Nobel Laureate Accuses Israel of 'Ethnic Cleansing'
Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire on Tuesday accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" policies in annexed east Jerusalem, where the municipality plans to tear down almost 90 Arab homes.
"I believe the Israeli government is carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians here in east Jerusalem," said Maguire, who won the 1976 Nobel prize for her efforts at reaching a peaceful solution to the violence in Northern Ireland.
"I believe the Israeli government policies are against international law, against human rights, against the dignity of the Palestinian people," she said at a news conference.
It was held in a protest tent erected by residents of east Jerusalem's Silwan neighbourhood where 88 Arab homes are under demolition orders.
The Israeli authorities say the houses were built or extended without the necessary construction permits. Palestinians say the planned demolitions aim at forcing them out of east Jerusalem.
If the demolition orders are carried out 1,500 people would be left homeless in one of the largest forced evictions since Israel occupied mostly Arab east Jerusalem in the 1967 war and later annexed it.
Israel considers Jerusalem to be its eternal and undivided capital, while Palestinians want to make east Jerusalem the capital of their future state.
The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem says that since 2004 the Israeli authorities have torn down more than 400 homes in east Jerusalem.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
112 Comments so far
Show AllI agree that Jews have no historic claim to Palestine.
I am also loath to lump those Zionist criminals who are conducting a slow motion ethnic cleansing and genocide with Jews in general.
Zionists be to Jews what Nazis be to Germans.
GreyWolf “I agree that Jews have no historic claim to Palestine.”
The UN (Resolution 181) disagrees with you and your revisionist history opinion.
Jews had been living in Israel / Palestine / Judea / Canaan for 3,500 years. (Not always as the majority though)
When Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem, Bet Lehem and Nazareth, the people he met were Jews and not Palestinians.
Well, Letto, we have had some stray kittens living in our rockpile in the back patio off and on.
Does that mean they now own our land?
How dare you evoke the name of My Sweet Lord in support of your lies.
My Lord preached love, to never hurt one another, to care about others before ourselves.
BUT, it would not matter if Eskimoes, Mickey Mouse, or the Third Reich had walked the streets of Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. Palestinians have lived on the same land for generations, hundreds of years. Until Jewish thugs began this Murderous thing called Israel.
You defend mass murder and child killing, ethnic cleansing and torture-Don't bring the name of My Sweet Lord into your defense of murder.
Don't call on his name to defend the Death Reich you call Isreal.
That is Blashpemy.
You, like so many Jews, are a good person, I know that. Sadly, Israel is hi-jacking Jew's souls, the quandary for them.....Tribe-Loyalty or being Morally Right..... cordially, Joseph.
What lies?
Wasn't Jesus a Jew?
Weren't Miriam (Maria) and Josef Jews?
Weren't the disciples Jews?
What about the people in Judea during the first century? Weren't they Jews?
I did not lie when saying tha Jews / Israelites lived in the land for 3,500 years.
I can speak for myself about how extensively Israel's political propaganda machine, and its systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, plus brutal demonizing of Arabs, have become transparent in the past 15 or more years.
Israel and the U.S. these days appear almost comical, albeit tragically so, when they repeat their well-rehearsed mantra of "Us good, them bad" in every setting, in the face of the most outrageous inhumanity these two countries inflict upon the innocent, defenseless and poor of the world.
The blinders, I can only hope, are falling off the world's eyes. I know mine have, ever since I first witnessed on TV the relentless attacks by the Israeli Goliath upon little children in that perpetually blood-drenched and brutally sad part of the world in the early 1980s. If what Israel, with untold stashes of money provided by its ultra-rich, muscle-flexing partner across the Atlantic, has constructed on a rather tiny sliver of land is the equivalent of some kind of Biblical paradise, holy-land, or Utopia- well, I would shudder to think what Hell must be like. Is all this racial hatred, ethnic cleansing, perpetual genocide, truly a price worth paying for this pristine chosen territory?
Honestly, Israeli politicians and even other leading figures come across as absolute boors to me these days. It used to be that I held a slightly higher opinion of Shimon Peres as a more restrained, moderate voice of Israel during the Begin and Rabin years. Not any more. I recall his utterly illogical, irrational and hateful rhetoric against the victims of Israel's Gaza massacre, using the very same mantra of "we are the good ones." I was actually rather reassured when Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan could no longer take these upside-down platitudes any longer, and walked out in protest. To kill with complete impunity and abandon, armed to the teeth with the most destructive weapons (provided by the greatest possessor and user of WMDs in the history of the world)- and then blame a bunch of hapless protesters (whatever be the long, historic context of their actions) for tossing a few relatively ineffective rockets at the Occupying power for their barbarism - well, it is truly amazing to observe the human mind's capacity at compartmentalizing.
I am equally turned off these days by the pious pronouncements of the likes of Elie Wiesel. I witnessed recently on TV during the Durban II conference his angry diatribes against the usual "enemies"-Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and others on that list. As often, this was in relation to the Holocaust (denial or acceptance) issue- in the face of which, it would appear, that Israel (and the U.S. by association) has carte blanche to inflict any amount of genocide and atrocities upon the world. This "Holocaust Industry" (to borrow from Norman Finkelstein) systematically negates the suffering and genocide of others by constructing an imaginary scale of atrocities. This is inhumanity at its worst.
By defending remorselessly the indefensible, Wiesel and others have, and are doing grave injustice to victims of hatred, racism and injustice everywhere. This includes the memory of the Jewish victims of hatred as well- most notably Anne Frank. I honestly believe Anne Frank would be deeply horrified to witness what the state of Israel and its well-entrenched minions in its client-state, the U.S., are doing to the Palestinian people. I would venture to think that she might see it as Israel's "Final solution to the Palestinian/Arab problem." In the world of ironies, this ranks very high indeed!
.
The United States must totally withdraw out of the Middle East.
Our military presence has only worsened the violence and hatred.
The U.S. has accomplished nothing, except dmonstrating our subserviency to the State of Israel.
The United States can become an "honest broker", only after it disengages from the military occupations in areas of the Middle East.
Israel will then be forced deal with a new reality. Israel might even persue peace.............
,
bligh4
Common Dreams discussion boards have turned into an absolute swamp of hatred of Jews-not Israelis-Jews.
Yet most get a free pass on these boards- ones that are supposed to be "tolerant" and "progressive".
I always thought true "progressives" were supposed to be free from hate...
Save your breath- I'm not Jewish.
bligh4
That is not true. Most on CD carefully differentiate between the two. You're claim is just another way of crying "anti-semitism" to distract from Israels' mass murder sprees, Gaza POW-Camp etc.....
Every 3rd post or so for months re Israel I take time to say this,
"Many, many, beautiful, right-on Jews grace this world, kind and giving and loving." Or something akin.
If you read these threads you have and will see that.
Most on CD are kind, good, not racist. The most notable exception, ironically bligh4, would Zionists who support hurting Palestinians. I'm sure you are not one.
Cordially, Joseph Cotton, California.
bligh4
Joe, I'm reminded of Groucho Marx's comment- "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?".
I never said that everyone was like that on CD, or even most. But there are certainly enough to make the charge. Just look at some of the comments on this very board...... Indefensible.
Greg Hall Georgia
Yes bligh4, I saw some idiot conjoin the two words satanic,
I won't do it, and Jew. What a moron.
josephcotton
You don't have to be jewish to be a zionist pig.
Nobody of our species is free of hate--which is why were are toast.
And fools like you just stand around sucking your thumbs.
bligh4
Can always count on you Pat, for the equivalent of verbal flatulence. You were one of the prime haters of which I spoke.
have a nice day.
Bligh
I have a nice day every day.
Free of gringos and free of zionist piglets like you.
Save your blathering for people that buy into that load of crap you're selling here.
I see your logic now: Israel = white = like me = good
Arabs = not white = not like me = bad
Spout faux outrage all you want, nobody with any sense believes you.
How white are the Ethiopian Jews?
bligh4
you have made my point Nimble. Thanks. Saves me a lot of writing.
.
I disagree........the Common Dreams forum is for FREE EXPRESSION & DISCUSSION.
I believe that harsh critical discussions of the treatment of the Palestians is not only appropriate, deserved, and in the tradition of "true progressiveness".
The Common Dream has always promoted inquirery......without partisan restrictions.
The situation in Jerusalem has evolved over the last 20 years to outright "Ethnic Cleansing". Arabs and Christians lost their homes and properties to Israeli citizens. Zionist want all of Jerusalem....every inch.
This is the same as Germany 70 years ago.........
,
bligh4
Well Jama, thanks at least for expressing your opinion in a civilized way. At least you didn't call me a "Filthy Jew" as I've been called on these boards- and I'm not even Jewish.
I disagree with your contention that "free expression and discussion" includes calls for mass killing of jews, or ascribing inhuman characteristics to Jews in general. ...If you want to see Germany 70 years ago, look at some of the comments above. Goebbels must be laughing from the grave.
Bligh
I agree with Bligh. Even Ahmadenijad doesn't call for mass killings of Jews, but some posters on CD do. They really don't belong - there are many right-wing sites they could vent on. (Of course, those sites do tend to be pro-zionist these days.) But calling for mass murder behind the anonymity of e-mail is wrong. Such comments should be pulled.
there is nothing ahmadinejad says in regard to "israel" that i do not agree with , and i am jewish and lost part of my family in the holocaust...."israel" like a modern trans-national corporation, is an abstract and destructive entity. it is a blood clot in humanity's heart. a state from its origin racist at its very core, ...letto's quibbles are just attempts to control and shift the almost unbearable dark reality of this time, exemplified by america and (the state which hides behind the name) "israel"....
Israel is not perfect, true, but calling Israel, most democratic and progressing country in the Middle East, "an abstract and destructive entity. it is a blood clot in humanity's heart. a state from its origin racist at its very core" is somewhat an inaccurate. Especially not when coming from Ahmadinejad.
What you do here, guernica, is called Daemonization.
And what YOU do here, letto, is called
POSTING PAID ZIONIST PROPAGANDA.
Patgarrett: “And what YOU do here, letto, is called POSTING PAID ZIONIST PROPAGANDA.”
And what you, Patgarrett, do here is called POSTING PAID ANTI-ZIONIST PROPAGANDA
How much, by the way, are you paid for your ANTI-ZIONIST paid propaganda posting? I may switch sides if the ANTI-ZIONIST FORCES pays more than the Zionists.
Also, please don't forget that I'm also a shill and a pig and a liar.
I don't have to be paid.
I am independently wealthy.
And I never forget a pig's ass.
i wondered if those fat and bloated "israel"i sharks, palestinian children's blood dripping from their teeth would bite, and they did!
After extensive, news research, which is the basis for the facts and figures of Gilbert’s presentation, a BBC story by journalist Christian Fraser explains that Samar was shot at close range. In Jabaliya, while her grandmother waved a white flag, an Israeli soldier came out of his tank and fired his automatic M16 rifle. Samar’s grandmother was injured and two of Samar’s sisters - Amal, two years-old and Souad, seven years-old - were shot dead. While this was happening, two of the Israeli soldiers at the scene of the crime were eating chocolate and chips.
“Mama, mama, mama,” whispered Samar, a four-year-old girl, Gilbert recalled. “I will never forget her whispers for her mama.” He showed a photo of the opening in Samar’s back: it went into her spinal cord. The injury paralyzed her from the waist-down. Samar was patient and she did not cry.
The United States will be drawn into this vortex of hostility, an
eye for an eye mentality of the insular bunker mind set of the "my way
or no way" Jews or Israelis and the ill educated Palestinians.
Both of their religions were concocted before the Enlightenment
and electron microscope (the scientific mind) and their silly rituals
and wailings and their belief in an intervening God is either out of
pure ignorance or genetic stupidity.
To spill American blood over these two primitive tribal malcontents
who cannot get together is insane.
The only problem is the Israelis control congress and are making inroads
into the White House. If a congress person provides some constructive
criticism, that person have nazis leanings and the whole Jewish lobby
start their WAILING campaign.
Thru history they're insular, with an abundance of hubris.
Letto -
Yes, I agree with you on the principle of Universality, as you defined it.
I wasn't aware the UN conference had become such a charade.
If the facts bear this out, then I think you and & I are actually in agreement on the issues we seemed to be contesting earlier.
Thanks for your evenhanded and informative response.
JJA
Thank you, JJ.
This was the exact case with Durban I (2001)
Durban II (2009) is slighly better in that respect.
The main issue the boycotting countries have with Durban II's final draft is that Durban II re-approuved Durban I.
I have a hard time with this because I had Uncles and other relatives that died in WW2 in defense of these gutless cowards, the Jews. To say it is this faction or those Zionists etc is just exactly what was being said 70 and 80 years ago. I think that for justice to prevail we, by we I mean the west, should arm the Arabs with as much as the Jews have and then some. Then refuse to supply the Jews with anything and not allow them to escape to other countries. Stay and fight and die. You are cowards for not stopping the Holocaust being perpetrated against the Palestinians. As a people you had the way and the means to be honourable, instead your gutless murderous treatment of the Palestinians shows that the NAZI"S may have been right and that we were wrong to stop them!
If Palestine is the world's largest open-air prison, then Israel is the world's largest open-air Panic Room....Or it will become that soon enough.
God-these people are such a pain in the ass. I believe that it's going to end badly for Israel. When are people going to realize that a nod for AIPAC means certain death for the Jewish Diaspora??!! No one hate Jews more than these Zionist psychos-even Ariel Sharon calls them 'Yids'.
Mairead and I dialogued on PRESS TV April 19, 2009 with Charlie Wolf/Stephen Linskey, an American radio show talk host based in Britain with a neoconservative Zionist agenda, who got my Irish up on live TV:
To view: http://www.presstv.ir/programs/player/?id=92015
When he referred to Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mairead Maguire, and I as two well meaning ladies living in a fantasy world for calling for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine through dialogue and nonviolent reactions to violence.
On April 19, 2009 Wolf flung straw men and red herrings at Mairead and I in his vain attempt to blot out reality as the three of us addressed the topic: "Mitchell in the Middle: Obscure Way to Peace?"
Wolf deemed nonviolent resistance as "mealy mouth" and meaningless, exposing his vapid ignorance of the programs of practical nonviolent responses to the evil that is violence that have been articulated since the days of Hebrew midwives, Jainism, Buddhism, Jesus, St. Francis of Assisi, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and the Muslim Badshah Khan.
"For decades, the Palestinian struggle for freedom was largely a non-violent movement. With occasional pockets of armed resistance, Palestinians in the occupied territories employed methods of general strikes, demonstrations and the like to express their demands and desires to finally live in freedom. And yet these were the years where Palestinians saw that great majority of their homeland swallowed up into what is now the State of Israel. Land was stolen with no recompense to its owners, prisons burst at the seams with prisoners who never received a trial, houses demolished by the hundreds, entire orchards of olive and fruit trees ransacked and burned. All this was carried out in the confines of an “Intifada-free” society. So, it might be suggested that Palestinians gave non-violent resistance more than a fair shot."[1]
In Belfast during the 1980's and early 90's, Máiread's vision of non-violence was dismissed, ridiculed, and ignored, while those who called for retaliatory vengeance and violence were applauded. From the start, Maried understood that her dream had to reach beyond the narrow boundaries of North Ireland to embrace a non-violent future for all humanity.
After a year of political negotiations, a breakthrough settlement was reached on Good Friday 1998, bringing Northern Ireland to an Easter dawn of peace. Maried was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 for what had once been unimaginable became reality and she continues to envision the unimaginable: justice and peace in Israel Palestine.
On January 22, 2009 I received an email reply from Mairead inquiring what she thought about the appointment of Senator Mitchell as President Obama's Special Envoy to the Mid East.
Mairead Maguire wrote:
The rest @
http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1260&Itemid=219
Eileen Fleming, Author, Founder WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu"
Lefty...you might note that the designation/labeling of those not so enamored of the back-stabbing terrorist pseudo-theocracy of Israel (95% Kazars, not Semites)as Anti-semites is largely due to a pro-Israel Jew who controls the Encyclopedia Britannica...and has lied.
The anti-Israeli forces clams that only the Ashkenazi Jews are Kazars (Of course, they don't care about contradicting DNA evidence.)
Nevertheless, only 38% of the Israelis are Ashkenazi Jews.
Israel is anti-semitic. Jews of the world, unite against this fascist government that is making a bad name for all Jews. Remember how David had to fight the Israelites for a number of years before he consolidated the kingdom. The tribe of Judah has been sold down the river by the nazi, zionist, killer greedster Israelites. They are NOT real Jews. They are atheists.
What is wrong with being an atheist?
Letto -
It's your very wrong extrapolation that I '...crown Ahmadinejad as my human rights champion.' Not so.
My agreeing with Amadinejad's (and Maguire's) charge that Israel is guilty of gross HR violaitons of Palestinians means that I agree with their articulation of those charges. Period.
It doesn't mean what you want it to mean for your own propaganda purposes.
It remains the fact that all too many critics of Israel's treatment of Palestinians are atuomatically called anti-Semites. And sorry, I don't have to visit any other website to be told what constitutes 'legit' criticism of Israel.
While you didn't call me a anti-Semite for my criticism of Israeli policy, you did the next most disingenuous thing, by claiming that I admired Ahamadinejad's HR record -- a completely absurd, untrue, and unwarranted presumption.
One doesn't have to agree with everything else A may do or say, in order to agree with him on this point.
I fear that your rejoinder to my post above manifests just the kind of truth-be-damned defensiveness about Israel's appalling conduct that it was meant, among other things, to deplore.
jj - Do you agree to the principle of Universality?
To the idea that all nations should equally be judged by the same rules?
I'm not saying that Israel is not racist. All nations are at some lever. Some more than Israel and some less.
To play it fair, the UN should either mention no country by name, or list all the countries who are more racists that a certain threshold.
What happened in Durban II is that the Jewish state was singled out as the only racist country. (While all other 191 UN members were not mentioned as racists)
This breaks the principle of Universality and can be conceived as racism according to some definitions.
Israel is the only country that threatens to blow up running nuclear reactors which would at the least set off waves of nuke fallout over the MidEast area.
The Blow-back from that will be catastrophic no-matter how much you think Israel is "progressive about human rights".
"Progressive" if you consider the Palestinians not to be Human.
When Iran President Ahmadinejad said much the same thing [as Maguire] about Israeli policies at the UN conference on racism a few days ago, dozens of western nation delegates walked out in a huff, and the US (which is boycotting the conference) issued a denunciation calling A's remarks 'vile and hateful.'
Other western nation's MSM editorials also quickly rose up in a seemingly orchestrated chorus to call A's remarks 'anti-Semitic.'
Calling the [basically-identical] observations of Irish Nobel Laureate Maguire 'anti-Semitic' wouldn't fly as easily in world opinion, so, naturally, another method of deligitmating such observations is required.
In sum: when Islamic spokespersons tell the truth about Israeli abuses of Palestinians, that truth is automatically labeled 'anti-Semitic' by the official west, and thus 'deligitimated.'
And when a notable western personage tells the same truth, the official response from the west is to systematically ignore it.
Either way, the mindlessly pro-Israeli caboodle sees to it that the facts of the Palestinian matter never go anywhere.
Why behaving in this insane way is in the interests of the west is a question you can't examine too openly -- because as soon as you do, you, too, will either be labeled anti-Semitic, or, as the case may be, loudly ignored.
Ahmadinejad also questioning the Holocaust, calls / predicts the extermination of Israel, executes gays, stone to death married woman who see (not sleep with) other man, executes people who convert from Islam to other religions, discriminates Arab, Azar, Kurd and Baha’i minorities in Iran.
And you, jj crowns him as your Human Right champion?
Ahmadinejad came to the UN, declaring that Israel (a country which on many Human Right issues is the most progressive in the Middle East) is the only racist country in the world. (Or at least the only country worthy of being mentioned as racist).
Single out ONLY the Jewish state in a global forum on racism is an act of racism. This is why the delegation left when your champion spoke his racist words.
Ahmadinejad never called for killing or exterminating anyone in Isreal, that is utter nonsense and a bald-faced lie perpetrated by Isreal and it's US friends.
He just said that the current unjust government of Israel would someday go the way of the Soviet Union.
Religious tolerance is generally practiced in Iran.
While undefensible, many of the other stories of stonings and executing homosexuals are likely exaggerated or suspect altogether considering the western agenda against Iran since 1950.
And, If the US doesn't like Iran's regression to older moral codes, and would rather it be a libertarian (in the European sense) democracy, then why did it overthrow the democratically elected Mosadegh and replace him with the fascist dictator-Shah Pahlavi who was certainly more brutal toward his people than the Islamic republican government that replaced him?
And then, the US, under Clinton blew it's chance again when it stonewalled normalization talks with the previous Iran moderate president Khatami. After that, if I was a Persian, I would have voted for Ahmadinejad too.
Actually the entire thing started because the Iran Government put out a translated copy of the speech that used the wipe Israel of the map line.
It was a sloppy translation by the Iranians themselves that started the brush fire.
Iran just stoned a preteen girl to death. Don't insult her memory by claiming it's "likely exaggerated."
There is no defending of the US and our involvement with overthrowing a democratic government and propping up the Shah but by the same token you can't honestly defend the actions taken by Iran today.
IF you lived in Iran you prolly couldn't vote for who you wanted b/c the Guardian Council prohibits any true reform candidate from running.
"
While undefensible, many of the other stories of stonings and executing homosexuals are likely exaggerated or suspect altogether considering the western agenda against Iran since 1950."
Manichean black and white, one and zero, again.
You know, it is possible to recognise the good in Iran, while also acknowledging the bad.
For example, it is possible to recognise that before the revolution, about 75% of women in Iran were illiterate; whereas now, 30 years later, ~75% of the university intake in Iran are women. Yet, women still are fighting for equal rights, they are still legally not equal to men. It is possible to acknowledge both things.
It is possible to recognise that transgendered people in Iran, are recognised as full citizens, something that is not the case in so called tolerant US, while also acknowledging that gays and lesbians live in fear of losing their lives.
Thank you rfloh.
I just want to clarify that I have great respect to the Iranian people and to the Iranian civilization.
My problem is with Ahmadinejad, and the oppressive regime, and not with the people.
Leftist: "Ahmadinejad never called for killing or exterminating anyone in Isreal"
Indeed it is not clear on how he wants to kill / erase Israel, it is possible that he only advocate ethnic cleansing of most Jews.
google Ahmadinejad and Israel.
Leftist: "Religious tolerance is generally practiced in Iran."
Is that so?
Please tell me what will be happen to a Muslim who converts his religion?
Leftist: "While undefensible, many of the other stories of stonings and executing homosexuals are likely exaggerated"
Try google image for "gay Iran" and “stoning Iran”
Sure i will,
The top results from those terms will almost certainly provide reliable unbiased information.
Better yet, just Google "Ahmadinejad wants to kill us all"
And for really unbiased information on anoher topic, Google "Global Warming Socialist Plot"
so you believe all the false propaganda out there.... you crack me up. Ahmedinijad said no such thing.
Letto: “Ahmadinejad… calls / predicts the extermination of Israel”
Horrified: so you believe all the false propaganda out there.... you crack me up. Ahmedinijad said no such thing.”
2005 "World Without Zionism" speech:
Translation 1: this regime occupying Jerusalem (Israel) must be wiped off the map
Translation 2: this regime occupying Jerusalem (Israel) must be vanish from the page of time
(Call to exterminate Israel)
Statement during 2005 Muslim Summit
"...Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, if the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe — like in Germany, Austria or other countries — to the Zionists"
(Question the Holocaust and suggest ethnic cleansing to Jews to Europe)
Statements on Israel's 60th Birthday
"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation"
(have inside information that Israel is about to be annihilated)
Statement on Israel on the Anniversary of Death of Ayatollah Khomeini
"You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene"
(Another prediction that Israel will dissapear)
Statement on Israel and Zionism during 2008 UN General Assembly
"the “Zionist regime” was on the path to collapse and that the "underhanded actions of the Zionists" as among the causes of the recent unrest in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. In a subsequent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Ahmadinejad stated that "The [Zionist] regime resembles an airplane that has lost its engine and is kind of going down. And no one can help it,"
(Another prediction)
Statement that "Smaller Israel" is dead
"The very notion of Israel is dead, but they are lagging behind the times"
(Another predition, this time about the nation, not just the regime)
In a public address, which aired on the Iranian News Channel IRINN TV on June 2, 2008, Ahmadinejad stated:
"The Zionist regime has lost its raison d'être. Today, the Palestinians identify with your name [Khomeini], your memory, and in your path. They are walking in your illuminated path and the Zionist regime has reached a total dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off
You were saying?
letto,
You seem to be deliberately, for rehtorical effect, conflating calls for the end of a "regime" - i.e. a government - with the physical killing of Isreali people. A government or other organizational entity is not a human. Totally different things.
When Russel Mokhiber or Ralph Nader calls for a "death penalty for corporations" everone understands that they aren't calling for hanging any CEO's or stockholders. Same with Ahmadinejad calls for an end to the Zionist Regime.
check my reply to guernica
Your reply to Guernica did not andwer my question. Ending an odious regime, and replacing it with a single democratic state were all can live regardless of ethnicity or religion does not involve killing anyone.
Leftist "Your reply to Guernica did not andwer my question."
Yes I did answer your question. I said that when he says "The regime occupying Palestine," he means Israel.
Also, in the "Smaller Israel is dead" speech, and in his “Death to Israel” speech, he predicts the death of Israel explicitly, without using ambiguous word placers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo
---
Leftist " Ending an odious regime, and replacing it with a single democratic state were all can live regardless of ethnicity or religion does not involve killing anyone."
Now who's being naive? Israel is already a Democracy, the most Democratic country in the Middle-East. He wants to replace the Israeli Democracy with an Iranian style Islamic Fundamentalist Theocracy.
If he likes the idea of Democracy so much, why doesn’t he start with his own country? (Which is run by
Ali Khamenei, the unelected Supreme Leader of Iran)
Israel is a Democracy?
I suppose - much like apartheid South Africa was a democracy. The kind of Democracy that is for a privileged group, has no real democratic spirit, and is used as a fig leaf in a way that destroys the very concept of democracy.
there is nothing ahmadinejad says in regard to "israel" that i do not agree with , and i am jewish and lost part of my family in the holocaust...."israel" like a modern trans-national corporation, is an abstract and destructive entity. it is a blood clot in humanity's heart. a state from its origin racist at its very core, ...letto's quibbles are just attempts to control and shift the almost unbearable dark reality of this time, exemplified by america and (the state which hides behind the name) "israel"....
Ahmadinejad almost never use the explicit name "Israel" when he address Israel, for fear it may give some legitimacy to Israel.
Normally he refer to Israel as: "the Zionist régime who occupy Palestine." Or “the occupying Zionist entity…” etc.
Learn his language.
I was being sarcastic. It's called parody.
Google's Billionaire Sergei Brin is a hard core Zionist, by the way - and a Ayn Rand market extremist, so there is a definite bias in what come up from an inquiry. For example, there are numerous US government agencies that have huge storehouses of information freely available to the public. But Sergei doesn't want anyone to know that maybe government can do a better job in somethings than a swindling capitalist, so he blocks all government information from Google searches. Google "high speed rail in USA" You will see links to a bunch of misinformed and downright wrong blogs and blather, but you will never see links to the USDOT-FRA which actually provides the definitive information on this topic.
OK, Leftist, you don't trust my words. You don't trust any of the search results in Google.
So Tell me:
1. What will happen to a guy in Iran who to will publically say: "I'm a Gay."
2. What will happen to a Muslim in Iran who will convert to any other religion.
3. What will happen to an Iranian married woman who will be caught seeing another man?
Answer these questions three.
Answers:
In all three cases the person is likely to be sentenced to death - although Iran tends to be sympathetic to pleas of mental illness for the first two cases. Also, in the first two cases, recantations are usually accepted all the way up to the trapdoor opening.
Yes, Sharia law is savage and barbaric by the enlightemnent-informed valies I hold dear. BUT:
1. The fact remains that Iran is not threat to the state of Isreal or any other nation, and is, in fact a force for stability in the Middle East/near Asian region.
2. The west has, over the past century has practiced it's own acts of savage barbarism that pale next to anything fundamentalist Muslim jurisprudence practices -
Was Teddy Roosevelt and Mckinley while leading the savagery in the Phillipines Muslims?
Were any Muslims involved in that savagery on the fields of Belgum and France c. 1914 to 1918?
Was Hitler a muslim?
Was Stalin a Muslim?
Was Tojo a Muslim?
Was Truman a Muslim?
Was Nixon - with millions of dead Indochinese on his soul, a muslim ?
Is Kissinger, with the same millions of indochinese, plus thousands of Chileans, and Argentinians, a Muslim?,
Was the fascist Franco a Muslim?
Was DeGaulle a muslim when practicing his Algerian savagery?
Were Pinochet, Somoza, Rios Montt, the Contras, the Colombian death squads the Argentine Junta, the Brazilian Junta muslims?
Was/are Reagan and Clinton Muslims?
Is Bush one - of Gulf war one's highway of death savagery, a Muslim
Is Bush II of Afghan and iraqi mega-death, and torture chambers, a Muslim?
Was (is?) the butcher of Sabra and Shatila, Sharon a Muslim?
Was Ohmert - Murderer of thousands of Lebanese and Gazans, a Muslim?
Is the saber rattling, phoney-threat manufacturing, ethnic cleansing, Netanyahu and extrmist Lieberman Muslims?
Anything Khomeni, Khameni, or any Iranian, or Saudi, or Taliban judge positively pales to insignificance next to violence - and denial of the most basic human right of all - life - that any one of the above list has done. And belive me ther are a whole lot of savage westerners missing from this list.
If you doubt the savagery of any on the above list - especially the USAns, please read William Blum's "Killing Hope - A History of US military and CIA Interventions since world War II". It is no accident that Osama Bin Laden recommended his other book "Rogue State - a Guide to the World's only Superpower". Blum correctly pointed out that Bin laden's savageries are small stuff compared to what the US has done even if only the tears of the Bush Adm. are considered.
First of all thank you that you finally seeing that Iran is NOT a beacon of Religious tolerance and progressiveness.
I also don't agree with these statements:
1. Iran is a threat to the state of Israel.
2. The butcher of Sabra and Shatila, was not Sharon, but Eli Hobeika.
3. Olmert was not a Murderer of thousands of Lebanese and Gazans. Don't forget who started these wars, and who was targeting civilians while using civilians as human shield.
4. I don't like the Netanyahu and extremist Lieberman (too right wing for my taste). Yet they didn't commit ethnic cleansing.
Good point, although plenty of western critics of Israel get accused of Anti-Semitism too.
anti-semitic (adj): To engage in, or one who engages in principled, compassionate criticism of any policy of the State of Isreal
It has come to the point that we can start wearing the label "anti semitic" as a badge of honor.
Do you even know what is anti-semitic?
Criticising Israel by itself is not anti-semitic.
Read here to find out when critisism of Iseael is legit, and when it could be regards as anti-semitism.
http://www.eumc.eu.int/eumc/material/pub/AS/
AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf
"Critisism of Israel similar to that level against any other country, could not be regarded as antisemitic."
Good, since I criticise Isreal at the same level that I criticise the United States,I should be considered immmune from "anti-semitism"
But the facts are, besides the Sudan and the Kosovo Albanians, where else is ethnic clensing going on right now?
Speaking out against these other cases is important, but since Isreal is practically an appendage of the US military, as a US citizen, I am obligated to speak out against Isreal because so much of my tax dollars are going directly there.
Far more US federal money goes to the support of Isreali ethnic cleansing than to the crumbling infrastructure of my populous home state of Pennsylvania.
Leftist: "besides the Sudan and the Kosovo Albanians, where else is ethnic cleansing going on right now?"
I don't know everything. A few extra examples:
Some republics in the former Soviet Union, Iraq , Morocco, Congo, Zimbabwe, to name a few.
I'm not sure though that "ethnic cleansing" is the right word to describe east Jerusalem.
- On one side, evicting someone from a house he built without a permit is not ethnic cleansing. (I live in Canada, if I'll build a house without a permit, I'll be evicted too.)
- On the other hand, it's not easy for a Palestinian to obtain a build permit in Jerusalem.
- Moreover, the other side is not clean as well. Palestinians are being executed by Palestinians for selling to Jews.
- Also, how would you describe when Israel evicts settlers? (As in Gaza, 2005?) Is it too "ethnic cleansing"?
Anyway, its far greyer than say Iraq, where 4,000,000 became refugees and 100,000 were killed because of their ethnic background.
Maybe the Skinheads have badges they could sell.
Shalom
You know what I mean.
Ihe frequency of the phrase's use, compared to the prevalance of actual anti-semites, is rapidly changing it's meaning altogether.
Norman Finkelstein, Michael Neumann, or Noam Chomsky, and DN's Amy Goodman all wear their anti-semitism (or more accrately "self-hating Jew") badges.
The Zionazis do not give building permits to "subhuman" arabs.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Ethnic cleansing, last I looked, was a euphemism for GENOCIDE.
Actually, not.
Ethnic cleansing means the forced removal of an ethnic group from an area to clear the area for settlement by an aggressor-ethnic group. Any killing of the targeted ethnic groups being incidental to the task.
Genocide is the physical killing of the individuals of a particular ethnicity of culture, pursusnt to the elimination of all traces the ethnic group or culture.
Both are high crimes against humanity - but obviously genocide is the worst one.
Maried McGuire, Caoimhe Butterly, Damien Moran, Cathy Kelly, the Pitstop Ploughshares" Rachael Corrie, the Berrigans and too many others to name.... It is no coincidence that so many of those who speak out against injustice are Irish or of Irish descent - opression, and successfully rising above it is their historic heritage.
One tends to see a disproportionate number of Armenians in justice-activism for the same reason.
And one used to see a lot of Jews working for justice too in the old days, but they seem to have retreated into a sort of clannish, tribal, and power-insider sort of mentality over the past couple decades.
Actually, american Jews are among the most progressive and activist sectors of the population. If you go to a middle east peace action in the SF Bay Area, mostly you'll see Arabs and Jews, with lately a lot of Filipinos, some Irish, and a smattering of everyone else. Of course, there are always a contingent of Zionist Jews counter-demonstrating nearby.
Well, everyone loves the Irish but the Jews, not so much.
NOOOOO the Brits hate the Irish still and refuse to return their land! As for the Jews we love the ones that support justice.
All this Ireland-philia is largely just a US phnenomenon.
There is a long long history of ethnic cleansing and opression of of the Irish by the British, Cromwells Puritains, then the Protestsnt Ulster-Scots - who then went on to Maritime Canada and ethnically cleansed the French from Acadia - driving them to the swamps of Louisiana.
In the 1980's, before the Celtic-tiger boom days, the Brits I met regarded the Iriah as lazy, stupid poor people who, by insisting on being a Republic, blew their chance at living under the beneficnece of Her Majesty's Commonwealth - like the Canadians, Jamaicians, Australians, etc.
Weird Brits you know. Or have people been pulling your leg, perhaps? It's hard to find families there that aren't mixed; England is full of Irish and Irish-English people. So is Scotland, so is Wales. They're just neighbors and were long before the Celtic Tiger days. The difference is that before the Irish boom (now a bust, of course)the Irish, like the Scots, in England tended to fall into two categories: upper-middle class such as doctors, barristers, writers and statesmen; and navvies, the guys who built and maintained the roads and railways and were appreciated. Plus, of course, the priests; where whould the Catholic church in England be if it hadn't had a ready supply of Irish priests? There must have been others but those groups stood out as being heavily populated by Gaels. Now, of course, they are represented more by other middle-class occupations. And none of that includes the vast number of families who have Irish AND English grandparents.
I was astounded to find so many Americans assume that if one is English one hates the Irish and vice versa. I never met a English person in England who disliked the Irish or an Irish person in Ireland who disliked English people. Doesn't mean there weren't any, but I never came across it and I never heard anyone else claiming to have come across it the way one so easily comes across casual anti-black, anti-Hispanic and anti-Semitic expressions in the USA. There certainly was exasperation at their inability--or unwillingness--to sort themselves out in Northern Ireland, but most usually that thought ended with the expression that if only someone would tow the whole damn province out into the mid-Atlantic and let them sort it out themselves. That was a thought I heard over and over in the 70s and 80s.
Rainborowe
Ireland-philia in the US has several sides. One is the movies side, in which Irish Americans had been presented as cute cartoony people with a perpetual twinkle in the eye. The other is the immigration side from the 1800's - early 1900's in which Irish were presented as intellectual dullards, drinkers and thieves. Both these views are combined in movies when some sweet old Irish mother claims in a heavy brogue that her gangster son "Johnny is a good boy".
These views are a result of stereotyping those who are poor and outsiders. You can find a similar range of stereotypes of African-Americans, Poles, Latinos etc.
I am happy that so many Irish people are prominent in the movement for Gazan human rights. No need to go further into the land of sweeping characterizations. They are usually misleading.
Joe
Zionism was from the very beginning a racially exclusivist ideology based on ethnic cleansing of the native people. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism in the 19'th century, wanted his dream state to be "a protecting enclave of Europe against Asia, a civilization against Asiatic barbarism". Less publicly he noted in his diary the dream of "spiriting the penniless population" across the border "discreetly and circumspectly". This was in 1865, well before the great ethnic cleansers of the 20'th century Hitler and Stalin were born.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/666/6774
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-134884394.html
odoco
Do you see any connections between the Jewish cabal in the Office of Special Plans during Rumsfeld's reign leading up to the war, the Neocons and their media plants, The Project for a New American Century, Christians United for Israel, Jane Harman and other elected Zionists in Washington, D.C., etc. I sense something much greater here than the simple destruction of Palestine. I fear it is much, much more expansive in scope.
Now here is someone with courage!
Well, we'll see if Maguire gets any carrots from the White House garden.
q
Another welcome voice speaking the tragic truth.
And everyone knows it-- except for the Israeli government's not-so-silent partners in Amerikan government, and the handful of mediocre resident hasbarists who will probably pepper this comments thread with their usual same stale disinformation and absolute self-righteousness.
· Yr Obd't Servant
And everyone knows it! No exceptions for the Israelis or the Americans (who pay for the destruction of Palestine and the genocide of those people). It's our fault!
We citizens of the United States must insist that our Representatives in Congress CUT THE FUNDING TO THE ISRAELI MILITARY. So, go to your phone book and get the name and address of your three Representatives, your Congress Rep and your two Senators and tell them to STOP FUNDING ISRAEL.
Finally someone speaks truth to power. When the president of Iran says the same things that Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu and Mairead Maguire say, he's demonized as an anti-Semite by US politicians. But he is in good company apparently.
Right on target. The demonization of Ahmadinejad is an ominous sign that we are being softened up to approve attacks by Israel or ourselves on Iran. That would be sooo crazy, sooo dangerous, sooo immoral. So lawless.
Besides being wrong on the face of it, it could set off such a conflagration in the area such as we have not seen before. There are lots of nuclear weapons in the region, and I doubt if we know who has control of each and every one. Such an attack on a country that has done NOTHING aggressive could flip key people from a position of restraint over to a willingness to retaliate out of an increasing feeling of hopelessness and desperation.
Joe
Re donna April 22nd, 2009 10:25 am, who observes,
"When the president of Iran says the same things that Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu and Mairead Maguire say, he's demonized as an anti-Semite by US politicians."
That will change if oil is discovered under any of the three you mentioned.
Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu did criticize Israel. But they never denied the Holocaust, nor did they call or predict the death of Israel, or called Israel the most racist country in the world.
Very nicely put. Iran has some of the largest reserves of oil in the world. We are feeling around for an excuse to take their sh*t.
"The Israeli authorities say the houses were built or extended without the necessary construction permits."
And who gives (or withholds) construction permits? The Israeli government of Jerusalem which hardly ever grants the permits to Palestinians. Shame on AFP for not mentioning this--or maybe they assume all French people know that fact.
Rainborowe
This happens all the time in the American media, too, whenever there is a rare story about house demolitions. They deliberately, I think (and this may be the fault of editors, rather than the reporters on the ground), omit the fact that permits are almost never granted, so Palestinians are forced to build without them. It is definitely one more tactic in Israel's arsenal of ethnic cleansing, hoping the Arab families will get so fed up with sub-standard housing conditions that they eventually leave. The Israeli government knows full well that tactics like these will fly under the radar of most Western media, or will seem justifiable (Well, gosh, they broke the law after all!) to those who are ignorant about the context.
Its Jerusalem so these homes were built no doubt hundreds of years ago and passed down amongst Palestinian families so of course there are no permits! The whole silly concept of permits probably didn't even exist then making this whole thing a catch-22 and the Israelis know it!