Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[Pettytyrant101]

It is true enough Halfwise that Palestinians live in Israel but they are treated appalingly- the history of Israels actions towards them speaks volumes-

'From 1948 until 1966, Palestinians lived under martial law. They required permits issued by the military governor to leave their villages or towns. Palestinians were subject to curfews, administrative detention – detention without charge or trial – and expulsions were common. As Palestinians were concentrated mainly in the Galilee, the Negev and the Triangle, subjecting them to such strict measures of control was simple for the authorities.

Alongside the physical restrictions on Palestinians, the newly-created state of Israel also enacted laws designed to dispossess Palestinians of their land and their rights to their land. The Absentees Property Law aimed to take ownership of property and land belonging to Palestinians. The term “absentee” was carefully applied and targeted Palestinians who had been expelled from their homes during the war of 1948.

This law applied to Palestinians who had been made refugees and were now outside Israel, and also to those who were now in Israel but living as internally displaced persons. Israel calls these Palestinians “present absentees”, an Orwellian state of being which denies them access to their homes, even though many live in the same area and their homes are still standing (unlike the 500-plus towns and villages razed to remove the evidence of Palestinians’ existence on the land for many hundreds of years before).

Burg goes on to say “But something went wrong in the operating system of Jewish democracy. We never gave much thought to the Palestinian Israeli citizens within the Jewish-democratic equation.” But that is just not true. A lot of thought went in to how to treat the non-Jewish citizens of Israel. Even before 1948 the Zionists were planning how to gain as much land with as few Palestinians as possible: for the Zionist plan of the Jewish state to become reality, Arabs had to be removed.

Yossef Weitz, director of the Jewish National Fund played a major role in acquiring land for the Yishuv (pre-1948 Jewish community). He stated: “Transfer does not serve only one aim—to reduce the Arab population—it also serves a second purpose by no means less important, which is to evict land now cultivated by Arabs and to free it for Jewish settlement. The only solution is to transfer the Arabs to neighbouring countries. Not a single village or a single tribe must be let off.”

The Dalet plan was devised during February 1948 by the Haganah – the Jewish paramilitary organisation succeeded by the Israeli Defence Forces upon Israel’s establishment. The plan was simple: the systematic expulsion of the Arab communities. The expulsions were conducted by the Palmach (elite Haganah fighters), the Irgun and the Stern (Lehi) gang. Villages and towns were attacked, depopulated and destroyed.

Israel today is a religious, capitalist state. Its religiosity is defined by the most extreme Orthodox interpretations. Its capitalism has erased much of the social solidarity of the past, with the exception of a few remaining vestiges of a welfare state. Israel defines itself as a “Jewish and democratic state.” However, because Israel has never created a system of checks and balances between these two sources of authority, they are closer than ever to a terrible clash.

With the elevation of religious solidarity over and above democratic authority, Israel has become more fundamentalist and less modern, more separatist and less open to the outside world. I see the transformation in my own family. My father, one of the founders of the state of Israel and of the National Religious Party, was an enlightened rabbi and philosopher. Many of the younger generation are far less open, however; some are ultra-Orthodox or ultranationalist settlers.

something went wrong in the operating system of Jewish democracy. We never gave much thought to the Palestinian Israeli citizens within the Jewish-democratic equation. We also never tried to separate the synagogue and the state. If anything, we did the opposite. Moreover, we never predicted the evil effects of brutally controlling another people against their will.

If this trend continues, all vestiges of democracy will one day disappear, and Israel will become just another Middle Eastern theocracy. It will not be possible to define Israel as a democracy when a Jewish minority rules over a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — controlling millions of people without political rights or basic legal standing.

-Avraham Burg (a Jewish scholar writing for the New York Times)

[halfwise]

Much of the mistreatment of Palestinians in israel proper was earlier in its history. I've had a Palestinian room-mate who could travel freely because of his Israeli passport. Didn't make him hate Israel much less, and his family suffered mistreatment by police; but the fact that legally he was a full citizen with a passport (and not from a rich family) says a lot.

I see no point in picking and choosing what comments above gave the most slanted version of Israel. They do deserve massive criticism, but much of what is wrong is a product of history they can't just simply back out of even if they were wrong in the first place. Except for the settlements.

[Eldorion]

Fair enough, but I'd like to state for the record that the lebensraum comment (which I understand might have offended people) was directed solely at the people quoted in the article I posted, not Israelis as a whole.

With that, I think I'll take a break from this thread.

[halfwise]

Yeah, it's time to give this topic a rest. Make no mistake, I think Israel is a blot on history, but it's a complex blot.

[Pettytyrant101]

On a less contentious matter- but slightly worrying if you are a Brit PM David Cameron seems to be making rule bending and breaking a part of government policy-

'David Cameron has promised to crack down on "time-wasting" caused by the "massive growth industry" in legal challenges to government policy.
Judicial review applications would cost more, with less time put aside to apply and fewer chances to appeal.
But green groups said planning laws protected the environment and should not be blamed for economic failings.
He insisted that "bureaucratic nonsense" was not necessary to ensuring the rights of different sexes, races and religions were upheld.
Individuals and organisations can seek a judicial review if they think a decision by a public body has been made unlawfully.
"Here's what we're going to do: reduce the time limit when people can bring cases; charge more for reviews - so people think twice about time-wasting."
Mr Cameron drew a historical analogy, saying: "When this country was at war in the '40s, Whitehall underwent a revolution.
Normal rules were circumvented. Convention was thrown out. As one historian put it, everything was thrown at 'the overriding purpose' of beating Hitler.
Well, this country is in the economic equivalent of war today - and we need the same spirit. We need to forget about crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i'.

So no questioning the government- Cameron is right and if he wants to stick a nuclear waste plant next to your local primary school then he will.

[halfwise]

There does have to be some sensible limit to what people can request of the government, otherwise it can get tied up in knots. but I'm in no position to judge if Britain is at that point. I trust you to raise holy hell, Petty, but will others feel strongly enough to do the same? If not, Cameron may be... if not right, at least able to get away with it.

[Pettytyrant101]

The problem here is what he is proposing is not going to stop all the beurocracy in getting something done- the judical review does not determine anything about the legislation, only if its implimentaion has been done legally- environmental impact studies, health implications ect.
Basically he is proposing taking away the checks and balances on how government impliment things- judging from the bulk of comments on the story on the bbc website my fears are widely shared that this is yet another Tory scam to let their rich mates do as they want, regardless of the feelings of the local people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20389297
You need to go to the ;all comments; tab to get a feel for the mood as the 'editors pick' tab has to be unbiased as the BBC is a public broadcaster, so it balances out comments.

And this from a party who stood on a platform of devolving power down to local communities.
Fortunelty this an english/welsh/N Irsh problem as such things are devolved in Scotland.

[Orwell]

Frankly, I am at aloss to know why the country of Israel was allowed to come back into existence again after 2000 years of not existing, but the fact is it does now. It exists, therefore it defends itself. And if one wants Israel to stop missiling Hamas, then Hamas needs to stop misissiling Isreal first. If Hamas does not send missiles, Israel doesn't return fire ten fold. Simple. I'm not on either side btw.

[David H]

I'm afraid it's not quite that simple though. Israel has been taking its lead from the USA, and right now we're targeting terrorist leaders in other countries and executing them, often with some "collateral casualties". Israel has been doing the same in Gaza.

I'm sure if the formal government in Gaza were given the tools and the intelligence to do reciprocal assassinations of military leaders in Israel in return for no more random rocket fire, rocket fire would stop instantly. But because the formal government is kept weak, without the tools to defend itself, the power devolves to the militias which really aren't controllable by either Israel or Gaza and whose only tools are low tech missiles.

Here's what stirred them up most recently:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/idf-hamas-youtube/
The Israel Defense Forces didn’t just kill Hamas military leader Ahmed al-Jabari on Wednesday as he was driving his car down the street in Gaza. They killed him and then instantly posted the strike to YouTube. Then they tweeted a warning to all of Jabari’s comrades: “We recommend that no Hamas operatives, whether low level or senior leaders, show their faces above ground in the days ahead.”

The Jabari hit is part of the biggest assault the IDF has launched in more than three years on Gaza, with more than 20 targets hit. And it’s being accompanied by one of the most aggressive social media offensives ever launched by any military. Several days before Jabari’s elimination, the IDF began liveblogging the rocket attacks on southern Israel coming from Gaza. Once “Operation Pillar of Defense” began, the IDF put up a Facebook page, a Flickr feed, and, of course, a stream of Twitter taunts — all relying on the same white-on-red English-language graphics. “Ahmed Jabari: Eliminated,” reads a tweet from 2:21 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday.

This is a very different way of waging the war of opinion online. When an American drone strikes a suspected militant in Afghanistan, that footage is rarely made public — and, if so, only months after the fact. After the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, White House and Pentagon aides did start leaking details like mad. But the only live tweets from the operation were from a bystander in Abbottabad who heard the helicopters landing. And the pictures of bin Laden’s corpse were purposely kept from the public.

But Israel also finds itself in a singular position, geopolitically. Its most consistent ally in the region, the Mubarak regime in Cairo, was overthrown last year and replaced by an Islamist government. Relations with Jerusalem’s most important partner, the United States, were tested by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s all-but-open support of Barack Obama’s rival Mitt Romney in the recent American presidential elections. The need to shape international opinion and rally supporters internationally is acute.

“I believe the video is aimed to deliver three different messages to three different audiences,” emails Gabriella Blum, a professor of international law and international conflict management at Harvard Law School. “A warning to militants in Gaza (we can get you anywhere, anytime); an appeasing message to the Israeli public (we will not remain helpless in the face of repeated rocket attacks), and a reassuring message to those concerned about the use of targeted killings, especially for its potential collateral damage (we can do this with utmost precision).”

[David H]

Also, I agree completely with Halfwise about the settlements, but I understand there are many problems with removing them, or even enforcing a freeze. I've been told by Israelis that many people are afraid of what would happen if they tried to integrate the radical views of many of the "Settlers" back into the more moderate parts of Israel. Remember we're talking about over a quarter of a million people, several of the towns have populations of 30 or 40 thousand, and many families have been there for 3 and 4 generations. That's not an easy thing to dismantle or relocate!

Talking to a young man who grew up in one of these towns (which he refused to call a settlement but acknowledged that it was across the 1967 border), he told me of the defensive mind-set, how the throwing of stones at anything or anyone Palestinian was tacitly encouraged even in very young children. They grow up with the myth that they are the heroes on the frontlines of Zionism, and that they carry the torch for their softer brethren in safer areas. It's a very dangerous myth!

[Orwell]

I rest by what I said. Hamas will never accept a country called Israel. Israel will fight to the death to keep the country they were given fifty or so years ago. Israel is a modern construct - a European colony largely - but it will take some moving. It's hard to ever see a time when the bloodshed will end. It's like folk are back in the Middle Ages in that part of the world.

[halfwise]

If someone had plopped a bunch of Muslims or Hindus or what have you down in the middle of our country and started acting the way the nascent state of Israel did, we'd be lobbing rocks and bombs too. If they had just tried to assimilate their way in and claim their 'homeland' through accepted channels things would have been so much different, though possibly no less complicated.

[Pettytyrant101]

Unsavoury sounding goings on in Egyptian politics.
Having had a revolution and removed a dictator it seem the new President has some rather radical ideas of his own power.
The latest being to put his decisions above the law.

'The decree states that the president's decisions cannot be revoked by any authority, including the judiciary.
Wael Ghonim, a key figure in last year's uprising against President Hosni Mubarak, said the revolution had not been staged "in search of a benign dictator".
"There is a difference between revolutionary decisions and dictatorial decisions," he said, "Mursi today usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh. A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences."

Thursday's decree bans challenges to Mr Mursi's decrees, laws and decisions.
It also says no court can dissolve the constituent assembly, which is drawing up a new constitution.
"The president can issue any decision or measure to protect the revolution," presidential spokesman Yasser Ali announced on national TV, "the constitutional declarations, decisions and laws issued by the president are final and not subject to appeal."- BBC

This does not sound like a recipe for success!

[Eldorion]

Certainly worrying, but it's not like the military regime that is/was holding the reigns was particularly democratic either. Hopefully the Egyptian people will be able to put pressure on all factions in power so they can come up with a reasonable and just government soon.

[Pettytyrant101]

The miltary at least were only a placeholder regime, ok they are not exactly keen to give up powers but at least they weren't going about making laws which said they couldnt be challenged.
What was it Orwell said in 1984? something about the purpose of revolutions not being to remove dicators but to put new ones in place.

[Eldorion]

You're the second person to have said that Orwell quote to me today.

It's definitely disturbing what Mursi is doing, don't get me wrong.

[Pettytyrant101]

I trust I was in good company.

[Orwell]

Petty said: "What was it Orwell said in 1984? something about the purpose of revolutions not being to remove dicators but to put new ones in place..."

I can't never remember saying that, not in 1984, nor more recently neither? Tho I tend to agree. Reminds me of something I read somewhere while doing my hobby - New Testament History, that is (can't recall source). It goes something like this, "A lawless brigand is only a lawless brigand until he overthrows the current power, then he's the King."

[Pettytyrant101]

This is a baffling and worrying story.

A foster family have had 3 children, recently placed in their care, removed from them because the foster parents are memembers of UKIP.
UKIP is the UK Independence Party- they stand on a platform of withdrawal from the EU and tough immigration laws.
The Council invovled say they were not aware of the foster parents politcal views when the placement was made, and as the 3 children are non UK, non white they felt it was inappropriate to give them to this foster couple (who have been fostering for 7 years).

I am not at all comfortable with a government body choosing or rejecting foster parents based on who they vote for.
I dont like UKIP but they are a legitimate party with both MP's and MEP's, I'm sure they do attract at the fringes the right wing racist vote, but it would be untrue to characterise them as only doing so, and I doubt these people would have fostered non British children if they were racists.

This seems like a dangerous precedent to set to me. In a democracy there cannot be punishments or rewards attached by the state depending on who you vote for.

[azriel]

A couple say three foster children were taken from them because of their membership of the UK Independence Party.

The unnamed couple, from South Yorkshire, who have been fostering for seven years, took on a baby girl, a boy and an older girl from an ethnic and troubled family background in September.

Less than eight weeks into the placement they were visited by a Rotherham social worker and foster agency official who accused them of belonging to a party with "racist policies" which meant they were unsuitable to look after the children.

The visit followed an anoymous tip-off about the couple's party membership.

The husband and wife told The Daily Telegraph they were left "dumbfounded" and "offended".

The wife said: "I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has UKIP got to do with having the children removed?'

"Then one of them said, 'Well, UKIP have got racist policies'. The implication was that we were racist."

"I said, 'I am absolutely offended that you could come in my house and accuse me of being a member of a racist party'."
I agree,this is a worry ! Whats the NEXT thing people/Councils/Government are gonna decide upon ? Its like a hysterical Witch Hunt from the "Older Days" ! If youve seen the film "Equilibrium",then thats how I feel its going in this country. Will we soon see curfews ? will we be stopped in the streets to show "ID papers" ? Arrested cos we're wearing the "wrong" T-shirt ? It almost feels like Government etc are,not only unstoppable, but also unaccountable to anyone,allowing them to do as they wish,with very little justification of their actions.

[Mrs Figg]

I wouldnt worry too much about the British gvt being Big Brother, if you live in other countries you can just disappear, never to be seen alive again, or executed for disagreement with the powers that be. The UK has a pretty robust democracy compared to many many other places. There will always be injustice and misunderstanding, but people have a voice and can protest freely like this couple are doing.

[Pettytyrant101]

Grove has stepped into this for the government and said its not acceptable and demanded an investigation.
Grove is the education secretary, I didnt know that meant he was in charge of fostering too?

"Michael Gove has branded a decision by Rotherham council to remove three children from a foster couple because they belong to UKIP as "indefensible".
The education secretary said the "wrong decision" was made "in the wrong way for the wrong reasons".
He added the department for education, under his leadership, would "ask the necessary questions" to determine what happened in this case."- BBC

[Orwell]

The education secretary said the "wrong decision" was made "in the wrong way for the wrong reasons".

And that, I assume, is where the matter ends?

[Pettytyrant101]

Possibly not. My political suspicons that there is more to this than meets the eye are raised.
The Council involved is Rotherham (currently Labour held), and by a strange coincidence it turns out there is a Parliamentary by-election there in a weeks time.

[Pettytyrant101]

'GERMANY is poised to reinstate an old law banning sex with animals after a sharp rise in incidents of bestiality — and even the pimping of farm animals.
The country's parliament is due to debate changes to the national Animal Protection Code this week, with the agricultural committee of the Bundestag pledging fines of £20,000 for a first offence.
Bestiality dropped off the statute books as a crime in 1969 but in recent years has become rampant along with websites promoting it.
There are even "erotic zoos" for perverts to visit and abuse animals ranging from llamas to goats.
But pro-zoophilia campaign group ZETA — Zoophiles Commitment to Tolerance and Enlightenment — vowed to challenge any ban on bestiality.'- The Sun

Germans! Starting and loosing two world wars not shameful enough for you?
Although dont know whats weirder- that Germans seem to treat animal sex as an optional extra or that there is an actual pro bestiality pressure group that campaigns for animal sex.

ps in typical Sun fashion this is the pic which accompanies the story-