publisher: Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002
URL: http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/Haredi-Violence.pdf
They {Haredim} are the direct counterpart of Moslem extremists. Haredim claim to follow the Halachi rules as forever binding. The Halachi gives licence to kill secular Jews, to show no kindness to them. It also relegates women to being the property of their fathers and husbands
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/israels-haredi-god-of-war-religious-extremism-in-israel/
Seem eerily like their oppos in the R0P to me.
Anonymous | 19.08.08 – 4:40 pm |
Sound eerily like their equivalents in the RoP to me.
Don’t be silly. There’s no such thing as a group of armed haredim going around beheading secular Jews. No Reform synagogue has ever been blown up by the haredim. There’s no such thing as a group of armed haredim driving a truck bomb into a congregation which allows men and women to parade around together during Simchas Torah.