as disengagement nears, settlers community hits up

[sharonbn]

all news from last week:

1) Pinhas Valerstein, head of regional council of yesha wrote a public letter on Sunday, condemning the new law of "pinui pitzui" (evacuation and compensation) that passed in its first vote in the knesset. The law gives regulations on compensations for those who will be evacuated as part of the disengagement plan. the law also sets a time limit for compensations (May 2005) after which there will be no compensation for those who will leave or be evacuated. The law also states that no compensation will be given for those who forcefully resist the evacuation.

In the letter, Vaerstein declares the "transfer law" immoral, the unity gov't "illegitimate" and calls for all settlers to break the law, resist the evacuation and be prepared to pay the price in prison time.

The letter was endorsed by the Yesha council, effectively making the council support massive law breaking. As can be expected, this step caused a great turmoil in the political and public systems. The PM, the president, the minister of defense, the military chief of staff - all strongly condemned Yesha council and warned of the chance of bloodshed and civil war, if the situation further deteriorated.

2) In their struggle against the disengagement, the settlers launched a new campaign: wearing orange magen david cloth badges on their cloths. These badges (with yellow color) were used by the Nazis since 1936 to mark Jews in public. The badges became one of the symbols of the Holocaust.

Yet again, this campaign caused great controversy in the public system in Israel. The campaign was strongly rejected by Holocaust survivors as well as by Yad Vashem institute as offensive and degrading to the memory of the Holocaust. the PM, the president and also Efi Eitam from mafdal party - all called the settlers to stop the campaign and remove the badges.

[Binyamin]

There were many holocaust survivors who supported the orange stars, and who wore them. The campaign has been dropped because of the controversy.
Its very unclear why this is worse than calling IDF soldiers "nazis," or other similair instances where the left uses holocaust terminology for its purposes.

Its interesting that those sectors which are the most understanding of the palestinians' use of violence are the least understanding when Jews are trying to defend their homes.

[sharonbn]

There were many holocaust survivors who supported the orange stars, and who wore them. The campaign has been dropped because of the controversy.
so.... apparently there weren't enough Holocaust survivors who supported the campaign. since it was dropped

Its very unclear why this is worse than calling IDF soldiers "nazis," or other similair instances where the left uses holocaust terminology for its purposes.
First of all, I don't know of any incident where lefties called IDF soldiers Nazis. Can you provide a link to the news item? I know the Palestinians do use Holocaust terminology, ut that is hardly the same.
Second, if there were such incidents, then no, its not worse it's the same. Using Holocaust terminology degrades the importance of the historical event.

I don't get the "logic" behind this statement, if the lefties are using Holocaust terminology, that makes it OK for the righties to do the same??? Maybe the righties should try a new approach: instead of copycat-ing left provocations, they should engage in politically correct propaganda. Maybe it will help their cause.

Its interesting that those sectors which are the most understanding of the palestinians' use of violence are the least understanding when Jews are trying to defend their homes.
Which sectors are these? The Likud? The Knesset? If I remember correctly, it's the head of the Likud and the head of state that devised the disengagement plan. And it is the Knesset that approved that plan.
Everyone understands the motives of the GS settlers. However, no one will support their strategy to break the law, to use provocative campaigns and no one will support their use of violence.

[KettleWhistle]

as well as by Yad Vashem institute as offensive and degrading to the memory of the Holocaust.
So Yad Vashem Institute, a museum, is now an organization to judge morality?:rolleyes:

I'd say the campain and the use of this sign are very appropriate. Holocaust was an act of ethnic cleansing commited against Jews, during which most did not resist. The removal of settlers is by no means different, with the exception of them being removed from our motherland, rather from a place in a foreign land.

[sharonbn]

So Yad Vashem Institute, a museum, is now an organization to judge morality?:rolleyes:
Yad Vashem is not a judge of morality. it was mentioned as example of the public response to the campaign. Yad Vashem is considered an authority on Holocaust issues and is quoted by media worldwide. There were other institutes and individuals who voiced their opinion on the campaign. AFAIK, there were no favorable responses outside the settler community (and even among that community there were objections.)

I'd say the campain and the use of this sign are very appropriate. Holocaust was an act of ethnic cleansing commited against Jews, during which most did not resist. The removal of settlers is by no means different, with the exception of them being removed from our motherland, rather from a place in a foreign land.
I'd say the campaign and the use of this sign are highly inappropriate. for two reasons:

1) the campaign equates the Israeli gov't with the Nazi regime. But the disengagement plan is fundamentally different than the Nazi final solution: a) the disengagement plan does not involve physical harm and more important b) the disengagement plan is a decision that a gov't makes about its own people, not about a foreign people. the gov't, as the legitimate representative of the will of the people, is allowed and even expected to make decisions about its own people. even controversial and unpopular decisions. e.g. when a gov't decides to raise taxes, or to declare war or to sign a peace treaty - all these may be controversial and unpopular decisions, yet it is expected of gov't to reach these decisions and carry them out, as representative of the people. when the French pulled out of Algeria, they evacuated 1 million (1,000,000) French settlers from Algeria. No one called it ethnic cleansing. you don't ethnic cleanse your own people.

2) as I said before, mixing the Holocaust in current political disputes degrades the importance of the Holocaust and plays to the hands of Holocaust deniers. They will say that if the Israeli gov't can be equated with the Nazi gov't than what's so special about the Nazis? just another gov't with controversial policy, that's all.
this is true for A-N-Y use of Holocaust terminology in current political disputes.

[Mediocrates]

Jews drawing a frightful analogy is apparently more dangerous to them than actual mortar rounds. If only they were as motivated to do something about them.

[goliath]

1) The use or refering to the holocaust on whatever politics matter it's a shame ,and emphasing this in the news it's a crime against the memory of all the people who died ,and the fact that survivors were wearing those "ersatz" of given SS signs or French Gestapo or whatever ally of Germany ,is unbearable , if the difference between left and rightwing is that so huge ,I feel some doubt about a real politicy of coalition about my country , if 3.500.000 Jews which represent only the inhabitants of a city like Paris intra muros ,(m4.000.000 inh.) it's give me nausea ,and you're making the PAL bed for the future.
If I was a settler , I would never accept to quit the land who I'm living for 20 or more , and it's a delicate point , Pt. Sharon couldn't ignore it , do we have to sacrify those settlers ,to get in return a will of Israel destruction from PAL, is that the game?

2) Concerning Algeria ,you're Wrong , all the inhabitants were French ,and had a French passeport ,it was no more an outside territory but a department nb 98 .
Algerian have potentially the same right ,but that was untrue in the reality.

3) During that war ,they suffered a lot ,for some of them it was a real martyrdom , I mean people tortured by horrible means, all the prisoners were systematically killed on spot,an Algerian doen't counted and had no value on French mentality , some of those Algerian were so brave and proud , but they can't obtain a minimum of respect and justice from the French who all were despising all of them.
4) After the Evian Agreements , every person could chose is destination ,and obviously the ex-colons were living or could been killed on the spot , a great number of them departed to Israel or other countries like Canada and US. ; after a short stop in France ( Gov. indemnity money ) , the majority chose France ,uncluding a part of the Arkis ( Algerian'soldiers on French side ,collaborateurs) , the Arkis who stayed in Algeria were butchered with their familes on the spot (~ 250.000 persons )
5) France was not pulled-up from Algeria , in that period the gov. wouln't even call what's was happened for seven years was " war" , the word was "pacification" ,because "war" was in contradiction, with the fact Algeria was a French department,and the gov.had not to pay the troops they were after the legal duration of the military service ,which was 15 months and 18/,and 21 and after that ADL , over legal duration , and a soldier could receive a pay.

6) They understand that an agreement with the huge ditch who existed between the two culture could never had a peaceful solution ,and the cost of that war was very high , 450.000 troops on the ground ,during seven years .Casualties for Frenxh were 38500 .
7) And France was starting a new war in viet-nam (Indochina) ,but only volunteers have gone there ,nobody was drafted.
French GOV. accepted to call " Algeria War" in 1996 ,and began to distribute distinction to all the participating people ,even to the dead.

Concerning the Genocide , no use for any other matter can be accepted ,even outside of Israel.

[sharonbn]

Jews drawing a frightful analogy is apparently more dangerous to them than actual mortar rounds. If only they were as motivated to do something about them.
not true.
the "actual mortar rounds" are the cause for the disengagement plan.
so something is done about them.
You can disagree with the course of action, but you cannot say the threat is ignored.

[Mediocrates]

Maybe you need to publish a long detailed list of approved protest iconography and then herd off all the protesters to fenced off 'free speech zones' a la the Republicans here.

[sharonbn]

Maybe you need to publish a long detailed list of approved protest iconography and then herd off all the protesters to fenced off 'free speech zones' a la the Republicans here.
maybe we need that list.
Usually societies have "sacred cows", "taboos" and something like "common knowledge". Isn't there something like that for the American society? what about burning the American flag? if these concepts are missing from the Israeli society, then, yes, maybe we need such a list...

[KettleWhistle]

Yad Vashem is not a judge of morality. it was mentioned as example of the public response to the campaign. Yad Vashem is considered an authority on Holocaust issues and is quoted by media worldwide. There were other institutes and individuals who voiced their opinion on the campaign. AFAIK, there were no favorable responses outside the settler community (and even among that community there were objections.)
So?



1) the campaign equates the Israeli gov't with the Nazi regime. But the disengagement plan is fundamentally different than the Nazi final solution: a) the disengagement plan does not involve physical harm and more important b) the disengagement plan is a decision that a gov't makes about its own people, not about a foreign people. the gov't, as the legitimate representative of the will of the people, is allowed and even expected to make decisions about its own people. even controversial and unpopular decisions. e.g. when a gov't decides to raise taxes, or to declare war or to sign a peace treaty - all these may be controversial and unpopular decisions, yet it is expected of gov't to reach these decisions and carry them out, as representative of the people. when the French pulled out of Algeria, they evacuated 1 million (1,000,000) French settlers from Algeria.
The campaign does not equate Israeli government with Nazi regime. It equates the proposed actions of Israeli government with the actions of the Nazi regime. And there can be no parallel to Algreria. In part it is due to the reasons that goliath posted above. But more so because Algeria was not a part of French motherland. The territories where settlers live are parts of the Jewish native land.

No one called it ethnic cleansing. you don't ethnic cleanse your own people.
I don't. You do. Ethnic cleansing is forceful removal of people belonging to a certain ethnic group from a particular territory. That's precisely what the Israeli government is trying to do.

[Mediocrates]

Usually societies have "sacred cows", "taboos" and something like "common knowledge". Isn't there something like that for the American society?
Not really, no. Not one that I can think of. If you don't like the skinhead rally then meet across the street with your own bullhorn and drown them out.

what about burning the American flag?
Constitutionally protected free speech.

if these concepts are missing from the Israeli society, then, yes, maybe we need such a list...
Why? Once Ideas become dangerous a/o sacrosanct then you elevate opinions to near religious heights. We call that mob rule here. Free speech never means the freedom from being offended and even if 85% of all Israelis support the expulsion of Yesha Jews there is no reason why they can't remind you how offened they are.

[goliath]

Collective unconscious is present in all the persons and particularly our; we can seek or look for the fundamental parameters , alone ,or with a chosen group of people ;etablish a list even restrictive it would be an error ,the collective unconscious is present anyway , it is possible to try to channel it ,but not to determine it ,the instinct which continues in us ,comes from this unconscious : Fact os synthetizing a situation in an extremely short laps of time for example.This is only a theory , the great supporter was Gustav Jung.
The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche ( our reflected image) which can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by expthe fact it doesn't like the latter ,owe its existence to personal experience ,and consequently is not a personal acquisition .
While the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have desappeared from consciouness trough haven been forgotten or repressed (ie genocide survivors)
the contents of the collective unconscious have never been on consciousness ,and therefore have never been individually acquired , but owe their existence exclusively to heredity ; whereas the personal unconscious consist for the most part of complexes , the content of the collective unconscious is made essentially of archetypes;litteraly a pre-existent form which seems to be present always and everywhere ; ie : a second psychic system of a collective universal and inspersonal nature which is identical in all individual.
This collective unconsciouness doesn't develop individualy but is inherited. It consist in pre-existend forms ,the archetypes ,which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.
Synchronicity is a different but strange phenomenon ,and many people are the subject of this type of coincidence who can be checked, it's another interesting point for whom like .

[KettleWhistle]

Have you ever read this book: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=a11fPceA8t&isbn=0802150845&itm=1 ?It was written in French, and it's about people living in French colonies, but I think it addresses many general aspects of human character as well. I you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. The link is to the English translation, but the original was written in French.

[sharonbn]

So?
OK, I'll try once more.
the highlight of the paragraph is that Yad Vashem serves "as example of the public response to the campaign" the public response to the campaign was unanimous. This fact may say nothing to you. it does to me, and apparently it did to the settlers themselves.

The campaign does not equate Israeli government with Nazi regime. It equates the proposed actions of Israeli government with the actions of the Nazi regime.

I remember a radio interview where a settler woman wearing orange badge was asked why did she put it.
she said "the Sharon gov't is the same as the Nazi regime. They think the same and act the same."
The reporter said "But the disengagement plan does not speak of killing people, only evacuation"
and she replied "You and I don't know what Sharon will order his troops when the time arrives."

The majority of Israelis viewed this campaign as equation of the Israeli gov't with Nazi regime.

And there can be no parallel to Algreria. In part it is due to the reasons that goliath posted above. But more so because Algeria was not a part of French motherland. The territories where settlers live are parts of the Jewish native land.
I see no difference between Algeria and GS, other then semantics.
So France gave the Algerians French citizenship. so? apparently they rejected the "gesture". They wanted Algerian citizenship, not French one. Also, KettleWhistle, according to goliath, France saw Algeria as a very integral part of France, same as Hawaii is part of the US.

and goliath, France was indeed "pulled-up" from Algeria. The one and only cause for France giving up Algeria was the FLN. (like you said so yourself, France had to post 450,000 troops there, why they were sent there?) If it wasn't for the FLN Algeria would still be part of France and would become second Tibet.

I don't. You do. Ethnic cleansing is forceful removal of people belonging to a certain ethnic group from a particular territory. That's precisely what the Israeli government is trying to do.
Meaning of ETHNIC CLEANSING
Definition: [n] the mass explusion and killing of one ethic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/ethnic+cleansing

[KettleWhistle]

OK, I'll try once more.
the highlight of the paragraph is that Yad Vashem serves "as example of the public response to the campaign" the public response to the campaign was unanimous. This fact may say nothing to you. it does to me, and apparently it did to the settlers themselves.Yes, indeed it says nothing to me. Yad Vashem is a museum, and a great one at that. But a spokesperson from it making a statement is not only NOT representative of anything other than their politically correct statement, but it is also not representative of the public, as pointed out to you by Binyamin, as well by your quote that I include below.


I remember a radio interview where a settler woman wearing orange badge was asked why did she put it.
she said "the Sharon gov't is the same as the Nazi regime. They think the same and act the same."
The reporter said "But the disengagement plan does not speak of killing people, only evacuation"
and she replied "You and I don't know what Sharon will order his troops when the time arrives."

The majority of Israelis viewed this campaign as equation of the Israeli gov't with Nazi regime.Those are just opinions, but yes, people who act like Nazis are like Nazis. But the core issue here is that of their actions, not of who they are.


I see no difference between Algeria and GS, other then semantics.
So France gave the Algerians French citizenship. so? apparently they rejected the "gesture". They wanted Algerian citizenship, not French one. Also, KettleWhistle, according to goliath, France saw Algeria as a very integral part of France, same as Hawaii is part of the US.Semantics? One place is a foreign land that is colonized, and the other is the native land of people who return there.

and goliath, France was indeed "pulled-up" from Algeria. The one and only cause for France giving up Algeria was the FLN. (like you said so yourself, France had to post 450,000 troops there, why they were sent there?) If it wasn't for the FLN Algeria would still be part of France and would become second Tibet.Is that your way of saying that you sympatise with Hamas?

Meaning of ETHNIC CLEANSING
Definition: [n] the mass explusion and killing of one ethic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/ethnic+cleansingDictionary definitions aren't always correct. The real-life definition of ethnic cleansing is forceful removal of people belonging to a certain ethnic group from a territory where they reside. Another good definition is the following: the elimination of an unwanted group from a society, as by genocide or forced migration.

[sharonbn]

Not really, no. Not one that I can think of. If you don't like the skinhead rally then meet across the street with your own bullhorn and drown them out.
Yes really yes. sacred cows and taboos are living concepts. They dictate public response to propoganda campaigns, pressure groups, politicians statements, etc. of course you can do whatever you like, and of course there are people who abuse sacred cows and taboos for provocations, but there are certain things that a "normal" person would not say or do.

take for example the famous artwork that was displayed in Sweden, glorifying the terrorist who suicide bombed in Maxim restaurant in 2003. Israeli public response was unanimous. why is that? why no controversy?

Why? Once Ideas become dangerous a/o sacrosanct then you elevate opinions to near religious heights. We call that mob rule here. Free speech never means the freedom from being offended and even if 85% of all Israelis support the expulsion of Yesha Jews there is no reason why they can't remind you how offened they are.
First of all Ideas do become dangerous. remember Rabin's assassination?
democracy (any democracy) protects itself by placing limitations on what people can say. It is a criminal offense in Israel to incite for violence. So your lovely free-speech-exercising skinhead rally would be put under arrest if they tried to pull up the sign "Kill the Prime minister".

Second, there are already Ideas or "opinions" that are elevated to near religious heights. In Israel, Memorial day for fallen soldiers is such a concept. The Holocaust is another. Yom Kipur is another. No one drives in the streets in Yom Kipur. why? there is no law forbidding that. and there are a few who actually do drive on that day. However, near 100% of Israelis don't drive in Yom Kipur. why? the answer is tradition. tradition is just another word for a sacred cow. People are expected not to drive on Yom Kipur. People are expected to stand still in Memorial day siren. People are expected to stand still in Holocaust Memorial day siren. People are expected to show respect for the Holocaust. the set of expectations, that vast majority of Israelis follow, is the "list" we mentioned before. the list does exist.

[sharonbn]

Yes, indeed it says nothing to me. Yad Vashem is a museum, and a great one at that. But a spokesperson from it making a statement is not only NOT representative of anything other than their politically correct statement, but it is also not representative of the public, as pointed out to you by Binyamin, as well by your quote that I include below.
apparently Yad Vashem, together with other institues and public figures do mean something to the Israeli public and to the settlers themselves. If you choose to disconnect yourself from the Israeli society and what IT regards as representatives and public opinion setters that is your choice. but the importance of Yad Vashem statements in the eyes of the Israeli public is undisputable.
Binyamin did not dispute the abovementioned fact. He said that there was some support for the settlers campaign. no contradiction here. apparently there was enough objection to the campaign to merit its stop.

Those are just opinions, but yes, people who act like Nazis are like Nazis. But the core issue here is that of their actions, not of who their are.
No. the core issue here is the equation of the Israeli gov't with Nazi regime. This was the intention of the propoganda campaign and this was the reason for the public outcry, so this is the core issue.

If the settlers wanted to protest ethnic cleansing they could equte Israeli gov't to Serbian one. they deliberately choose the Nazi regime to make a provocation - to attack an Israeli and Jewish sacred cow.

Semantics? One place is a foreign land that is colonized, and the other is the native land of people who return there.
a) France viewed Algeria as part of the French country. evidence of that is that they gave Algerians French citizenship.
b) GS is legally not part of Israel.

Dictionary definitions aren't always correct. The real-life definition of ethnic cleansing is forceful removal of people belonging to a certain ethnic group from a territory where they reside. Another good definition is the following: the elimination of an unwanted group from a society, as by genocide or forced migration.
oh boy, you will let no fact stand in your way. will you....
there is no such thing as real-life definition. the term is an invention and fiction
There are only established definitions that are published in places like law books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. The rest are individual subjective interpratations. You may have your personal private opinion as to what constitues ethnic cleansing. but the concept has a deifnition that is agreed and established and published. there is no basis for discussion if we cannot agree on a common vocabulary.

[KettleWhistle]

apparently Yad Vashem, together with other institues and public figures do mean something to the Israeli public and to the settlers themselves. If you choose to disconnect yourself from the Israeli society and what IT regards as representatives and public opinion setters that is your choice. but the importance of Yad Vashem statements in the eyes of the Israeli public is undisputable.
Binyamin did not dispute the abovementioned fact. He said that there was some support for the settlers campaign. no contradiction here. apparently there was enough objection to the campaign to merit its stop.The fact that a statement by a museum's spokesperson factors into Israeli public opinion is nothing to be proud of. It is a testament of gullibility at best and stupidity at worst. Regarding the campaign, if it didn't produce the expected results, it should've been stopped, as it was. That doesn't make the act wrong or as morally objectionable as you imply.


No. the core issue here is the equation of the Israeli gov't with Nazi regime. This was the intention of the propoganda campaign and this was the reason for the public outcry, so this is the core issue.That's just an extremely shallow way of looking at it. For me there is clear difference: Nazis acted the way they did because of who they were, while the Israeli government is starting to behave like Nazis, and thus was being ridiculed in a public campaign. The difference is in causes and effects, and IMO this campaign should've made people think about what they are doing, not start acting up like children after one of thiers pissed into the corner of the sandbox because others won't play with him.


If the settlers wanted to protest ethnic cleansing they could equte Israeli gov't to Serbian one. they deliberately choose the Nazi regime to make a provocation - to attack an Israeli and Jewish sacred cow.
Serbs weren't engaged in ethnic cleansing. So please don't try to muddy up the real issue.


a) France viewed Algeria as part of the French country. evidence of that is that they gave Algerians French citizenship.
b) GS is legally not part of Israel.
So? Algeria was not a part of Gaulic homeland. They can declare it whatever they want, but Algeria is the homeland of Algerians, and they were absolutely right in revolting against the French. Likewise, the land where the settlements stand is the homeland of Jews/Hebrews, and they have every moral right to live there.

oh boy, you will let no fact stand in your way. will you....
there is no such thing as real-life definition. the term is an invention and fiction
There are only established definitions that are published in places like law books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. The rest are individual subjective interpratations. You may have your personal private opinion as to what constitues ethnic cleansing. but the concept has a deifnition that is agreed and established and published. there is no basis for discussion if we cannot agree on a common vocabulary.Ethnic cleansing means just that--forceful removal, as in "cleansing," of people from a certain ethnic group from were they live. The latter definition that I gave you in the previous post is much like the following by Kofi Annan:

"a sequence of deliberate actions has been observed that seem aimed at achieving a specific objective: the forcible and long-term displacement of the targeted communities, which may also be termed 'ethnic cleansing'"

The above is from a statement found here: http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=862

[sharonbn]

The fact that a statement by a museum's spokesperson factors into Israeli public opinion is nothing to be proud of. It is a testament of gullibility at best and stupidity at worst. Regarding the campaign, if it didn't produce the expected results, it should've been stopped, as it was. That doesn't make the act wrong or as morally objectionable as you imply.
What sets public opinion in democratic countries is similar all over the world: highly regarded institues, highly regarded public figures: journalists, writers, artists, academics, politicians. that is how public opinion is set. there is really nothing revealing in the regard that the Isaeli public places in institues like Yad Vashem.

The campaign was stopped because it failed. why did it fail? it certainly did create the media spin it sought to create (that's the goal of every propoganda campaign.) it failed because the Israeli public viewed the campaign as immoral.

That's just an extremely shallow way of looking at it. For me there is clear difference: Nazis acted the way they did because of who they were, while the Israeli government is starting to behave like Nazis, and thus was being ridiculed in a public campaign. The difference is in causes and effects, and IMO this campaign should've made people think about what they are doing, not start acting up like children after one of thiers pissed into the corner of the sandbox because others won't play with him.
"clear difference"? really??
qouting you: "Those are just opinions, but yes, people who act like Nazis are like Nazis."
Suddenly the difference is clouded in unclarity...

The "extremely shallow way of looking" parallels the extremely shallow provocvation of this campaign. The campaign was launched with the settlers wearing orange badges and catching the media's eye. They didn't bother to provide precise policy and line of action, they didn't bother to make their message clear and "deep". they did not intend to apeal to people's intelect. they aimed for below the belt, so they really should not be surprised if the reaction comes from the guts.

Serbs weren't engaged in ethnic cleansing. So please don't try to muddy up the real issue.
CNN: Milosevic: Accused mastermind of ethnic cleansing
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/03/30/milosevic.profile/
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Slobodan Milosevic is the former Yugoslav leader whose name became synonymous with ethnic cleansing.

A former Communist-turned-Nationalist, he was seen by some in his homeland as the hero of Serbia despite the ignominy of being the first sitting leader ever to be indicted on war crimes charges.

But in much of the Balkans and the wider world, he was regarded with hatred because of his relentless desire to build a Greater Serbia.

That ambition led to war against the independence-seeking republics of Bosnia and Croatia, the creation of the term "ethnic cleansing" and a NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia.
...
At the same time, Milosevic was supporting Serb militias in Bosnia, where civil war had broken out in April 1992, and the policy of ethnic cleansing adopted.
...
Encouraged by his position in Serbia, Milosevic embarked upon a policy of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

foreign affairs: A Brief History of Ethnic Cleansing
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5199/andrew-bell-fialkoff/a-brief-history-of-ethnic-cleansing.html
Summary: Serbian efforts to force Bosnian Muslims from cities and villages throughout the Balkans have only recently lodged ethnic cleansing in the public mind. But in the annals of history such atrocities are far from new. From ancient Assyria to modern Serbia, campaigns to homogenize populations within inviolate borders have been carried out variously in the name of God, nation or ideology. Yet ethnic cleansing remains difficult to define. Less understood is the compulsion for national "purity" at such horrific costs. The most likely outcome of the Balkans war is a patchwork of ethnically distinct regions, with few minority populations. Perhaps then the violence will end.

Bosnia and Serbia: The Roots of Ethnic Cleansing
http://www.chiptaylor.com/ttlmnp1302-.cfm

Milosevic’s Serbia and Ethnic Cleansing: The Making of a Fascist State
http://www.solidarity-us.org/MagasOnSerbia.html

These are just from the first google page...
but I guess these are all not "real life" definitions...

So? Algeria was not a part of Gaulic homeland. They can declare it whatever they want, but Algeria is the homeland of Algerians, and they were absolutely right in revolting against the French. Likewise, the land where the settlements stand is the homeland of Jews/Hebrews, and they have every moral right to live there.
Is that your way of saying that you sympatise with Hamas?


Ethnic cleansing means just that--forceful removal, as in "cleansing," of people from a certain ethnic group from were they live. The latter definition that I gave you in the previous post is much like the following by Kofi Annan:

"a sequence of deliberate actions has been observed that seem aimed at achieving a specific objective: the forcible and long-term displacement of the targeted communities, which may also be termed 'ethnic cleansing'"

The above is from a statement found here: http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=862
This is not a definition of ethnic cleansing. This is a fraction of a report of the UN Emergency Relief Co-ordinator in Sudan to the Security Council. Who are the sides in the Sudanese ethnic cleansing actions?

Sudan: Government Commits ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ in Darfur
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/07/darfur8549.htm
Human Rights Watch called on the Security Council to strongly condemn the actions of the Sudanese government and demand that it disarm, disband and withdraw the Arab militias that engage in ethnic cleansing, frequently in conjunction with government forces. Two U.N. missions that have recently returned from Darfur will address the Security Council today on the human rights causes as well as humanitarian consequences of the conflict.

The 77-page report, “Darfur Destroyed: Ethnic Cleansing by Government and Militia Forces in Western Sudan,” documents how Sudanese government forces have overseen and directly participated in massacres, summary executions of civilians, burnings of towns and villages, and the forcible depopulation of wide swathes of land long-inhabited by the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups.

[goliath]

[QUOTE=KettleWhistle]Have you ever read this book: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=a11fPceA8t&isbn=0802150845&itm=1 ?It was written in French, and it's about people living in French colonies, but I think it addresses many general aspects of human character as well. I you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. The link is to the English translation, but the original was written in French.
Hi W.K. do you mean black skin ,white mask , i'll try to get it ,thanks a lot,
Santa-Klaus didn't brought me that one ,maybe a discrimination?

[goliath]

QUOTE=sharonbn]OK, I'll try once more.
the highlight of the paragraph is that Yad Vashem serves "as example of the public response to the campaign" the public response to the campaign was unanimous. This fact may say nothing to you. it does to me, and apparently it did to the settlers themselves.
People when they are facing a very extreme situation ,they have a tendency to refer to the extreme cultural references or memories,it's a mistake ,and in that case is not surprising but it's probably the result of an extreme passion who did those people going beyond their logical attitude in order to express their anguish and distress and have a maximum impact on the abstracted speaker (gov.) who for them id deaf and vague ; as last image of their feelings,
I remember a radio interview where a settler woman wearing orange badge was asked why did she put it.
she said "the Sharon gov't is the same as the Nazi regime. They think the same and act the same."
The reporter said "But the disengagement plan does not speak of killing people, only evacuation"
and she replied "You and I don't know what Sharon will order his troops when the time arrives."
The radio in that case is a bit guilty ,because they probably had more interview ,but the choice was this women, but this lady in probably not in a delirium , if necessairy Pt Sharon can use force in isolate case ,but not killing systematicly people as the Nazis did ,certainly not ,if he can do that ,he is not a President anymore even on the eyes of his supporters.
Is a real delicate situation , the Key point of this "negociation".
The majority of Israelis viewed this campaign as equation of the Israeli gov't with Nazi regime.
It's kind of over reacting to compare with Nazi regime.
I see no difference between Algeria and GS, other then semantics.
So France gave the Algerians French citizenship. so? apparently they rejected the "gesture". They wanted Algerian citizenship, not French one. Also, KettleWhistle, according to goliath, France saw Algeria as a very integral part of France, same as Hawaii is part of the US.
The French gov.was using that trick,trying to insure the French position in Algeria ,but oil was found in Hassi-Messahoud plan ,and natural gaz in Arzeu plan ,so French gov.was really interested in keeping Algeria
and goliath, France was indeed "pulled-up" from Algeria. The one and only cause for France giving up Algeria was the FLN. (like you said so yourself, France had to post 450,000 troops there, why they were sent there?) If it wasn't for the FLN Algeria would still be part of France and would become second Tibet.
Yes FLN was real Guerilla ,and it was a movment very difficult to fight and control (ben Barka and ben Bella were in command) ,and it came on French territory ,and that was a very negative point,not the only one,but it could be FLN ,have scored the last point to win.
Meaning of ETHNIC CLEANSING
Definition: [n] the mass explusion and killing of one ethic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/ethnic+cleansing[/QUOTE
Since the Kosovo war ,the meaning of Ethnic Cleasing ,has changed ,and it evoke clearly : clean by killing people.
Like Anti-Semitic ,is only against Jewish People since 1883 ,Th.Herzl. not all semitic speaking language people.
The actual Israeli gov. has a very delicate point to resolve, Gordian knot.

[Mediocrates]

Yes really yes. sacred cows and taboos are living concepts. They dictate public response to propoganda campaigns, pressure groups, politicians statements, etc. of course you can do whatever you like, and of course there are people who abuse sacred cows and taboos for provocations, but there are certain things that a "normal" person would not say or do.
That would be a huge mistake in normal human political discourse. You would outlaw Jonathan Swift if you lived back then and you would accomplish nothing in censorship anyway.

take for example the famous artwork that was displayed in Sweden, glorifying the terrorist who suicide bombed in Maxim restaurant in 2003. Israeli public response was unanimous. why is that? why no controversy?
You proved my point. People can 'say' pretty much what they like and you are free to say whatever you like in response. There are very very few exceptions to that over here - and mostly the lever of public funding as a tool is used to effect that. Public art is meant to be controversial but occasionally a few zealots can attempt to censor it by removing its public funding. It doesn't mean there's no controversy it means there is a vibrant sometimes violent public debate on the subject.


First of all Ideas do become dangerous. remember Rabin's assassination?
democracy (any democracy) protects itself by placing limitations on what people can say. It is a criminal offense in Israel to incite for violence.
That depends, sometimes its free speech sometimes its criminal speech. Each case is a little different. But we have a Constitution and you don't so we're more likely to have definable boundaries as a result and not make things up on the fly. It can be a criminal offense to incite here too. The problem is what is your legal definition of incitment and what are you inciting others to do? Why is it that your own Arab MK's can more or less incite people to fight the government and your own religious MK's can do the same yet that is a somewhat protected?

So your lovely free-speech-exercising skinhead rally would be put under arrest if they tried to pull up the sign "Kill the Prime minister".
Which is kind of a silly example because people know that and therefore use other words. We do the same thing here.

Second, there are already Ideas or "opinions" that are elevated to near religious heights. In Israel, Memorial day for fallen soldiers is such a concept.
That's not an idea that's a holiday. We have them too.


The Holocaust is another. Yom Kipur is another. No one drives in the streets in Yom Kipur. why? there is no law forbidding that. and there are a few who actually do drive on that day. However, near 100% of Israelis don't drive in Yom Kipur. why? the answer is tradition.
That's not an idea either, it IS religion, in whatever way you happen to practice it.

tradition is just another word for a sacred cow.
No a sacred cow would be if for some reason no one at any time ever said anything critical of Ronald Reagan (which almost happened when he died). Hell we have historians trashing Jefferson and Lincoln and if they weren't previously considered almost holy, no one in American history is.

People are expected not to drive on Yom Kipur. People are expected to stand still in Memorial day siren. People are expected to stand still in Holocaust Memorial day siren. People are expected to show respect for the Holocaust. the set of expectations, that vast majority of Israelis follow, is the "list" we mentioned before. the list does exist.
We stand the national anthem at baseball games. But that's not an idea. An idea would be you're not allowed to even talk about burning the flag, or debating the separation between church and state and so on. Making an idea 'illegal' is what those very skinheads want to do.

[sharonbn]

Since the Kosovo war ,the meaning of Ethnic Cleasing ,has changed ,and it evoke clearly : clean by killing people.
Like Anti-Semitic ,is only against Jewish People since 1883 ,Th.Herzl. not all semitic speaking language people.
The actual Israeli gov. has a very delicate point to resolve, Gordian knot.
The Kosovo war did not change anything from past ethnic cleansing. it is not the first time cleansing was done by kllling people (example: Turks ethnic cleansing of Armenians: 1.5 million killed.) and the conflict was between different ethnic groups, same as was always. Really nothing new.

Anti-Semitism has always been against Jews. Herzel did not invent anti-Semitism, he only reacted to it. The Spanish inquisition persecuted Jews, not "semitic speaking language people". Russian and Polish pogroms were activated against Jewish towns, not "semitic speaking language people". The protocols of the elders of zion was devised against Jews, the middle-ages myth about Jews using Christian children blood to make Matza is ..... you know the rest.

[goliath]

Originally posted by SHAROBN The Kosovo war did not change anything from past ethnic cleansing. it is not the first time cleansing was done by kllling people (example: Turks ethnic cleansing of Armenians: 1.5 million killed.) and the conflict was between different ethnic groups, same as was always. Really nothing new.
Anti-Semitism has always been against Jews. Herzel did not invent anti-Semitism, he only reacted to it. The Spanish inquisition persecuted Jews, not "semitic speaking language people". Russian and Polish pogroms were activated against Jewish towns, not "semitic speaking language people". The protocols of the elders of zion was devised against Jews, the middle-ages myth about Jews using Christian children blood to make Matza is ..... you know the rest.
No ,nothing new I can see that every day ,I'm not so sure the expression : ethnic cleansing ,existed when the Turk killed the Armenian I think we are not on the same tracks.
Wrong , The word was published in 1883 in the "Neu Frei Presse " and used for the first time on that purpose , only the Jews were concerned by that word , before that the meaning of that word was : against all the people who were using semitic languages .(mainly Arab and Jewish).
Maybe is a matter of "understanding".but concerning myself I didn't invented the gun powder.

[Mediocrates]

I think people just like throwing that phrase around. It makes them feel good about themselves to say it. Almost every non global or internation war is about some kind of difference that people establish about some other people over there. Religion, language, color, 'race', tribe, past indignities because of all those things, and a hundred other. All you're haggling about is who gets to feel noble.

[goliath]

B]Original posted by =Mediocrates[/B]]I think people just like throwing that phrase around. It makes them feel good about themselves to say it. Almost every non global or internation war is about some kind of difference that people establish about some other people over there. Religion, language, color, 'race', tribe, past indignities because of all those things, and a hundred other. All you're haggling about is who gets to feel noble.
When an ethnic group , including several Diaspora in numerous countries , the opportunity of a global war was impossible , and the abuses commited for centuries about our people were done without the minimum of risk , so , it's the reason why , and it was not the first endeavour ( Komrad Stalin ,make the offer concerning a "place" for us ,and a few Jews were believing in this solution who was a Dougatchvili trap. Th.Herlz ,Weizmann ,Ben Gourion , decided to give a country to our people , because the frequent pogroms were unbearable , and they do so.
Anti-Semitism was everywhere : in religious doctrine , anti-Judaism in the "New testament", anti-Semitism in the Quran, in ancient world,in Middle ages, expulsion of the Jews from ; England,France,Spain, Gremany, in reformation (Martin Luther etc.) , the Pale Settlement with pogroms , and this until the 20th century and now again arising from the putrid cellar ,and sewer , showing is ugly face again and creeping again , supported by the ex-allies of Adolf call little moustache in my back yard..
Now we have a country ,and it will be a bit more difficult to originate a new genocide concerning the Jews.
I don't feel noble , I do feel noble .

[sharonbn]

No ,nothing new I can see that every day ,I'm not so sure the expression : ethnic cleansing ,existed when the Turk killed the Armenian I think we are not on the same tracks.
Wrong , The word was published in 1883 in the "Neu Frei Presse " and used for the first time on that purpose , only the Jews were concerned by that word , before that the meaning of that word was : against all the people who were using semitic languages .(mainly Arab and Jewish).
Maybe is a matter of "understanding".but concerning myself I didn't invented the gun powder.
oh I see, you were talking about semantics. ok. sorry. my bad.

so when you wrote "Since the Kosovo war ,the meaning of Ethnic Cleasing ,has changed ,and it evoke clearly : clean by killing people." you meant the meaning of the term. ok.

now tell me where did you get the notion that the term "ethnic cleansing" changed since the Kosovo war? I provided a definition of the term that seems to support the notion that "ethnic cleansing" can only be aplied when the two sides differ in ethnicity / religion etc. also, why only killing people? forceful mass transfer of population also applies here.

which conflict was named "ethnic cleansing" that suggests a change of definition?

[Mediocrates]

All that phrase indicates is that if you step in and bomb the hell out of someone it's for humanitarian reasons because they were committing ethnic cleansing. It fits nicely with the Eurocentric view of modern peacekeeping that is performed for humanitarian reasons. So you see all the rhetorical pieces fit together nicely.

[KettleWhistle]

What sets public opinion in democratic countries is similar all over the world: highly regarded institues, highly regarded public figures: journalists, writers, artists, academics, politicians. that is how public opinion is set. there is really nothing revealing in the regard that the Isaeli public places in institues like Yad Vashem.But that's besides the point. Yad Vashem is as much an authority in morality as it is in cooking.


"clear difference"? really??
qouting you: "Those are just opinions, but yes, people who act like Nazis are like Nazis."
Suddenly the difference is clouded in unclarity...
Well, let me try to simplify it for you: Nazis were involved in active ethnic cleansing of Jews. Sharon government wants to start an active ethnic cleansing of Jews. Notice the similarity?


The "extremely shallow way of looking" parallels the extremely shallow provocvation of this campaign. The campaign was launched with the settlers wearing orange badges and catching the media's eye. They didn't bother to provide precise policy and line of action, they didn't bother to make their message clear and "deep". they did not intend to apeal to people's intelect. they aimed for below the belt, so they really should not be surprised if the reaction comes from the guts.
The message was simple and right to the point. So what if somebody got offended?


CNN: Milosevic: Accused mastermind of ethnic cleansing...These are just from the first google page...
but I guess these are all not "real life" definitions...
Bull Schitt. Milosevic's trial has been going on for almost five years now, and they have nothing. There was a war between several ethnic groups, which the Serbs won. The Europeans didn't want to accept Albanian refugees, so they convinced Slick Willy to bomb Serbia and to bring ficticious charges against Milosevic.

These are just empty accusations, and aren't even applicable in comparison to the settler issue.


Is that your way of saying that you sympatise with Hamas?
Now this was such punch below the belt, if it wasn't so low it might've hurt. If anything, it is the Hamas that is like the French army was in Algeria.

[goliath]

B]Original quoted by=sharonbn[/B]]oh I see, you were talking about semantics. ok. sorry. my bad.
Ok , we've dissipated that little cloud ,I feel better ,smile!

so when you wrote "Since the Kosovo war ,the meaning of Ethnic Cleasing ,has changed ,and it evoke clearly : clean by killing people." you meant the meaning of the term. ok.
The news and Media in general are doing this ,concerning the meaning of idiomatic expression or idiom , but it could sometimes not change the original definition ,but concerning journalism , if you say : Ethnic Cleansing ,it's means clearly in Europe : to kill , massacre ,butchery.
You remember or you've read about Stalin , he was the first to displace and make move constantly people , but in that period the word was : to move people , but he was still killing numerous of them,is not a short story ,but it was an real evil calculation to reduce the value of different cultures which were numerous in USSR.and try to obtain a obedient and real passive unity of that people
But he doesn't reach is goal but partially yes ,killing a lot of them yes ,and that was not on the news , but he did Ethnic Cleansing before the expression he killed about m,22 people ,and another 20 died and were killed during WWII.
So ,to me Cleansing is a very drastic word , it doesn't sound like to move the people in another place , but making them disappear.
now tell me where did you get the notion that the term "ethnic cleansing" changed since the Kosovo war? I provided a definition of the term that seems to support the notion that "ethnic cleansing" can only be aplied when the two sides differ in ethnicity / religion etc. also, why only killing people? forceful mass transfer of population also applies here.
As I said upper , here is that so , but maybe it's only in Europe , I wouldn't be affirmative for the rest of the world ,but Media report and use the same expression.
which conflict was named "ethnic cleansing" that suggests a change of definition?
All the period of drastic visual TV channel confirmation , that kind of images has an terrible impact on the memories , and the Ethnic Cleansing by the Serbian on the Croatian and vice-versa has reach the Nazis behavour , the comparison is not too strong . have you seen some of them?

[goliath]

I found an so call official definition on that link , and also a synonymous
http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0429476.html
1) The elimination of an unwanted group from a society as by genocide or forced migration.
2) The mass expulsion and killing of one ethnic or religious group in an area by another enthnical or religious group in that area.
So it seems the both can be used but they have or "genocide " and "killing" in the both meaning , when the hatred is present ,the killing could be a part of the "forced migration"
Armenian people ,a great part was killed by "forced migration " walking for days with no food nether drink ,so they all died .
Mediocrates can tell us if in the US the meaning can be ambivalent,if it's suits him.

[sharonbn]

But that's besides the point. Yad Vashem is as much an authority in morality as it is in cooking.
Wrong. It is right on the point.
"moral authority" and setting public opinion is not a position someone gets appointed by the gov't. It is a position someone "gets" for mainly two reasons: 1) being very smart, creative, articulate and influential. e.g. famous writers, artists and thinkers are elevated to that position by virtue of their publicized works and actions. 2) symbolizing a concept or event that is held dear and important to most people.

now of course there is never 100% consensus on these figures. same as there is never 100% consensus on moral values, sacred cows, etc. and still these figures are quoted by the media and write commentaries on controversial issues and people listen to them.

You voiced your opinion on Yed Vashem very clearly. so that is your opinion. that is not the opinion of the majority of people in Israel.

Well, let me try to simplify it for you: Nazis were involved in active ethnic cleansing of Jews. Sharon government wants to start an active ethnic cleansing of Jews. Notice the similarity?
a) the disengagement plan is not ethnic cleansing, for reasons already listed.
b) You present the Nazis as just another historical case of ethnic cleansing, one among others. This is an extremely shallow and manipulative presentation of the Nazis and their actions. No. The Nazis are way way way more than that. There is absolutely no comparison between the Nazi actions and any other event in the modern era. Teh Nazis did not wish to cleanse their territories from Jews. They wished for the physical annihilation of the Jewish people. They implemented their desire in such a systematic industrial scale that is unparallel to any other persecution, pogrom, expulsion and mass killing that the Jews endured.

The message was simple and right to the point. So what if somebody got offended?
The message was not just "simple and right to the point". It was deliberate provocation aimed at breaking a taboo in Israeli society - you do not use the memory of the Holocaust to make a political protest and you do not equate Jews to Nazis.
This taboo is indeed broken occasionally but it is never condoned and it was never broken in such a provocative manipulative way.

Bull Schitt. Milosevic's trial has been going on for almost five years now, and they have nothing. There was a war between several ethnic groups, which the Serbs won. The Europeans didn't want to accept Albanian refugees, so they convinced Slick Willy to bomb Serbia and to bring ficticious charges against Milosevic.

These are just empty accusations, and aren't even applicable in comparison to the settler issue.
I guess you didn't bother reading through the material I posted. Not only that the war in Kosovo fits perfectly into ethnic cleansing category, the very term "ethnic cleansing" was invented to describe that very war.
Milosevic is described today as in the same league with the most cruel, brutal and inhuman leaders that history accounts for.

FYI the Serbs lost the war... at least as far as it goes for the war against Croatia and Kosovo.

Now this was such punch below the belt, if it wasn't so low it might've hurt. If anything, it is the Hamas that is like the French army was in Algeria.
its only as low as the provocation you made earlier. to that we say in hebrew
טול קורה מבין עיניך

[sharonbn]

You remember or you've read about Stalin , he was the first to displace and make move constantly people , but in that period the word was : to move people , but he was still killing numerous of them,is not a short story ,but it was an real evil calculation to reduce the value of different cultures which were numerous in USSR.and try to obtain a obedient and real passive unity of that people
a) You must be joking... Stalin was the first to perform ethnic cleansing? ethnic cleansing actions, although not titled as such, had occurred since ancient times. Weren't the Jews ethnically cleansed from their homeland by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Greek and Romans?? When the Jews entered the land of Israel, after getting their freedom from the Egyptians, didn't they cleanse the land from the tribes that populate it, like the Hittities, Yevusies, etc.? Didn't the Spanish cleanse their country from all Jews in 1492? didn't the English attempt ethnic cleansing of the Scots and Irish in the mid ages?
See some more historical examples here
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5199/andrew-bell-fialkoff/a-brief-history-of-ethnic-cleansing.html

b) while Stalin was indeed one of the most brutal leaders in history, he is not regarded as 'the' historical example of ethnic cleansing, for two reasons:
1) he directed almost all his actions against his own people.
2) his intentions, his goal was to eliminate potential opposition and establish reign of terror. His goal was not to "clean" a piece of land from unwanted group in order to make way for his own people.

But he doesn't reach is goal but partially yes ,killing a lot of them yes ,and that was not on the news , but he did Ethnic Cleansing before the expression he killed about m,22 people ,and another 20 died and were killed during WWII.
So ,to me Cleansing is a very drastic word , it doesn't sound like to move the people in another place , but making them disappear.
Well, maybe that how it sounds to you but ethnic cleansing is not synonym with genocide or mass murder. the crucial element in ethnic cleansing is that it has to do with a dispute over a piece of land. a dispute between two groups of people that differ in ethnicity or religion and because of historical reasons cannot live side by side. So one group, usually the one that also is associated with the gov't of that country attempts to forcefully remove the other group, either by expulsion or mass killing or both.

btw, that is why the Nazi actions do not fall into the category of ethnic cleansing, but to that of genocide, which means the desire of one group to physically annihilate another for all kind of reasons. in the case of the Nazis it was anti-Semitism. in the case of Stalin... I think i listed his reasons.

All the period of drastic visual TV channel confirmation , that kind of images has an terrible impact on the memories , and the Ethnic cleansing by the Serbian on the Croatian and vice-versa has reach the Nazis behavour , the comparison is not too strong . have you seen some of them?
I am not familiar with "visual TV channel confirmation". and just because ethnic cleansing and genocide look similar on TV, does not mean they are synonyms.

[goliath]

B]Original posted by =Mediocrates][/B]All that phrase indicates is that if you step in and bomb the hell out of someone it's for humanitarian reasons because they were committing ethnic cleansing. It fits nicely with the Eurocentric view of modern peacekeeping that is performed for humanitarian reasons. So you see all the rhetorical pieces fit together nicely.
A war is the" best worse system" we are using till now as a response to a problem when diplomacy became useless.
. My meaning was , to use the same expression with at least the same meaning , and concerning Israel , I think to utilise an idiom like "Ethnic Cleansing " particularly in internal politicy matter is a big error ,it's bring water to the anti-Semitic watermills, and doing a comparison and equalizing Pm Sharon policy with Nazis it's a summit in error ,the entire world is saying every day Sharon is a fascist ,and a Nazi , etc.etc. same thing concerning our troops..and more.
And the way the news people on TV channel are saying : Tsahaal ( Isr.Army) it seems as they are really talking about a dirt thing.

[Mediocrates]

That's why it is so ridiculously silly for the left in Israel to scream and wave their arms over their heads over the Gush Katif'rs wearing symbolic orange stars since it is they who routinely call all the Yesha Jews, Nazis and fascists.

It's like playing the race card over here; pulling out "you're a racist" is simply meant to stop the conversation in its tracks.

[goliath]

I most agree with you.

[sharonbn]

the left in Israel does not routinely call all the Yesha Jews, Nazis and fascists.

[Zlatorog]

"Only in Israel"

Some Israelis believe certain things are possible only in Israel, I don't read the Italian press much so I guess I can distinguish those. The Orange Star - I wouldn't worry about it. It's like an article that starts we are ... radicals and ends we are not.... It's certainly not like a letter published that only the British fought Nazism, when more Yugoslavs died than British and Americans combined. In fact, even if you double American and British losses, the Yugoslavs still have more dead. It's certainly not like when Pipes writes that being anti-american has something to do with the French Coca Cola, or Bernard Lewis with his "we in the west... we in the west...", I'm sure that the Serbs are watching news from Israel with some interest.

This "Only in Israel" thingy will fade away.

[goliath]

[QUOTE]original quoted by=sharonbn]a) You must be joking... Stalin was the first to perform ethnic cleansing?

Our real stumbling block is : can Iraeli or jewish outside ,utilise a parody of
Signs used in camps during the Genocide , you now my answer , and you try and wants to justify the fact ,it at been done recently by your fellow in your political representativity (to not name it).
Ethnic Cleansing is in the same kind of exageration and equalization.
At present Israeli politics is under a magnifying glass as large as the entire world ,I can forgive everything to this country ,but I would prefer to be proud about all kind of behaviour ,even in domestic political matter.

A popular government without popular information , or the meams of acquiring it,is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy,or perhaps both.
Knowledge will forever govern igorance ,and a people who mean to be heir own governors ,must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
James Madison letter to W.T.Barry
August 4 1822.

[sharonbn]

goliath

I am sorry, probably some deficiency on my part, but I didn't understand a word you were saying there...

[sharonbn]

The settlers provocative "Holocaust" campaign which cynically exploits Israeli public emotions towards the historical tragedy continues. A right extremist group, led by former "Kach" member Baruch Marzel, issued a poster depicting Jews boarding a cargo train with the imprinted sloagan "Never Again".

[goliath]

Originally quoted by SharonBNcynically exploits Israeli public emotions towards the historical tragedy continues. A right extremist group, led by former "Kach" member Baruch M[QUOTE=sharonbn]The settlers provocative "Holocaust" campaign which arzel, issued a poster depicting Jews boarding a cargo train with the imprinted sloagan "Never Again"
Settlers are in those little pieces of desertic land since many years ,
some of them more than 30 years, and they've changed pebble into garden so, it's a huge human problem ,but the use of pannel refering or evoking that period is a serious lose of control ,which in fact will not change anything , my opinion included.

[goliath]

Originally posted by sharonbn]goliath
I am sorry, probably some deficiency on my part, but I didn't understand a word you were saying there..
I did wrote in first place a long post , a very boring one , so I deleted that post .
Your answer seems to be dithyrambic a bit ironic and kind of feminine one ,
so was my mother as well (I mean a woman) , but you're right I'm too simple ,only my mother use to say I was a genius and handsome,I was only five y.old and she vanished in "die Luft" like a dream.
It's absolutely not a deficiency concerning you , sometimes I'm writing like abstract painting style ,I didn't get even myself what could be my point.
Study about the meaning of Ethnic Cleansing: :
Result of the French Academy : Ethnic Cleansing : no accurate answer yet.
Israeli Academy : Ethnic Cleansing : study in progress.
The world media academy : Ethnic Cleansing : Whatever they can in order to criticize Israel.
A git your , nicht given, nicht gezehen, abe gezehen Sharon.

[Canajew]

Not really, no. Not one that I can think of. If you don't like the skinhead rally then meet across the street with your own bullhorn and drown them out.


Constitutionally protected free speech.


Why? Once Ideas become dangerous a/o sacrosanct then you elevate opinions to near religious heights. We call that mob rule here. Free speech never means the freedom from being offended and even if 85% of all Israelis support the expulsion of Yesha Jews there is no reason why they can't remind you how offened they are.
but there are obviously things people don't do. Like parade around with actual aborted fetuses at anti-abortion rallies. And that sort of holocaust imagery among a Jewish society should be just as fundamental an untouchable when it comes to partisan politics.

[Mediocrates]

Not so sure. After all it's not real Nazis doing this. It's other Jews. It's clearly for rhetorical effect. The idea that Jews would be 'relocated' or 'resettled' is enough provocation from the government and at least as bad imagery.

[KSO]

Not so sure. After all it's not real Nazis doing this. It's other Jews. It's clearly for rhetorical effect. The idea that Jews would be 'relocated' or 'resettled' is enough provocation from the government and at least as bad imagery.What's so bad about it, the goverment does it only for their own protection, after all they are not and probably won't be welcomed by Palestinians in the near future, so the goverment can't be responsible to what happens to them after the return of the territories.

[Mediocrates]

I know you come from a culture where dissent is typically met with arrest, disappearance and bullet in the head but for the rest of us a healthly, vitriolic and offensive resistance to the state is a good thing.

[sharonbn]

Medio, here's some "vitriolic and offensive resistance to the state is a good thing" for you

Dichter: Far-right activists may create pretext to fire on troops

A few dozen extremists are planning to spread rumors that the Israel Defense Forces is going to position sharpshooters to fire on settlers during the Gaza pullout, so they will have an excuse to open fire on troops, Shin Bet security services head Avi Dichter told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Tuesday.

Dichter told the committee that extremists had not given up the idea of a strike on the Temple Mount and they had no problem stealing weapons from the IDF.

When asked by MK Haim Ramon why the group has not been arrested, Dichter replied, "unfortunately, not everything we try to do survives the test of legality."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/522985.html

[Mediocrates]

But it's all a lot of hooey in the end, no? For we've heard these alarms for years and years and nothing has happened. The big bad boogeyman hasn't blown up al Aqsa or anything else. It's a cardboard enemy you've created to justify your own inflammatory rhetoric.

[sharonbn]

the shabac is also warning that far right extremists are planning an assassination of the PM or a minister or high ranking official.
I remember the exact words that head of shabac, Dichter used: "They are actively wishing that harm comes to the PM."

would you still say that "The big bad boogeyman hasn't killed a PM, or anyone else"?
would you call this "inflammatory rhetoric"?

[Mediocrates]

I actively wish harm to come to lots of people both elected and not.

You have to at some point either trust your own people to act like Israelis and not some nefarious cabal of nutcases or, you can simply marginalize and imprison everyone. What is it you think those people are trying to tell you, fundamentally, that you're not listening to? what is it you think they think they could or would gain by committing such an act?

[sharonbn]

I actively wish harm to come to lots of people both elected and not.
Is there a Jew among them? well I don't wish harm to anyone, except those who wish harm to me, like Pal terrorists, etc.

to actively wish harm means planning an action, not just having wishful thoughts (that is passively wish harm. that is what I do) I really really hope you're not in the midst of planning to stone / hit / shoot someone.

You have to at some point either trust your own people to act like Israelis and not some nefarious cabal of nutcases or, you can simply marginalize and imprison everyone.
You got it upside down.
You have to at some point stop trusting a group of people after they proove time after time to be violent and murderous. After the first Jewish underground, second Jewish underground, after Goldstein, after Avrushmi, after Popper, after Amir - how many murders and terror acts do YOU need before stop trusting these groups of people??? all of these are "lone gunners"? the sheer quantity of these murderers and terrorists is not enough to proove these people mean business and are not "cardboard enemy"???

and while we're on the subject of "inflammatory rhetoric" saying "you can simply marginalize and imprison everyone" is inflammatory rhetoric. there are ways to deal with these threats. that is why we have the shabac and it was successful (most of the time) in stopping these extremists. You don't have to imprison "everyone". you do have to be aware of the warning signs and not just dismiss it as "inflammatory rhetoric".

What is it you think those people are trying to tell you, fundamentally, that you're not listening to? what is it you think they think they could or would gain by committing such an act?
I have an idea what these people are trying to tell me:
"We have absolutely zero respect for the Israeli law and for gov't decisions.
We have absolutely no moral inhibitations and will stop at nothing.
All means are open in achieving our political goal. If people, Jewish people, have to die to achieve it - so be it."
This is what I heard from the likes of Yigal Amir - did you hear something else?

[Mediocrates]

You got it upside down.
You have to at some point stop trusting a group of people after they prove time after time to be violent and murderous. After the first Jewish underground, second Jewish underground, after Goldstein, after Avrushmi, after Popper, after Amir - how many murders and terror acts do YOU need before stop trusting these groups of people???
It has nothing to do with trust and everything to do with credible law enforcement without a lot of running around and talking about it.

all of these are "lone gunners"? the sheer quantity of these murderers and terrorists is not enough to proove these people mean business and are not "cardboard enemy"???
There's quantity and then there's quantity. It seems that anyone sufficiently motivated, armed and organized could accomplish an awful lot of what you describe could happen. But it hasn't. Hell someone that bent on destruction could hire Palestinians to do it for them, something they're already pretty good at.

I can fully appreciate your fears and worries about being corroded from the inside and what it would mean if something horrible came from other Jews. Believe me I do. But there really is a huge difference between cutting out Orange Stars and organizing a right wing death squad.

and while we're on the subject of "inflammatory rhetoric" saying "you can simply marginalize and imprison everyone" is inflammatory rhetoric. there are ways to deal with these threats. that is why we have the shabac and it was successful (most of the time) in stopping these extremists. You don't have to imprison "everyone". you do have to be aware of the warning signs and not just dismiss it as "inflammatory rhetoric".
I respectively beg to differ. We here in America locked up a few thousand people after 9-11 for pretty much whatever we felt like and it was huge blow to all of our civil rights. We cowered under our own prognostications about some distant foreign devil planning to do nothing in particular and everything in general. I worry deeply that your country's reaction to real or perceived threats will be a kneejerk round of administrative detentions of all/most settlers under the rubric that anyone who resists being thrown out of their home is an enemy of the state.


I have an idea what these people are trying to tell me:
"We have absolutely zero respect for the Israeli law and for gov't decisions.
We have absolutely no moral inhibitations and will stop at nothing.
All means are open in achieving our political goal. If people, Jewish people, have to die to achieve it - so be it."
This is what I heard from the likes of Yigal Amir - did you hear something else?
Yes I heard that if you show no mercy you will be shown no mercy.

[sharonbn]

It has nothing to do with trust and everything to do with credible law enforcement without a lot of running around and talking about it.
you're wrong.
Trust, or mistrust, is what determines how law authorities react to warning signs, like incitement and provocations. If a Rabbi, or group of Rabbis will issue "din rodef" on Sharon - the reaction of law authorities is based solely on trust. Trust that the common people who haer the issue will treat as a 'mere protest' or as an order to actually go and kill the PM. Let me remind you that prior to the murder of Rabin, there were many warning signs in the form of pictures of Rabin in SS uniforms, pictures of Rabin in Kafia, coffin with Rabin's name on them - all 'mere protests' that aimed to de-humanize Rabin. then came the 'din rodef'. and still, law authorities didn't do anything. why? because they trusted the people to know the boundaries for themselves. Nobody believed that anyone would take the din rodef seriously because we all trusted everyone.

So it IS all about trust.

About "around and talking about it.": there is a saying in Hebrew:
מי שנכווה ברותחין נזהר בצוננין
which says if you got burned in boiling water, you'll be cautious in cold water.
The media didn't treat the warning signs before Rabin's assassination seriously for the same reason that the law authorities didn't - no one believed that anyone would actually do it. "Its just words." Now they magnify every warning signs, because they got burned the first time.

There's quantity and then there's quantity. It seems that anyone sufficiently motivated, armed and organized could accomplish an awful lot of what you describe could happen. But it hasn't. Hell someone that bent on destruction could hire Palestinians to do it for them, something they're already pretty good at.
but all, ALL the murderers, terrorists, fanatics - all come from the far right. There is no single political murderer from the left wing. not a single one. The leaders of the left wing do not incite their followers to act violently.
so its not a genral view about "anyone sufficiently motivated". its only a small group from the Israeli society who consistently express disrespect for the law, who express violent intentions, and who actually implement these intentions.

I can fully appreciate your fears and worries about being corroded from the inside and what it would mean if something horrible came from other Jews. Believe me I do. But there really is a huge difference between cutting out Orange Stars and organizing a right wing death squad.
The discussions has moved beyond the Orange star propaganda campaign. We are talking about head of shabac warning about settlers creating pretext to fire on troops.

I respectively beg to differ. We here in America locked up a few thousand people after 9-11 for pretty much whatever we felt like and it was huge blow to all of our civil rights. We cowered under our own prognostications about some distant foreign devil planning to do nothing in particular and everything in general. I worry deeply that your country's reaction to real or perceived threats will be a kneejerk round of administrative detentions of all/most settlers under the rubric that anyone who resists being thrown out of their home is an enemy of the state.
there are no such plans to do what you describe.
Why everything has to be so black and white? WE either dismiss settlers statements as "vitriolic and offensive resistance to the state" which "is a good thing" or we throw all settlers to the prison cell???
I already said, there are ways to deal with extremists and fanatics witout resorting to detenetion camps and gulags. We just have to take their rethoric seriously, because they prooved to actually act upon their words.

Yes I heard that if you show no mercy you will be shown no mercy.
Exactly. Those who show no mercy towards their fellow man deserve to be treated with the full extent of the law. the sonner the better.

[Mediocrates]

What on earth does 'taking them seriously' mean if not what I describe? I'll tell you what you should take seriously. It's the utter disgust and disappointment and fury they feel for you. Not hate. Loathing.


And what are you going to do with them once you herd them all off their land and into some other place? Think those 8,000 and their 80,000 supporters are going to want to shake your hand? You think that you'll have any credibility with them?

Tell you what, my friend, move those Jews and in 2 years, tops, you'll hear them use the language of Palestinians in refugee camps. Or Indians on the Rez.

And for the record, your Rabin experience had a lot more to do with your illusions about yourselves and how you believed you were this happy if contentious collective that could never ever ever ever have something this terrible happen especially from the inside. Advanced early warning systems to protect your official air transports to high level meetings, got that problem locked down. But even imagining that an Amir would want to kill and be able to kill a PM, that completely escaped you didn't it?

You DO know why US Presidents don't travel in convertibles anymore, yes?

[sharonbn]

What on earth does 'taking them seriously' mean if not what I describe? I'll tell you what you should take seriously. It's the utter disgust and disappointment and fury they feel for you. Not hate. Loathing.
I already described several times what 'taking them seriously'. they can feel whatever they like about me, I cannot do anything about it. aslong as they obey the law and don't act violently.

And what are you going to do with them once you herd them all off their land and into some other place? Think those 8,000 and their 80,000 supporters are going to want to shake your hand? You think that you'll have any credibility with them?
The same thing that France did with a million French settlers that were evacuated from Algeria. They will be integrated into Israeli society in the green line and they are welcone here. I don't need them to shake my hand I just don't want them to shoot me.

Tell you what, my friend, move those Jews and in 2 years, tops, you'll hear them use the language of Palestinians in refugee camps. Or Indians on the Rez.
So we can expect to see them using other similar Pal typical expressions of resistence?

And for the record, your Rabin experience had a lot more to do with your illusions about yourselves and how you believed you were this happy if contentious collective that could never ever ever ever have something this terrible happen especially from the inside. Advanced early warning systems to protect your official air transports to high level meetings, got that problem locked down. But even imagining that an Amir would want to kill and be able to kill a PM, that completely escaped you didn't it?
Yes. we used to trust people in Israel. There is a group of them we don't trust anymore to obey basic human laws like "thou shall not kill". Recently we stopped trusting them to uphold values and taboos that are sacred to Israeli society like the Holocaust.
if the head of shabac says they're planning to use firearms in the evacuation, then they should act beforehand, make arrests and so on.