IMC-Israel "End Occupation!" by Latuff by Latuff 2:25pm Sun Dec 29 '02 latuff@uninet.com.br End Occupation! Latuff - Image Maker Rio de Janeiro Brazil www.antiglobalizacion.org/Germinal/arte/... add your comments Source file

It should be Arik Sharon, or Yaalon... by Daniel Rosenberg 7:19pm Sun Dec 29 '02 print comment ...not some plain 'black' soldier. add your comments

Why not a regular soldier by Peter Kropotkin 7:47pm Sun Dec 29 '02 print comment It is the 'regular' soldier who does the dirty work, who refuses to refuse the occupation, and keeps the wheels of occupation rollin' along. So why shouldn't it be a 'regular' soldier? If the occupation was just Yaalon and Sharon, it would have been over a long while ago...though Sharon does occupy much space just by the mere size of his ass. add your comments

"occupation"? by ya 9:13pm Sun Dec 29 '02 print comment funny i seem to remember that the "occupation" was in fact caused by the arab led 67 war? and correct me if i'm wrong israel has tried to give the land for peace since then, most recently in 00? and wasn't it arafat who said no and started the stupidfata? end the occupation. some people are just too stupid for their own good. add your comments

Good Image by Slappy 1:17pm Wed Jan 1 '03 print comment It is a fitting image Latuff has chosen to represent the wrongheaded movement to simply "end the occupation." It wants to harrass and shout rather than reason its way to victory. If the movement had a clearer understanding of the complexity of the issues, it would not need to shout at the top of its lungs all the time, like an infant. It would enter a debate on the issue with an open mind and without the histrionics. Maybe it would even win, if it had something of value to say. A child screams all day about what it wants, and maybe even gets it sometimes, but no one would think the child understands anything other than his or her own selfish desires. add your comments

Yes you're wrong ya by John Veldhuis 7:29am Thu Jan 2 '03 print comment Most "attempts" by Israel to give back land in return for peace were PR jobs, and if you call Baraks attempt to sell townships for independance an attempt to give back land, you should try reading other material than Likud propagand. You just can't have both peace and the settlements. add your comments

Like the French Colonialist by Pnina 10:42am Thu Jan 2 '03 gobarbe@club-internet.fr print comment Dear Ya , Every time I am surprised :you speak exactely, with the same words and in the same way that the French colonialists during the Independance War in Algeria . We know the arguments . The colonialist discurse is alway the same ( Read Warszawsky: On the frontiers). You'll understand what I want to tell Pnina add your comments

good art, good point by t-bone 10:53am Thu Jan 2 '03 print comment its hard to take his name seriously, but slappy did have a few good points. I agree that the issue should not be looked from one side or the other. The art is obviously against the military occupation, and less obviously it is for the cause of Palestinians freedom fighters, judging by the appearance of the shouting individual and the emphasized importance of what she is saying. It is importance to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the Military occupation as well as the irresponsible retaliation, which is what i believe slappy was referring to by comparing the resistance to that of an infant screaming or a child selfishly demanding, however I cannot fully agree that shouting for what you believe is right is always a counterproductive action. This artwork is direct, effective, but also a bit too stereotypical. add your comments

End the REAL Occupation! by Americus 10:43am Wed Jan 8 '03 print comment http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.html3?id=1808 and http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5423 and http://www.danielpipes.org/article/994 and http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5238 and http://members.lycos.co.uk/jests/hpbimg/Osama_found.gif add your comments

The PLO's First Amendment by americus 10:45am Wed Jan 8 '03 print comment Subject: The PLO's First Amendment 1. Al Jazeera journalist arrested for reporting on Fatah's responsibility for Tel Aviv attacks By KHALED ABU TOAMEH Advertisement The Palestinian Authority's security forces arrested al Jazeera TV correspondent in the Gaza Strip, Seif al Din Shahin, for reporting on the Fatah claim of responsibility for the double suicide bombings in Tel Aviv. Shahin is being held at a detention center in Gaza City belonging to the Palestinian General Intelligence, where he is being questioned about the source of his report. Palestinian officials expressed outrage at the report on al Jazeera, according to which Fatah's armed wing, Aksa Martyrs' Brigades, had claimed responsibility for the Tel Aviv carnage, in which 22 people were killed and more than 100 wounded. The correspondent, who has been allowed to keep his cellular phone, said Monday his arrest was the result of a political decision. He said he was being treated well by his interrogators. He also said that his report was based on a phone call from a Fatah activist who claimed responsibility for the attacks. Hatem Abdel Kader, a prominent Fatah official from Jerusalem, condemned the arrest of the al Jazeera journalist and called on the PA to release him. Previous article Next article add your comments

Treason by americus 11:00am Wed Jan 8 '03 print comment IAF Chief Urges Treason Trials For Gush Shalom Thursday, 22 August 2002, 10:37 am Press Release: Gush Shalom Wed, 21 Aug 2002 http://www.gush-shalom.org/ = = = = = = = = IAF chief Major General Dan Halutz urges treason trials for Gush Shalom activists -- Gush Shalom calls for international support and assistance by international lawyers = = = = = = = = The following headline appears on the frontpage in Ha'aretz Hebrew, as well as on the English internet edition (not in the English printed edition): IAF Chief Urges Treason Trials For Leftist Gush Shalom Activists In a preview to a big interview Ha'aretz Correspondent Vered Levy-Barzilai writes: Attacking leftist Gush Shalom activists for threatening to extradite Israeli air force pilots to the international court at the Hague for alleged war crimes, IAF Commander Major General Dan Halutz has urged brining the activists to trial. "What I have to say about those people is this: we live in a democratic country, and expressing an opinion is always allowed, but betrayal is not allowed," Halutz told Ha'aretz in an interview. When asked if he suggests placing the Gush Shalom activists on trial on charges of treason, he replied, "The proper offense as defined by law should be found, and they should be tried in Israel." In his first interview since the controversial July 23 air strike on a crowded Gaza neighborhood that kill Hamas military leader Salah Shehadeh, as well as 15 civilians including nine children, Halutz said "The decision making process was correct, balanced, and careful. The problem was with the information, the information changed. I reject all the criticism about this operation, before, during and after." Halutz referred to the operation as "militarily and morally" proper. He said that it is legitimate to strike at a terrorist even if innocent bystanders will be hurt. "I have no doubt about it," he said. "Against a man who committed or is positively known to have the planning in hand for 'mega-terror,' my answer is categorically yes. How many people? I don't know." [So far the preview of the interview with the Air Force commander - to appear in the weekend supplement.] We sent you earlier the comments of the Prime Minister after he visited the Air Force base. It's clear that there is a concerted effort to silence Gush Shalom and put its activists behind bars. And with Major General Dan Halutz suggesting to try us for treason - be aware that treason is the only offense in Israel for which there exists capital punishment, though it has not been applied since 1948. In the media expressions of the Israeli governmental and military leadership Gush Shalom is becoming more and more of a giant. For the simple action of having sent warning letters to a number of officers, with copies to the ministry and to the press (by the way: none was sent to pilots!) we are now already depicted as "threatening to extradite Israeli air force pilots". The IAF chief actually tries to defend the act of throwing a one ton bomb, in the night of July 22/23, on an appartment building in Gaza, killing 15 civilians, among them nine children, together with Hamas leader Shehadeh [an hour after Palestians agreed on a cease-fire). Opposition leader Yossi Sarid defined it as an act of state terrorism, and not him alone. In these circumstances it seems we are now made into the scapegoat for all the national and international criticism which was expressed, and which reportedly is greatly worrying the involved pilots. Halutz' attitude of "no regret, on the contrary" was reason for us to apply today to the IDF Judge Advocate General asking him to prosecute the general and the subordiantes directly involved. We wrote that general Halutz' continuing assertion that there was nothing wrong with the bombing and that it would be also in the future justified, is making an investigation of the matter all the more urgent. With the fury of all those who know they don't have a clean record directed against us we have called upon our international contacts to form an international support group, and for a committee of international lawyers to assist us. add your comments

More Treason by americus 11:02am Wed Jan 8 '03 print comment Middle East studies in the News From survey: Stanford University From survey: Middle East Studies Association (MESA) Treason of the Academics by Stephen Schwartz FrontPage Magazine July 22, 2002 One of the more ridiculous incidents in the 21st century history of the "treason of the intellectuals" – in America we might better say, "of the academics" – occurred on July 16 when Stanford professor Joel Beinin, the current president of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) delivered himself of a panicked e-mail warning that MESA members' programs are under "public attack." Beinin, whose pose is that of a socialist intellectual, and whose academic work is frequently neo-Leninist, seems to have forgotten the first rule of the Bolshevik: keep a cool head in battle. But that is a habit, appropriate to more than one political program, that is in short supply among the post-60s professoriate. Ever vigilant – rather like a masochist awaiting the sting of the whip – against the specter of some new demand for conformity to American values, they daily see new imitators of Joe McCarthy on the horizon. Disorderly fear is their favorite mode; they thrive on new threats. But let us not doubt his patriotism: Beinin probably imagined himself in the role of Paul Revere, when he cautioned MESA members that "mean spirited, ad hominem, and spurious" criticism, which he dramatized as an "assault," menaced them, well, in the way some people seem to think the United States is menaced by Islamic extremism. The U.S., according to Beinin, is currently inflicted by a "xenophobic atmosphere," in which Middle East scholars can expect pressure to "slavish(ly) parrot… whatever pronouncements come from Washington policy makers." The source of Beinin's anxiety attack was a report that Congress had been called on to shift federal funds from MESA-backed academic centers to "more reliably ‘patriotic' sources of Middle East expertise." Beinin therefore called on his troops to defend their campus budgets by such acts as writing op-eds for the recusant leftist Pacific News Service. Here, unfortunately, is another failure of Bolshevik will by comrade Beinin; like nearly all his cohort, he has no sense of audacity, and writing an op-ed has become the maximum of commitment. Of course, most of this matter has the air of hallucination. The war on terror is being fought by arms, not by the writing of op-eds or dissertations, and a critical reorientation of Middle East studies in the U.S., although necessary, is hardly at the top of the Bush administration's military-political agenda. But Beinin is less exercised, in his e-mail, by the substance of his claims, than by a fearful trio of "enemies" he names as Bushite inquisitors seeking to purge the fearless academics – oh yes, Beinin does mention that MESA members' "understandings of the Middle East are often at variance with popularly held views." Courageous dissenters they are, to a man, woman, or indeterminate gender – bravely equipped with unbreakable tenure at the leading universities of the richest country in the world. Who are the three hard guys on their way to terrorize the frightened little town of MESA? The first is the number one target of verbal abuse by Islamic extremists in America, Daniel Pipes of the Philadelphia-based, and academically independent, Middle East Forum. Although he defends Islam as a religion, including Qur'an and Shariah, from claims that they are inherently flawed, or represent obstacles to the modernization and democratization of Muslim societies, he has been labeled an "Islam-basher" because of his detailed denunciation of Islamic extremism. One does not have to agree with everything that Pipes says or writes to recognize that he has been unfairly transformed into a public ogre by the partisans of suicide terrorism; one would not be surprised to hear that certain Arab American mothers warn their children that if they don't go to sleep, Pipes will get them. Certainly, this is how Beinin uses his name: as the epitome of evil, more or less the way the Stalinists, a couple of generations ago, referred to Trotsky. Pipes's associates in the trio of troublemakers heading for the beleaguered scholars' redoubt are Martin Kramer, a Pipes associate as editor of the Middle East Quarterly, and Stanley Kurtz, a Hoover Institution fellow. Kramer was exceptionally obnoxious, according to Beinin, for publishing a rather mild critique, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, issued by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Kurtz is a pleasant but acerbic presence in various national policy debates. Beinin views Kramer's book as something just short of a mass arrest warrant for leftist Middle East scholars, signed by Attorney General Ashcroft. In reality, Pipes and Kramer are serious thinkers about Middle East issues, whose views are seldom predictable and almost never in line with a particular orthodoxy. They use well-honed intellectual habits to derive analyses from a mass of confusing data, rather than, as MESA members do, attempting to enclose the multiple contradictions of the Middle East and the Islamic world in an obsolete and rigid ideological framework. However, Pipes and Kramer are also supporters of Israel, which makes them ominous to the MESA leftists. Kramer's book makes a point that could be applied to the entire academic social science field in the West today: the ideologization of Middle East studies led to so-called "scholars" apologizing for or ignoring the rise of Islamic extremism. Look, for example, at Beinin's published works, which feature titles that sound as if they were deliberately crafted to echo pamphlets issued in Moscow 60 years ago: Workers on the Nile: Nationalism, Communism, Islam, and the Egyptian Working Class (Princeton, 1987); Was the Red Flag Flying There? Marxist Politics and the Arab-Israeli Conflict in Egypt and Israel (California, 1990), and Workers and Peasants in the Modern Middle East, Cambridge, 2001 (!) Anybody with the slightest knowledge of the Arabic and Islamic world should immediately recognize the feverish, 60s-leftover narcissism represented by the production of such volumes. Communism has never taken hold in a single Arab country, even as a movement, except for the brief Soviet regime in South Yemen, and it really has no history in the Arab world. Nobody, but nobody, anywhere in the world today cares whether the red flag of true socialism ever flew on either side of the Egyptian-Israeli conflict; the Arab-Israeli relationship provided the most stark and devastating rebuttal to socialist fantasies about the international unity of the workers anyone could ever imagine. The "worker/peasant" paradigm is utterly discredited as a methodological tool for understanding Arab society. There are many, too many precedents for self-delusion and corruption in the American academy, leading to a broader national obliviousness about the dangers lurking in international politics. The entire field of Soviet, East European, and South Slavic studies in the West was morally destroyed by the collapse of the Soviet empire and Yugoslavia, both of which previously generated thousands of useless academic theses. I will never forget the 1992 Phoenix convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies (AAASS), at which I was a discussant on the topic of Croatian Jewry. Indeed, the "post-Yugoslav" panels at AAASS in Phoenix were notable as among the few offering fresh approaches to scholarly issues. In most of the rest, academics who had based their careers on the presumption that the USSR would last forever, wept, beat their breasts, and rent their garments in anguish. "History has failed us," one distinguished academic moaned. The Soviet Union had disappeared and their expertise had sunk with it. Worst of all, most of them had finished their papers for the convention late in 1990, and were unprepared for the final coup and collapse in 1991. Academic Soviet experts could not see the downfall of the Soviet Union approaching, even though they had been told for decades how brittle the system was; their counterparts in the Yugoslav field could not see the failure of "self-managed socialism" and the coming of an interethnic bloodbath (even though the most isolated woodcutter in the Bosnian hinterland knew what was up). Almost nobody in the American academy considered Albania or Kosovo worthy of serious study, and there remain virtually no programs covering this area in American universities today, even though U.S. troops are committed to the region. The ideological sclerosis of the American social science field is nearly absolute. How many anthropologists mentioned, during the Nicaraguan contra war, the issue of indigenous survival by the Miskitu and other communities repressed by the Sandinistas? How many have examined the fraudulent propaganda about indigenous rights purveyed by the Mexican pseudo-Zapatistas and such demagogues as the Nobel Academy's favored "Indian," Rigoberta Menchu? Who writes honestly from the American academy on the Vietnam war, the so-called McCarthy era, anti-Communist labor unionism in America? The list of obscured, ignored, and deliberately confused topics is so long as to be dismaying to consider. Of course, there is an urgency about the situation in MESA that was absent in these earlier cases. With all their depredations against democracy, the West, and America, neither the Russian Communists, nor the Serbian ultras, nor the Sandinistas, nor the domestic leftists of the past, committed an act like the September 11th attacks. In failing to discern, and educate the American leadership and public, about the real threat of Islamic extremism, the Middle East studies mafia – to call it as it is – disarmed the country in the face of great danger. I have special knowledge of this because my new book, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror, documents perhaps the most outrageous academic, media, and political coverup of modern times: the willful campaign to suppress worldwide awareness of the violent extremism harbored by the Wahhabi death cult, the official Islamic sect in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism is not a subject that drew much attention from MESA, at least before September 11. Here's a little test you can do yourself: pick up almost any volume by MESA members on Islam and the Arab world and see how much attention is given to Wahhabism or to the promotion of extremism by Saudi Arabia. The topic is either absent or the cult is treated with the greatest respect. John L. Esposito, head of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, is a former president of MESA. He recently published a book titled Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam (Oxford). Esposito has been somewhat embarrassed by his previous enthusiastic advocacy for the view that Islamic extremism represented an understandable response to the errors of American policy, which fostered social injustice and other grievances in the Muslim world. But Esposito was even more embarrassed by the unfortunate fact – pointed out by Stanley Kurtz – that when Bin Laden's agents slammed jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 11, the Fletcher Forum magazine remained on the newsstands with an article by him, titled "The Future of Islam," decrying the obsession with Bin Laden on the part of American political leaders. With the publication of Unholy War, he somewhat clumsily attempted to rectify his mistakes while holding to his original theses. Other affiliates of Esposito's Center offered grotesque distortions of the situation of American Islam to the wider media after September 11. Dr. Zahid Bukhari, a fellow of the Center, declared, "Muslims in this country are blending with each other. There is more convergence and more acceptance of each other's opinion." This nonsense was emitted at a time when Shi'a Islam and Sufism, or Islamic spirituality, were completely excluded from most mosques as well as the dominant Islamic advocacy groups. Professor Yvonne Y. Haddad, a specialist in Islamic history at the Center, put forward the claim that Wahhabism in America was "very insignificant," adding, "The Saudi influence weakened considerably in the 1990's, as many believers stopped being Muslims living in America and became American Muslims." This was either fantasy or deliberate deceit. In MESA, powerful but varied interests, from the left and right, but equally inimical to America, come together. Beinin dreams about the red flag on the Nile while Esposito fronts for the Saudi monarchy. In this sense, the area is even more rotten than Soviet or Latin American studies were in their time. Frankly, Sheriff Beinin needs to turn in his star and let Pipes, Kramer, and Kurtz clean the town up for good. Note: News items about Middle East studies do not necessarily reflect the views of Campus Watch add your comments

What a rant by John Veldhuis 9:10am Thu Jan 9 '03 print comment Where does this Steven Plaut get his pills from? US Air Force? add your comments

John Veldhuis - Neonazi and Holocaust Denier by Bar Kochba 9:48am Thu Jan 9 '03 print comment http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2002/10/6738.shtml add your comments

Pathetic by John Veldhuis 3:23pm Thu Jan 9 '03 print comment It is getting really pathetic. As they can't win by arguments when I compare what happens in and around Israel to what happened in the other (former) Apartheid State of South Africa, so they start calling me Anti-semite NeoNazi Holocaust Denier Isn't there a law against that in Israel? Oh I forgot, there is (almost) no justice in Israel for non-jews. Let me feed your anger by stating that the Palestinian townships, as surrounded by settlers and army, remind me of another city. Ever heard of Theresienstadt? Oh and please inform me when the Palestinian Only road between Gaza and Hebron is ready. add your comments

Here is something for Herr Veldhuis, by josh 4:53pm Thu Jan 9 '03 print comment For veldhuis, the Indymedia resident nazi: http://www.gifs.net/animate/bmoon.gif add your comments

Poor souls by John Veldhuis 7:15am Fri Jan 10 '03 print comment If the situation of the Palestinians wasn't so sad I would be laughing. What's next? Kidnapping? More death threats? a 1 ton bomb? It seems the real nature of the colonists and occupiers shows its ugly face again. add your comments

SIeg Veldhuis by Harvey 7:48am Fri Jan 10 '03 print comment http://masada2000.org/BetterWorld.html add your comments

Veldhuis' Fantasies? by Harvey 8:32am Fri Jan 10 '03 print comment So tell us, Veldhuis, what exactly first attracted you to nazism and what do you find the most exciting part about being a nazi? Is it that you fantasize about Eva Braun when you are jerking off? add your comments

Leftists are Racist Morons by joshua 8:37am Fri Jan 10 '03 print comment Ann Coulter: Leftists Love Hate Speech Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com Wednesday, June 26, 2002 Editor's note: This is part one of a review of Ann Coulter's new book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right." See NewsMax.com's exclusive interview with her. If I were a liberal I’d lay awake nights worrying that I might somehow attract the attention of Ann Coulter and find myself in the sights of a writer the Washington Post’s Lloyd Grove calls a "human Uzi." In her new book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right," Coulter takes aim at leftists' hate speech, hypocrisy, lies and elitism. She lets loose a barrage that will leave her targets riddled with the truth they fear much as vampires fear crucifixes. From the opening line, "Political debate in this country is insufferable," to the closing lines describing liberals as "savagely cruel bigots who hate Americans and lie for sport," Coulter never lets up. Her theme revolves around the fact that American "liberals" are utterly bankrupt intellectually and spiritually, recoiling from the truth. As William Buckley once explained that the late Robert Kennedy refused to appear on his TV show "Firing Line" for the same reason that "baloney rejects the meat grinder," leftists cannot allow themselves to be exposed to facts. Faced with cold, hard facts, they can respond only with invective and lies. As a political philosophy American "liberalism" is among the walking dead. Like the character in the movie "The Trouble With Harry," it refuses to stay buried. With this book Coulter has taken her literary scalpel in hand, autopsied the corpse and exposed the great void she found within its rotting but still-talking carcass. It is devoid of guts; all that remains is the stench. This book will get your juices flowing and make you eager to join Coulter in the front lines where, as some Union army officer once told Gen. Phil Kearney when he asked where he should put his troops during the Peninsula campaign, "Anywhere, General, the fighting is lovely all along the line." Part One When All Else Is Lost, Liberals Resort to Slander Leftists have forgotten how to debate. "Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal argument. Logic is not their metier. Blind religious faith is," Ann Coulter writes in "Slander." She describes the liberal catechism as a creed that includes: "A hatred of guns, the profit motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion, the environment and race discrimination … the most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned tones than liberals responding to statistics on concealed-carry permits." The same leftists who are so eager to invent unconstitutional "hate crimes" laws eagerly practice hate speech. Noting the left-wing domination over "every major means of news dissemination for a quarter century," she goes on to catalog the wall-to-wall liberal propaganda to which the nation is exposed from dawn to dusk. Americans, she reminds us, wake up in the morning listening to "Today Show" host Katie Couric "berating Arlen Specter about Anita Hill 10 years after the hearing," or "haranguing Charlton Heston on the need to stop school shootings." Co-host Matt Lauer mourns the government’s "failure" to pass a law decreeing national vacation time, and the New York Times "breathlessly announces 'Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans'" without mentioning that the same feeling is shared by all those political prisoners rotting away in Castro’s dungeons. Time magazine’s Barbara Ehrenreich "gives two thumbs up to the Communist Manifesto," which Coulter reminds us resulted in the slaughter of at least 100 million people. Then comes the letters to the editor of the New York Times, written by "pathetic little parakeet males [was she describing Rep. Henry Waxman?] and grim, quivering, angry women on the Upper West Side of Manhattan hoping to be chosen as that day’s purveyor of hate ("I was reminded by your editorial that Bush wasn’t even your average politically aware Yalie; he was busy branding freshmen at his fraternity house.") Then, of course, we come to the evening hours, where Mr. Dan Rather can be found "falsely accusing Republicans of all manner of malfeasance or remarking that a president who has been impeached, disbarred, and held in contempt for his lies is an 'honest man.'" Rather takes few pains to conceal his blatant bias, as recently commented on by his "60 Minutes" colleague Andy Rooney, who told Larry King that Gunga Dan is "transparently liberal." To Rather, a prosecutor such as Ken Starr investigating a Democrat miscreant is always "a Republican prosecutor," unless he’s a Democrat investigating a member of the GOP; the House is always the "Republican-controlled House," but the Senate is never "the Democrat-controlled Senate." Coulter’s point: "Instead of actual debate about ideas and issues with real consequences, the country is trapped in a political discourse that increasingly resembles professional wrestling. The ‘Compassionate Conservative’ takes on the ‘Republicans balancing the budget on the backs of then poor.’" Leftists respond to reasonable Republican arguments by alleging they are "planning a second holocaust. No matter how inured one becomes to liberal hate speech, the regularity with which Republicans are compared to Nazis still astonishes." She cites the following examples: Speaking of the GOP’s Contract With America, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said, "When I compare this to what happened in Germany, I hope you see the similarities to what is happening to us." Rep. Major Owens, D-N.Y., chimed in with, "These are people who are practicing genocide with a smile; they’re worse than Hitler." Former Rep. Patricia Shroeder, D-Colo., charged that surgeon general nominee Henry Foster was "goose-stepping over women’s rights" and told League of Women Voters that Rush Limbaugh’s listeners "are the ones who are goose stepping." Socialists seem to forget that Nazi, of course, stands for National Socialist. Coulter recalls that left-wingers, while recoiling in horror from the idea of calling a woman ugly, had no trouble suggesting that "the ugliest women ever to darken the planet are Paula Jones, Linda Tripp and [Florida Secretary of State] Katherine Harris." Coulter adds, "This, from the party of Bella Abzug." Liberals, Coulter writes are "painfully self-righteous, they have fantastic hatreds, and they could not see the other fellow’s position if you prodded them with hot pokers. They are United States senators, New York Times editors, news anchors and TV personalities. "And they are completely unhinged." Next: Those left-wing snobs. Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: Dan Rather/CBS DNC Media Bias A product that might interest you: Ann Coulter tells how the left slanders conservatives add your comments

Don't ask me by John Veldhuis 10:53am Fri Jan 10 '03 print comment Don't ask me, i have never been attracted to nazism, and the only people calling me a nazi or anti-semite are people that really should know better, and they only dare do it anonymously, very brave. I am still not sure if these people are the perfect example of pro-Israeli fascism, or are faking it to give Israel a bad (or worse) name. add your comments

Not just US Liberals by John Veldhuis 11:05am Fri Jan 10 '03 print comment "Faced with cold, hard facts, they can respond only with invective and lies." "When All Else Is Lost, Liberals Resort to Slander" "Leftists have forgotten how to debate. "Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal argument. Logic is not their metier. Blind religious faith is," " My remark: It looks like you can easily replace "Liberals" or "Leftist" with "Likud", "IDF-representatives", or simply the racists on Indymedia Israel trying to accuse me of being a nazi. add your comments

Being Pro human rights is tantamount ... by being a nazi ? 11:21pm Fri Jan 10 '03 print comment Dear John, As a Jew, I am just as offended by their rediculous assumtions concerning being a nazi as I think you are. add your comments

Stupid Leftsists vs. Satanic Leftists by Truth 5:36pm Sat Jan 11 '03 print comment It is impossible to understand politics in the world today without grasping the fundamental fact that there exist two different Lefts. I propose that the two be referred to by everyone as the Stupid Left and the Satanic Left. The two are very different, although they work together. People who are part of the first are simply stupid people. People who are part of the second may in fact be quite shrewd, but are evil and nefarious. There is no third type of leftist. Over time, the Stupid Left has been losing its numbers, as many Stupid Leftists either become smarter or morph into Satanic Leftists, and so desist from being mere Stupid Leftists. So a process of selection is occurring whereby the strength of the Satanic Left within the overall Left grows. The anti-American demonstrations we have been witnessing in Europe and the United States are attended by both kinds of Leftists, although they were organized by Satanic Leftists. Both the Stupid Left and the Satanic Left demonstrate together against the United States, in favor of Saddam Hussein, in favor of destroying Israel and in favor of Palestinian terrorism. But they do so for different reasons. The Stupid Left really thinks that if the U.S. leaves Iraq alone, Saddam will refrain from developing weapons of mass destruction. The Satanic Left supports Iraq precisely because it knows that Saddam will develop them — and will use them. The Stupid Left is anti-American because it thinks people in America are oppressed, poor, mistreated and that America is an evil country. The Satanic Left is anti-American precisely because it knows the opposite is the case. The Stupid Left hates America because it thinks America promotes evil, oppressive regimes around the world. The Satanic Left hates America because America gets in the way of the evil, oppressive regimes that the Satanic Left promotes. The Stupid Left denounces capitalism and globalization and supports communism because it really believes that people are poor and oppressed under capitalism but free and happy under socialism. The Satanic Left denounces capitalism and supports communism precisely because it knows that the opposite is the case. The Stupid Left does not know that communism produces gulags. The Satanic Left supports communism precisely because it produces gulags and also because the Satanic Leftists presume they will be placed in charge of the gulags. The Stupid Left wants a Palestinian state because it thinks that such a state will pursue peace alongside Israel. The Satanic Left wants a Palestinian state precisely because it knows such a state will launch a war of destruction against Israel and endless atrocities against the Jews. The Stupid Left thinks Israel mistreats Arabs. It does not know that Arab regimes mistreat Arabs. The Satanic Left knows Israel does not mistreat Arabs and Arab regimes do. It wants Israel destroyed not because it thinks Israel is unjust, but rather because it hates Jews. The Stupid Left opposes Israeli armed force being used to suppress terror because it thinks that terror can be resolved through dialogue and negotiations. The Satanic Left opposes Israeli armed force being used to suppress terror because it supports terror against Jews. The Stupid Left is convinced that most Arabs seek peace, are moderate and decent people, and have a legitimate grievance against the West. The Satanic Left supports Arab aggression and terror precisely because it knows this is not true. The Stupid Left thinks that Palestinian leaders and Arab nationalists are progressive and liberal. The Satanic Left supports the same people precisely because it knows they are fascists. The Stupid Left is under the impression that Arab states have elections and freedom and enlightenment. The Satanic Left supports Arab regimes because they want to destroy Israel and murder Jews. The Stupid Left thinks the West should not place its Arab residents under surveillance because they are decent people and loyal to their adopted countries. The Satanic Left opposes such surveillance because it wants more Bin Ladens. The Stupid Left thinks that Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace. The Satanic Left wants the settlers evicted or killed because they are an obstacle to the Palestinians destroying Israel. The Stupid Left thinks the Middle East conflict is about Arab human rights. The Satanic Left knows the Middle East conflict is about suppressing Jewish human rights. They support this suppression. The Stupid Left thinks the Middle East conflict is about land and borders. The Satanic Left knows it is about Israel`s existence. The Stupid Left thinks Israel is a discriminatory, apartheid country. The Satanic Left wants Israel destroyed so that the Arabs can impose an apartheid regime directed against the Jews and any other non-Moslems. The Stupid Left believes it is trying to reform and change America. The Satanic Left wants to destroy America. The Stupid Left thinks socialism works. The Satanic Left wants socialism because it knows it does not. The Stupid Left thinks it is opposing racism. The Satanic Left`s fundamental urge is to impose its own mode of racism and anti-Semitism on the world. The Stupid Left thinks Zionism is a form of racism. The Satanic Left supports anti-Zionism precisely because it is a form of anti-Semitism. The Stupid Left chooses its political positions on the basis of the desire by leftists to make their mommies and daddies mad. So does the Satanic Left, but they really hate their parents. The Stupid Left says it favors equality. The Satanic Left favors transferring power to itself so that it can oppress others. The Stupid Left supports Marxist groups all over the world because it thinks these are non-violent and favor pluralism. The Satanic Left supports them because they know these are violent and totalitarian. The Stupid Left thinks animals should be treated like humans. The Satanic Left thinks humans should be treated like animals. The Stupid Left wants socialism because it thinks that people will not have to work under socialism and because it thinks that leftists will have a lot of friends under socialism. The Satanic Left wants socialism because Satanic Leftists will not have to work under socialism while they turn everyone else into slaves, and because they`ll get to shoot their friends. add your comments

Nothing settled about settlements by palestinazis 10:36pm Mon Jan 13 '03 print comment Nothing Settled About Settlements 12-7-2002 There is a world-wide consensus that Israel's so-called "settlements" are a bad idea. Here are some typical quotes, clipped from the news in the last few days: "[Settlement activity] severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope. It preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations and in doing so cripples chances for real peace and security. The US has long opposed settlement activity, and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop." (US Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, reported in Jerusalem Post, 12-4-02) "[Israeli] settlements are widely viewed as illegal under international law, which prohibits military forces from establishing their own communities in the areas they occupy." (Boston Globe, 12-5-02) "I must also make it clear that (Britain) has long considered such settlements illegal and an obstacle to the peace." (British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Jerusalem Post 12-6-02) What Are the Settlements? The word "settlements" has become a code for whatever Jews are doing about living in areas claimed by Palestinian Arabs. These are actually communities -- some small, some large -- where Jewish people have chosen to live. Most of them are found hugging the Green Line, the cease-fire lines established at the end of the War of Independence in 1948-1949. Settlements include neighborhoods in Jerusalem, expansion of existing communities across the Green Line, or new communities in areas of the disputed territories. There are a few large communities, such as Ariel in Samaria; those larger towns hold about half of the settlement population of 200,000 plus, not counting another 170,000 or so who live in areas of Jerusalem annexed to Israel after the 1967 Six Day War. This is nothing new -- since the first Jews returned to Hebron in 1967, both Labor and Likud governments have permitted settlements, sometimes encouraging them and sometimes trying to throttle them for political reasons. The communities continue to grow and population figures are up even in the face of increased terrorism in the last few years. Are Settlements on 'Arab Land'? The areas seized by Israel in 1967 from Jordan and Egypt are called the "West Bank" and the "Gaza Strip" respectively. In all of history before about 1950 they were Judea, Samaria and Gaza, part of Eretz Yisrael. The ancient history of Judea and Samaria as the setting for the Bible, the homeland of the Jews starting with Abraham, is well known. But also Gaza, where Samson brought down the temple, has deep roots in Jewish history, as Michael Freund writes in the Jerusalem Post this week: "After the Exodus from Egypt, when the tribes of Israel were apportioned various parts of the Promised Land, Gaza was given to the Tribe of Judah (see Joshua 15:47 and Judges 1:18) as its share of the eternal inheritance. Since we are celebrating the festival of Hanukka this week, it is worth recalling that the Hasmonean king Yochanan, brother of Judah the Maccabee, retook Gaza in 145 BCE and his brother, Shimon, sent Jews to settle there, hundreds of years before the advent of Islam. In the fourth century, some 1,600 years before the establishment of the PLO, Gaza served as the primary port of commerce for the Jews of the Holy Land." But, some will say, that's all ancient history; in the modern world this is Palestinian Arab land. Sorry, but that is true only if you accept the topsy-turvy, stand-history-on-its-head version created for propaganda purposes. The web format of this memo explores the whole background of the issue and shows why Israel and Jews have as much right to the land as anyone else. Are Settlements Illegal? The current borders are a result of the series of wars since 1948. The last sovereign ruler of the disputed land, with internationally recognized borders, was the Ottoman Empire before 1918. The only definite borders are those established by treaties between Israel and neighboring countries -- the West Bank and Gaza are not defined as any country's territory by any of the treaties. The land of the West Bank and Gaza is disputed territory and Israel has the right to occupy, administer, or withdraw to negotiated borders based on the defensive wars forced on Israel by its hostile Arab neighbors. Various UN resolutions that have addressed the issue -- such as the famous UN Security Council Resolution 242 -- only require Israel to negotiate a settlement. No UN resolution requires Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the disputed territories. All land that settlements occupy was land that was legally acquired or belonged to the state, not private individuals. There is no stolen land. Anyone who thinks their land was not legally acquired can go to court in Israel for compensation, fair courts that frequently find in favor of Arab plaintiffs. Some land has been taken by process of eminent domain, for public works, or has been cleared for defensive military purposes, but always with compensation and with due process. (Of course, there was never compensation for land and valuables taken from Jews who were expelled from other countries. What's Wrong With This Picture? There is, to me, a larger issue. Why can't Jews (and Christians and others) live where they want in Islamic countries? The refusal of Islamic countries to allow Jews to live there is scurrilous racism of the worst kind. In any civilized country behavior like that would be denounced and, in many places, would violate the law. But in all the Arab and Islamic countries they shout from the rooftops "No Jews Allowed" and this is accepted by the world. Specifically, regarding the areas in the West Bank and Gaza, let's suppose for a moment that it was exclusively Arab land (remember, not true). Even if it was, why is it a "war crime", "atrocity" or an unacceptable affront for Jews to want to settle there? In the United States we see Mexicans, Japanese, Muslims from all over, and many others come here in large numbers and establish communities. If anyone dares voice some concern (just voice concern, not actually do anything) it causes an uproar about racism. Why no uproar about racist, anti-Semitic, outrageous speech and behavior by Islamic/Arab countries who refuse to admit even one Jew and actively incite violence against Jews outside their borders? Why is it OK that Israel cannot even stamp the passport of anyone who expects to go to an Arab country at a later date? If I, as an American Jew, decided to buy a farm across the border in Canada, not only can I legally do so but I would probably be welcomed by my friendly new neighbors. There would be an expectation of peaceful relationships by all parties. If a dispute arose, there are courts and arbitration available for settlement, almost the definition of civilization. But if an Israeli Jew steps across the Green Line and buys land, he can expect to be the target of killers. Any Arab who sells land to a Jew will be branded a collaborator and is in danger for his life. Where is the world outrage at such an abomination? Where are the leftist groups who range the world looking for problems to solve while Jews are excluded under pain of death from their own traditional lands? As we look forward to a post-Iraq and post-Arafat world, some see new opportunities for peace in the Middle East. I think you can measure the prospects for real peace between Israel and its neighbors by one criterion: when a Jew can buy a farm from an Arab and live there in harmony with his neighbors, then there will be real peace in the region. For the Love of Israel, add your comments

The Socialism of Fools by Bash Leftist Nazis 7:28am Tue Jan 14 '03 print comment Hatred of America - the Socialism of Fools By Michael Gove The Times Online (UK) | January 14, 2003 Tony Blair appears to have set himself his toughest task yet. Neither reforming public services nor maintaining economic stability compares in difficulty to the mission he took on yesterday. For a Labour politician to confront anti-Americanism is to set himself up in opposition to the dominant ideology of the contemporary Left. Knocking America off its superpower pedestal has long supplanted taking control of the commanding heights of the economy as the idea which holds the Left together. Forget Clause Four. That was a dead red letter. It’s opposition to Uncle Sam which is the glue in the Left coalition, the brew which puts fire into bien-pensant bellies, the opium of radical intellectuals. And the crack in Osama bin Laden’s pipe. Anti-Americanism provides the drumbeat for the protesters who march at every significant left-wing rally. Whether the protest is nominally against war, global capitalism or environmental degradation, the real enemy is Washington. Every significant Left intellectual, from Harold Pinter through Dario Fo to Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky has made criticism of the American imperium his defining belief. But Yankee-phobia now extends far beyond the protest march and the academy. The German Social Democrats and Greens put opposition to US foreign policy at the heart of their, successful, re-election strategy last autumn. The Liberal Democrats here have made criticism of US policy towards Iraq the single biggest dividing line between themselves and the Blair Government. The cultural popularity of anti-Americanism, particularly among Britain’s intelligentsia, is striking. The surprise publishing hit of last year was Why do people hate America? by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, a work which set out to reassure readers that hatred of America was more than a rising sentiment, it was a moral duty. The top of the UK bestseller list is Michael Moore’s Stupid White Men, a furious polemic against US foreign, domestic and economic policy by one of its own citizens. The widespread prevalence of anti-Americanism, the cachet accorded to its advocates, the reflexive sniggering triggered by any favourable mention of America’s President, all make opposition to this trend unpopular. But vitally necessary. For Yankee-phobia is, at heart, a dark thing, a prejudice with ugly antecedents which creates unholy alliances. And, like all prejudices, it thrives on myths which will end up only serving evil ends. It is a myth that America is a trigger-happy cowboy state over-eager to throw its weight around, a myth that America seeks to use its undoubted military power to establish an exploitative empire, and a myth that America thrives by impoverishing and oppressing other nations. A trigger-happy starter of wars and provoker of enemies? The truth is that the US has been painstakingly slow to involve itself in foreign conflicts. It hung back from involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo until it was clear that Europe could not manage alone. It refrained from dealing properly with al-Qaeda when that network attacked US embassies in 1998 and, even after 9/11, it waited until a huge international coalition had been assembled before striking back. In Iraq, it refrained from finishing off President Saddam Hussein in 1991 out of deference to its Arab allies. And with North Korea, it has practised diplomacy in the face of nuclear provocation since 1994, out of respect for its regional allies. Even now, in dealing with the dangers posed by Iraq and North Korea, the diplomatic route is followed out of deference to others. An imperial exploiter? The truth is that America seeks to disentangle itself from anything which smacks of neocolonial occupation. It is anxious to bring the boys back home from the Balkans and Afghanistan. The real criticism of weight is that the US should do more on the ground to help failed states rebuild, as it did in Japan and Germany after the Second World War. Which takes us to the myth of America the locust state, the predator on the poorest nations of the Earth. The truth, as the US writer Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, is that America’s influence for good in suffering states is directly measurable in three very different examples. After the Second World War three devastated nations were divided. In each case one part of a culturally unified nation fell under America’s political influence. And in each case — South Korea versus North, West Germany as against East, Taiwan as opposed to Communist China — the territory which took the American path enjoyed greater freedom and prosperity. Why then do the myths of America the Hateful take such powerful hold? Because anti-Americanism provides a useful emotional function which goes beyond logic and reaches deep into the darker recesses of the European soul. In centuries past those on the Left who wished to personalise their hatred of capitalism, who sought to make it emotionally resonant by fastening an envious political passion on to a blameless scapegoat people, embraced anti-Semitism. It was the socialism of fools. Which is what anti-Americanism is now. It should not therefore be surprising that those on the populist Right who share the Left’s antipathy towards the US are those, like the Austrian Freedom Party or the French National Front, who are heirs of anti-Semitic traditions. Nor should it be remarkable that the other tie which binds these allies of new Left and old Right together, the thread linking those such as George Galloway and Jörg Haider, is their hostility to Israel. Both America and Israel were founded by peoples who were refugees from prejudice in Europe. Europe’s tragedy is that prejudice has been given new life, in antipathy to both those states. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Gove writes for the the Times (UK). add your comments

Racist lies and distortions by John Veldhuis 8:33am Tue Jan 14 '03 print comment Can a non-jew buy a farm in Israel? Not very likely. add your comments

... by screwed 8:57am Tue Jan 14 '03 print comment A jew can`t either.The land belongs to the government and the citizens can only lease it.. add your comments

they screw everybody.. by screwed 8:59am Tue Jan 14 '03 print comment A jew can`t either.The land belongs to the government and the citizens can only lease it.. add your comments

Anti-anti-globalization by Commie Basher 10:09am Tue Jan 14 '03 print comment Anti-Anti-Globalization (Politics) By Anatta Tue Jul 10th, 2001 at 09:38:45 PM EST Purpose The purpose of this article is to refute the idea that Faceless International Corporations are going to turn unsuspecting people in emerging democracies into McDrones and Coke addicts, and to suggest that the anti-globalization protesters may well be on course to manipulate people far more than corporate marketing ever could. Introduction Over the past year or so, I have read with interest the papers and news articles about globalization protests. I have had many nagging issues with such ideas, and the logic behind them (though this article ignores environmental issues). In this article, I examine humanity's rational instincts, the powers and limitations of marketing, the protesters' assumed dangers of globalization, the essence of the protests, skewed perspectives, and conclusions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rational Behavior Aristotle once said that man is a rational animal, and it seems to me that rationality still holds today. People in general behave rationally; this rationality is one of the core foundations of virtually all economic theory. In general, people want more rather of a good than less (given an equal choice), are risk-averse, and would rather have consumption/leisure than labor. All of us see examples of irrationality every day, however I would argue that these are rare exceptions in a sea of rationality. Much larger arguments for human rationality can be found in any Economics 101 textbook. For the purpose of this argument, we will assume that by and large, people behave rationally. The Powers of Marketing and Advertising In this section, we will examine the powers and limitations of marketing and advertising. What doesn't marketing and advertising do? Though many people seem to feel that marketing and advertising diabolically manipulates people into purchasing products they don't need, that this is not exactly the case. A simple example of the lack of marketing influence is the tampon. My guess is that most of the users of K5 are male... if I were to assemble a team of the greatest product marketers in the world, from Coke, McDonalds, the Gap, etc., to market and advertise a man's tampon, how many of you K5ers think you'd be manipulated into buying it? I would suggest that very few K5ers would purchase it, and very few men in general would purchase it. The reasons for this are obvious; in order for advertising and marketing to be successful, products must bring at least some utility (useful features) to the purchasers. No matter how many billions of dollars in ad money were spent, with the exception of people who would purchase it for the irony of it, there would be virtually no sales of the male tampon, as it is useless. So if marketing and advertising can't sell items people have no need of, what can they do, and why do we see ads everywhere? What does marketing and advertising do? For the purpose of examining what marketing and advertising do succeed in, probably the easiest item to look at is the sneaker. I would dare to suggest that most K5ers own a pair of sneakers. It's pretty easy to see the benefits of sneakers over either no footwear, or boots and other footwear... among other features, they protect the foot from injury, allow people to run comfortably, keep the feet warm, aid in walking long distances, and are used as a fashion statement. Millions, if not billions, of dollars are spent worldwide marketing sneakers... but if all that marketing and advertising was to stop, would sales of sneakers instantly dry up? I would argue that they would not, as the benefits to owning sneakers are clear. The result of an end to sneaker advertising is that the sales of particular brands would dry up - and this is the heart of marketing. Think about the sneakers you currently own. Some of you no doubt have a pair of $20 non-branded sneakers you purchased from K-Mart. Others have Nike, Adidas, Puma, and countless other brands, sneakers you were willing to pay a premium for because of some feature. Think about why you purchased that brand... for most of us, the reasons we bought sneakers most likely had to do with comfort and feel, color and design, and/or brand and image. Some of us likely paid hundreds of dollars for something that is essentially the same exact thing as a $20 pair of unbranded sneakers from K-Mart. How do we jive such logic with the idea that people behave rationally? Such sneakers are to some degree a status symbol, and people are willing to pay more to associate themselves with the status certain brands bring. This feature is most easily observed among the poor, as it is cheaper to inflate one's perceived wealth and status via clothing than via real estate, education, or other more accurate wealth/status-identifiers. No one is forcing people to purchase such items, and assuming people are rational, the benefit in heightened perceived status from owning branded items must at least equal the cost required for such items. Now, what on earth does all this have to do with Free Trade protests and the WTO? Globalization Many of the anti-globalization protesters fear that Western "consumerism" will ravage the unique, beautiful cultures of many emerging countries. They are alarmed that McDonalds, Coca Cola, and Marlboro will invade, brainwash the people through advertising and marketing, destroy the environment, and expand the "consumer lifestyle", in essence forcing people into purchasing products they don't really need. While I understand the sentiment, I question the logic they use. It seems to me that this is to a large degree an elitist argument, and a specious one. In order to understand why it is an elitist argument, we must examine the demographic of the protesters. Who are the protesters, anyway? I haven't seen any official statistics on the demographics of the anti-globalization protesters, but if I were to venture a guess, I would say that well over 50% of the protesters are 18-25 years old, college educated (or are in the process), likely come from middle to upper-middle class backgrounds (with a solid group of lower-middle class, too), are fairly well-traveled internationally (however I would hazard to guess that not many of the protesters have actually visited the countries they are protesting for), and many eat fast food from time to time, drink soda from time to time, and take part in much of the "consumerist" lifestyle they rage against. Note: I couldn't find much on the demographic of the protesters, other than that most of the Seattle protesters were college educated. Feel free to take issue with any of the assumed demographics, and if you can find info, I would be pleased to see it. The Essence of the Protests The essence of the anti-globalization protests, and the one that I take the most issue with, is that the protesters, to me, are basically saying that they know what's best for people in emerging economies, even more so than the people themselves do. They seek to shepherd people in emerging countries to a panacea of non-marketing and non-advertising in order to protect them from Faceless Global Corporations, while many in these countries are desperate for jobs, education/skills, and the wealth necessary to be able to create a stable future. The reason I find this position so elitist is that it's easy for a "have" to say that "having" isn't all that special, while not giving up any of the "have" himself. The global community should give the "have nots" the opportunity to decide for themselves what is special, and what they want. They may choose not to participate in the global economy, but by offering it to them, it becomes their choice. Skewed Perspectives of Protesters Assuming people are rational and that even the best marketing can't really sell useless products, I conclude that people in developing countries who wish to purchase McDonalds food and Coca Cola do so because they see benefits to those purchases, whether they be convenience, taste, image, or whatever. Even giant marketing campaigns can't really brainwash people (other than perhaps into purchasing specific brands). People who purchase such items do so for a rational reason, even if for nothing more than the feeling that they are participating in a "Western" culture, a culture arguably as foreign to many in emerging economies as their cultures are to westerners. No one is forcing people into purchasing Big Macs or anything else... the companies are putting their wares up for sale, and people are purchasing the wares they value most... actions not so different from the bazaars and markets currently operating. The protesters, who are part of an extremely exclusive population (worldwide), have no right to tell people what they should and should not purchase. By artificially limiting the ability of others to be exposed to and to purchase products, the protesters are manipulating people far more than any corporation operating in a democracy ever could. By fighting for developing economies' freedom from uber-Corporate control, the protesters are in fact limiting the freedom of the people to choose their own destiny. Conclusions China, Japan, Mexico, and many other countries have become economically significant well after the typical "western" world of Europe and America... each culture has changed from the influx of western products and wealth, but in my mind the cultures have in no way been diminished. In Tokyo, the most "futuristic" city on earth, geishas still wander the streets and Kabuki theaters dot the neon-lit landscape... in Bangkok, elephants share the skyscraper-lined streets with cars. If anything, the influx of western ideas of freedom and democracy, mixed with wealth, tend to create a more dynamic cultural landscape than before. Globalization brings jobs, wealth, education, increases in life-span, and other benefits, while allowing consumers to choose from a vast array of products that they can purchase in order to make their lives easier. It seems to me the only brainwashing going on is from the protest organizers. add your comments

What ever happened to peace? by earthling 3:54am Fri Jan 17 '03 print comment What ever happened to peace? All we do is assign blame. We never talk about how peace can happen on an individual level. If the Israeli and Palistinian people got together and deceided to live in harmony, without boarders the leaders would have no choice but to follow. In america we have the freedom to comment and point fingers at every nation in the world except our own. THIS COUNTRY funds ALL WARS. THIS COUNTRY has murder it's own people on its own soil. Kidnapped Africans and made them slaves that built this country and gave them nothing in return not even the right to vote. THIS COUNTRY dropped 2 BOMBS on JAPAN. And one in PHILADELPHIA! THIS COUNTRY PROMOTES WAR ALL OVER THE WORLD! And we the people, bitch out Israel, South Africa, and North Korea. WE gave them the guns. WE the lazy sheep that we are pay taxes on everything and that money funds WAR ALL OVER THE WORLD! We need to wake up and realize our bloated, egotistical commentary means nothing if we do not speak of peace, erasing all boarders, doing away with the "passport" system, and crimininal polititians who rob our children of an education, animals of the right to live, and the earth of a clean environment. We can blame Israel all we want for being the Middle East's South Africa. But, the fact remains WE the UNITED STATES put them there. It is we who are guilty. WE keep the wheels of injustice turning, through tax dollars, a bloated military budget and a false attitude of always being RIGHT. No sorry ass comment on some website is going to change that. add your comments

What ever happened to peace? by earthling 4:03am Fri Jan 17 '03 print comment What ever happened to peace? All we do is assign blame. We never talk about how peace can happen on an individual level. If the Israeli and Palistinian people got together and deceided to live in harmony, without boarders the leaders would have no choice but to follow. In america we have the freedom to comment and point fingers at every nation in the world except our own. THIS COUNTRY funds ALL WARS. THIS COUNTRY has murder it's own people on its own soil. Kidnapped Africans and made them slaves that built this country and gave them nothing in return not even the right to vote. THIS COUNTRY dropped 2 BOMBS on JAPAN. And one in PHILADELPHIA! THIS COUNTRY PROMOTES WAR ALL OVER THE WORLD! And we the people, bitch out Israel, South Africa, and North Korea. WE gave them the guns. WE the lazy sheep that we are pay taxes on everything and that money funds WAR ALL OVER THE WORLD! We need to wake up and realize our bloated, egotistical commentary means nothing if we do not speak of peace, erasing all boarders, doing away with the "passport" system, and crimininal polititians who rob our children of an education, animals of the right to live, and the earth of a clean environment. We can blame Israel all we want for being the Middle East's South Africa. But, the fact remains WE the UNITED STATES put them there. It is we who are guilty. WE keep the wheels of injustice turning, through tax dollars, a bloated military budget and a false attitude of always being RIGHT. No sorry ass comment on some website is going to change that. add your comments

Academic Terrorists by Bash Terrorists 9:03am Mon Jan 20 '03 print comment Terror's Academic Sympathizers By Leslie Carbone FrontPageMagazine.com | December 9, 2002 In his latest video message, Osama bin Laden tried to justify al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on American citizens on the grounds that we pay taxes to our government: "The American people are the financiers of the attacks against us; they are watching — through their elected senators — the spending of taxes that pay for planes bombing us in Afghanistan, armies occupying our land in the Arabian Peninsula, tanks [used] against the Palestinians and fleets putting Iraqi children under siege." But bin Laden missed the diversity of American society. Thus, Americans are also paying taxes to support professors in Middle East Studies programs who openly sympathize with al-Qaeda’s "position" and oppose American values, American interests, and America’s war on terror in the Middle East—and even launched a boycott of a federal program intended to boost U.S. national security by providing scholarships to students who want to study Arabic. The Middle East Studies Association (MESA) was founded in 1966 as a self-described "international organization for those involved in the study of the Middle East" housed at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Today it boasts more than 2,600 members. The strategic importance of the Middle East during the Cold War and the United States’ growing dependence on its oil made the U.S. government sit up and take notice of the region. The government turned to the academy for analysis, offering millions of tax dollars to support studies of the region, and a discipline was, if not born, reborn. Previously, studies of the Middle East had followed a European model that emphasized the humanities, including languages. This old-school model, redolent of dusty Oxford and Heidelberg scholars, could be stuffy and esoteric at times, and presumed the superiority of the West, but it grasped the importance of history, particularly ancient history, in this region and had no trouble facing basic facts like the fact that the Koran commands holy war. It did not suffer from the delusion that everyone is really an American under the skin. The new model de-emphasized both. The move away from teaching languages in particular had dire implications for U.S. national security, as it led to a shortage of people who could actually speak and understand Arabic languages in our intelligence agencies. The crisis that this shortage presented became clear during the 1991 Gulf War. In response, Congress under the leadership of then-Sen. David Boren (D-Okla.) established the National Security Education Program (NSEP), which provides grants to students studying the languages and cultures of regions critical to U.S. national security. In return, graduates are required to work either for federal offices or agencies involved in national security affairs or in higher education. Appalled by the idea of federal grant recipients actually having to work for the money, MESA flipped. MESA, along with the African Studies Association and the Latin American Studies Association, passed resolutions refusing to cooperate with NSEP. Not only did area studies professors refuse to apply for or accept funding from the program (not necessarily a move to be discouraged), but they even refused to recommend the program to potentially interested students. Fending off the competition in this manner, flush with government grants, American Middle East scholars continued to shy away from humanities and emphasized instead the politics of the region, offering predictions on how the area would change. The problem was that they got almost everything wrong. Blinded by ideology and wishful thinking, seduced by tax and foundation money, scholars of the Middle East consistently miscalculated the political climate of the region they claimed to be experts about. Avoiding the politically incorrect topic of Islamic terrorism, Middle East scholars insisted that the United States could bring peace and democracy to the region only by supporting Islamic fundamentalists. According to former MESA president and director of Georgetown University’s Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding John Esposito, Americans needed to "transcend their narrow, ethnocentric conceptualization of democracy" in order to embrace "Islamic democracy", which, "though unlike the Westminster model or the American system", could still prove capable of forging "effective systems of popular participation". In other words, Western bigots needed to get over thinking that their conception of democracy was the only conception of democracy. (Of course, Westerners tend to understand democracy according to its Western conception because democracy is a Western concept. But that’s not politically correct to admit.) As for Islamist terrorism, well, it wasn’t really much of a threat. Most Islamic movements had realized that violence was counterproductive. The 1990s, according to Esposito, promised "to be a decade of new alliances and alignments in which the Islamic movements will challenge rather than threaten their societies and the West". MESA member Fawaz Gerges, a Sarah Lawrence professor specializing in international relations of the Arab world, went further, condemning "the terrorist industry" that strikes "fear and horror in the American psyche". In March 2001, Gerges wrote: "Should not observers and academics keep skeptical about the U.S. government’s assessment of the terrorist threat? To what extent do terrorist ‘experts’ indirectly perpetuate this irrational fear of terrorism by focusing too much on farfetched horrible scenarios? Does the terrorist industry, consciously or unconsciously, exaggerate the nature and degree of the terrorist threat to American citizens?" Six months later, refusing to play along with the academy’s kinder and gentler presentation of Islamic extremism, Osama bin Laden "challenged" America. If September 11, 2001, were the first occasion on which bin Laden had issued such a challenge, comments like Gerges’ would be an embarrassment. But they are much more than that, for bin Laden had "challenged" the World Trade Center once before in 1993, the U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. Horrible these harbingers of future attacks were; far-fetched they were not. The academics just didn’t want to be confused with the facts. Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the hubris and hypocrisy infecting the academy would have expected the flames of last September to burn the blinders off the eyes of Middle East scholars once and for all. That someone would have been wrong. Six days after September 11, Stanford University professor of Middle East History Joel Beinin delivered a speech titled "Why do they hate us?" at a pacifist rally opposing the soon-to-commence war on terrorism. To answer his question, Beinin cited the "sight of American-supplied F-16 fighters and Apache helicopters bombing civilian targets", U.S. sanctions against Iraq, and, of course, U.S. support of Israel, which has engaged in a 34-year "occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem" and employed "disproportionate … force in attempting to suppress the Palestinian uprising over the last year". Beinin called for Americans to seek to understand "something about the historical conditions that inflamed the rage of those who attacked us on September 11" before they "embark on a long campaign against a shadowy enemy". About ten weeks later, Beinin took office as president of MESA. This telling event transpired at the organization’s annual conference, held that November in San Francisco. If one didn’t look too deeply, the conference actually provided a glimmer of hope that MESA had seen its flawed analysis collapse with the Twin Towers. The light from the fires emanating from the other side of the country revealed a glaring omission from the conference program: There was no discussion scheduled on terrorism, owing naturally to the discipline’s see-no-evil approach to its region of interest. While rescue workers crawled through the rubble of the towers looking for victims, MESA conference organizers scrambled to throw a terrorism panel together, and it looked for a moment as though reality might be getting through. That illusion crumbled as soon as the panel itself began. According to The New Republic, presenter after presenter referred to "so-called terrorism". Picking up a baton from their newly minted president, the assembled academics criticized and condemned America. Blasting the war on (so-called) terrorism, Georgetown’s Michael Hudson declared, "We have not shown that our actions differentiate us from those who attacked us." Taking MESA’s reins at the conference, Beinin inherited the spectacular unveiling of his field’s blindness. While bin Laden provided the visual effects in September, Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers of Sand, an analysis of the Middle Eastern studies field hit the bookstores a month later. The book’s publication ignited a controversy over MESA and particularly over their continued presence on the federal dole. Hoover Institution fellow Stanley Kurtz, in particular, questioned the wisdom of pumping Middle East Studies full of cash in view of their resounding failures to provide any useful analysis. The cheek with which leftist ideologues commit the very sins of which they shrilly accuse others is perhaps nowhere better demonstrated than in Beinin’s July 16, 2002, e-mail message to Middle East Studies Center and Program Directors: "You are probably aware that the public attack on American Middle East studies and MESA in particular that began with the publication of Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand has continued throughout the year in the mass media with articles … as well as radio shows by one Stanley Kurtz (a fellow a the Hoover Institution located uncomfortably close to my office)… While the intellectual criticisms of MESA members are mostly mean[-]spirited, ad hominem, and spurious, there is a significant threat to Middle East studies from this assault." Beinin goes on from his slur against Kurtz for writing mean-spirited, ad hominem, and spurious articles about MESA to define the threat: MESA stood to lose its government goodies. In the face of this dreadful threat, Beinin called upon his colleagues to write counter-articles pointing out all the good things Middle East studies provides, advocate "lively discussion of Middle Eastern affairs", and "explain why our understandings of the Middle East are often at variance with popularly held views." In other words, let’s not worry about improving our understanding of our subject matter so as to avoid repeating the failures of the past; let’s just get the public relations machine in gear to make sure we keep our funding. Ah, the academy. * * * Leslie Carbone, former executive director of Accuracy In Academia, is the author of Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform (forthcoming). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- add your comments

Leftist Fascism by Steve Brown 7:06pm Thu Jan 30 '03 print comment The Left's Silence on Islamic Fundamentalism By Stephen Brown FrontPageMagazine.com | January 29, 2003 While Canadian leftists were front and center in demonstrations last week against America's war preparations in the Gulf, shouting their usual hatred against the United States from long-entrenched habit, they have been conspicuously silent about Muslim fundamentalists in their own backyard. There was no reaction from the Canadian Left, for example, to recent revelations that Canadian citizen Mohammed Mansour Jabarah confessed to being an al-Qaeda terrorist. Jabarah is being held in a detention center in Brooklyn since he voluntarily walked across the Canada-US border into American custody last year at Niagara Falls. He was an important al-Qaeda operative in a plot to blow up Western targets in Singapore in 2001 with as many as seven suicide truck bombs. Prior to Jabarah’s confession, the Canadian Left only concerned itself with the fact that the terrorist’s rights may have been violated when he crossed the border, as no lawyer was present when he signed a form waiving those rights. As well, since American officials haven't charged Jabarah, Canadian leftists have also been calling for his release and return to Canada, portraying him as an innocent victim unjustly held by a cruel foreign power. And, as usual with the Left, charges of racism were also made. Jabarah's "illegal" treatment, according to some leftists, was due to his being a Muslim and not a white English- or French-Canadian. But perhaps even more frightening for Canadian society than home-grown Islamic terrorists was an incident at a Toronto mosque over the Christmas holidays. The mosque, patronized by Somali Muslims, sent a message to its members on Christmas Day telling them not to congratulate any non-Muslims on their festivals because it would be like "congratulating a murderer." And any Muslim who wished someone a Merry Christmas "exposes himself to the wrath and anger of Allah." How lovely. The mosque director claimed that it was a junior employee who sent out this notice, and that it was done without permission. However, the director was glaringly remiss in not immediately repudiating this hateful message, thus casting doubt on his claim. In fact, reporters who went to the mosque and interviewed patrons discovered that they agreed with the message's contents. Only after receiving negative exposure in the media did the director finally disclaim this piece of hate literature. Again, as in the Jabarah case, there were no cries of outrage from the Left, the self-appointed watchdog of multicultural tolerance, about this piece of blatant hate-mongering. There were no demands for an investigation and no demonstrations either. And even though a moderate Muslim was quoted as saying this hate-filled outlook towards other religions is becoming widespread in Toronto mosques where, he noted, Wahabbism is taking hold, the Left still remained silent. Another case of leftist tolerance for what it would normally consider intolerable concerns the latest Toronto school board elections, in which two Muslim candidates ran for trustee positions on anti-homosexual platforms. Again, the Left mounted no shrill campaign against them, a striking occurrence when one considers how close the homosexual issue is to its heart. Normally in such cases, leftists would have howled louder and longer than a back-alley tomcat that just had its testicles stepped on, especially if the candidates were Christian fundamentalists. One explanation for the Left's silence concerning Islamic fundamentalism is that it simply doesn't know how to react to a minority group that despises its cherished multiculturalism, has no concept of respect or tolerance for others, believes it is superior to everyone and everything, and even includes such people like Jabarah, who would kill his non-Muslim neighbors with no more feeling than squashing an uninteresting specimen of insect. The Left's naive, irresponsible and dangerously utopian vision for society never considered the possibility that, under multiculturalism, a group with a powerful agenda diametrically opposed to its own would ever establish itself here. In their arrogance and conceit, leftists believed all new immigrants would fit neatly into their societal blueprint and become non-judgmental multiculturalists like themselves. Another reason for the Left's silence is fear. Muslim fundamentalist intolerance is the rock on which Canada's ship of multiculturalism will eventually founder. Some leftists realize this, but fear to confront it, since to do so would reveal they have been wrong about multiculturalism for the past thirty years – and that it was never realizable in the first place. Like with the Soviet Union, Canadian multiculturalism is another failed leftist experiment. But the Canadian Left would rather stay silent and witness a complete collapse of its dream than admit that yet another one of its destructive, social-engineering theories is a catastrophe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Brown is a journalist based in Toronto. He has an M.A. in Russian and Eastern European Studies. Email him at alsolzh@hotmail.com. add your comments

shut up... morons! by no way beeootch 5:02am Mon Feb 3 '03 print comment bullshit to that! Of course, another important piece of info psuedo-intellects such as yourself avoid telling morons who believe the SHITE written herin, is that these so-called refugees were granted full israeli citzenship in 1948 and they REFUSED. Wanna know why? Because they were DEFEATED by the Americas and the west. It's time the Arab people stop blaming others for their problems and do something about it... life is not easy. you must educate yourself and you will achieve what you set out to do in life. Stop blaming the Jewish people and innocent Israelis who have done nothing to deserve this mud-slinging. Why don't you do the world a favor and start focusing your wrath on the bastards who sponser this fundamentalist, brain-washing martyr-making machine? I wouldn't expect that of you fuckin' morons, though. We are dealing with a demographic of old fake hippies who didn't have the balls to take a stand at the age of 30 and proclaim "fuck materializm". Rather than stand up for personal integrety, the just keep up with the Jones'. So, now, they realize father time is ticking. They (Baby Boomers)are old, bald, and fucking fat... so they sit around at starbucks talking about how they can "make the world a better place. Pure Pseudo-intellectualizm. BULLSHIT... act like they are so fucking hip and with it as they drive on in a mercedes benz, but you fucking stink! YOU KNOW WHAT? Go get educated on the issues, then, and only then, let's chat. Until then, SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU STINKY OLD CUNTS! add your comments

Latuff is La Shit by babaryba 10:44pm Mon Feb 3 '03 print comment Latuff is racist and desperate paranoiac. He seen"zionazi agents" under his bed and any critical letter to him he calls as "threat"mail. In some Indymedia's sections his pro-terrorist cartoons are banned, for ex. Indy germany, indy austria, swiss, russia. he demonize jews as an ethnic group. Why he fabricated "born to kill" words on IDF's soldier helm ? Because he is a warmonger and want to throw yet more fuel in fire. Boycott Latuff ! add your comments

BARBABA by LATFF 4 EVEr * 2:41am Tue Feb 4 '03 print comment On this rare occasion you Cannot credit latuff with Creativity. The ``born to kill`` trademark belongs to the overzealous soldiers of the Idf. In this instance this outspoken Cartoonist may have copied somebody elses creative spark. add your comments

White supremacists loves Latuff by baba-ryba 12:02pm Tue Feb 4 '03 print comment Yep, The ``born to kill` term belongs to the racist phantazy world. What is "overzealous" ? Since I live in Europe I don't understand your arabic. Translation, please. Right, In this instance this outspoken Cartoonist may have copied his demonizing picture of the evil and bloodthursty "jew" from Der Sturmer 1933. That's why his cartoons has been banned on some other Indy-sections. add your comments

supremacists of all kinds. by hate... 7:52pm Tue Feb 4 '03 print comment Jewish supremacists like baba-ryba hate Latuff....... add your comments

. by l. 8:24pm Tue Feb 4 '03 print comment One of many snap shots documentig Israeli soldiers sporting their national trademark of, ``born to kill`` nonprofitnet.ca/wao/wao.html?show&204 add your comments

Anti-jewish supremacist Latuff hates Truth by Antifada 11:01pm Thu Feb 6 '03 print comment There is no any evidence that "baba-ryba" is "Jewish supremacist" . 1. Just because s(he) criticize Latuff's anti-jewish racism doesn't mean s(he) is a "supremacist". 2. LATUFF'S HATE CARTOONS ARE BANNED ON MANY INDYMEDIA-SECTIONS as for ex. Indy Germany, indy-austria, indy-swiss, indy-russia etc - because he glorify homicide bombers and spread hatred. His imbecilic cartoons throw yet more fuel in fire and promote war, not peace. 3. There is no any "supremacism" to criticize Latuff's racism. There is no any "hatred" to protest against hatred. 2. The MYTH about "jewish supremacism" comes from the "Protocols", Mein Kampf and other hate literature. You point out Latuff's racism more than I ever could. Fuck off your hitler propaganda. In fact - In Indymedia you can criticize EVERYTHING , but practically there's ONE EXCEPTION: Don't make ANY critique against Latuff and the Arabs/palestinian and their politic or behaviour! Anyone who dares to say the contrary is just being "supremacist" and “anti-arab”.. That's right, Anti-Jewish supremacists like Latuff and You hate anti-racism. add your comments

born to love by antifada 11:12pm Thu Feb 6 '03 print comment One of many snap shots documentig Israeli soldiers sporting their national trademark of, ``born to love`` add your comments

To: Antifada by I might have phrased it different than you* 11:13pm Thu Feb 6 '03 print comment 3. There is no any "supremacism" to criticize israel`s racism. There is no any "hatred" to protest against hatred. add your comments

yo antifada by name 12:02am Fri Feb 7 '03 print comment What snapshots might you be reffering to? Or did you accidentally make a typo and mean,,, ``born to love to kill``??? add your comments

hey, mrs.Parrot above by antifada 11:47pm Fri Feb 7 '03 print comment That's right, mrs. Parrot 3. There is no any "supremacism" to criticize anti-jewish racism. Calling any racist cartoons as “Israel critic” doesn't make it truth, even if you say it hundreds of times, over and over.. Nothing that was ever done to any palestinian anywhere can excuse and justify racist demonization of the jews as ethnic group. Racism is racism. 4. yep, "born to kill" words are just product of Latrines and yours sick warmonger's phantazy. add your comments

http://www.boycottisrael.org/gallery_intf2_1. by 7:03am Sat Feb 8 '03 print comment http://www.boycottisrael.org/gallery_intf2_1.htm http://www.boycottisrael.org/gallery_intf2_1.htm http://www.boycottisrael.org/gallery_intf2_1.htm http://www.boycottisrael.org/gallery_intf2_1.htm http://www.boycottisrael.org/gallery_intf2_1.htm http://www.boycottisrael.org/gallery_intf2_1.htm www.boycottisrael.org/gallery_intf2_1.ht... add your comments

It's terrorism, stupid by Israel wins 11:49am Sun Feb 9 '03 print comment Aside for the "Ain't Jew's Bad?" spam all day day long on this board, it HAS to be evident to even the most committed Jew haters, that the Palestinian cause is SOOOO over, It was the terrorism, stupid Israel wins add your comments

HAHA. by `, 5:31pm Mon Feb 10 '03 print comment stupid .it is the israeli terrorism. terrorism LOST add your comments

Thank you "Israel wins" by Yehudi 7:01pm Tue Feb 11 '03 print comment I echo your sentiments completely! This place in nothing but a sounding board for anti-semites. It doesn't matter how many times I try to explain a simple idea to everyone... Suicide boming is W-R-O-N-G! they just don't fucking get it, do they? I mean, forget about what judaism or x-stianity says about "thou shall not kill" ... what ever happened to civilization? oy vey! add your comments

In the Dark All Cats Are Black by Rowan Berkeley 9:59pm Thu Feb 27 '03 print comment I had hoped that the level of mentation here would be a little higher than it is on IsraelInsider, but evidently it isn't. The "End The Occupation" cartoon is brilliant. The "Born To Kill" slogan is just as common on the uniform jackets or helmets of Israeli soldiers as it is on American (or indeed any other) ones. It has more to do with earning brownie points with the sergeants than it does with scaring the ostensible enemy, usually, I imagine. Only two of the "atrocity" photos linked to above actually show soldiers doing nasty things. The others show women and children mugging for the camera. Armchair psychoanalysis of people you dislike is tedious, especially when you hide your identity. It is simply not the case that everyone who finds Israeli ( or indeed, Jewish ) behaviour tedious is an "anti-Semite". And in any case "anti-Semitism" didn't fall out of the sky one day on Wilhelm Marr's head. It was the product of millenia of Jews being USED by Christian rulers to do their dirty work. And being FORCED to do it by their own RABBIS. Read the wonderfully titled "Class Struggle in the Pale" some time and you'll understand what Ber Borochov was talking about, "G-d Squad"! add your comments

םינברסה ןונמה by סומע 7:34am Sat Mar 8 '03 print comment Here is a Hebrew version, with a few changes for the rhymes, of Ofek's song. הביס ךותמ הז םוקמב יתדלונ היוארה הריחבב רוחבל ,וישכע ןאכ תויהל הבוקר הנידמ רגתאל הלועפ ףתשל אל ,האנוה ,תומילא םע הלשממב םיעשופ ידעלבה יקשנ אוה ינופצמ ידי ןתא אל שוביכל ינמחול יתפ תויהל יתכנוח יננה םדא ןב ,ינא אל רווע ךא הבוטב ינא ןיחבמ הערה האור שידא היהא אל שיבהמ קלחל ךופהא אל ידעלבה יקשנ אוה ינופצמ ידי ןתא אל שוביכל יאנגל תויהל אל ,יאנג תומשב ארקהל ינא ףידעמ ידו ינא דגוב אל ,םירמוא המ הנשמ אל רצה יאתב םוצא רבגי קדצהש דע יתדכנ ןעמל יכ יתרדנ דיתע ידעלבה יקשנ אוה ינופצמ ידי ןתא אל שוביכל םירחאל תויחל תתלו תויחל ןאכ ינא םינברסה ןיב תויהל ,דגנתהל ,דגנכ דומעל יתרחב ןפקותה דגנכ דומעל ןפצוחה ץירעל דגנתהל םויסה דע אכדמל ברסל םויק-ודל יתפיאשב ידעלבה יקשנ אוה ינופצמ ידי ןתא אל שוביכל קפוא :תאמ סומע :תילגנאמ םוגרת add your comments

latuff slander jews by huanita 1:13am Sun Mar 16 '03 print comment I get the distinct impression from many posters on this site that they don't hate jews because of zionism but rather they hate zionism because first and formost they hate jews. If zionism did not exist they would find some other aspect of jews to argue against. add your comments

norimberga by ccc 12:04am Fri Mar 21 '03 print comment and remember that even a simple soldier can decide to follow the orders or not! add your comments

jews? by hics 12:38am Fri Mar 21 '03 print comment no, no! It's not about hating jews, it's about having a political opinion. regarding ti the comic strip, I think that that soldier with "born to kill" on his helmet is a soldier and that's it. he could be german or american or whatever. he's a soldier and we need PEACE add your comments

jews? by hics 12:38am Fri Mar 21 '03 print comment no, no! It's not about hating jews, it's about having a political opinion. regarding ti the comic strip, I think that that soldier with "born to kill" on his helmet is a soldier and that's it. he could be german or american or whatever. he's a soldier and we need PEACE add your comments