Protest permit alarms Utah's Jews ("Death to Israel" demonstration)

[sabra]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4235461

Protest permit alarms Utah's Jews
'It's scary': Many worry such a rally could blur the line between freedom of speech and anti-Semitism


Members of Utah's Jewish community are alarmed by a proposed demonstration that will call for "Death to Israel."

A man - whose name wasn't available Thursday - has applied for a free-speech permit from Salt Lake City to demonstrate on sidewalks near City Hall on Wednesday. The city is reviewing the application.
City officials cannot constitutionally deny it based on the content of the message.

Laura Green, director of the United Jewish Federation of Utah, said Thursday that she has received dozens of calls about the planned demonstration. Many fear the rally could incite violence against Jews.

"Based on freedom of speech, people have the right to say what they want to say. There has to be a line between saying what you want to say and preaching the genocide of a population," Green said.

[ewoden]

1. I'm a bit surprised that such applications for permits are so

closely scrutinized by memeber of the public that they stimulate "dozens of calls" Somebody spends way too much time in city hall perusing the demonstration permits.

[wordpix2]

62. ridiculous comment---a good reporter will go to city hall to dig up what's

there and members of the public don't have to if one good reporter reports. I worked on a small town paper and city hall and the courts were my regular beat.

[acmavm]

2. Advocating the deaths of all Israelis is wrong. Israel's actions

in killing innocent Lebanese civilians is just as bad. Having their children sign the bombs they were going to drop on them was obscene. Where was the Jewish community in their condemnation of that?

No one expected any blowback?

[Exiled in America]

17. Of course, that's not what the article says.

It doesn't say a man applied for a permit so he could advoctate the death of all israelis. And then I went to the link to read the entire article, and at no point does the report ever try to interview the person or get his side of the story.

So all I actually know is that Death to Israel (which is not a human being or a group of people but an inhuman nation-state construction) does not equal death to all jews. It's the expression of a political opinion about the legitimacy of a nation-state. And that's legal, thank god.

[acmavm]

25. I read the article too. And I notice that Ms. Green thinks that

this guy is promoting genocide. I don't. But then again, like the article says, when extremist say "Death to America" we know damn good and well they aren't wishing us well.

And don't 'of course' me. The article does not come out and say that they guy wishes all Israelis dead but the slant of the article is that that is the way its being taken.

And you don't know any more than I do about this. So cool your jets.

MY POINT WAS, and still is that there was no massive denunciation by the Jewish community in the United States when Israel was dropping bunker busters on the Lebanese people.

[cali]

54. Don't forget:

There was no massive condemnation on the part of U.S. Christians when the US was bombing Iraq. And frankly, I find it disgusting that you think that U.S citizens who happen to be Jewish should be responsible for ensuring that they make sure to condemn the actions of a foreign country. Just as a matter of record, lots of American Jews did indeed express condemnation of the Israeli bombing. Your remarks are more than a little unreasonable, not to mention unpalatable.

[acmavm]

58. Unpalatable to you maybe, not a majority of the people on this board.

And while you find it disgusting that US citizens should be responsible for 'ensuring that they make sure to condemn the actions of a foreign country', you don't have a problem with US citizens coming to the defense of that country when someone uses the words 'death to Israel'.

I find your position unreasonable as well. In fact, I find it contradictory. And you can swallow whatever you want, I don't care.

[cali]

59. Way to go

and misrepresent what I wrote. I said nothing whatosever about "the death to Israel" phrase. Frankly, free speech is more important to me than virtually anything else, so if someone wants to hold a rally whose unifying cry is "death to Israel", that's fine with me. The answer to speech one disagrees with is more speech. And objecting to the goal of dismantling a nation, is hardly coming to its defense.

Try some intellectual honesty and consistency. With a little practice you could get the hang of it. Oh, and of course you were unable to respond to my original post. Figures.

[acmavm]

60. First my original post wasn't to you in the first place. It was in q

response to something someone else posted. You didn't even figure into the discussion at all. You interjected yourself. You are now saying I didn't respond to your post. Try reading it again. I responded to the only part of your post that touched on having to do with the original discussion.

I was responding to the 'death to Israel' phrase. Here is my whole response:

<snip>
Advocating the deaths of all Israelis is wrong. Israel's actions
in killing innocent Lebanese civilians is just as bad. Having their children sign the bombs they were going to drop on them was obscene. Where was the Jewish community in their condemnation of that?

No one expected any blowback?
<snip>

That was my entire post. Anything else you pull out of that statement comes from your poor reading comprehension skills.

[cali]

96. LOL

"interjected yourself". Duh. It's a political discussion board. Continue on with your dishonest responses.

[acmavm]

97. Coming from the master, that's quite a compliment.

[wordpix2]

65. and what do you think the people of the US would do if faced with 30,000

missiles aimed at the US by an adjacent nation taken over by a radical Islamist group like Hezbollah? Do you think Americans would just sit around and wait to be annihilated?

Sometimes you need to put yourself in the shoes of other people but that seems to be difficult for a number of posters at DU, who seem to think it's fine for Israel to be annihilated by the likes of Hezbollah.

[acmavm]

68. Maybe the Israelis should start thinking about the people who's land

they steal, who's water they steal, who they continually treat with less than the honesty and dignity and compassion that they are always demanding from everyone else.

[wordpix2]

70. stop the propaganda & get some real, historical FACTS:

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now.

Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory west of the Jordan River launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron massacres of 1929 and later during the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became painfully clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.

The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs Palestinians.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Defense Forces . There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.
The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River.

Our Palestinian Cousins started the '48 war, and in so doing released the warlike appetites of a nation of survivors, a people with no place to run, who had repressed their rage for millennia, and had now earned full title to it!

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 ? perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them ? never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight.

[IndianaGreen]

72. Ever since the Lebanon war, no one cares to hear what Israel has to say

by her deeds Israel has shown herself to be as much a threat to the peace and stability of the world as Imperial Japan was. What a nice pair of aggressor nations do Israel and America make!

[wordpix2]

75. "no one cares?" You don't, obviously, but many people do want to hear

both sides and want PEACE in that region.

[IndianaGreen]

77. There is no such thing as "two sides" in a war of aggression

The aggressor state is always the criminal one. What you suggest is that we treat Israel on the same moral plane as her victims, this is sort of arguing that the rapist is the same as the victim.

[wordpix2]

78. oh, wow, so much for solving disputes between people & nations

Your response is the reason why we have wars in the first place. At least you're coming out with your true colors now. Before, you were posting more "reasonably."

The real issue is how to create peace now, not who started the fight, Johnny or Billy. You will never solve the problem by saying Israel doesn't have the right to exist, is the one and only aggressor and "stole" Arab lands.

[IndianaGreen]

101. Poppy Bush demanded Saddam's unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait

England and France demanded Germany's unconditional withdrawal from Poland in 1939.

The US demanded Japan's withdrawal from China.

All of these events involved civilized nations demanding the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of aggressor nations.

Israel is occupying lands that the world civilized community has demanded she withdraws from. Israel has also treated the people in those lands with the same racism and cruelty that is so typical of occupiers throughout history.

Israel's right to exist ends at the pre-June 1967 borders. Golan, Shebaa Farms, West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem do not belong to Israel. You don't see any Supreme Being or Deity making a public manifestation proclaiming in a booming voice that Israel has a G-d given right to the lands taken in 1967, do you?

[wordpix2]

106. read the history

[stepnw1f]

82. masada? Talk About Propaganda.... Are You Kidding Us?

Try this instead: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

Why don't you get your facts straight instead.

<snip>

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs’ inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930’s and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.

But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic “land without people for a people without land” was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is the root of the problem, as we shall see.

<snip>
Also, about Masada2000:

Masada2000 is a far right-wing Zionist website, maintained by five people from the U.S.A., Israel, Brazil, Switzerland, and Australia.
The site is especially infamous for its 'Self-Hating and/or Israel-Threatening' Jew list, otherwise known as the 'S.H.I.T. LIST.' Almost 8,000 names long, the list consists entirely of Jewish people from around the world whose opinions fall far left to those of Masada2000's creators. The site describes them as 'radical, leftist, academic, socialist, "progressive," enlightened know-nothings' who threaten the very existence of Israel. Particularly notable is that people on the list are often profiled in an extensive manner, sometimes with profanity and vulgar insults worked in. Often, their emails and other private contact information are exposed as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada2000

<snip>

Looks like extremist shit on that "masad" site you get your info from. Disgusting and go away.

[wordpix2]

91. OK, let's look at a UN site for the history of this conflict

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

The Palestine problem became an international issue towards the end of the First World War with the disintegration of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were placed under the administration of Great Britain under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations pursuant to the League's Covenant (Article 22) .

All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations.

more

The conflict does, indeed, have its roots in European imperialism and in anti-semitism in Europe that resulted in the Jewish immigration to "Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". I don't think that blaming one side or the other for "being there now" is the answer. The fact is, Israel exists and Israelis are not leaving or letting themselves be pushed into the sea. Palestinians are there to stay, too, including those who want to get rid of Israel. I think both sides need to sit down, talk and have a third party help them negotiate. Bill Clinton tried and while he was trying, things were relatively peaceful. Under *, it's gotten worse and worse.

BTW, saying "go away" to people who have as much right to post on DU as you do is as helpful as saying the conflict is all Israel's fault, or all Arabs' fault.

[stepnw1f]

100. Good God the Hatred You Feed

with twisting of facts. I have read enough of what you post to know you are less than honest. You state to another DUer, "Get your facts straight", then you use a right wing zionist site to back up your argument. Now you want a debate.... lol. Sorry. You lost that privaledge and respect at least with me.

[wordpix2]

105. huh? I am feeding hatred by saying both sides need to listen & negotiate?

This is the only way peace will come

Your true one-sided colors are showing and YOU, my friend, are the hatred feeder. I guess you think Jews drink babies' blood, too.

[JudyM]

107. Thanks for digging up the truth in what has become a point of contention

here on DU. It's perplexing how the impulse toward kindness of DUers is directed toward the apparently weaker populations despite the fact that they are the source of the animousity in the region. The struggle for civil rights in this region is not so simply about 'the resistance' and 'the occupiers' despite the fact that that's the picture we've imbibed. It's at its heart about a deep-seated, relentless desire to prevent Jews (yes Jews, not "Israelis") from having a homeland in the region. If we listen objectively to what many of the Arab leaders say, we will hear the truth. They don't want to just push Israelis out of the West Bank, they want an end to "the Jewish state."

[wordpix2]

108. thank you, Judy. I just heard an Arab leader, when pressed on NPR, admit

that "Israel exists" but he refused to state yes or no when asked, "Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist?" although he was asked that question several times. He just kept repeating, "Israel exists."

THIS is the real problem and it's clear that some of the people posting hereare in agreement with the man who was interviewed. "Israel exists" but they won't come out and say what they really mean: it doesn't have the right to exist.

[JudyM]

110. I don't think that most DUers who post in opposition to Isreal's actions

necessarily think it doesn't have a right to exist, but instead that it is the main cause of problems in the region. They view its actions as imperialist and oppressive rather than as defensive. They feel that Israel is denying civil rights to its 'subjects' and so is the Bad Guy, rather than seeing the whole picture. Israel's bombing of Lebanon seemed too broad-brush and thereby furthered an impression that it has not consistently acted on the ethical high road. So I get where they're coming from in a general sense but they sure do see it as one-sided, with apparently no understanding - or even outright rejection - of Israel's challenges in living in an area whose populations are anti-semitic, and that perplexes me. I tend to see Lebanon as a poorly-executed effort to dismantle a growing threat armed by Iran and Syria.

[wordpix2]

111. I & all Israelis are not in 100% agreement with their gov. on Lebanon

either.

At the same time, what do you do when 30,000 missiles are aimed at you by an Arab terrorist group that uses children as human shields? If it were up to me, I would negotiate but perhaps Israel's been doing that for six years since it left Lebanon in 2006.

You have to have a partner that believes "Israel has the right to exist" before you can negotiate.

BushCo is not helping matters, either.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wordpix2]

63. "death to Israel" doesn't mean "death to Israelis?" That's absurd

:crazy:

[Fredda Weinberg]

61. Obscene? I thought it was healthy

Those kids had been bombed themselves - the act gave them the sense that they weren't powerless even as they slept in basement shelters.

Let the guy shout "Death to Israel" all he wants, while we still have free speech here.

[MrPrax]

3. Protesting Bush...?

The group is called "Center to Prevent Corporate Media Lying" and apparantly they have had demos before...but the bogus part of this story is that the 'death to Israel' isn't attributed to anything.

There are several groups that have planned to protest Bush for his visit next week -- Rummy and Rice are also going.

Not very responsible journalism...not information to make a judgement, but only enough information to condemn it.

[Jawja]

4. Freedom of Speech Issue

"'It's scary': Many worry such a rally could blur the line between freedom of speech and anti-Semitism"


Doesn't "freedom of speech" include the right to "anti-Semitism," especially if you are defining "anti-Semitism" as any criticism of Jews or Israel?

Don't get me wrong; I place the Utah "death to Israel" demonstrations on the same level as Fred Phelps, the Klu Klux Klan, and other dispicable scum of the Earth. But I disagree with the premise that peacefully demonstrating "anti-Semitism" is somehow NOT freedom of speech.

If Fred Phelps has the right to his digusting "God Hates Fags" demonstrations, then don't the rednecks in Utah have the right protest against Israel?

on edit: added subject line

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. Exactly what I though

If fucktards like Phelps and the KKK can do it, those fucktards can too. Sad but true.

[amandabeech]

49. The answer is to attend the event and heckle the speakers.

I saw this happen back in the '70s in downtown Chicago. It was a few lunatic Nazis versus a couple of thousand anti-Nazi demonstrators with lots of Chicago cops in between. I had to work on Sunday and saw and heard (couldn't work because of the noise) the demo from my office window.

The Nazis didn't last long.

The next day the word was that the cops had to tell the Nazis that they couldn't continue to guarantee their safety. The Nazis made a quick run to their vans and took off.

It was a great example of free speech at work.

[zanne]

57. I think it's comparable to KKK rallies.

If the Ku Klux Klan can rally legally in the public square, so can these people.

[orpupilofnature57]

5. A Jew in Utah, must feel a bit up against it daily.

[customerserviceguy]

9. I understand

Rosanne Barr, who grew up Jewish in Utah, refers to Mormons as "Nazi Amish". Having lived there six months in 2005, I see where she gets that impression...

[orpupilofnature57]

11. I passed through in 1975 , Clean , wholesome, and scary as hell !

[msongs]

22. wholesome is a positive attribute that does not apply

I live next to a church of the persuasion in question and one is appalled at the language heard coming over the wall from their "parties" and gatherings where they think nobody is listening. all that "wholesome"-ness is just a public PR facade.

Msongs
www.myspace.com/msongs

[orpupilofnature57]

23. Wholesome is the Guise of " Friendly Fascism " I was being Facetious

[fjc]

6. I'm inclined to say this pushes the limit on free speech.

[Exiled in America]

14. And that's why our free speech is barely around today

because people continually think its OK to ban speech that you don't like.

Everyone is for free speech when they agree with the speech. It's so funny how quickly people are to abandon those principles the moment the idea of "free speech" is really put to the test.

It's probably why this administration has been able to successful in weakening our civil rights and assaulting the bill of rights. They use the exact same argumentation by the way, when they do what they do. "Their ought to be limits to freedom" -- yeah that's their line.

Death to israel <> death to jews. But of course, the article never mentioned or clarified what the protesters actual message would be.

[fjc]

24. Speech that advocates violence in not protected speech.

[The Stranger]

33. Of course it is.

Only if it is incitement to imminent lawlessness -- in other words, marching off to do something violent -- is it not protected.

But at that point, if violence occurs, it is proscribed by any number of other laws that do not abridge speech.

[fjc]

34. I think you're wrong about that.

If I publically declare that I would not or cannot kill so-and-so but I sure wish someone would, that is not protected speech.

[The Stranger]

39. Well, the Supreme Court isn't wrong.

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. As we said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259 -261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966).

A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control. Cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964).

BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

[fjc]

46. Well, sure, they "could" be wrong, though they're not, of course.

But I think my example is likely actionable under that statute.

[amandabeech]

50. See my reply #49. n/t

[leesa]

7. Interesting that they won't release the name of the person asking for the

permit or the group.

Could that be because it is a white supremacist group and NOT a Muslim group like the author of the article would like you to believe??

[wordpix2]

69. yes, very interesting: one who needs a public permit is not made publicly

known. I would think the hatemongering ass would have signed the permit form so it's publicly available---my guess is the powers-that-be at town hall are protecting him or her.

[Kickoutthejams23]

8. Let them protest.

Just make sure they keep their hoods off. I have no problem with this protest. If someone wants to identify himself to his neighbors as an anti-semitic loon then more power to him. Banning the protesters just helps thier cause.

[Exiled in America]

10. Death to Israel (does not equal) Death to Jews.

(EDIT - sorry that's more clear... I tried to use the does not equal sign in my title, but it didn't show up.)

One means the end of a country that some believe to be illegitimate. The other is about killing people.

[orpupilofnature57]

13. Both more importantly , are about Hate ,which used to be a Crime in this..

Country.

[Exiled in America]

15. Um...no it didn't, and no it isn't.

Believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist as a political nation state is not about hate. It's a political opinion based on individual interpretation of political and historical facts and international law. One I might add, that isn't like...devoid of any valid argumentation.

[orpupilofnature57]

19. Devoid of shit ! Individual Interpretation or not " doesn't have a right to

exist" isn't Subjective , it's Hatred!!

[Exiled in America]

28. No. Israel is not a "person." It's a territorial nation-state

One whose creation's legitimacy is somewhat debatable by reasonable people who aren't so blindy polarize by this issue that they can even hold a coherent thought in their head for more than two seconds.

[Occulus]

42. Thank you

This calling Israel "her" and "she" is really getting old.

It's a COUNTRY, not a person. These people need to stop plying our emotions- or trying to- by insinuating otherwise.

[David__77]

45. It isn't a person, no more than the Soviet Union was.

There were some citizens of the USSR who said "Death to the Soviet Union." They were not advocating their own death surely.

[wordpix2]

74. Israel was legitimately set up after WW's I & II. Fact is, both Israel &

their Arab neighbors will have to learn to live side by side but this "illegitimate" Israel argument just results in more wars and killing.

[0007]

27. Joseph Smith was a big story teller

[orpupilofnature57]

38. And I beleive he was a wacko

[0007]

41. South Park did an excellent show on Mormons the other night.

[NoodleyAppendage]

67. dum...dum...dumm...dum. (LOL)

Great South Park the other night. It evicerated Mormon tenets and history.

J

[0007]

102. It dumb dumb dumb dumb - not "dum"

[Charlie Brown]

16. and both involve hatred

I'll certainly never take part in any "protest" with the word "death" in it.

These hate-mongers have a right to protest, but they won't have my support.

[Exiled in America]

18. We don't know that.

I'm sorry, but saying death to a political nation-state isn't "hatred." It's a political opinion about the legitimacy of a government/nation-state.

Personally, I am for a death to all nation-states, including the United States - because I think nationalism is a plauge on humanity that has done more to ruin the earth that just about any other force we've ever known.

That could be "radical" to you, but its not "hate."

[orpupilofnature57]

21. Then you have a " radical " for Nationalism ?

[Exiled in America]

31. um.. what?

Please try to frame responses in the form of coherent questions - its helpful in trying to have a discussion...?

[orpupilofnature57]

36. Sure, your using Radical in place of the word Hate.

[Exiled in America]

40. Hmm. Let's see... no not at all.

Radical ideas are ideas that are unconventional and often not commonly accepted by the mainstream. I don't think there is a connection to hate there.

True the dictionary defines "hate" as an intense dislike of some thing. So by that definition I could say that I hate corporate welfare, hate this adminsitration, hate mushrooms, etc.

But it seems to me that in common usage, especially in this context, people tend to use the word hate connected to an "evil" attitude against people. When speaking of a "hate" crime, for example, it seems to be more than an "intense dislike of some thing." It's more of a visceral and dangerous dislike of people.

When someone posts something like "both are messages of hate" - they are impling that they are wrong, immoral, evil, bad, worth being stoped, punished, countered, etc. Having a "radical" idea doesn't necessarily equate to that kind of usuage of the term hate. It especially does not when you are criticizing a political-structural system - a concept and construction - because you believe it is deeply flawed. There's no "hate" (used in the context I just described) there. Just a political opinion that is not shared by the majority - hence a "radical" one.

[Charlie Brown]

26. so if rwers say "Death to Iran," it's political?

sounds like hate to me, just like this.

[Exiled in America]

30. That's why its usually nice to get a clarification, rather than generalize

blindly.

So if rwers say "death to Iran" I would ask "what do you mean?"

This article didn't do this. It's purely just a piece to stir up shit without actually doing effective journalism.

[Phx_Dem]

32. what do you think could substitute for nation states?

[Exiled in America]

35. I'm not saying its viable :)

Could there ever be a true world without borders? Probably not. There will probably always be cultural barriers, as well as many other kinds of barriers where people divide the world in to "us and them."

But there seems to me to be two ways to look at nationalism - glorifying it and encouraging even deeper entrenchment, or seeing it as possibly a necessary evil to be minimalized as much as humanly possible at every turn.

Expanding an attitude where people see themselves as part of a global community, with the world as their country, seems to me to be a much more hopeful mindset. The more we were able to "blur" boarders and see humanity was one big "nation" - the better off I think we would be.

[Phx_Dem]

48. I don't think nationalism is inherently bad.

to use sports as an analogy, a fan who identifies with a particular team does not necessarily discredit or diminish the value of all the other teams. There are those few however, that value their favorite team to a degree where they start demonizing and dehumanizing all the other teams.

This is evident at a group level as well. Take a look at player intros at the start of a sports event. In some cities the opposing players receive polite applause when their name is announced. Fans in these cities respect the game and all of the players contributions. In other cities the opposing players are routinely booed.

I don't think that nationalism and internationalism are mutually exclusive. Just like in sports, one can appreciate and support their home team while still respecting other teams and players.

[Exiled in America]

80. I do.

But its perfectly fine for us to disagree of course. :) I'm sorry but comparing nation-states to team sports just isn't convincing me. The two are utterly unrelated and uncomparable.

[Phx_Dem]

94. Yea, it's not the greatest analogy

though I think it is a reasonable comparison. Your a very pleasant person to disagree with EiA! :) See you around DU.

[wordpix2]

76. how do you accomplish "death to nation-states" without killing people?

BTW killing people does involve hate.

Your arguments aren't logical. To prove they are, I would like to see your plan "for a death to all nation-states, including the United States" that would NOT involve killing people. :crazy:

Good luck.

[Exiled in America]

79. By changing minds and changing leaders

I never said I had a viable, I said I had a belief. It isn't "hate" to believe a world without nation-states would be a better world. And that belief does not imply the killing of anyone. If we had to talk about a "plan" however, changing the minds of people and changing the political leadership whever we can to incrementally move more and more toward a more integrated world with blurred borders and less of an "us vs. them" mentality does not require the killing of anyone.

And BTW killing people does not necessary involve hate. It can involve protection, or defense. For example, should my gratefather, who fought in Normandy in WWII be labeled a "hater" for sacrificing himself to try to stop the awful agression and mass murder of the Nazis? He killed some people toward that aim, and "hate" wasn't what was in his heart.

My "arguments" are perfectly logical. You just don't like them. There's a big difference.

[wordpix2]

83. I agree with some of this but you aren't going to change minds when

the madrasses in Arab states are preaching "kill the Jews" and "Death to Israel." They blame every problem they have on the Jews, say Jews drink babies' blook and all kinds of hate preach.

Changing that mindset won't be easy.

I do agree people kill for protection or defense and that's what Israel is doing when faced with 30,000 Hezbollah missles aimed at it.

[Exiled in America]

86. yeah, right.

This is more like what Israel is doing:


My neighbor deilberately threw a rock through the window of my house because he doesn't like my family and wants me to move out of the neighborhood. Well, part of the reason he doesn't like me is because I stole the house that his family used to live in, but that's beside the point. The rock broke my window and hit my brother in the head, injuring him.

In response to this outrageous and unjustified act, we broke down their door, murdered his two daughters, raped his wife before murdering her while we made him watch, dragged him outside, set his house on fire, then shot him in the head on the sidewalk, all before going to find their parents, brothers, uncles, and nephews houses to do the same to them. Hey - we have a right to defend ourselves!

That's what Israel is doing. The ammount of things they are justifiying in the name of "just defending themselves" is sickening and disgusting.

[wordpix2]

89. so much for reasoning---both sides need to sit down and listen to each

other. Luckily, you won't be there for the next peace talks.

[Exiled in America]

92. The first step in "reasoning" is truth telling

You can't sit down and work things out when you're perpetually lying about what is happening, something both sides are guilty of.

[wordpix2]

93. have you ever lived in either Israel or Lebanon? We are getting info

from there but having never lived there, I can only go by what I read or see in the the news. That's a lot, but not like living there. So "truth" is hard to come by when you're confined to images---from both sides.

[wordpix2]

109. with so much war & tension in the ME, a lot of people who

might normally want to visit won't go. That's bad for business

[Fountain79]

55. Just curious....

How do you think those who say.."Death to Israel" expect to carry out that policy?

[Zynx]

64. The idea that Israel should be destroyed is not a legitimate opinion.

If I said, "Death to Yemen" or something like that, I would be rightly kicked off the forum for being an anti-Arab bigot.

[wordpix2]

71. you're going to kill the Jewish state without killing Jewish people?

Ridiculous :crazy:

[w4rma]

20. Are they really sure that this group is pro-"Death to Israel"? I don't see

anything from the group talked about in the article.

No source is quoted about this.

If they are I hope there is some sort of counter protest or that the protest fails.

[Exiled in America]

37. That was the red flag in my mind.

I'm not saying I guess this group would be saying things that I support or agree with - I'm just saying I don't really know.

It really feels like if a news piece is going to run like this, it should include concrete information and interviews with the people they are talking about. Instead, the article makes a lot of innuendo without any substance. Which always makes me think the piece is particuarly slanted.

It would be interesting to actually know what this group wants, and what their actual message is. Not that it would suprise me if it contained hateful anti-semetic parts. My point is just that none of us actually know, because they article was so poorly done - either on purpose or ignorantly.

[HuffleClaw]

29. all four of 'em?

but seriously, why are folks permitted to promote assorted forms of hatred but NOT to protest the president and his policies?

[MadHound]

43. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of speech that you agree with.

It is freedom of all speech, whether you like what is being said or not. Start limiting speech that you dislike and sure as the sun shines, somebody else will be wanting to limit what you say too.

Sure, it's distasteful, even downright disgusting. But that doesn't mean that whoever this is can't speak their minds. Much like Neo Nazi marches, everybody is free to show what hateful, vile little human beings they are.

[orpupilofnature57]

44. Yes , just as long as the word radical, isn't maligned by association.

[rinsd]

47. Yup....thats sums it up for me. (nt)

[Josh]

51. There's a thing called vilification -

and that crosses a boundary. If you believe that a certain public free association will insight violence then you absolutely have caused to quash it.

And those who fear violence as a result have a right to seek protection from public speech that puts them in danger.

But none of that matters because there wouldn't be a single justification for this vile behaviour if it was any other country.

But I'm sure people would be outraged if a group wanted called "Death to Cuba" or "Death to Iran" and I KNOW because I've seen it before the war people getting all sorts of livid when people were cheering at anti-Iraq protests.

The permit is for a protest called "Death to Israel." There's no equivocation in that statement. People should stop being so ready to justify that.

[Speaker]

53. So

and that crosses a boundary. If you believe that a certain public free association will insight violence then you absolutely have caused to quash it.

Nathan Hale's statement "Give me liberty, or give me death" should have been quashed?

Any and all statements that upset the majority (Republican) should be quashed?

The gummint should be even more violent at the next WTO protests, because they "insight" violence?

Yo are a hoot.

[Exiled in America]

81. Wow. That's crazy.

"Villification" is in the eye of the beholder, and crosses no boundary in and of it self. A lot of what is said here is "villification" of the radical right.

If you believe that a certain public free association will insight violence then you absolutely have caused to quash it.

Umm, no. It is not the case that just because someone has the opinion that someone elses speech could lead to violence you have a right to quash it. Speech can be limited or prosecuted when it specifically directs listeners to specific action of violence, or directly theatens a specific individual.

Simply saying, "this idea or belief may lead to violence" is not grounds to "quash" anything. When I stand up and advocate tearing down the capitalist oligarchy that has respalce the people's democratic republic that started this country, I'm not ignorant enough to think that this will happen without any upheaval or violence. But somone restricting my right to speech on that grounds is shredding the constitution and trampling on the liberties we ought to be willing to die to protect.

I have zero respect for people who are so easily willing to just toss civil rights away the moment someone says something they don't agree with. It is disgusting to me. It's not wonder we've been stripped of so many of the rights we are entitled to by this government. It's hard to fight for them when half your population can't even see past their own nose when it comes to free speech. The moment speech they agree with is infringed upon its all about the glorious first amendment and rah rah rah. The moment speech they disagree with is infringe about they become George W. Bush: "their out to be limits to freedom."

Give me a break.

"Death to Israel" <> "Death to Jews." And before you get all worked up in your martyrdom, you might want to actually find a news article with at least ONE INTERVIEW with the group to see what they have to say, since the reporter who wrote this did no kind of journalism at all - so we have no idea what the content of their protest would actually be, just a lot of hyperbolic artical writing from a sensationalist journalist.

This entire thread could have been avoided if we had an ACTUAL news story instead of sleeze journalism. Then we'd know precisely what this groups deal was. Whether they were a group protesting the recognition of israel as a nation state (which is perfectly within the bounds of free speech whether you like it or not, or like their title or not) or whether or not they were advocating something more agregious or potentially dangerous.

[wordpix2]

113. thanks, Josh, I agree. What would Arabs say if some people held a

"Death to Muslims" rally in the US?

[NoodleyAppendage]

66. Thank you. Finally someone who read the Bill of Rights.

Anti-semitic thought and speech is protected by the Bill of Rights.

J

[Speaker]

52. LMAO.....

...applied for a free-speech permit...

Yep. Free speech is a right. So long as your permit gets approved.

LOL

[gorbal]

56. Did they really name it "Death to Isreal"

I could understand a march against Isreals' policies, and people making it sound like something it wasn't.

[Exiled in America]

84. The article is so POORLY DONE that you can't tell.

I'm extremely skeptical about this article.

[wordpix2]

98. poorly researched articles are par for course when local reporters make

$25K-30K per year.

[Taverner]

73. For the record: "Death to Israel" is anti-semetic

Just to clear things up for everyone. Slogans like "death to Israel" are anti-semetic. "Fuck the Likud" or "IDF=Nazis" is not.

[High Plains]

87. No, I don't think so.

Was "Death to the Soviet Union" anti-Russian bigotry?

There is a differnce between a nation-state and an ethnic group.

[Taverner]

88. Well the Soviet Union was not Mother Russia

Soviet Union Was Mother Russia + Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Kazakstan, Kyrgizstan, Turkmenistan and a few others I can't remember now.

Israel is a people and a nation.

Death to Israel = Death to Jews.

Now Death to Zionism would not be anti-semetic, since Zionism is an 'ism' not a people

[Exiled in America]

103. No.

The Soviet Union was a nation - just like the United States is a nation. Just because the United States has 50 states doesn't mean it isn't a nation.

Israel is not a "people" sorry.

[Zynx]

104. If I said "Death to Iran", how would you interpret that?

[Taverner]

112. They are a people now

Israelis are a "people" now, since it's been a while since Israel declared independence from England.

It's funny how so many people seethe with hatred on both sides of this issue, that they can't see anything in the middle. Oh well, hatred is a funny thing. It's what will doom us as a species, unfortunately.

And for the record, for those of us that actually lived during the Cold War, the mantra was "Death to Communism" or "Death to the Commies," not "Death to the Soviet Union."

[wordpix2]

90. I don't see Israel saying "Death to Lebanon" or "Death to Iran"

[JVS]

115. "Death to the Soviet Union" was/is anti-proletarian bigotry

[stepnw1f]

85. "A Man Whose Name is Unavailable"

Well... we'll have to wait to verify, won't we? Too much Pro-Israeli propaganda floating around now to know what is real and what isn't. Disgusting if true... even more disgusting if it isn't. If this is propaganda... then those spreading it should be called on it then held publicly accountable. We don't need anymore shit then we already have.

[treestar]

99. There is no line between freedom of speech and anti-semitism

Anti-semitists get to talk. Period. There is nothing to fear in their making fools of themselves.

Let them "advocate genocide." (If they are really doing that). How can you fight something by suppressing it? It will just get worse.

I swear that people who think that making inroads on freedom of speech on this subject are like the same people who ignore symptoms until by the time they go to the doctor, the condition is so serious that the person suffers/dies as a result when they didn't have to.

Deal with them up front. It is much safer. Not to mention that is "advocating genocide" is not allowed by speech then stuff like opposing Israel will end up in the definition of "advocating genocide" or criticizing Bush, etc.

[Hamlette]

114. The guy who got the permit was Robert Breeze, local attorney

add that the trib didn't have his name as there was a big write up about it in a local weekly (free) paper earlier in the week.

Breeze is a kind of goofy guy but I don't think of him as a Nazi (long hair, laid back, tad "off", certainly not in the mainstream)

he explained in the weekly magazine that his real issue is with corporate media lying to protect Israel. His big issue is the lazy, lying media in the US but it seems he also talked about how you can't say anything bad about Israel here and we need to be honest about the fact that it was the establishment of Israel in the ME that started all the problems.

Here's an update from the trib. (don't know why they didn't get it right the first time, I read about it at the corner deli waiting for my lunch last week...can't remember the day but it wasn't friday...so earlier in the week.)
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4242208

clip

While he said his group - the Center to Prevent Corporate Media Lying - has other members and financial donors, Breeze wouldn't name them. And he acknowledged some of his past protests against media coverage of the Iraq war that he held in front of the KSL studios included paid participants from the homeless shelter.
Some demonstrators Wednesday also may be paid.
"They're called 'vicarious protesters,' " he said.
When asked if he wants to see the elimination of Israel, Breeze said: "The President of Iran has an excellent idea. . . . I would like to see them move Israel to Virginia and put all the current Virginians in a concentration camp. Then we'll see how popular Israel is ."