Ahmadinejad on Israel

[karlos]

“Our late Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] said that we will not have relations with two countries: one, the apartheid regime of South Africa; the other, the Zionist regime. We like to have relations with all countries.”

“Israel is not a nation. Well, we like the people, yes, because they are victims as well. They used to live in their own countries, in their own cities. They were given empty promises, false promises. They said that we are going to give you jobs, we are going to give you security. And they pushed the local Palestinian people out and made them refugees and also made refugees of another community. In other words, from thousands of miles away, people have been emigrating to this country and they are living in fear every day. And we feel for them.”

“Here in Iran there are Jewish communities; there are Christian communities; we’re all friends. Also, non-Muslim countries, we help them when a natural, let’s say, calamity breaks. We love all people. We are opposed to Zionism, occupation, terrorism, dropping bombs on behalf of people when they are inside their own homes, killing men, women, and children. Very openly I have said time and again that I oppose these.”

http://stephiblog.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/amnesty-international-iran- and-propaganda/
good info about Iran

[ian neal]

My opinion is that someone who is genuinely commited to promoting harmony between all faiths does not invite the likes of David Duke to appear on a platform at an officially sanctioned holocaust conference.

And it seems senior Jewish leaders in Iran share my concerns

IRANIAN JEWISH LEADER CRITICIZES AHMADINEJAD'S HOLOCAUST DENIAL (2)

[karlos]

what about these Jewish leaders awarding him a prize?

On Monday Sep. 24, '07 in the Intercontinental Hotel, at 48th St. and Lexington Ave. New York City at 9:00am anti-Zionist Orthdox Rabbis met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad then participated in a counter demonstration against protestors of the Iranian President in the Dag Hamerskold Plaza at the United Nations followed by counter demonstration during the speech of the Iranian president at Colombia University.



and what about the Jews who attended the conference?

Rabbi Israel Hirsch who lives in Jerusalem's Mea She'arim neighborhood, defended participating in the Holocaust conference. "The Zionists put so much emphasis on the Holocaust because they use it as a justification for the establishment of the State of Israel," said Hirsch. "Our message is that even if there was a Holocaust it does not permit us to subjugate another people. Israel must be returned to the Palestinians; only then will anti-Semitism end." Hirsch said Zionism was to blame for the Holocaust.



look at the facts not the propaganda







Mr Motamed represents Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community, the largest such group in the Middle East outside Israel. Since 1906 Iran's constitution has guaranteed the Jewish community one seat in Parliament. The Armenian, Assyrian and Zoroastrian minorities together hold a further four seats.

Although he took on Mr Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, Mr Motamed supports the president on other issues, including the standoff with the US, Europe and Israel over the country's nuclear programme. "I am an Iranian first and a Jew second," he said.

He acknowledged there were problems with being a Jew in Iran, as there were for the country's other minorities. But he said that Iran was relatively tolerant. "There is no pressure on the synagogues, no problems of desecration. I think the problem in Europe is worse than here. There is a lot of anti-semitism in other countries."

[ian neal]

I disagree with NKUSA that the holocaust is the place to start, if you wish to expose the crimes and lies of the Israeli state.

I would start with the USS Liberty, the evidence of zionist collusion with the nazis during WWII and the on-going human rights abuses against Palestinians by the Israeli state.

What I'm absolutely clear about is that if you wish to promote inter-faith harmony, do not invite the likes of David Duke to speak on the subject of the holocaust.

Still if you want to start an on-line, love-in with Mr A, be my guest. Just don't expect me to swallow it.

[karlos]

did you read any of Stef's blog?
It makes some very good counters to recent propaganda against Mr A.
Certainly these Jewsseem to be happy with Mr A they cant all be wrong can they?
http://stephiblog.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/amnesty-international-iran- and-propaganda/

[ian neal]

[festival of snickers]

the un voted to create israel

iran maybe didnt or suadi Arabia too

in the early wars both sides pals and jews wiped out villages i think-crimes on both sides

if i had to choose id rather live in israel than the palestians area even if they had enough food etc

its too bad they cant get along

so was the Palestinian area so great and civilized like in 1850? maybe it was

i suppose there are lots of nice Muslims there

i think in news recently usa wants to create a sate for palestians and i dont know why rice said that because i thought the un already did that in 1948

[festival of snickers]

i think theres a waiting line of gentiles ,jews ,nazis ,and david duke supporters to live in good old Iran -it such a pleasant place to be

and theres no gays there ,so were safe from gays or so president of iran says

[karlos]

[festival of snickers]

[festival of snickers]

i guess you could say we never voted for our un delegates so the people never really had a say in the matter

[festival of snickers]

http://www.tikkun.org/

[blackbear]

Hello Festival of Snickers.....The Nazi state of Israel....I think would suit you..

Not guilty. The Israeli captain who emptied his rifle into a Palestinian schoolgirl

· Officer ignored warnings that teenager was terrified
· Defence says 'confirming the kill' standard practice

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

The soldier, who has only been identified as "Captain R", was charged with relatively minor offences for the killing of Iman al-Hams who was shot 17 times as she ventured near an Israeli army post near Rafah refugee camp in Gaza a year ago.

The manner of Iman's killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died.

After the verdict, Iman's father, Samir al-Hams, said the army never intended to hold the soldier accountable.

"They did not charge him with Iman's murder, only with small offences, and now they say he is innocent of those even though he shot my daughter so many times," he said. "This was the cold-blooded murder of a girl. The soldier murdered her once and the court has murdered her again. What is the message? They are telling their soldiers to kill Palestinian children."

The military court cleared the soldier of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.

Capt R's lawyers argued that the "confirmation of the kill" after a suspect is shot was a standard Israeli military practice to eliminate terrorist threats.

Following the verdict, Capt R burst into tears, turned to the public benches and said: "I told you I was innocent."

The army's official account said that Iman was shot for crossing into a security zone carrying her schoolbag which soldiers feared might contain a bomb. It is still not known why the girl ventured into the area but witnesses described her as at least 100 yards from the military post which was in any case well protected.

A recording of radio exchanges between Capt R and his troops obtained by Israeli television revealed that from the beginning soldiers identified Iman as a child.

In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post's operations room and describes Iman as "a little girl" who was "scared to death". After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

Although the military speculated that Iman might have been trying to "lure" the soldiers out of their base so they could be attacked by accomplices, Capt R made the decision to lead some of his troops into the open. Shortly afterwards he can be heard on the recording saying that he has shot the girl and, believing her dead, then "confirmed the kill".

"I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over," he said.

Palestinian witnesses said they saw the captain shoot Iman twice in the head, walk away, turn back and fire a stream of bullets into her body.

On the tape, Capt R then "clarifies" to the soldiers under his command why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the [security] zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed."

At no point did the Israeli troops come under attack.

The prosecution case was damaged when a soldier who initially said he had seen Capt R point his weapon at the girl's body and open fire later told the court he had fabricated the story.

Capt R claimed that he had not fired the shots at the girl but near her. However, Dr Mohammed al-Hams, who inspected the child's body at Rafah hospital, counted numerous wounds. "She has at least 17 bullets in several parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs," he told the Guardian shortly afterwards. "The bullets were large and shot from a close distance. The most serious injuries were to her head. She had three bullets in the head. One bullet was shot from the right side of the face beside the ear. It had a big impact on the whole face."

The army's initial investigation concluded that the captain had "not acted unethically". But after some of the soldiers under his command went to the Israeli press to give a different version, the military police launched a separate investigation after which he was charged.

Capt R claimed that the soldiers under his command were out to get him because they are Jewish and he is Druze.

The transcript

The following is a recording of a three-way conversation that took place between a soldier in a watchtower, an army operations room and Capt R, who shot the girl

From the watchtower "It's a little girl. She's running defensively eastward." "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?" "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death." "I think that one of the positions took her out." "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."

From the operations room "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?"

Watchtower "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."

A few minutes later, Iman is shot from one of the army posts

Watchtower "I think that one of the positions took her out."

Captain R "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."

Capt R then "clarifies" why he killed Iman

"This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5334253-103552,00.htm

Nevertheless [Captain R, the killer of Iman] was subsequently PROMOTED to the rank of Major. And, adding insult to injury for the families of Iman, on March 22, 2006 the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz Daily, reported that Israel had awarded Captain "R" 80,000 New Israeli Shekels ($17,126.00) as compensation for his trouble and NIS 2,000 as reimbursement for attorney fees.

http://www.so-sue-me.com/infanticide1.htm

[festival of snickers]

well i dont want to even visit Israel really but the Palestinians probably do the same i think

they also have done bad stuff-you deny that?

[festival of snickers]

http://www.kuow.org/

listen to the seattle station and get your mind off it all

-theyll never resolve it all

do you think israel has enough money and doesnt need usa aid? if not and theyre slaughtered will you be glad?

http://www.tikkun.org/

[festival of snickers]

i get mad at Israel too actually like when the b****** killed count bernadotte of sweden

i dont know what should be done

maybe we need an international court to do something on some issues

[festival of snickers]

We seek to create that alternative. We are a community of people from many faiths and traditions, called together by TIKKUN magazine and its vision of healing and transforming our world. We include in this call both the outer transformation needed to achieve social justice, ecological sanity, and world peace, and the inner healing needed to foster loving relationships, a generous attitude toward the world and toward others unimpeded by the distortions of our egos. Our movement will encourage a habit of generosity and trust, and the ability to respond to the grandeur of creation with awe, wonder and radical amazement.
http://www.tikkun.org/core_vision

[blackbear]

Hello...Festival of...

Israeli Textbooks and Children’s Literature Promote Racism and Hatred Toward Palestinians and Arabs

By Maureen Meehan

Israeli school textbooks as well as children’s storybooks, according to recent academic studies and surveys, portray Palestinians and Arabs as “murderers,” “rioters,” “suspicious,” and generally backward and unproductive. Direct delegitimization and negative stereotyping of Palestinians and Arabs are the rule rather than the exception in Israeli schoolbooks.

Professor Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University studied 124 elementary, middle- and high school textbooks on grammar and Hebrew literature, history, geography and citizenship. Bar-Tal concluded that Israeli textbooks present the view that Jews are involved in a justified, even humanitarian, war against an Arab enemy that refuses to accept and acknowledge the existence and rights of Jews in Israel.

“The early textbooks tended to describe acts of Arabs as hostile, deviant, cruel, immoral, unfair, with the intention to hurt Jews and to annihilate the State of Israel. Within this frame of reference, Arabs were delegitimized by the use of such labels as ‘robbers,’ ‘bloodthirsty,’ and ‘killers,’” said Professor Bar-Tal, adding that there has been little positive revision in the curriculum over the years.

Bar-Tal pointed out that Israeli textbooks continue to present Jews as industrious, brave and determined to cope with the difficulties of “improving the country in ways they believe the Arabs are incapable of.”

Hebrew-language geography books from the 1950s through 1970s focused on the glory of Israel’s ancient past and how the land was “neglected and destroyed” by the Arabs until the Jews returned from their forced exile and revived it “with the help of the Zionist movement.”

“This attitude served to justify the return of the Jews, implying that they care enough about the country to turn the swamps and deserts into blossoming farmland; this effectively delegitimizes the Arab claim to the same land,” Bar-Tal told the Washington Report. “The message was that the Palestinians were primitive and neglected the country and did not cultivate the land.”

This message, continued Bar-Tal, was further emphasized in textbooks by the use of blatant negative stereotyping which featured Arabs as: “unenlightened, inferior, fatalistic, unproductive and apathetic.” Further, according to the textbooks, the Arabs were “tribal, vengeful, exotic, poor, sick, dirty, noisy, colored” and “they burn, murder, destroy, and are easily inflamed.”

Textbooks currently being used in the Israeli school system, says Bar-Tal, contain less direct denigration of Arabs but continue to stereotype them negatively when referring to them. He pointed out that Hebrew- as well as Arabic-language textbooks used in elementary and junior high schools contain very few references either to Arabs or to Arab-Jewish relations. The coordinator of a Palestinian NGO in Israel said that major historical events hardly get a mention either.

“When I was in high school 12 years ago, the date ‘1948’ barely appeared in any textbooks except for a mention that there was a conflict, Palestinians refused to accept a U.N. solution and ran away instead,” said Jamal Atamneh, coordinator of the Arab Education Committee in Support of Local Councils, a Haifa-based NGO. “Today the idea communicated to schoolchildren is basically the same: there are winners and losers in every conflict. When they teach about ‘peace and co-existence,’ it is to teach us how to get along with Jews.”

Atamneh explained that textbooks used by the nearly one million Arab Israelis (one-fifth of Israel’s population) are in Arabic but are written by and issued from the Israeli Ministry of Education, where Palestinians have no influence or input.

“Fewer than 1 percent of the jobs in the Education Ministry, not counting teachers, are held by Palestinians,” Atamneh said. “For the past 15 years, not one new Palestinian academic has been placed in a high position in the ministry. There are no Palestinians involved in preparing the Arabic-language curriculum [and] obviously, there is no such thing as affirmative action in Israel.”

In addition, there are no Arabic-language universities in Israel. Haifa University, Atamneh points out, has had a steady 20 percent Arab student population for the past 20 years. “How can that figure have remained the same after all these years when the population in the north [of Israel] has grown to over 50 percent Arab?”

Answering his own question, Atamneh rattles off statistics that reflect excellent high school scores among Arab students which he contrasts to their subsequent lower-than-average performance in Hebrew-language college entrance exams given by the state.

“No major scholarships have ever been awarded to an Arab; there are no dorms for Arabs and no college-related jobs or financial aid programs. They justify this legal discrimination by the fact that we do not serve in the army. There are numerous blatant and official methods used to keep Palestinian Arabs out of the universities.”

Absence of Palestinian Identity in Schoolbooks

Dr. Eli Podeh, lecturer in the Department of Islamic Studies and Middle East History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, says that while certain changes in Israeli textbooks are slowly being implemented, the discussion of Palestinian national and civil identity is never touched upon.

“Passages from ‘experts’ about the existence of a Palestinian identity were introduced, but in general it appeared that the textbook authors were not eager to adopt it,” said Dr. Podeh, adding that “the connection between Palestinians in Israel and Arabs in Arab countries is not discussed. Especially evident is the lack of a discussion on the orientation of Palestinians to the [occupied] territories.

“While new textbooks attempt to correct some of the earlier distortions, these books as well contain overt and covert fabrications,” said Dr. Podeh. “The establishment has preferred—or felt itself forced—to encourage the cover-up and condemn the perplexity.”

One Israeli public high school student told the Washington Report that the contents of the schoolbooks and the viewpoints expressed by some teachers indeed have a lasting negative effect on youngsters’ attitudes toward Palestinians.

“Our books basically tell us that everything the Jews do is fine and legitimate and Arabs are wrong and violent and are trying to exterminate us,” said Daniel Banvolegyi, a 17-year-old high school student in Jerusalem.

“We are accustomed to hearing the same thing, only one side of the story. They teach us that Israel became a state in 1948 and that the Arabs started a war. They don’t mention what happened to the Arabs—they never mention anything about refugees or Arabs having to leave their towns and homes,” said Banvolegyi.

Banvolegyi, who will be a high school senior this fall, and then will be drafted into the Israeli army next summer, said he argues with his friends about what he regards as racism in the textbooks and on the part of the teachers. He pointed out a worrisome example of how damaging the textbooks and prevailing attitudes can be.

“One kid told me he was angry because of something he read or discussed in school and that he felt like punching the first Arab he saw,” said Banvolegyi. “Instead of teaching tolerance and reconciliation, the books and some teachers’ attitudes are increasing hatred for Arabs.”

Banvolegyi spoke about his schoolmates who, he says, “are dying to go into combat and kill Arabs. I try to talk to them but they say I don’t care about this country. But I do care and that’s why I tell them peace and justice are the only ways to work things out.”


Racist Israeli Upbringing

Considering what the schools have to offer, both Banvolegyi and Atamneh agree that the oral tradition is one of the few ways to get the story straight.

“Unfortunately Israeli children’s books are not an option for promoting equality in this society,” said Atamneh, citing a book written by Israeli writer/researcher Adir Cohen called An Ugly Face in the Mirror.

Cohen’s book is a study of the nature of children’s upbringing in Israel, concentrating on how the historical establishment sees and portrays Arab Palestinians as well as how Jewish Israeli children perceive Palestinians. One section of the book was based on the results of a survey taken of a group of 4th to 6th grade Jewish students at a school in Haifa. The pupils were asked five questions about their attitude toward Arabs, how they recognize them and how they relate to them. The results were as shocking as they were disturbing:

Seventy five percent of the children described the “Arab” as a murderer, one who kidnaps children, a criminal and a terrorist. Eighty percent said they saw the Arab as someone dirty with a terrifying face. Ninety percent of the students stated they believe that Palestinians have no rights whatsoever to the land in Israel or Palestine

Cohen also researched 1,700 Israeli children’s books published after 1967. He found that 520 of the books contained humiliating, negative descriptions of Palestinians. He also took pains to break down the descriptions:

Sixty six percent of the 520 books refer to Arabs as violent; 52 percent as evil; 37 percent as liars; 31 percent as greedy; 28 percent as two-faced; 27 percent as traitors, etc.

Cohen points out that the authors of these children’s books effectively instill hatred toward Arabs by means of stripping them of their human nature and classifying them in another category. In a sampling of 86 books, Cohen counted the following descriptions used to dehumanize Arabs: Murderer was used 21 times; snake, 6 times; dirty, 9 times; vicious animal, 17 times; bloodthirsty, 21 times; warmonger, 17 times; killer, 13 times; believer in myths, 9 times; and a camel’s hump, 2 times.

Cohen’s study concludes that such descriptions of Arabs are part and parcel of convictions and a culture rampant in Hebrew literature and history books. He writes that Israeli authors and writers confess to deliberately portraying the Arab character in this way, particularly to their younger audience, in order to influence their outlook early on so as to prepare them to deal with Arabs.
“So you can see that if you grew up reading or studying from these books, you’d never know anything else,” said Atamneh.

“But in the case of Palestinians, we grow up 500 meters away from what used to be a town or village and is now a Jewish settlement. Our parents and grandparents tell us all about it; endlessly they talk about it. It’s the only way.”

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0999/9909019.html

Pay your taxes....for ever more......to subsidise the nazi supremacists....holocausts for black moustaches...

While your friends,,,,

About 30 million low-income American households who will need help paying heating bills this winter from a U.S. government program will be left in the cold because of a lack of funding for the program.

[festival of snickers]

balckbear ,arabs say the same things about jews

you must be an arab yourself

you act like i can totally trust the arabs but not the jews

what nonsense

arabs disemboweled some israli soldiers a few years ago -theyre or those are * barbarians

[festival of snickers]

is this forum put out by the muslims in uk for the muslims mainly?

all people are * and some are nice

who cares

people all suck equelly

[blackbear]

Hello Festival....

Zio-Nazis...who will stop them..

Israel shaken by troops' tales of brutality against Palestinians

A psychologist blames assaults on civilians in the 1990s on soldiers' bad training, boredom and poor supervision

Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Sunday October 21, 2007

A study by an Israeli psychologist into the violent behaviour of the country's soldiers is provoking bitter controversy and has awakened urgent questions about the way the army conducts itself in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Nufar Yishai-Karin, a clinical psychologist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, interviewed 21 Israeli soldiers and heard confessions of frequent brutal assaults against Palestinians, aggravated by poor training and discipline. In her recently published report, co-authored by Professor Yoel Elizur, Yishai-Karin details a series of violent incidents, including the beating of a four-year-old boy by an officer.

The report, although dealing with the experience of soldiers in the 1990s, has triggered an impassioned debate in Israel, where it was published in an abbreviated form in the newspaper Haaretz last month. According to Yishai Karin: 'At one point or another of their service, the majority of the interviewees enjoyed violence. They enjoyed the violence because it broke the routine and they liked the destruction and the chaos. They also enjoyed the feeling of power in the violence and the sense of danger.'

In the words of one soldier: 'The truth? When there is chaos, I like it. That's when I enjoy it. It's like a drug. If I don't go into Rafah, and if there isn't some kind of riot once in some weeks, I go nuts.'

Another explained: 'The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides... As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.'

The soldiers described dozens of incidents of extreme violence. One recalled an incident when a Palestinian was shot for no reason and left on the street. 'We were in a weapons carrier when this guy, around 25, passed by in the street and, just like that, for no reason - he didn't throw a stone, did nothing - bang, a bullet in the stomach, he shot him in the stomach and the guy is dying on the pavement and we keep going, apathetic. No one gave him a second look,' he said.

The soldiers developed a mentality in which they would use physical violence to deter Palestinians from abusing them. One described beating women. 'With women I have no problem. With women, one threw a clog at me and I kicked her here [pointing to the crotch], I broke everything there. She can't have children. Next time she won't throw clogs at me. When one of them [a woman] spat at me, I gave her the rifle butt in the face. She doesn't have what to spit with any more.'

Yishai-Karin found that the soldiers were exposed to violence against Palestinians from as early as their first weeks of basic training. On one occasion, the soldiers were escorting some arrested Palestinians. The arrested men were made to sit on the floor of the bus. They had been taken from their beds and were barely clothed, even though the temperature was below zero. The new recruits trampled on the Palestinians and then proceeded to beat them for the whole of the journey. They opened the bus windows and poured water on the arrested men.

The disclosure of the report in the Israeli media has occasioned a remarkable response. In letters responding to the recollections, writers have focused on both the present and past experience of Israeli soldiers to ask troubling questions that have probed the legitimacy of the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces.

The study and the reactions to it have marked a sharp change in the way Israelis regard their period of military service - particularly in the occupied territories - which has been reflected in the increasing levels of conscientious objection and draft-dodging.

The debate has contrasted sharply with an Israeli army where new recruits are taught that they are joining 'the most ethical army in the world' - a refrain that is echoed throughout Israeli society. In its doctrine, published on its website, the Israeli army emphasises human dignity. 'The Israeli army and its soldiers are obligated to protect human dignity. Every human being is of value regardless of his or her origin, religion, nationality, gender, status or position.'

However, the Israeli army, like other armies, has found it difficult to maintain these values beyond the classroom. The first intifada, which began in 1987, before the wave of suicide bombings, was markedly different to the violence of the second intifada, and its main events were popular demonstrations with stone-throwing.

Yishai-Karin, in an interview with Haaretz, described how her research came out of her own experience as a soldier at an army base in Rafah in the Gaza Strip. She interviewed 18 ordinary soldiers and three officers whom she had served with in Gaza. The soldiers described how the violence was encouraged by some commanders. One soldier recalled: 'After two months in Rafah, a [new] commanding officer arrived... So we do a first patrol with him. It's 6am, Rafah is under curfew, there isn't so much as a dog in the streets. Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers.

'He grabbed the boy. I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock...

'The next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing."

bs alert! bs alert! bs alert!

Yishai-Karin concluded that the main reason for the soldiers' violence was a lack of training. She found that the soldiers did not know what was expected of them and therefore were free to develop their own way of behaviour. The longer a unit was left in the field, the more violent it became. The Israeli soldiers, she concluded, had a level of violence which is universal across all nations and cultures. If they are allowed to operate in difficult circumstances, such as in Gaza and the West Bank, without training and proper supervision, the violence is bound to come out.

A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said that, if a soldier deviates from the army's norms, they could be investigated by the military police or face criminal investigation.

She said: 'It should be noted that since the events described in Nufar Yishai-Karin's research the number of ethical violations by IDF soldiers involving the Palestinian population has consistently dropped. (???????) This trend has continued in the last few years.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,331025465-119093,00.html



Report 2007: Israel and the Occupied Territories
Amnesty International, Posted on Jun 4, 2007


This report was originally published by Amnesty International and is republished with permission.

STATE OF ISRAEL

Head of state: Moshe Katzav
Head of government: Ehud Olmert (replaced Ariel Sharon in April)
Death penalty: abolitionist for ordinary crimes
International Criminal Court: signed but declared intention not to ratify

Increased violence between Israelis and Palestinians resulted in a threefold increase in killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces. The number of Israelis killed by Palestinian armed groups diminished by half. More than 650 Palestinians, including some 120 children, and 27 Israelis were killed. Israeli forces carried out air and artillery bombardments in the Gaza Strip, and Israel continued to expand illegal settlements and to build a 700-km fence/wall on Palestinian land in the Occupied Territories. Military blockades and increased restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of Palestinians and the confiscation by Israel of Palestinian customs duties caused a significant deterioration in living conditions for Palestinian inhabitants in the Occupied Territories, with poverty, food aid dependency, health problems and unemployment reaching crisis levels.

Israeli soldiers and settlers committed serious human rights abuses, including unlawful killings, against Palestinians, mostly with impunity. Thousands of Palestinians were arrested by Israeli forces throughout the Occupied Territories on suspicion of security offences and hundreds were held in administrative detention. Israeli conscientious objectors continued to be imprisoned for refusing to serve in the army. ...

In December the Supreme Court rejected a discriminatory law enacted the previous year that denies Palestinian victims compensation for abuses suffered at the hands of Israeli forces. However, impunity remained widespread for Israeli soldiers and settlers responsible for unlawful killings, ill-treatment and other abuses of human rights of Palestinians and attacks against their property. Investigations and prosecutions relating to such abuses were rare and usually only occurred when the abuses were exposed by human rights organizations and the media. By contrast, the Israeli authorities took a range of measures against Palestinians suspected of direct or indirect involvement in attacks against Israelis, including measures such as assassinations, physical abuse and collective punishment that violate international law. Palestinians convicted of involvement in attacks against Israelis were usually sentenced to life imprisonment by Israeli military courts, whereas in the exceptional cases in which Israelis were convicted of killing or abusing Palestinians, Israeli courts imposed lenient sentences. ...

Israel continued to expand illegal Israeli settlements and stepped up construction of a 700-km fence/wall, 80 per cent of which runs inside the occupied West Bank, including in and around East Jerusalem. Large areas of Palestinian land were seized and utilized for this purpose. The fence/wall and more than 500 Israeli army checkpoints and blockades throughout the West Bank increasingly confined Palestinians to restricted areas and denied them freedom of movement between towns and villages within the Occupied Territories. Many Palestinians were cut off from their farmland, their main source of livelihood, or could not freely access their workplaces, education, health facilities and other services.

Further discriminatory measures were put in place to enforce the system of segregated roads and checkpoints for Israelis and Palestinians. In November the Israeli army issued an order prohibiting Israelis from using their vehicles to transport Palestinians in the West Bank, where many roads or stretches of road are prohibited to Palestinians and reserved for use by Israelis - mainly the 450,000 Israeli settlers who live in the West Bank. In the Gaza Strip, the Rafah crossing to Egypt, the only entry and exit point for the 1.5 million Palestinian residents, was kept completely or partially closed by the Israeli authorities for most of the year. The passage of goods was similarly restricted by the Israeli authorities' frequent and prolonged closures of the Karni merchandise crossing, the only one they permit.

The damaging impact of the prolonged blockades and movement restrictions was compounded by the Israeli authorities' confiscation of tax duties due to the PA - some US$50 million a month, equivalent to half of the PA's administration budget. As a result, humanitarian conditions in the Occupied Territories deteriorated to an unprecedented level, marked by a rise in extreme poverty, food aid dependency, high unemployment, malnutrition and other health problems among the Palestinian population.

The destruction of Palestinian infrastructure by Israeli forces caused long-term damage and additional humanitarian challenges. In June the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip's only power plant, which supplied electricity to half of the area's inhabitants, as well as Israel's destruction of bridges, roads, and water and sewage networks, caused the population to be without electricity for most of the day throughout the hottest months of the year and interfered with water supplies. Israeli forces also bombed and destroyed several PA ministries in the Gaza Strip and other buildings housing charities and institutions reportedly linked to Hamas. These attacks destroyed or damaged scores of residential properties, rendering hundreds of Palestinians homeless.

Other Palestinians were made homeless when Israeli forces bulldozed their houses in the West Bank, including in the East Jerusalem area, on the grounds that they had been built without licences which the Israeli authorities require but make it impossible in those areas for Palestinians to obtain. The same reason was invoked to destroy tens of homes of Israeli Arab Bedouins in unrecognized Bedouin villages in the south of Israel, which the Israeli authorities intend to uproot.

http://imeu.net/news/article005465.shtml

Witness testimony at the 2003 court-martial of an Israeli "refusenik":

...I want to tell about Rami, whom I met in the prison. I sat with him for hours, listening. It is incredible how many terrible things he had witnessed in just three months of service in the territories.

He told me about the young boy who threw a stone at the lieutenant-colonel's jeep which did not hit the jeep. But the colonel still chased the child, caught him and beat him brutally with the butt of a rifle.

And another child which a Shabak agent tied up, and then urinated on him. When Rami tried to protest, the man shouted: Go away; I am conducting an interrogation.

And he also told me of soldiers looting a shop, and then destroying everything which they could not carry. And he told me about how he could not stand it anymore, and how he sat in the toilet for several hours in the night, the barrel in his mouth, the finger on the trigger. In the end he ran away, and that's how he got into prison. That's what happens to the sensitive people. The non-sensitive ones, those who get used to these Wild West norms, afterwards bring these norms into the Israeli society itself. We are corrupting ourselves. I am not willing to be part of the main instrument of corruption."

http://www.counterpunch.org/kaviner07022003.html

[Disco_Destroyer]

Judging by my experiences of US citizens steadfst denial of anything resembling truth or alternative thought I can only conclude they the Government must be putting something in the water

[ian neal]

[karlos]

[karlos]

C4 interview with Ahmadinejad-Playing into the hands of the warmongers
Written by Mehrnaz Shahabi, CASMII
Jon Snow’s live interview with President Ahamdi-Nedjad on 12th September by Channel 4 was a rare and significant opportunity to intervene in circumstances that are unmistakably a consciously determined acceleration towards war by the US. The occasion was used, however, to add to the hype, drum in the pretexts for war disguised as facts and spiced with “hand on heart” emotionality, and push the tempo towards a military confrontation with Iran.
The interview came in the wake of President Bush’s warlike speech of 28th August declaring the authorisation of the US military to “confront Tehran’s murderous activities” and amidst fresh and strongest yet accusations by the US military official against Iranian government’s role in killing coalition soldiers. The day before the interview, the senior US commander in Iraq, Gen Petraeus, spoke ominously of a “proxy war” waged by Iran inside Iraq that could spill across the border. This was then followed by the news, on the day of the interview that, on the request of the American military, the British soldiers are to guard the border with Iran against Tehran’s "Proxy War".

No-one can doubt that the presence of a few hundred British soldiers in what is clearly planned as a war zone would serve only one purpose, to lend legitimacy to the next phase of US’s imperial war by the US warmongers, yet again riding on the back of little Britain’s obedient alliance. This, despite the fierce opposition from the British public to the continued presence of British soldiers in Iraq in what is believed to be an illegitimate and bloody occupation, as well as the British Foreign Minister, Miliband’s own statement that there was “No evidence” of Iranian involvement in the violence and instability in Iraq.

This, however, was not allowed to ‘spoil’ Jon Snow’s bombastic and successive questionings entirely focused on accusatory and outrageous ‘statement of facts’ regarding Iranian involvement in the killing of British soldiers. He moved on to the myth of “wiping Israel off the map” intentions and “holocaust denials”, and gave his verdict that Iran’s nuclear “secrecy” was evidence of its bomb-making. This interview by the veteran journalist, Jon Snow, and in the, so called, “lefty Channel 4”, seemed regrettably an alarming landmark in the new phase of propaganda war against Iran.

The opening question by Jon Snow, the succeeding three questions as well as the final question, that is five questions, implicated Iran in violence in Iraq and the killing of the coalition soldiers. Again British Foreign Minister’s own statement to the contrary did not deter Mr Snow starting the interview by: “Both the UK and the US have accused Iran of fighting a proxy war inside Iraq”. Was Mr Snow privy to some knowledge about Iranian violence given to him by British sources that were kept from the rest of the population?! The second question, “… do you regard it as a victory for Iran that the British left Basra?” and Ahmadi Nedjad’s reply “Does the English government think it has been defeated by Iran in Iraq or by the people of Iraq?”, prompted Jon Snow’s explicit accusation, “Well, by Iran. By formal forces - Revolutionary Guard - all sorts of people who are supporting the factions in southern Iraq”, that is, without any evidence and identical to the accusation, the day previously, of General Petraeus, that Iran is waging a “proxy War” inside Iraq.

Jon Snow ends his subsequent question about the extent of Iranian influence amongst the Shiia population by pronouncing “The British say they have troops killed by bombs made in Iran”, and ends his interview with the question “Can you reassure British parents and say that no Iranians are involved in the killing of British soldiers?”. He therefore places the onus on the accused (Ahmadi-Nedjad) to prove a negative, and remaining unconvinced, as is the idea. The principle of proving guilt has become outdated in the current political discourse of the Bush era, replaced by proving absence of guilt. Astonishing as it sounds, this Orwellian ‘principle’ is now shamelessly adopted as an effective tool in wars of propaganda and attrition.

Mr Ahamadinejad’s response is made to fit, this time by Channel 4’s website. Ahamadinejad’s reply that “We are deeply sorry about the events in Iraq, we are also sorry about the Iraqi people being killed as well as that your soldiers are being killed” makes the headline, “AHMADI-NEDJAD …. APOLOGISED FOR BRITISH SOLDIERS KILLED IN IRAQ”. Here, “moteassefim”, the term used by Ahamdi Nejaad, means “We are saddened”. This can be translated as “We are sorry” but does not denote apology. Particularly the context that places Iraqi people and the British soldiers in the same category clearly and unmistakably defines the meaning, even for a non-Farsi speaker.

The interview then moves to a ‘bombardment’ over Iran’s nuclear programme. It starts with the question over Iran’s refusal to stop enriching uranium, with Jon Snow’s verdict that “Your secrecy indicates you do want a bomb. Many people would say you feel threatened by Israel, by Pakistan. You do want a bomb don't you?”, rounded up by his claim that for Iran to be believed Jon Snow should be given access to Natanz facility (!), adding, “That place no-one has been further than their front door. Would you take me there?”.

Jon Snow’s incredulous claim to his right to inspect Natanz to pass his verdict on Iran’s innocence and his disparaging disregard for the IAEA inspectors’ verdict who are apparently counted as “No one”, would have been cause for endless hilarity had it not been for the grim and dangerous reality facing us. His omission of any mention of the current IAEA-Iran Agreement aiming to clarify all outstanding issues of Iran’s nuclear energy programme, is sadly identical to the US’s belligerent disregard for the rulings of the IAEA (and all other international bodies) when they do not suit its agenda. IAEA inspectors cleared Iran’s plutonium programme – claimed by the US as evidence of Iran’s weaponisation programme – and verified the non-diversion into weaponisation and the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear facilities, including Natanz. This was lauded as a “significant step forward” by the head of the IAEA and the rest of the international community, except that lawless minority who are intent to unleash hell on earth.

Media war played a crucial role to enable the invasion of Iraq. Now with over a million dead in Iraq and with British troops dragged into another planned pre-emptive and illegal war, this regrettable journalism no longer escapes unnoticed from the wary and critical eyes of the anti war movement.

[blackbear]

Hello Festival.....

If you would like to learn about the realities of the Zionist "NWO" in the Middle East, I recommend the following poster:

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=14037

AlicetheKurious
Say What You Like, Just Don't Say It In the U.S.A.

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: October 22, 2007

The American commitment to free speech is the most robust in the world. But these days that tolerance stops at the border.

Two cases pending in federal court in Manhattan will soon test how far the government can go in keeping Americans safe from what a State Department manual calls the “irresponsible expressions of opinion by prominent aliens.”

One case concerns a decision by the Bush administration to bar a Muslim scholar from visiting the United States. The other is a criminal prosecution of two Brooklyn businessmen for transmitting Hezbollah’s television station on their satellite service.

The government’s actions in these cases are reminiscent, civil liberties groups say, of another era. For about four decades that coincided roughly with the cold war, the United States routinely barred intellectuals and literary figures from visiting here based on their political views. Graham Greene, Gabriel García Márquez and Doris Lessing were all excluded.

There may be something to be said for avoiding face-to-face encounters with shaggy leftists — the cigarette smoke, for starters, and the jargon, and the complacent moral superiority. But in largely repealing the law on ideological exclusion in 1990, Congress seemed to suggest that Americans could be trusted to make those decisions for themselves.

The spirit of the old law, the McCarran-Walter Act, was revived after the Sept. 11 attacks. The USA Patriot Act of 2001, for instance, allowed the government to deny visas to people who had used their “position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.”

The government invoked that law in 2004 when it denied a work visa to Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss philosopher and Muslim intellectual. As a consequence, Professor Ramadan had to give up a teaching appointment at, in the words of The Guardian newspaper, “that hotbed of Muslim extremism, the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.”

In the three years preceding the denial, Professor Ramadan had visited the United States 24 times, lecturing at Dartmouth, Harvard and Princeton — and the State Department.

Three academic and literary groups sued the government last year over the denial, saying they had a First Amendment right to hear from Professor Ramadan. “There is something so dangerous in keeping writers out of the country because they don’t support the government,” said Francine Prose, the president of the PEN American Center, one of the plaintiffs. “Tariq Ramadan is the voice of reason, of logic, of toleration and common sense.”

After the suit was filed, the government changed its rationale for excluding Professor Ramadan, now saying that he had contributed about $1,300 to a charity in Switzerland from 1998 to 2002. That charity, later designated a terrorist organization by the Treasury Department, in turn made contributions to Hamas, which had already been designated one. Professor Ramadan’s second-hand contribution amounted to material support for terrorism, the government said.

Excluding Professor Ramadan “in no way restricts speech,” government lawyers wrote in a brief in the case in May. He remains free to say what he likes, they continued, and Americans remain free to hear what he has to say. Just not in person in the United States.

Judge Paul A. Crotty — a federal district judge in Manhattan who was New York City’s chief lawyer under Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani — will hold a hearing in the case on Thursday. In an earlier decision, he said the principles at stake were crucial ones.

“The First Amendment includes not only a right to speak, but also a right to receive information and ideas,” Judge Crotty wrote last year. That includes a right, he continued, quoting a Supreme Court decision, “to have an alien enter and to hear him explain and seek to defend his views.”

Lawyers for the defendants in the television case, Javed Iqbal and Saleh Elahwal, say the case against them, similarly, is “nothing less than a full frontal assault on the fundamental values inscribed in the First Amendment.” The men are charged with providing material support to Hezbollah, the radical Islamic Shiite group in Lebanon, by making its television station, Al Manar, available in the United States.

In a brief filed in July, the government said, in an echo of the Ramadan case, that the satellite case was only about business dealings and “has nothing to do with speech, expression or advocacy,” adding that “the defendants remain free to speak out in favor of Hezbollah and its political objectives.” But they may not transmit Al Manar’s message.

Defense lawyers noted that Fox News and CNN had also broadcast material from Al Manar.

“There is a vast difference,” the government responded, “between airing excerpts of footage from Al Manar to illustrate a news event and providing equipment and facilities which allow for the uninterrupted transmission of Al Manar’s broadcasts.” Fox News, moreover, “did not fully broadcast the audio” and “talked over the video.”

There are, of course, a lot of foolish and evil ideas in the world. The United States has generally leaned in the direction of confronting and rebutting those ideas rather than trying to suppress them, though it has been more equivocal in wartime and after terrorist attacks.

The question before the judges considering the two cases is thus a difficult one. What role should the First Amendment play when foreigners are doing the talking and the topic may be terror?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/22bar.html?ex=1350705600&en=926dd 4f8c03680e6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


As a frequent watcher of the Al-Manar tv station, it makes sense to me that you'd have to ban it if you want to get away with the accusation that it "promotes terror".

I don't watch the soap operas or the dubbed nature documentaries, mostly from National Geographic or Brit tv or something like that.

I watch the nightly news and the news analysis talk shows, which are an excellent source of information, particularly about Lebanon. They have some wonderful guests - politicians, professors, journalists and other analysts, almost all supporting the Lebanese opposition parties, true, but since this is a point of view that is generally suppressed even in other Arabic media, it's great to hear them speak for and explain themselves.

After watching it for years, if I had to summarize the main themes advocated by Al-Manar tv, they would be:

1) Absolute resistance to foreign occupation of Lebanon in any form, by any foreign country;

2) Defence of the human and legal rights of the poor, mainly Lebanese, but also Palestinian;

3) Exposing corruption in high places, particularly among those who abuse their position for financial gains;

4) Fighting sectarianism, defending the Lebanese constitution, promoting national unity in Lebanon.

Yessir. That's pretty scary.

Lawrence Pintak, Professor of Media Studies at the American University in Cairo:

Americans, we talk about this plethora of prisms now in the Arab world with this media revolution, but Americans in many ways still live in an information ghetto, because we are not seeing the images coming out of the Arab world.

Arabs, if I stood at home in Cairo, I have 300-odd stations. I can watch Al-Jazeera. I can watch Al-Arabiya. I can watch Al-Manar. I can watch CNN, and the BBC, and FOX News, and MSNBC. So an Arab can surf across the spectrum. Americans can't.

Godd Luck.....Festival....

[festival of snickers]

[festival of snickers]

the usa wants a ally in the middle east and so does the uk probably

you mean most mps in uk are for no aid to israel?
i dont like the bad israel has done either

[karlos]

I take it Festival of Sniggers that you enjoy plenty of tap water

[festival of snickers]

turkish c*** slaughtered the Armenians

who cares about turks

you do i guess