babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Vatican in terror dispute with Israel...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Vatican in terror dispute with Israel...
shaolin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4270

posted 30 July 2005 01:09 AM      Profile for shaolin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...at least according to The Guardian. Who wudda thunk it: "Attacks on Israel sometimes followed immediate by Israeli reactions not always compatible with the norms of international law."
From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 30 July 2005 01:53 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who wudda thunk it

No big surprise. The Vatican has never been very pro-Israeli. As far as I know they opposed the founding of the zionist state, and didn't recognize it as a nation until 1993.

Not to say that the Vatican's motivations on this issue have always been noble. Anti-semitism likely played a pretty big role in their original opposition. On a less sinister note, you've got the fact that a good 20% of the displaced Palestinians were Christian, some of them probably loyal to Rome. And of course for someone who regards the region as having special significance for Christianity, the establishment of an officially Jewish state is gonna seem like a bit of a slap in the face(unless of course you subscribe to the fundamentalist belief that the gathering of Jews in the holy land heralds the return of Christ, which the Catholic Church does not).

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 July 2005 09:27 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yoo hoo? I posted a link to this, like, a WEEK ago? This thread!
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 July 2005 11:55 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[Sorry, Dr C, but things have moved on several stages since then and that Guardian link is useful, so ...]

It might be fair to say that the Vatican's position is disingenuous. I mean, it's not as though the U.S. and Britain haven't engaged in major retaliation themselves, not to mention waging pre-emptive war, brushing off innocent victims as "collateral damage," so I'm not sure I can see the distinction that the pope is making there.

The very end of that Guardian article is an eye-opener, though. Note this public comment from the wife of the Israeli foreign minister:

quote:
Mr Shalom's wife, Judy, felt no such restraint on a television chatshow a few days later. "As long as I hold no official position I can say it's not all bad for the English to find out what it's like," she said.

I call that vicious. Sheerly vicious.

Revealing, though.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 30 July 2005 12:08 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not only is it vicious, but one of the people murdered by the suicide bombers was an Israeli woman who had moved to Britain and feared the violence in her homeland. Her name was Anat Rosenberg - she was a most creative - and rather eccentric - person who would have been great company...

It is also stupid for two reasons: Becoming victims of violence does not increase compassion. I don't think people in NYC are necessarily more compassionate towards victims of terrorism - some are, some quite the opposite.

Moreover, the IRA had carried out many bombings in Britain, including a massive attack on the centre of Manchester. (In northern Ireland itself, of course the Loyalists were at least as bad, but they wouldn't have any reason to bomb the "Brits").

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 30 July 2005 02:12 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"As long as I hold no official position I can say it's not all bad for the English to find out what it's like,"

No bombs went off during the Blitz, I guess.

Hmm. Some gratitude. Not so much as a nod towards the Balfour Declaration, Sykes-Picot and the betrayal of the Arab Rebellion.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 30 July 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If anyone reads the original Reuters article I linked to I think you'll find that the sheer puffed-up self-righteousness that floods like a torrent from the Israeli officials quoted will probably kill you laughing.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 July 2005 03:41 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
[Sorry, Dr C, but things have moved on several stages since then and that Guardian link is useful, so ...]

It might be fair to say that the Vatican's position is disingenuous. I mean, it's not as though the U.S. and Britain haven't engaged in major retaliation themselves, not to mention waging pre-emptive war, brushing off innocent victims as "collateral damage," so I'm not sure I can see the distinction that the pope is making there.

The very end of that Guardian article is an eye-opener, though. Note this public comment from the wife of the Israeli foreign minister:

I call that vicious. Sheerly vicious.

Revealing, though.


I agree with you Skdadl on the disingeniousness of the vatican. No real surprise coming for there.

As for Silvan Shalom's wife, well in fact she holds no position. If she wants to say idiotic things who cares? Im not sure why you even find this important.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 July 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
she holds no position

Funny. That's exactly what she says.

That was her rationale for being able to get away with saying it.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nikita
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9050

posted 30 July 2005 04:38 PM      Profile for Nikita     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not really clear on why her not holding "a position" makes it okay to say that. She's the wife of someone who holds a position, and is thus in the public eye. Doesn't that give her some responsibility to refrain from idiot comments like that?

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: Nikita ]


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 July 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Being the wife of someone important makes her no less her own person. Should she be more careful? I guess but she is not her husband's chattle. If she wants to be an idiot why do you believe it reflects on her husband?
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 July 2005 05:33 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Oh, for pity sake. She obviously knows her comments will get coverage; in fact, having no significant accomplishments of her own to speak of, her piping up makes you think she does consider herself her husband's chattel. Otherwise, she'd offer a wise and pointed no comment.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 July 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cant people just be stupid? Why must we ascribe such conspiratorial theories here. Remember Margaret Trudeau? She suffered too but differently. We wouldnt allow her to be herself. She had to be viewed as PET's PET.

These women are their own persons. They can be smart, stupid or indifferent. If the media want to glomb on to their words that's their problem. It only becomes ours if we choose to see them as anything other than what they are.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 July 2005 05:57 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
It's not that conspirational to think she said such a monumentally stupid thing because she's who her husband is.

If I remember correctly, Margaret Trudeau said absolutely zilch about politics.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 30 July 2005 06:00 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

No big surprise. The Vatican has never been very pro-Israeli. As far as I know they opposed the founding of the zionist state, and didn't recognize it as a nation until 1993.

Not to say that the Vatican's motivations on this issue have always been noble. Anti-semitism likely played a pretty big role in their original opposition. On a less sinister note, you've got the fact that a good 20% of the displaced Palestinians were Christian, some of them probably loyal to Rome. And of course for someone who regards the region as having special significance for Christianity, the establishment of an officially Jewish state is gonna seem like a bit of a slap in the face(unless of course you subscribe to the fundamentalist belief that the gathering of Jews in the holy land heralds the return of Christ, which the Catholic Church does not).

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


The accord itself is sadly funny. Check out article one:

quote:
1. The state of Israel, recalling its Declaration of Independence, affirms
its continuing commitment to uphold and observe the human right to freedom
of religion and conscience, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights
and in other international instruments to which it is a
party.

Article 13 of the aforementioned Declaration:

quote:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.


BTW, kudos to the Vatican for stating the obvious. Too often the relationship is one of European nations apologizing to Israel and walking on eggshells over its misdeeds, granting Israel a free pass in an effort to gain absolution, via Israel, of their Holocaust guilt. In other words it an exchange between parties, in classic colonialist fashion, of that which neither one has the right to give.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 July 2005 06:03 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
It's not that conspirational to think she said such a monumentally stupid thing because she's who her husband is.

If I remember correctly, Margaret Trudeau said absolutely zilch about politics.


But people saw her ONLY as who her husband is!!!

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 July 2005 06:05 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Too often the relationship is one of European nations apologizing to Israel and walking on eggshells over its misdeeds, granting Israel a free pass in an effort to gain absolution, via Israel, of their Holocaust guilt. .


You are of course kidding? France, Germany, Italy amongst most European nations are not excatly pro-Israel.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 July 2005 06:08 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But people saw her ONLY as who her husband is!!!

And? I'm not following your logic here.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 July 2005 06:11 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

And? I'm not following your logic here.



No you are not, see her as who she is an ignoramus who should be ignored

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 30 July 2005 06:17 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

You are of course kidding? France, Germany, Italy amongst most European nations are not excatly pro-Israel.


I most certainally am not. All of those governments are strongly pro-Israel; they appear critical only in contrast to the government of the United States, which is not so much pro-Israel as may-I-lick-your-boots-they-taste-delicious pro-Israel. The American government has the excuse of a large, well-funded, aggressive Israeli lobby and the vocal pressure of the neocons. Europe's behavior is all the more striking because those kinds of pressures do not exist for them.

European governments, prodded by their people, will on occassion gently redemonstrate with Israel, after a particularly fulsome murder spree, for example. But where are the economic sanctions? Where is the straightforward denouncing of Israeli war crimes? Where is the demand for democractic elections? When have they ever even expressed themselves in language as firm as the Vatican's?

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
argentia
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9807

posted 30 July 2005 07:22 PM      Profile for argentia        Edit/Delete Post
Fuck the Vatican. After all, the damned Jews killed Christ. Where that collection of misogynist gay hating psycho frock dressed freedom hating freaks gets off lecturing us about morality, is quite beyond me. Launch them, along with the fucking Mohammedans, into space with a note attached that we had to free ourselves of their witches brew of hatred and intolerance. Good riddance.
From: down the street | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 July 2005 07:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by argentia:
Good riddance.

Good riddance indeed - to you, argentia.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 30 July 2005 07:36 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No you are not, see her as who she is an ignoramus who should be ignored.

Be a lot easier if she exercised a certain judiciousness in what she says in public, eh?

I'll ignore her when she becomes ignorable. That's how life works.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 30 July 2005 08:06 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
The problem here is not only a woman gloating about the death of other innocent people, but what lengths some will go to whitewash and downplay this incident and blame it on stupidity.

I wonder how the same people would react had the author of such marvels been the wife of a Palestinian politician. But of course, every racist bigot on the Isreali side is non-representative, stupid, immature, while every Palestinian villager in the middle of nowhere speaks on behalf of the Palestinians worldwide.

In general, and with a single standard, I hate it when poeple assume that the wives of politicians should stay in line and know their place, as if they only exist as an extension of their partners. In this case, Mme. Shalom's vile gloating should be only attributed to herself.

However, something about the way she starts her sentence "as long as I hold no offcial position" may be an indicator that these words are not just the personal rants of a certain woman.


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 July 2005 08:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

No you are not, see her as who she is an ignoramus who should be ignored

This begs the question: Why is the FM of Israeli married to an idiot?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 July 2005 08:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by liminal:
I wonder how the same people would react had the author of such marvels been the wife of a Palestinian politician. But of course, every racist bigot on the Isreali side is non-representative, stupid, immature, while every Palestinian villager in the middle of nowhere speaks on behalf of the Palestinians worldwide.

Many zinoist loved to make a big thing of the things that Arafat's wife said. This is a fact. I don't remember Macabee coming forward to note that they were irrelevant, either.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 July 2005 09:34 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Where is the demand for democractic elections?
[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]



farrel you have said some pretty strange things in your time here but this takes the prize. Israel can be critisized for many things but it remains a firmly democratic country with a democracy as strong as ours and a democratic tradition to be envied certainly in the ME if not around the world.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 July 2005 09:35 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

This begs the question: Why is the FM of Israeli married to an idiot?


Good point

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 July 2005 09:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
This begs the question: Why is the FM of Israeli married to an idiot?

Do you really think so?

I'm kind of straddling the fence on this one. I agree with Macabee that people shouldn't be judged by what their spouses say.

However...I think we all know that if it weren't for her husband's position, no media would be courting her opinion for broadcasting to the country (and the world). I think SHE knew that the only reason they were asking her opinion publicly is because of her husband's position. And she doesn't seem to have objected to that attention in the least - on the contrary, she took advantage of the attention that she KNEW she was getting soley because of her husband's status, and used that status to get those views of hers out.

Now, Macabee, I can see you making a feminist statement and claiming that she shouldn't be considered a spokesperson for her husband. But obviously SHE doesn't share your feminist principles on that matter, or else surely she would have told the media who were giving her so much attention, "Why are you paying this kind of attention to me? I am not an appendage of my husband. Why is my opinion so newsworthy to you?"

No, instead, she plays the disingenuous game of saying, "Well, I have no official position, so..." and then uses her unofficial role as the wife of the foreign minister to get her views national media exposure.

As a feminist, I find this kind of cutesiness repugnant. And I think that, since she's playing the game with the media and knows that the game is, "They're only paying attention to me because I'm the wife of the foreign minister," and she's not telling them that they shouldn't make such assumptions, then she is acting with the full knowledge that her comments will reflect on her husband.

That said, I don't think that a politician's choice of spouse is really all that relevant. The question for me isn't why the foreign minister chose such a stupid wife. The question for me is, why is the foreign minister using his wife as a proxy with the media? And if she's not being a proxy for him, then why is she offering comments to the media, knowing that the only reason they're asking her is because of her husband?

The only reasonable answer I can think of is that she IS playing the game, putting his opinions out by proxy, and then using a hollow sham of supposed feminist principle to give them both plausible deniability, all the while, having reached those of his constituents that they wanted to reach.

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 July 2005 10:11 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems that Mrs, Shalom, is much more than her husband;s appendage. Perhaps this is more why the media paid attention to her.

Judy Shalom Nir-Mozes


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 July 2005 11:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess that returns us to my previous question.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 July 2005 11:12 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha! You linked to an article whose first sentence identified her as the wife of the Israeli foreign minister. And most of the rest of the article focused on her role as his wife.

Well, except for the socialite and heiress part - so when she's not known for being the FM's hubby, she's known for being the daughter of a rich person. That's ever so much more enlightened!

The only thing in that whole article that didn't have anything to do with her fame in relation to who she's married to, or the spawn of, is one little sentence fragment: "and talk show host, often seen appearing on Israeli television shows."

And gee, I wonder how she got her own television show? Maybe by being in the public eye because she's a rich heiress, or the wife of a famous politician? Considering how almost the whole article is devoted to who her family and husband is, you'd think so!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 July 2005 11:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Although, actually that article is written so badly, with such poor grammar, that it's hard to know what is referring to whom in it. I guess the strength of Wikipedia (that everyone can post to it and make it a great resource) can also be its problem (that any illiterate moron can post to it as well).
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 30 July 2005 11:24 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My only reason Michelle was to show that her whole life is centered around "belonging" to someone. It's sad really. Sadder that the media flaunts it even more
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 July 2005 11:27 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know. She doesn't seem too sad about it to me. And her husband doesn't appear to be either, since he stays married to her.

But it DOES kind of make feminist arguments on her behalf kind of silly.

[Edited because, speaking of pathetic grammar...]

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 30 July 2005 11:41 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

farrel you have said some pretty strange things in your time here but this takes the prize. Israel can be critisized for many things but it remains a firmly democratic country with a democracy as strong as ours and a democratic tradition to be envied certainly in the ME if not around the world.

Nonsense. A state in which the majority of people living under its rule cannot vote is no more democratic than apartheid South Africa. A country in which half of the people born in the "eternal capital" of the state are not citizens and cannot vote, cannot be called democratic. A country in which a Jew cannot legally marry a non-Jew is not in possession of a democratic tradition to be envied.

Further examples of the failure of Israeli "democracy" are not far to seek. However, the discussion represents major thread drift, so I suggest that, in the context of this thread, we agree to disagree about whether Israel is a democracy.

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 30 July 2005 11:54 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"As long as I hold no official position I can say it's not all bad for the English to find out what it's like,"

As to how to parse this statement, I have to disagree with pretty much everyone. Is it a stupid thing to say? Yes. Did she say that because she was stupid? No. She said it because she was brought up in a certain way, educated in a certain way, and one of the fruits of that education is that non-Jewish lives mean nothing to her except as their deaths reflect on Jewish interests.

That being the case, to me it doesn't matter whose wife she is. Does anyone seriously believe she is exceptional? That the FM has chosen an exceptional callous and cruel person to hitch his star to? There is no reason to think that. She is a typical product of the society which produced her. That society places very little value on the lives of non-Jews. The British are fortunate in that Israelis are in a position to hurt only their feelings (and the occasional ISM volunteer.)

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 July 2005 12:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nonsense. A state in which the majority of people living under its rule cannot vote is no more democratic than apartheid South Africa. A country in which half of the people born in the "eternal capital" of the state are not citizens and cannot vote, cannot be called democratic. A country in which a Jew cannot legally marry a non-Jew is not in possession of a democratic tradition to be envied.


I agree with the essence of this yet I will point out that Jews can marry non jews in Israel. If they are Arab though, and not an Israeli citizens citizenship is no longer automatic.

[ 31 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 31 July 2005 12:32 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Jews can marry non jews in Israel.

Hard as it is to believe, they really can't. Review the aptly titled article about civil marriage Not for Jews.

Israel's chief rabbi explains:

quote:
. . .that he is not prepared for civil marriage between Jews and religionless individuals. "We have enough troubles with assimilation all over the world. This may be the most terrible blow that is attacking the Jewish people from the rear. We don't have to be a party to assimilation in Israel, as well, and encourage it...Help assimilation? Are you kidding?"

From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 July 2005 12:48 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, there it is.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 July 2005 12:52 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess I have always been so busy with the other parts of the critique that this other piece of vile descrimination slipped by. Oh well.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 31 July 2005 12:57 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Although, actually that article is written so badly, with such poor grammar, that it's hard to know what is referring to whom in it. I guess the strength of Wikipedia (that everyone can post to it and make it a great resource) can also be its problem (that any illiterate moron can post to it as well).

I agree. The Wikipedia article seemed to say that Ms. Shalom had somehow produced a newspaper article accusing HERSELF of corruption.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 July 2005 12:59 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is what it said. This was why I thought it pertinent to refer ourselves to my original question: "Why is the israeli FM married to an idiot?"
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 31 July 2005 08:47 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha. What a silly woman. Perhaps that comes from being pampered -- she's an heiress, after all.

As I read about her, I had flashbacks to Martha Mitchell, except Martha, in her flap-mouthedness, was sometimes a truth-speaker and helped to bring the Nixon administration down. I'm trying to remember whether she did that only after it became clear that her beloved husband was going to jail.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2005 10:14 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
There is no reason to think that. She is a typical product of the society which produced her.

I understand your point, rsfarrell, that it's a country with discriminatory laws and so forth (and I also believe that discriminatory marriage laws are repugnant), but please do not generalize about "typical Israelis" just as nowhere else on babble are people allowed to generalize about "typical Arabs" or "typical francophones" or the like. I know it sounds nitpicky, but I think it's important in these discussions not to generalize about Arabs or Israelis.

[ 31 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 31 July 2005 03:21 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I realize there is a fine line here, and I'm trying to toe it. I would point out that I said she was a typical result of social conditioning, which is not exactly the same as saying that there is a "typical Israeli." There can be more than one typical product of an experience, and there can be atypical products of an experience. I also mentioned that there are Israeli Jews who disssent from this viewpoint, though their numbers are small.[edited to add: I actually made that point in a different ME thread. Whoops. -- RSF]

So my question would be, how do we talk about the ideology maintained and transmitted in Israeli society (all societies have them) without unacceptable generalization? In the feminism forum, we can talk about patriarchial society and what it means, about latent sexism and where it resides; in the racism forum we can talk about skin priviledge and institutional racism.

I think it is vitally important, in any discussion of Israeli extremism or extremist statements, to talk about how the center is the root and the stem, and the fringe is the flower; there is only one plant. That being the case, singling out people and identifying them as foolish or biogoted is not enough. Yet I don't want to imply that people in Israel or anywhere are all the same of simply the product of social conditioning.

I will try to talk about typical influences without talking about typical people.

[ 31 July 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I can handle it with that clarification. Thanks. (I'm betting you're going to get a lot of debate on that, though! )
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 31 July 2005 06:50 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
think it is vitally important, in any discussion of Israeli extremism or extremist statements, to talk about how the center is the root and the stem, and the fringe is the flower; there is only one plant.
So what you are saying (even though Michelle accepts your "clarification") is that the mainstream and the extreme are inextricably linked. Micelle, re-think your response to tyhis poster. What eles can he mean? He has generalized all Israelis as being extreme. This is factually wrong and inappropriate.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2005 07:09 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Doesn't this deserve a warning? Macabee's going down the exact same route and I thought we had cleared this up.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 31 July 2005 07:14 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
So what you are saying (even though Michelle accepts your "clarification") is that the mainstream and the extreme are inextricably linked. Micelle, re-think your response to tyhis poster. What eles can he mean? He has generalized all Israelis as being extreme. This is factually wrong and inappropriate.

I find this post confusing, because you correctly state my thesis and then incorrectly state it. Yes, "the mainstream and the extreme are inextricably linked" (I almost wish I had written that.) No, I have not "generalized all Israelis as being extreme" -- linked with does not mean identical to.

Continuing with an example:

JNF to commemorate former West Bank Palestinian villages

quote:
The Jewish National Fund will place signs commemorating the Palestinian villages of Yalo and Emmaus, destroyed in 1967, which were located in what is today Canada Park, near Latrun.

The decision was made following a petition to the High Court by the Zochrot organization, dedicated to commemorating destroyed Palestinian villages and supporting the right of return for Palestinians that fled or were expelled in 1948.


Look at this long-overdue and highly commendable change, and consider what it implies about Israeli society. Over 400 Palestinian villages were levelled in 1947-49, and three generations have been raised since in a society which ignores that history and suppresses the evidence of that crime.

How might Israeli society be different if all these villages were carefully marked, with a brief description of their depopulation and destruction? If Israeli schoolchildren visited these site of ethnic cleansing, as they do others?

The absence of that history contributed to an idea of the Palestinians as irrational, anti-Semitic barbarians, ruthlessly seeking to destroy an innocent Israel, which did nothing to deserve that assualt. This contributes to a sense of persecution, of siege that, as I have argued elsewhere,is one of the chief elements of the extremist worldview.

[ 31 July 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2005 07:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
So what you are saying (even though Michelle accepts your "clarification") is that the mainstream and the extreme are inextricably linked. Micelle, re-think your response to tyhis poster. What eles can he mean? He has generalized all Israelis as being extreme. This is factually wrong and inappropriate.

No, he did not say all Israelis were extreme. And once again, I am going to ask you to stop doing the hall monitor routine. Second warning.

And Hinterland, you're doing the same thing. First warning for you, to be consistent, even though you don't make it a habit the way Macabee does.

rsfarrell has not claimed that all Israelis are extremists. If I'm reading him correctly, he's claiming that there are discriminatory laws, and entrenched, systemic disenfranchisement of Arabs and Palestinians. He's claiming that this creates a type of social conditioning where Palestinians are considered unimportant.

He was not clear about it in his first post, which I already objected to, but in his subsequent post, he clarified that he was not saying that all Israelis succumb to the social conditioning.

Just as we are allowed to argue that the US (and Canada for that matter) has systemic discrimination that leads to adverse social conditioning for the majority, and that Iran has systemic misogyny that leads to adverse social conditioning for their population, it is not against any rules for rsfarrell to say the same thing about Israel.

If we said that Iran has systemic misogyny and discriminatory laws, and the social conditioning in that country has an adverse effect on many people in that society when it comes to their attitude toward women, would you object to that? Would you claim that we were saying all Iranians are misogynists? No, you wouldn't, because it doesn't logically follow.

If you want to argue that Israel doesn't have discriminatory laws or that there is not systemic discrimination against Palestinians, you are welcome to argue that. If you believe there ARE discriminatory laws and/or systemic conditioning against Palestinians but you do not believe that this creates an atmosphere of adverse social conditioning, you are also welcome to argue that.

What you are NOT welcome to do is to play hall monitor and turn the conversation into whether someone else is breaking the rules, especially when I am clearly watching the thread closely. If I'm not watching the thread, you can send me a PM if you think someone is breaking the rules.

I feel that rsfarrell is making an effort to debate within the rules of this forum while still making his points. You are free to do the same.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2005 07:54 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And Hinterland, you're doing the same thing. First warning for you.

My first babble warning!

...ok, I'll stop.

[ 31 July 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2005 08:00 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's just revenge for dumping me.

Seriously, though: thanks.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2005 08:07 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
*mwaw*

Who loves ya, babe?

[ 31 July 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 31 July 2005 08:35 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If I'm reading him correctly, he's claiming that there are discriminatory laws, and entrenched, systemic disenfranchisement of Arabs and Palestinians. He's claiming that this creates a type of social conditioning where Palestinians are considered unimportant.

I would only add that the legal discrimination, while important, is only one facet of the social conditioning and perhaps not the most important. What are children being taught in school? How does the media present the world? What did they do during their compulsory military service, and what do they do in their reserve duty? What attitudes about non-Jews does their religious education impart? When one of Israel's chief rabbis calls assimilation "the most terrible blow that is attacking the Jewish people from the rear" what does that communicate to Jewish Israelis about the value (or lack of it) of non-Jewish people?

Consider the following comments, made not by "extremists," but by respected public figures:

quote:
The 10 August edition of al-Ittihad reported that the Attorney General, Mini Mazoz,
decided not to present MKs Zeiv Buim and Yehe’el Hazzan to the court following their
racist remarks against Palestinians and Arabs in general.

Half a year ago, Buim said during a memorial service for persons killed in bomb attacks, “I
ask myself, ‘What do you find in deadly terrorism? What is there in Islam generally
and in the Palestinians especially? Are we talking about a genetic defect or a lack of
education?’.”

MK Hazzan said in defense of his friend’s racist comments, “After the fact that the Arabs
have been slaughtering the Jews for decades, the phenomenon is rooted in their blood and
killing Jews has started to be normal for them, and because of this we must not present our
backs to the Arabs.” . . .

Racist Incitement against Arabs in Safed Hadith al-Nas wrote that the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) asked the mayor of Safed Municipality to work to stop racist incitement against the Arab minority in the city.
Different organizations in the city published announcements in which they accused the Arabs of seducing Jewish girls, putting them under their control, and forcing them into prostitution. The Rabbi of the city, Shlomo Iliaho, said that he agrees with the proclamations, and he claimed that bringing Jewish girls under their control is part of the Arabs’ nationalist struggle against the country. [sic]


Weekly Review of the Arab Press in Israel. (This careful and detailed source makes for shocking reading: other headlines of 6 -13 August 2004 included "Three Arab families Prevented from Entering Halokim Beach in Tiberias" and "Assault on Hasan Bik mosque in Yafa" (“The inhabitants of Yafa consider this assault dangerous because it is not the first time that the mosque has been assaulted, and a while ago, unknown persons wrote on the wall of the mosque in Hebrew, ‘The Arabs must be expelled’.”)

[ 31 July 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 31 July 2005 10:21 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Same source, current edition (July 15-22):

quote:
Racist Statements Made by Ramleh Mayor

In an interview with the Jewish Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on May 6, 2005 Mayor Yo'av Levi made racist comments against the Arab community and Arab residents living in Ramleh. He said: "A young Arab man came to me and said to me: 'tell me how you want us to vote for you when you have a billboard saying ‘The people are with the Golan’? I stopped him from speaking and said 'Listen, I came here to discuss issues such as water provision, sanitation, and infrastructure. If the Arab sector wants to confront me with national matters I will be the first one to shoot them. Each time that I shoot an Arab I will remain alive and they will not, so get out of my face.'"


Maybe we should ask ourselves: why is the wife of the mayor of Ramleh married to such an idiot?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca