Capping off community wells is really criminal.
Hard to imagine how people let Israel get away with it?
Israel's War on Civilization
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
Capping off community wells is really criminal.
Hard to imagine how people let Israel get away with it?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
During a show in Cyprus, comedian Victor Patrascan cleverly countered an Israeli audience member who asked him to distinguish between Israelis and their government. His sharp retort was: “But you are the only democracy in the Middle East, sir.... you choose your government.”
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Alright.
Is this due to conscience-driven divestiture? Or authoritarian secrecy?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
{...
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel’s parliament is set to vote on a bill that would make the death penalty the default punishment for West Bank Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis.
The parliament began debate on Monday, days before its spring recess. The bill’s passage would mark the culmination of a yearslong push by Israel’s far-right to escalate punishment for Palestinians convicted of nationalistic offenses against Israelis — and victory for Israel’s firebrand minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the religious party that introduced the legislation.
Opponents of the legislation call it racist, draconian and unlikely to deter attacks by Palestinian militants. The legislation calls for the death penalty to go into effect within 30 days, though rights groups are expected to petition Israel’s Supreme Court against it.
In the lead-up to the vote, Ben Gvir has popularized the measure with a small noose pinned to his lapel — an overt reference to the bill’s execution method of choice.
“With God’s help, we will fully implement this law and kill our enemies,” he said after the bill received approval to be brought to a final vote, adding it was “the most important law” to be approved by parliament in recent years.
Ben Gvir’s party is crucial to the coalition helmed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The bill instructs military courts to mete out the sentence to those convicted of murdering an Israeli “as an act of terror.” Such courts try only West Bank Palestinians, who are not Israeli citizens. The bill says military courts can change the penalty to life imprisonment in “special circumstances.”
Israeli courts, which try Israeli citizens, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, can choose between life imprisonment or the death penalty in cases of murder aiming to harm Israeli citizens and residents or “with the intent of rejecting the existence of the state of Israel.”
Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute’s Center for Democratic Values and Institutions, said this distinction is discriminatory.
“It will apply in territories with military courts, which are Palestinian courts. It will apply in Israeli courts, but only to terrorist activities that are motivated by the wish to undermine the existence of Israel. That means Jews will not be indicted under this law,” he said.
...}
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel’s parliament is set to vote on a bill that would make the death penalty the default punishment for West Bank Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis.
The parliament began debate on Monday, days before its spring recess. The bill’s passage would mark the culmination of a yearslong push by Israel’s far-right to escalate punishment for Palestinians convicted of nationalistic offenses against Israelis — and victory for Israel’s firebrand minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the religious party that introduced the legislation.
Opponents of the legislation call it racist, draconian and unlikely to deter attacks by Palestinian militants. The legislation calls for the death penalty to go into effect within 30 days, though rights groups are expected to petition Israel’s Supreme Court against it.
In the lead-up to the vote, Ben Gvir has popularized the measure with a small noose pinned to his lapel — an overt reference to the bill’s execution method of choice.
“With God’s help, we will fully implement this law and kill our enemies,” he said after the bill received approval to be brought to a final vote, adding it was “the most important law” to be approved by parliament in recent years.
Ben Gvir’s party is crucial to the coalition helmed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
What's in the bill?
Critics include Israelis and Palestinians, international rights groups and the United Nations. They say that it establishes a hierarchy between Israeli court systems in a way that will confine the death penalty to Palestinians convicted of murdering Jewish citizens of Israel.The bill instructs military courts to mete out the sentence to those convicted of murdering an Israeli “as an act of terror.” Such courts try only West Bank Palestinians, who are not Israeli citizens. The bill says military courts can change the penalty to life imprisonment in “special circumstances.”
Israeli courts, which try Israeli citizens, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, can choose between life imprisonment or the death penalty in cases of murder aiming to harm Israeli citizens and residents or “with the intent of rejecting the existence of the state of Israel.”
Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute’s Center for Democratic Values and Institutions, said this distinction is discriminatory.
“It will apply in territories with military courts, which are Palestinian courts. It will apply in Israeli courts, but only to terrorist activities that are motivated by the wish to undermine the existence of Israel. That means Jews will not be indicted under this law,” he said.
...}
That's fine matt.
Problem is, the comforting pastel world of unambiguous right and wrong is fiction.
I'm not any more delighted about that than you are matt, just perhaps decades / generations inured to it.
It's more complicated than this, but partisan politics is enough to explain it.
Elected public servants with benefit of political party endorsement are required to pay a price for that political support.
The example you cite may well be one example where a congressman's vote does not reflect the politician's individual policy position,
but instead the party line.
Bottom line, when political party membership applies, until any individual has premier leadership authority, they cannot be counted on to adhere to their own standards.
There are rare exceptions. Minnesota's Governor Ventura squeaked into office with about a third of the vote in a 3 way race.
Ventura seemed like a sensible candidate. Problem is, as a 3rd party member he had no fellow party members to support him in the Minnesota legislature.
Jesse Ventura's tenure ended with a fizzle.
I sometimes think that the 2 party system we have is at fault.
It automatically causes unnecessary polarization.
Candidates are coerced to follow the party line on all subjects, even if the majority of the people would prefer something else.
I sometimes think a one party system might be better, because then all candidates and all views would all get an equal chance.
Regardless of how many candidates run, you could do voting where candidates are ranked, so you can avoid having to do a primary first.
Something has to be done to reduce the current hypocrisy, since general stance of the Republicans was supposed to be no war, balanced budgets, and restricting government growth.
Yet Trump has started 2 unnecessary wars, added the most to the national debt, and created a huge private army of ICE agents who are not even represented by a union.
"Sometimes"?
Steady.
You & I know what U.S. politics is like WITH partisanship.
We can only guess at what it would be like WITHOUT it. Out of the frying pan, into the fire?
It would CERTAINLY be different. Whether it would be an improvement or not, a separate issue.
I'm not sure mine is merely a semantic distinction / quibble here. How about a no party system? After all,
our members of congress (MOC) have sworn an oath of fidelity to the Constitution.
Problem is, time & again Republicans have demonstrated their partisanship is a higher priority to them than citizenship.
That might seem reason enough to reconsider political parties in the U.S.
In any case the GOP has been so horrendously disfigured, first by GWB, & now Trump,
the Republican party would be unrecognizable to Eisenhower, Goldwater, & perhaps Reagan.
Replacing it would be about as politically traumatic as attempting to resuscitate it.
To me the appeal of that is:
in primary elections candidates swing to the extreme, to get the most votes from their own party. BUT !
Then in the general election, they swing to the center, to get the most votes from the whole electorate.
It's politics.
I don't care for it.
... and retains substantial support from Republicans despite the price of oil $doubling in a month. And we're back to the partisanship trumps citizenship thing.
"Sometimes"?
Steady.
You & I know what U.S. politics is like WITH partisanship.
We can only guess at what it would be like WITHOUT it. Out of the frying pan, into the fire?
It would CERTAINLY be different. Whether it would be an improvement or not, a separate issue.
I'm not sure mine is merely a semantic distinction / quibble here. How about a no party system? After all,
our members of congress (MOC) have sworn an oath of fidelity to the Constitution.
Problem is, time & again Republicans have demonstrated their partisanship is a higher priority to them than citizenship.
That might seem reason enough to reconsider political parties in the U.S.
In any case the GOP has been so horrendously disfigured, first by GWB, & now Trump,
the Republican party would be unrecognizable to Eisenhower, Goldwater, & perhaps Reagan.
Replacing it would be about as politically traumatic as attempting to resuscitate it.
To me the appeal of that is:
in primary elections candidates swing to the extreme, to get the most votes from their own party. BUT !
Then in the general election, they swing to the center, to get the most votes from the whole electorate.
It's politics.
I don't care for it.
... and retains substantial support from Republicans despite the price of oil $doubling in a month. And we're back to the partisanship trumps citizenship thing.
But you have a good point in that a zero party system might be even better than 1 party?
Not sure.
I would need to see what current examples there are and how they worked out?
Me too.
My intended counterpoint is:
rather than being beholden (officially or not) to other co-workers,
demonstrate primary loyalty DIRECTLY to the Constitution.
There would likely be unforeseen / unintended consequences.
The question is, would they be worse than what we have now.
- - - -
It makes me feel like a wild-eyed radical. I remain absolutely dumbfounded that Trump was allowed on any political ballot in the U.S.
whether for Republican primary, or
for general presidential election.
BUT !
Despite Trump's conspicuous direct involvement in Jan. 6, he was still allowed to
- run again, &
- win.
insanity
Shiftless2
Well-known member
‘Dangerous escalation’: World reacts to Israel passing death penalty law
Rights groups denounce Israeli legislation as a violation of international law that puts Palestinian prisoners at risk.
‘Dangerous escalation’: World reacts to Israel passing death penalty law
Rights groups denounce Israeli legislation as a violation of international law that puts Palestinian prisoners at risk.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Face it - Netanyahu has finally found a US President who is dumb enough to follow his bidding and attack Iran. Why would he want the war to end?
One hundred strikes in ten minutes. Twelve hours after the United States and Iran agreed to a ceasefire, Israel launched the deadliest single bombing campaign in Lebanon's history.
The Lebanese are calling it Black Wednesday.
The death toll is now over 300. More than 1,150 people injured. Buildings came down on top of people during the lunch hour, while children were leaving school, while workers were at a coffee roastery on a street that had nothing to do with any military target.
Mourners at a funeral in the Beqaa Valley were bombed. Entire families pulled from rubble.
Pakistan's prime minister said the ceasefire explicitly covered Lebanon. Iran said the same. CBS News reported that Trump initially agreed Lebanon was included, then got on the phone with Benjamin Netanyahu, and his position changed.
Trump signed off on a ceasefire, Netanyahu called, and Lebanon got bombed anyway.
Israel has now destroyed seven bridges over the Litani River, severing southern Lebanon from the rest of the country. Over a million people have been displaced, one in five Lebanese residents.
The World Food Programme said this week what's happening is no longer just a displacement crisis. It is becoming a food security crisis. Eighty percent of markets in southern Lebanon have shut down.
A WFP convoy this week took fifteen hours to complete a journey that normally takes two. Hospitals are running low on insulin. Dialysis supplies. Surgical materials. Blood products. The WHO warned they may run out within days.
Since March 2nd, Israel has killed more than 1,530 people in Lebanon. At least 130 of them were children. Over 57 healthcare workers have been killed, in attacks on ambulances, on Civil Defense centers, on hospitals.
Human Rights Watch documented these attacks and found no evidence any of those facilities were being used for military purposes.
The ceasefire happened. Lebanon wasn't in it. Three hundred people died the same day the deal was announced.
SOURCE
One hundred strikes in ten minutes. Twelve hours after the United States and Iran agreed to a ceasefire, Israel launched the deadliest single bombing campaign in Lebanon's history.
The Lebanese are calling it Black Wednesday.
The death toll is now over 300. More than 1,150 people injured. Buildings came down on top of people during the lunch hour, while children were leaving school, while workers were at a coffee roastery on a street that had nothing to do with any military target.
Mourners at a funeral in the Beqaa Valley were bombed. Entire families pulled from rubble.
Pakistan's prime minister said the ceasefire explicitly covered Lebanon. Iran said the same. CBS News reported that Trump initially agreed Lebanon was included, then got on the phone with Benjamin Netanyahu, and his position changed.
Trump signed off on a ceasefire, Netanyahu called, and Lebanon got bombed anyway.
Israel has now destroyed seven bridges over the Litani River, severing southern Lebanon from the rest of the country. Over a million people have been displaced, one in five Lebanese residents.
The World Food Programme said this week what's happening is no longer just a displacement crisis. It is becoming a food security crisis. Eighty percent of markets in southern Lebanon have shut down.
A WFP convoy this week took fifteen hours to complete a journey that normally takes two. Hospitals are running low on insulin. Dialysis supplies. Surgical materials. Blood products. The WHO warned they may run out within days.
Since March 2nd, Israel has killed more than 1,530 people in Lebanon. At least 130 of them were children. Over 57 healthcare workers have been killed, in attacks on ambulances, on Civil Defense centers, on hospitals.
Human Rights Watch documented these attacks and found no evidence any of those facilities were being used for military purposes.
The ceasefire happened. Lebanon wasn't in it. Three hundred people died the same day the deal was announced.
SOURCE
Spit Happens
Under Netanyahu's leadership Israel is sowing the seed of perpetual war. That's Israel's issue.
Under Trump's leadership the U.S. taxpayer is party to Israel's carnage. Our $cost of gasoline may be an immediate quantifiable consequence. It is not the only consequence.
Consider what author of Imperial Hubris said of U.S. unqualified support for Israel:
On Nov. 21, 2004 Meet The Press Former CIA Senior Analyst Michael Scheuer; formerly referred to as author "Anonymous" of Imperial Hubris said of bin Laden:
"Certainly he's bleeding us to death in terms of uh money. Look at the budget deficit now. Much of that goes against Usama bin Laden." Scheuer
"You see him as a very formidable enemy." Russert
"A tremendously formidable enemy sir, and admirable man. If he was on our side he would be dining at the White House."
Then Russert quotes from Scheuer's book:
"The military is now America's only tool, and will remain so while current policies are in place. No public diplomacy, Presidential praise for Islam, or politically correct debate masking the reality that
many of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions, not values, will get America out of this war." Imperial Hubris
"What are the actions that created this hatred in the Muslim world?" Russert
"Our foreign policy sir. ...
He has created an agenda that appeals to Muslims whether they are fundamentalists, or liberals, or moderates.
Our unqualified support for Israel is one. ...
"His [bin Laden's] agenda is not to destroy America Mr. Russert. He simply wants us out of his neighborhood. He wants us out of the Middle East."
Nov. 21, 2004 Meet The Press Former CIA Senior Analyst Michael Scheuer; formerly referred to as author "Anonymous" of Imperial Hubris
Is it any wonder why?
What is so strange is that even Netanyahu has to know he is a Khazar Turk and has no Mideast DNA?
Last edited:
Balfour was conceptually imperfect, but I'm not aware of any intrinsically unacceptable principle for a Jewish homeland. BUT !
They could have chosen a less controversial patch of real estate.
Too much blood has already been shed, & injustice inflicted contesting it.
The Balfour Declaration only slightly implied a Jewish homeland in Palestine would be looked upon favorably by the British, but the British had no say in what happened to Palestine anyway.
And Churchill made it clear that the government of Palestine was to remain Arab.
{...
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}
There are 13 million native Moslem Arab Palestinians who own all the land, and only 6 million Israeli Jews, who are all immigrants who never paid for any land.