Who's a fascist and who's a Zionist?

[azurnoir]

The Jerusalem District Court will soon be deliberating on an interesting libel suit; the Im Tirzu movement is suing a group of talkbackers who claimed that Im Tirzu’s campaigns against the New Israel Fund and various human rights organizations in Israel smack of fascism.

Both Im Tirzu and the Jewish Leadership Movement, as well as many other bodies in the political Right, are in the midst of an attempt to redefine the term “Zionist” in the public consciousness.

This process has even manifested itself partially in a teaching kit on Gush Katif recently issued by the Ministry of Education to all the schools in the national education system.

According to this new definition, to be considered a Zionist you must believe that the whole of Eretz Yisrael belongs exclusively to the Jewish People, support Israel’s settlement activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and object to the removal of any Jewish settlements in these territories.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=259661

and a link for those not familiar with the New Israel Fund

http://www.nif.org/

[aranthus]

1. In the US, this would have been thrown out already.

"smacks of fascism" is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Case dismissed. Libel law in other countries can be very different.

[pelsar]

2. Im not so sure....

though i'm not a lawyer...the concept of "hate crimes"....i would say is within the same category...." making specific definitions of what general concepts are

[azurnoir]

3. Hate crimes laws in the US would not apply in this case

Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI, as well as campus security authorities, are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics.

This page was last modified on 27 February 2012 at 04:02.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

if they did we'd have our court systems jammed with suits by politicians and pundits and evil talkbackers

[pelsar]

9. the definition of a hate crimes.....reaks of "facism"

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2012, 04:33 AM - Edit history (1)

the concept that the govt gets to decide if I beat up somebody because i dislike him or i hate that fact that he is a homosexual to me is of the same genere

its not a matter of whether or not the hate crime definition would apply in the definition of zionism, its the fact that that the options of interpretations are being 'thrown out the window.

no one is going to tell me how i define zionism as its a general concept and its nobodies damn business whether i hate somebody or not...

an example below how a "hate crime" is simple being redefined.....

it easily can get out of hand:

Women claim they can't be guilty of hate crime against gay man – because they're lesbians
http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/7007/27/02/2012/women-claim-they-cant-be-guilty-of-hate-crime-against-gay-man--because-theyre-lesbians.aspx

[azurnoir]

11. you've got the definition of hate crimes now if IM Tizu fits one of those catagories .....

perhaps it could be a religion or more like a cult?

as to your link it is possible that Lesbians could be guilty of a hate crime if they assaulted the man for absolutely no other reason than that he is Gay, your link doesn't give detail to know

[pelsar]

19. the point is i don't agree to the whole concept of "hate crimes"....

hate is an emotion...and nobody has the right to tell me how i should feel......(nor how i define m zionism)

and if the lesbians want to hate male gays, that is fine with me, if they assault the guy because he is gay, or he looked at them funny or his shirt was the wrong color, that is irrelevant...what is relevant is the assaulted him.

if IM tizu wants to hate arabs, druze and liberal jews and draw funny pictures...fine with me.

i also don't believe holocaust deniers or other cults should be illegal....our beliefs are very personal, i don't believe any govt has the right to make it illegal to believe something.

[azurnoir]

22. I do agree with it because the current hate crimes laws have more to do with actions

not words, situations in which a crime is committed against a person or persons because of bigotry examples would be skinheads beating up Jews, Blacks, Gays, or even Arabs and BTW the example you gave is IMO a cynical use of hate crimes laws at best

[pelsar]

25. beating up somebody is a crime.....(assuming the intent is criminal)

thats a reality, who's business is it, if in my head i don't like his skin color, his smell or his religion?

why isn't it enough that I beat him up?

and the example is not cynical, that is exactly the reality of creating a "hate crime"....hate can't be proven, its an emotion in somebodies head, and its use is political. A bllnd justice does not know hate

how can you prove "hate".....maybe i just don't 'like" koreans?....if I beat one up, because i don't "like" him, thats not "hate" thats "dislike" is that too a crime?

and along those lines..whats wrong with being a bigot..i don't have to 'love" everybody and in fact i don't trust anybody who claims they "love" everyone. Push anybody into a corner, put a bit life and death pressure on them, perhaps economic and the bigot will come out, we've all got it, education may hide it, but its there its natural and just as being gay shouldn't be a crime, neither should ones other natural emotions.

[azurnoir]

27. yes and so is murder but let me give you 2 examples that happened in Israel and the OPT

the stabbing deaths of 2 families one in Rishon Lezion and the other in Itmar, both families were stabbed to death including children yet one was simply a multiple murder and the other very possibly* a hate crime termed terrorism in the Israeli justice system, the difference politics aside is the motivation involved the murders in Rishon were committed by a PO'ed ex-employee making it regular murder, the other by Palestinians presumably because the victims were Jewish settlers making it a hate crime albeit the Israeli system terms it terrorism, in the US it would be a hate crime

* I say very possibly because to my knowledge none of testimony was made public, so were left to assume

[pelsar]

29. terrorism is not hate...

terrorism in the israeli definition has a political goal..in fact its not based on hate at all. Terrorists that blew up busses targeted israelis, the nationality, the country with a goal to disrupt life in israel, make it unbearable. They have a political goal that requires violence to attain it.

this "hate crime definition" is a personal vendetta of not liking somebody because they are "different'. Well i hate to break it, but we are all different in one way or another, which is why its so easy to apply it (with my example of the "lesbos beating up the homo" - ooops did i just make myself liable for a hate crime by using the wrong terminology?


whether i actually "hate" gays or not, nobody knows, what we do know from my above writing is that i forgot to write using the politically correct terminology..., clearly i hate gays...how many years in jail do i get for that?

[Shaktimaan]

30. there is reasoning behind it

"Hate crime laws are similar to the laws on the books that differentiate cop killings from a homicide of most other individuals. The penalty is greater (and the maximum punishment is more likely to be called for and enforced) because the very attack against a cop is considered an attack against the fabric of our society. When used appropriately, hate crime laws signal the recognition of the community that some violations cut to the core of what we consider the principals of our country. Robbing and killing someone for their wallet is a terrible crime against the individual but lynching someone because they are Black, Hispanic or Chinese as a form of intimidation against all Blacks,...etc., goes against the soul of American democracy. Yes, there is a difference."

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/07/are-hate-crime-laws-necessary/even-nonviolent-crime-needs-to-be-fought

[pelsar]

31. i understand the concept.....and the why..BUT

and its a huge BUT....as you read its about, its about how we feel about "who's different"

deciding what is in my brain, how i feel, about those who are "different" is crossing every liberal fiber in my body...how i feel about anything is simply out of bounds.

your selling the soul of a society, the ability to feel free, for a few longer terms in jail and giving the system vast powers over how i feel.....

How will the courts know if i hate a person because of his skin color/his eyes, or his personality?....or even his height? (i really really hate short people btw).

[LeftishBrit]

32. The thing is though that no one is telling you how to 'feel'

No one will put you in prison for hating short people, or black/white/Jewish/Arab/green-eyed/long-haired/etc. people. You may receive some social disapproval if you make your dislike too obvious, but it isn't a crime.

However, if I decide that I want to show dislike for say, green-eyed people, by attacking them, threatening them, at the extreme, kiling them - this is intended not just out of dislike for the individuals, but to avenge myself on, or inflict fear on, an entire group. If I mug and beat up Jane Jones who happens to have green eyes, then it's a crime against Jane Jones. If I beat up Jane Jones as an indication of my enmity toward green-eyed people in general, then it's a crime against Jane Jones first of all, but also against all green-eyed people who are thereby marked out for intimidation. Therefore the latter is worse IMO. It's all part of taking intentions as well as actions into account: by the same token, it is generally seen as a worse crime to commit a premeditated murder than to kill someone in the heat of the moment, and both are seen as worse crimes than killing someone unintentially through negligence - even though the victim is just as dead in all three cases.

I think the term 'hate crime' is perhaps not the best, as the point is not so much that you may feel the emotion of hate toward your victim, as that it is a crime against a group not just an individual. But it is the term generally used.

[pelsar]

33. but the only way to know the difference is to "get into my head"...

If I beat up Jane Jones as an indication of my enmity toward green-eyed people in general, then it's a crime against Jane Jones first of all, but also against all green-eyed people who are thereby marked out for intimidation.

premeditated murder can be proven....there will be actually actions that indicated that it was premeditated, whereas the only way to know that I beatup Jany because of her eye color is to make some assumptions of how i feel. How the psychs will do that is nothing more than voodoo. Will then go back to my drawings in elementary school where i put a big x on a green eyed monster?

there simply is no way one can tell if i committed a crime because i hate the clothes, the skin color, the height or religion of someone...as per the example that I started out with: 3 lesbians beating up a homosexual male because he bumped into them and all of a sudden its a hate crime because they are all 'different."

the crime was the beating, the addition of the sexual orientation is irrelevant but it can't be proven if it was and it can't be proven if it wasn't....it can never be proven (out side of the extreme obvious cases such as the hanging of blacks in the south, but then you still have the actual premeditated murder crime, which in fact all hate crimes would have....)

you say i won't be put in prison for hating, but it can increase my sentence....and that means someone (jury/judge) actually believe they can read my mind...

[azurnoir]

34. no there has to be external evidence that the victim was targeted because of being a member

of one of the groups that I posted earlier case in point the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard

Police arrested Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson shortly after the attack, finding the bloody gun and Shepard's shoes and wallet in their truck.[16]

Henderson and McKinney later tried to persuade their girlfriends to provide alibis for them.[17]

At trial, McKinney offered various rationales to justify his actions. He originally pleaded the gay panic defense, arguing that he and Henderson were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard. At another point, McKinney's lawyer stated that they had wanted to rob Shepard but never intended to kill him.[16]

The prosecutor in the case alleged that McKinney and Henderson pretended to be gay in order to gain Shepard's trust.[18] During the trial, Kristen Price, girlfriend of McKinney, testified that Henderson and McKinney had "pretended they were gay to get [Shepard] in the truck and rob him".[19][20] McKinney and Henderson went to the Fireside Lounge and selected Shepard after he arrived. McKinney alleged that Shepard asked them for a ride home.[19]

After befriending him, they took him to a remote area outside of Laramie where they robbed him, assaulted him severely, and tied him to a fence with a rope from McKinney's truck while Shepard pleaded for his life. Media reports often contained the graphic account of the pistol whipping and his fractured skull. It was reported that Shepard was beaten so brutally that his face was completely covered in blood, except where it had been partially washed clean by his tears.[21][22] Both girlfriends also testified that neither McKinney nor Henderson were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time.[23][24]

Henderson pleaded guilty on April 5, 1999 and agreed to testify against McKinney to avoid the death penalty; he received two consecutive life sentences. The jury in McKinney's trial found him guilty of felony murder. As they began to deliberate on the death penalty, Shepard's parents brokered a deal, resulting in McKinney receiving two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole.[25]

Henderson and McKinney were incarcerated in the Wyoming State Penitentiary in Rawlins, later being transferred to other prisons because of overcrowding.[26]

This page was last modified on 10 March 2012 at 04:44.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard#Arrests_and_trial

the facts in this case pointed to Matthew being targeted because he was Gay and this is by the perpetrators own testimony, the same would apply if a guy with swastika tattoos attacks someone Jewish, do we really need a mind reader to guess at the motivation?

the perpetrators in this case were not charged with a "hate crime" solely because sexual orientation was at that point not part of hate crime laws however it was this case that helped to change that

the same would go or any other crime where there has to external evidence of some kind

the hate crime label is really not used that commonly

[LeftishBrit]

4. Considering that Im Tirzu produced campaigning literature where they portrayed Naomi Chazan with a

horn on her head, it's a bit ironic for them to accuse anyone else of 'libel'.

[shira]

5. The horn thing was ridiculous, but Chazan's New Israel Fund allocates money...

...to NGO's that advocate for 1-state, BDS, and use the apartheid analogy.

At the very least, Chazan should be held accountable for that and should stop and apologize for it immediately.

[azurnoir]

6. Lol

still raging about NGO's? Tell us are there are you approve of, I ask because the list of those that according to you are at best antiIsrael is quite extensive isn't it?

[shira]

7. Hmmm.....

Tell us are there are you approve of, I ask because the list of those that according to you are at best antiIsrael is quite extensive isn't it?

I approve of any NGO genuinely for 2 states (one Jewish and one Palestinian). No bullshit about 2 states for the purpose of 1 state soon afterwards. Further, the NGO should be against 1-staters of all stripes (from BDS/ISM/IAW/FGM to Hamas/PA to the Kahanists/Feiglins).

You think that's too much to ask for?

[azurnoir]

8. what about Amnesty International, HRW, and Care International?

oh and Save the Children?

[shira]

10. I thought I made myself clear in the last post..

Do the NGO's you listed have a zero tolerance policy WRT 1-staters of all stripes? Not just Kahanists and Feiglin types, but also the BDS and FGM movements, the freaks running IAW, the ISM. As well as the 1-state haters from Hamas and the PLO. Are these NGO's committed to 2 states, one Jewish and one Palestinian? Have these NGO's made themselves perfectly clear WRT the above concerns?

If not, and I'm sure you know the answers to those questions, then they shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone WRT any issues involving Israel. They should be condemned.

[azurnoir]

12. wow okay then NGO's are bad if they do not fit your(?) zero tolerance clause got it

but that once agin is your opinion, but you as always make quite a compelling case and gosh who knrw that part of AI's Care's and HRW's mission was to validate the political agenda of both Palestinians and Israel

[shira]

13. You believe the same thing...

...WRT any human rights NGO's sympathetic to the Kahanist agenda, right?

Yes or No?

Here's one...
Human Rights Organization of Judea and Samaria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Organization_of_Judea_and_Samaria

You'd take them seriously WRT their claims about Palestinians, Hamas, the PLO, etc?

Yes or No?

Here's a recent article from Arutz Sheva, reporting on HROJS findings...
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151995#.T0-SShyV2GI

[azurnoir]

14. so now the secular one state agenda is Kahanist

clever really clever, well sort of, but tell weren't you saying a short time back how Palestinians are genocidal?

[shira]

15. Wow, you really don't get it, do you? And now you're throwing red herrings...

The NGO representing settler interests in Judea/Samaria lacks credibility just like any other NGO in bed with the "secular" 1-staters. These NGO's may be right sometimes but they can't be trusted due to their political views.

I don't believe you realized it but it looks like you don't really have a problem with the "secular" 1-staters. How is that possible for a 2 state advocate such as yourself? Are you for 2 states in the hopes that it soon becomes 1-state? We all know such a state would rapidly become another Islamist theocracy with sharia law, etc. There aren't enough seculars in Palestine and Israel combined, after RoR, to prevent that. It would be "democratically" voted in by the majority for an Islamist state. What makes that better than a Jewish theocracy?

I wrote that Hamas and the PLO were genocidal bigots. Are you once again making the leap that Hamas and the PLO represent all Palestinians? They don't even represent the PFLP, which is against their Islamist theocratic nightmare, let alone Christians.

[azurnoir]

16. ah but shira I do 'get it' that's the problem

you've latched on to the 'Kahanist" phrase and are now running with it however that does not make it true as in a one state situation Kahanists would make state dominated by the minority unlike those who ask for a secular one state where the claim is that the majority would be Palestinians

but kudos you've got 2 new buzz words this week Kahanist and cult

[shira]

17. It doesn't matter if the Kahanists run the state or not...

They don't run it now and Israel is a Jewish state. I'm assuming you have a problem with that, since it appears you're now for 1 secular state despite saying you were for 2 states just days ago.

And again, we all know damned well that this 1 secular state would become an Islamist theocracy, for reasons given in my last post. I doubt you'd take issue with that due to the fact you think voting in a theocracy is "democracy" in action (like the Arab 'Spring').

Nevertheless, you've gone off track with another rabbit trail.

You were talking about NGO's lacking credibility. I gave you a counter example. You know very well Jewish theocrats lack credibility just like the alleged "secular" 1-staters. You should know that these "secular" 1-staters are nothing of the sort, not only because it can't work but because they're apologists for the theocrats from Hamas and the PLO. They work hand in hand with the theocrats WRT the FGM, ISM, and BDS. They're not fooling anyone.

Oh, and FTR, the Kahanists are cultists just like their "secular" counterparts. It's very difficult to distinguish b/w the hard right and hard left.

[azurnoir]

18. shira it seems you believe that there is an antiZionist conspiracy?

as one who accuses people of seeing Zionist conspiracies it would seem you are promoting their mirror image

as to your accusations go with it if it somehow comforts you I've already given my position

[shira]

20. LOL...

You don't personally mind seeing a "secular" 1-state solution, right?

[azurnoir]

21. Trying to put me on the defensive are ya ? not working

nor am I repeating what I have already said

eta however as a reminder I will post a link to a thread where this subject was discussed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11345612

[shira]

23. Nope, just asking a question. It's yet another that goes unanswered...

I ask because it exposes a double standard you seem to have WRT Israel and NGO's.

And WRT the thread you linked to, it appears you believe that if you say you're clearly for a secular one state solution, that would be against the rules here. Do you think it's DU policy that this secular 1-state vision is not tolerated here? Because if so, that means DU sees this as an "anti-zionist conspiracy".

[azurnoir]

24. right shira the thread I linked to was posted within a very short time of the ToS

which could be loosely interpreted to say that those who believe in a one state solution could be banned and I asked considering that why you would post such a thread, you answered in the same manner that you are now and seem to habitually do by making false accusations and reaching strawman conclusions about what I and others think

eta as far as exposing some strawman confabulated double standard of mine expose away if it pleases you

[shira]

26. The point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too...

You say you're for 2 states but you somehow find it hard to believe that anyone for 2 states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, finds something wrong with 1 secular state. Either you're for 2 states or 1, not both. I can't understand how someone for 2 states finds nothing objectionable about the one state scenario.

[azurnoir]

28. No I do not find it hard to believe however

while the 2 state solution is by far preferable the reality of the current situation is that a 1 state solution is also possible, that is because in order for there to be 2 states a number of settlements and settlers must be 'evacuated', something that gets more distant with each passing day. Take Migron for instance the first 'evacuation' order came in 2008 , but Migron is still there and within the past couple of days the Israeli government has put off evacuating it until 2015.

Some of the more 'militant' settler leadership stated unequivocally that their purpose is to make a Palestinian state impossible and sadly it seems they're succeeding , but once that line has been crossed which some say it already has been what are we left with?

as to your thread that I linked to I found it a bit like Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto sounds good on paper but not so much in practice