We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: 2MAR$ who wrote (2947)8/27/2001 1:07:45 PM
From: Carolyn
   of 23245
Thanks, Mars, for posting this!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Carolyn who wrote (2954)8/28/2001 6:24:24 AM
   of 23245
'Real Jews'

By Peter Snowdon

It wasn't difficult to get in touch with the Betar. I'd imagined that any organisation which went round Paris shouting racist slogans and issuing communiques claiming responsibility for beating up Arabs must be relatively low profile, if not completely underground. Of course, the Front National do that kind of thing, and they're in the phone book. But they do it on behalf of the French people. The Betar do it on behalf of Eretz Israel.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (2955)8/28/2001 12:16:04 PM
From: Thomas M.
   of 23245
Great Article!

He leaned back in his chair, and his girth loomed proudly towards the edge of the table, as if daring it to try and push him back within his negotiated limits.

ROFLMAO! That is the best line I have heard in a long time.

Fortunately, Nadine has reassured me that these kind of crazies aren't what Israel is about, they are just on the lunatic fringe. Well, except for the fact that Menachem Begin and Binyamin Netanyahu were PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL. -g-


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (2955)8/28/2001 2:09:16 PM
From: LV
   of 23245
I found Moti to be a very sympathetic person. Snowdon comes from a different perspective – he has no painful experiences with anti-semitic thugs. You see, when you encounter those, a Bible or Das Capital or even a score sheet from Aida in your hands won’t do you much good. You need your baseball bat against their baseball bats. I have no problem whatsoever with Jewish thugs (I may use a different word to describe them, though) protecting Jewish neighborhoods or institutions against anti-semites, or black thugs confronting marching racists, or Arab thugs fighting marauding skinheads, just as I have no problem with armed community patrols in high crime neighborhoods. It may not be the perfect solution to some of the problems in the world, but it is a solution. As long as I see no Arab-baiting, or Jew-baiting, or racist crap, I find these people and their actions commendable indeed.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: LV who wrote (2930)8/28/2001 2:38:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 23245
Interesting analysis of the dynamic at work in the current "intifada":

The Intifada behind the Al-Aqsa Intifada
by Gary C. Gambill

Members of the Tanzim at a demonstration in Gaza last month
[Reuters/Reinhard Krause]
The "Al-Aqsa Intifida" has witnessed the most intense fighting between Israelis and Palestinians in nearly two decades, with the death toll now approaching 200, mostly Palestinian, fatalities. According to the conventional wisdom, the uprising was triggered by the untimely visit of Israeli Likud leader Ariel Sharon, flanked by over 1,000 riot policemen, to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem on September 28. This event, it is said, sparked a familiar pattern of "spontaneous" Palestinian riots and Israeli reprisals--a self-propelling process whereby demonstrators are killed and injured, fueling public passions that result in further protests, and so forth. The uprising is attributed to the same dynamic that governed the 1987-1993 Intifada, and to a lesser extent the "tunnel riots" of 1996, with most of the debate centering around Yasser Arafat's willingness and capability to control the Palestinian "street."

But for all the destructive energy unleashed by the Al-Aqsa Intifida, the scope of popular participation has been surprisingly limited. Although large numbers of Palestinians have taken part in peaceful rallies and funeral processions, the crowds that have confronted Israeli troops with rocks and Molotov cocktails on a daily basis have been notably smaller than those that spontaneously arose during the first Intifada. What is new about the current uprising--the frequent use of firearms against Israeli soldiers and settlers--is mainly attributable to a relatively small number of Fatah activists, numbering perhaps a few hundred at most.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Carolyn who started this subject8/29/2001 1:30:37 AM
From: Mani1
   of 23245
Powell Will Boycott U.N. Racism Conference

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) will not attend the U.N. conference on racism opening in South Africa this week because of language critical of Israel, the State Department said on Monday.

``It is clear to us now that the secretary (Powell) will not go to this conference. The secretary will not attend this conference. The exact nature and level of our representation, if any, is not clear,'' State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told a news briefing.

Boucher said all along, the United States had stated its opposition to several elements of the conference, including ''offensive'' language about Israel that singles it out as a ''racist'' occupying power.

It was possible the United States would boycott the conference altogether and not send a delegation at all, Boucher said.

``We'll have to look at the situation, about how this might evolve or change based on the efforts that various people are making, and ... decide on the nature and level of our participation, if any,'' he said.

Boucher said Powell had spoken on several occasions with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) over the weekend to tell him of his decision about the conference, set to start on Friday.

Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, welcomed Powell's decision to boycott the meeting, which he said had been ``hijacked'' by some participants with the specific aim of bashing Israel.

``There's a need to discuss racism but not in a conference which already has been hijacked,'' Foxman said in an interview on the PBS program ``Newshour With Jim Lehrer.'' Powell's presence would give the conference ``a certain status and prestige'' it does not deserve, Foxman said.

The United States repeatedly threatened to skip the U.N. conference unless Arab states drop demands that the conference texts single out Israel.

President Bush (news - web sites) said on Friday the United States would not go to the conference in Durban at all if the participants ''picked on'' or denigrated Israel.


Boucher said by attending the conference at Cabinet level, the United States would have put out the wrong signal that it agreed with this kind of language describing Israel.

``The level tends to imply a certain association that we may not -- certainly don't want with this kind of language,'' he said.

Boucher said the United States had spent years trying to ''eradicate some of these ideas'' about Israel from U.N. documents and now was not the time to revive them.

The U.N. General Assembly equated Zionism -- the modern movement promoting the return of Jews to the biblical land of Israel -- with racism in resolutions adopted annually from 1975 to 1991. They were dropped after the landmark 1991 Madrid Middle East peace conference.

The Bush administration had also objected to language in conference documents supporting reparations for slavery but Boucher said the key issue was Israel and not language on reparations.

Also appearing on PBS, Hugh Price, National Urban League president, said while he agrees that a discussion of Zionism has no place at the Durban meeting, to skip it because of that leaves unaddressed all the other issues that do belong on the agenda.

``The United States has more to teach the rest of the world on how to manage diversity and create opportunity than any other society on Earth and we could use our presence there to try to do that,'' Price said. ``I think the presence of Secretary Powell would have accomplished that, so we're deeply disappointed that he's not going.''

Rep. Tom Lantos (news - bio - voting record), a California Democrat and ranking minority member on the House International Relations Committee, applauded Powell's decision not to go to Durban.

``By allowing a conference against racism to become a conference against Israel, the United Nations (news - web sites) -- urged by the Arab states -- has missed an historic opportunity to take a positive step toward eradicating the scourge of racism.

``As a world leader in this fight, the United States must not dignify this anti-Israel lynching with its high-level participation.'' he said in a statement.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: LV who wrote (2957)8/29/2001 5:12:00 AM
   of 23245
NAAA-ADC Panel: Middle East Peace-Making in a Post Clinton Era

"The Centrality of Jerusalem to an End of Conflict Agreement"

Rashid Khalidi
President, American Committee on Jerusalem
Director, Center for International Studies, University of Chicago


During the Clinton administration, when in my view opportunities for real progress in peace-making were allowed to slip away, U.S. diplomatic activity in the Middle East was essentially circumscribed not by vital U.S. interests, nor by the interests of all the regional parties, but rather by the preferences of one party: Israel.

Throughout those eight years, the ceiling of the negotiations brokered by the U.S. was what American policy-makers - often mistakenly - claimed were the outer limits of what Israel would accept. Thus, they argued that Israel would never negotiate with the PLO, would never accept the idea of a Palestinian state, would never withdraw from Lebanon, would never accept a complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights, and would never accept Palestinian sovereignty over parts of East Jerusalem. They therefore tried to keep negotiations under these very low ceilings. Over time, of course, the past three Israeli governments - those of Rabin, Netanyahu and Barak - came to accept the possibility, and in some cases the reality, of all of these options that American "experts" claimed were unthinkable to Israel.

Beyond this, there was limited attention by American policy-makers during the Clinton era to what Arab parties could accept. The Palestinians in particular complained bitterly about disdainful treatment by American policy-makers, who seemed to ignore that there were limits to the concessions they could make, given the strength of Palestinian opinion on crucial issues. Instead, there appeared to be an almost unlimited American willingness to squeeze the Palestinians, always in the name of "realism." And there seemed to be little concern for the impact of such an Israel-based policy on the broader interests of the U.S. in the Middle East.

I would suggest strongly that at the end of the Clinton era, and under the ongoing impact of the "al-Aqsa intifada," whose daily scenes of brutality by Israeli troops using American weapons are broadcast throughout the region by a plethora of satellite TV stations beyond the control of any Arab regime, U.S. interests in the Arab world are in more jeopardy today than they have been for decades. This is largely a result of U.S. policy-makers ignoring the clearly expressed views of the Palestinians and other Arab parties for eight long years.

It is to be hoped that with the Clinton era behind us, the new Bush administration will pay due regard to the interests of all parties, not just Israel, and in particular to the constraints on the actions of all. Hopefully, the new administration will also free itself from an excessive preoccupation with domestic considerations which overwhelmingly favor Israel, and will pay much overdue attention to U.S. interests in the Middle East, and how they have been affected by eight years of blatant bias in favor of Israel.

This brings me back to Jerusalem. This is an issue, more than any other, with deep resonance for all the parties. There exists a school of thought - I should call it a line of argument rather than dignifying it by calling it a school of thought - that Jerusalem is only really important to one religious tradition, the Jewish one; and that it is only really important to one people, the Israelis. This intolerant and ignorant thesis is essentially aimed at keeping treatment of the Jerusalem issue in U.S. policy where it has been for the past eight years: it means considering that the only important question regarding Jerusalem is what Israel will accept.

But peace in the Middle East does not have to be made -- as some appear to believe -- between Israel's Likud and Labor parties. It has to be made between Palestinians and Israelis, and between Arabs and Israelis, and it must take into account the concerns of Muslims, Christians and Jews everywhere. Indeed, where Jerusalem is concerned, the need to consider the concerns of a broad range of constituencies is more urgent than with any other issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict, because of Jerusalem's profound resonance for so many people.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: LV who wrote (2957)8/29/2001 5:12:00 AM
   of 23245
redundancy glitch...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2956)8/29/2001 11:23:46 AM
   of 23245
As Hawkmoon would put it, only the ugly Palestinians don't flinch from sending their fanaticized kids to the front line....

August 24, 2001

Rabbis Take Aim at Women in Ranks
Israeli women can now join combat units. But Orthodox Jews say religious laws may keep observant men from serving with them.


PETAH TIKVA, Israel -- Less than a month after a Palestinian gunman shot her in the face as she patrolled Israel's border with the West Bank, Cpl. Hani Abramov, 19, is itching to get back to her front-line unit.

Lying in a hospital bed, Abramov is a disturbing sight. Her face still is grotesquely swollen and badly bruised. Her shattered jaw distorts her speech. But the message she muttered to an Israel Television interviewer was clear: "I'm going to be back," she vowed. "And I'm going to be crawling on my knees, carrying my faithful gun on my back."

BTW, how come we, in the West, don't watch these footages of Israeli kids psyched up to get back in the action?? Too bad for Israel's image??

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (2945)8/29/2001 11:46:22 AM
   of 23245
Charley, I bet your Jewish inlaws too don't plan to relocate in Israel, now do they??

Wednesday August 29, 2001 Elul 10, 5761
Israel Time: 06:55 (GMT+3)

Wanted immigrants from Argentina, France and S. Africa

By Yair Sheleg


he Kiryat Bialik model seems to have worked. There are already 150 Argentinian families, totally some 700 people, in the town. And other towns, like Kiryat Gat, Upper Nazareth, Ashkelon and others have followed suit, sending their mayors to Argentina to meet with prospective immigrants, offering them housing and employment.

For the Jewish Agency, the project is part of a larger scheme to try increasing immigration from the West, because of the assumption that the reservoir of potential
immigrants in the former Soviet Union is shrinking rapidly.

Two other countries are on the Jewish Agency's radar: France, where the 600,000
mostly North African Jews, the largest Diaspora community outside of the U.S., have
been encountering a sharp rise in anti-Semitic incidents and the Agency is counting
on their sense of isolation in a country with 6 million Muslims; and South Africa,
where the country has seen a drastic drop in the standard of living due to declining
foreign investment, as well as a steep rise in crime.

France has potential, say Jewish Agency officials like Mike Rosenberg, the current
Immigration Department chief, because of the strong links between the community
and Israel. But agency officials admit that French Jewry meanwhile regards the
upsurge in anti-Semitism as a temporary affair resulting from the impact of the

In South Africa, Jews are ready to pack up and leave, but 80 percent of those who do are choosing other destinations, with Canada and Australia topping the list.

What a load of rubbish! Of course French Jews don't feel like moving in Israel! They quietly run half of France already.... How could they feel "isolated" or threatened in a country where most of the media/showbiz is run by them? The largest French advertising firm, Publicis, is run by Maurice Levy and owned by Bleustein-Blanchet heirs (Elisabeth Badinter whose husband was Chief Justice with France's Supreme Court). France's top car maker Renault is run by CEO Schweitzer and its Japanese subsidiary Nissan by another French Jew, Carlos Ghosn... The current Jospin administration is notoriously pro-Israel and harbors a dozen Jewish Ministers and high civil servants... As for France's 5 million Muslim worshippers, they're nowhere in the power chain.... they can't even build a mosque --they're barely allowed to pray in filthy, disused warehouses... Disgusting!


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4)
Previous 10 Next 10