West Bank Rabbi: "Its ok to kill Gentile babies and children if they threaten Israel"

[parky76]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126890.html

Such is the insanity that religion can cause. More then a few Muslims, Jews, and Christians, are infected by such vile and evil thoughts.

Gross. Such attitudes should make people of all faiths question and stand up to extremism when they hear it.

It is a tribute to the Jewish people, that we have exposed this disgusting Rabbi. I hope Christians and Muslims would do the same, when their own leaders speak such filth.

[Skeptic]

Yes, that's quite right. This religious nut said just that. And guess what? It's the FRONT PAGE HEADLINE in Israel's 2nd most common daily newspaper today, Ma'ariv, as well as the English-language version of Ha'aretz -- strongly condemning him, of course.

This is important since the former is what the average Joe Israel reads, while the latter source mostly caters to left-wing foreigners and is far to the left of the Israeli consensus on just about everything. So it isn't a case of condemnation in English and praise (or ignoring) in Hebrew.

Checking the updates on this story in the Hebrew-language Ma'ariv web's site, it seems that -- as expected -- that only some people in the Yeshiva he teaches in support him publicly, and that support is of the "but he didn't actually break any law" (which is true) type, not the "we agree with him" type.

So, like in the case of Ovadia Yosef, you have a religious whacko... and a total condemnation, more or less as strong as it possibly could be (huge front page headline) from the media and, in tow, most of the population.

[INRM]

Parky 76,

There's a serious problem when a group of people begin to adopt the attitude that anybody is not of their group doesn't count as a human being.

[parky76]

So, like in the case of Ovadia Yosef, you have a religious whacko... and a total condemnation, more or less as strong as it possibly could be (huge front page headline) from the media and, in tow, most of the population.

Just as it should be.

Israel, unlike its Islamist and pseudo-Secular authoritarian regime neighbors, is a Western-style liberal Democracy. And as such, it should be held to a much higher standard. I hold Israel to the same standard as I do the USA, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, etc.

I expect a whole lot more from Israel then I do its neighbors, just as I expect more from the USA then I do Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126890.html

Such is the insanity that religion can cause. More then a few Muslims, Jews, and Christians, are infected by such vile and evil thoughts.

Gross. Such attitudes should make people of all faiths question and stand up to extremism when they hear it.

It is a tribute to the Jewish people, that we have exposed this disgusting Rabbi. I hope Christians and Muslims would do the same, when their own leaders speak such filth.

In other news, Phred Phelps is a typical American, and a typical Christian.
Oh, wait, he isn't.

NVM

DR

[Marduk]

I thought this was normal bible policy, advocating the murder of your enemies, especially if theyre innocent ?

This isn't fundementalism, this is just normal religion, doing it would be fundementalist,
;)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Didn't Dawkins cite something similar to this in one of his books? Something about the attitudes of young Israeli Jews about whether or not it was moral for Joshua and the Israelites to slaughter the people of Jericho (or whatever city they were discussing).

Chilling that something like that is relatively commonly taught in this day and age in a supposedly modern liberal democracy.

[parky76]

In other news, Phred Phelps is a typical American, and a typical Christian.


I guess you never saw my thread about him, his protest outside a NYC Synagogue, and what I think should be done to him and his followers.

[Darth Rotor]

I guess you never saw my thread about him, his protest outside a NYC Synagogue, and what I think should be done to him and his followers.
Then you ought to understand the point I was making to you.

DR

[Eyeron]

Edited for Rule 12.

[Fiona]

Why are people condemning the OP here?

It is a tribute to the Jewish people, that we have exposed this disgusting Rabbi. I hope Christians and Muslims would do the same, when their own leaders speak such filth.

Is there something false about this? or reprehensible about the wish expressed?

[Marduk]

It is a tribute to the Jewish people, that we have exposed this disgusting Rabbi. I hope Christians and Muslims would do the same, when their own leaders speak such filth.


Is there something false about this? or reprehensible about the wish expressed?
A little naive perhaps

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
little reaction from Christians
"Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do".
little reaction from Moslems

;)

[Eyeron]

Why are people condemning the OP here?


I'm condemning the motives of the op. He only started posting articles like this because somebody started posting articles about Hamas and Muslims condemning Israel and calling for its death and destruction and the same thing for all Jews everywhere. His purpose was not to bring this point out but rather to present a message that all Jews are hateful and racist against all Muslims and Arabs everywhere because of Israel and the Muslims and Arabs who call for the death and destruction of Israel and Jews Israel is not racist in any way shape or form.

[Fiona]

Well I didn't get that from the OP.

[mortimer]

Israel, unlike its Islamist and pseudo-Secular authoritarian regime neighbors, is a Western-style liberal Democracy. And as such, it should be held to a much higher standard. I hold Israel to the same standard as I do the USA, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, etc.

I expect a whole lot more from Israel then I do its neighbors, just as I expect more from the USA then I do Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
What do you expect Israel to do about this Rabbi? What, in general, do you expect Western-style liberal Democracies to do about citizens who say unpopular things?

[JoeTheJuggler]

What do you expect Israel to do about this Rabbi? What, in general, do you expect Western-style liberal Democracies to do about citizens who say unpopular things?

I expect people in those countries to do about what Parky is doing here: use free speech to point out how reprehensible this kind of teaching is.

[parky76]

What do you expect Israel to do about this Rabbi? What, in general, do you expect Western-style liberal Democracies to do about citizens who say unpopular things?


well, as opposed to the USA, it is illegal in Israel to make racist speeches that call for violence. it may even be illegal to simply make racially inciting speeches. if that is the case, this Rabbi should be taken away in cuffs.

[parky76]

Israel is not racist in any way shape or form.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, I guess.

When the Jewish settlements allow Arab residents, then you will be correct.

When Israel allows Jewish citizens to marry, who were converted by Conservative Rabbis, then you will be correct,

When Israel starts building new communities for its Arab citizens, and not just Jewish ones, then you will be correct.

When Israel starts demolishing illegally built Jewish homes with the same determination and zeal that it demolishes Arab homes, then you will be correct.

When Israel starts spending the same amoung on Arab students as it does on Jewish students, then you will be correct.

But until that day comes, Israel is indeed in many ways a racist state. Not a total one like Apartheid South Africa, but it is on its way.

and btw, there is ONE reason and ONE reason only, why some people are upset with this thread, and that is because it exposes Jewish racism.

[Marduk]

there is ONE reason and ONE reason only, why some people are upset with this thread, and that is because it exposes Jewish racism.

woooh there, too much, it just exposes a racist statement made by one man. Do you condemn all Moslems because of Al Quaeda ?

[parky76]

woooh there, too much, it just exposes a racist statement made by one man. Do you condemn all Moslems because of Al Quaeda ?

beautiful strawman. absolutely outstanding.

no where in this thread have I condemned "all" Jews of being racist.

if you actually cared to read the OP, I congratulated the Jewish people for exposing the racism within our own midsts. I only wish Muslims would do the same.

but also as I mentioned, Israel is a Western-style Liberal democracy, so obviously we can and should expect more from Israelis then from residents of Islamist states or secular-Arab dictatorships.

[Marduk]

beautiful strawman. absolutely outstanding.

no where in this thread have I condemned "all" Jews of being racist.

if you actually cared to read the OP, I congratulated the Jewish people for exposing the racism within our own midsts. I only wish Muslims would do the same.

but also as I mentioned, Israel is a Western-style Liberal democracy, so obviously we can and should expect more from Israelis then from residents of Islamist states or secular-Arab dictatorships.

this thread isn't exposing Jewish racism, its exposing religious intolerance, but hey nice straw man, claiming I havent read the OP when I already commented on it in the 5th post in this thread

"It is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation," he wrote, adding: "If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder."
its not aimed just at Palestinians is it, it doesnt seem to be aimed at any seperate race of people.
;)
this is nothing new, the bible is full of it

[parky76]

this thread isn't exposing Jewish racism, its exposing religious intolerance,


Racism.....ethnic bigotry....religious intolerance.......its all kinda the same thing.

[Marduk]

Racism.....ethnic bigotry....religious intolerance.......its all kinda the same thing.

its all bloody awful and inhumane

[The Fool]

Edited response to modded post.

[parky76]

you need to get over this belief that you have a right to post like this on this forum, you dont. And if you can't control it you will join the rest of those who couldn''t control it.

luckily, a majority of Jews in the world do not believe that we are beyond criticism. though unfortunately, many Jews do still believe that it is anti-Semitic to simply expose Jewish racism and bigotry.

Jewish racists and bigots should be shamed and frowned upon, not protected.

[Eyeron]

you need to get over this belief that you have a right to post like this on this forum, you dont. And if you can't control it you will join the rest of those who couldn''t control it.

Same to you bub.

Take it to AAH.

[Cainkane1]

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/more-on-kosher-sanctioned-murder/

This may be some biggots website or it may express real sentiments. The Jewish people I know wouldn't even think of something like this. I believe some right winger put this garbage up.

[Hux]

It is of course NOT OK to kill babies and children of any persuasion and its NOT Ok to kill anyone for any reason in an ideal world.

Why are we spending time discussing the OP when the article itself is the the thing and pretty horrible at that? Why all the point scoring - or, should I not be surprised?

[Soapy Sam]

"Is this an anti semetic website or is it true?"

An interesting dichotomy.

You assert that anti-semites lie constantly? About everything, or just about Semitism?

By the way- what is "Semitism"?
Anybody?

[mortimer]

well, as opposed to the USA, it is illegal in Israel to make racist speeches that call for violence. it may even be illegal to simply make racially inciting speeches. if that is the case, this Rabbi should be taken away in cuffs.
Do you think this is what other Western-style democracies should do as well in such a situation?

I'm trying to understand what your (paraphrased) "Israel wants to be a Western-style democracy, but then there's this Rabbi who said..." statement is supposed to mean. Should a Western-style democracy allow such speech or should it suppress it?

[Cainkane1]

I started a thread similar to this one but this one is better than mine. It may be a good idea to either erase mine or combine my thread with this one.

[Lothian]

By the way- what is "Semitism"?
Anybody?I think it is anti-anti-Semitism

[parky76]

Should a Western-style democracy allow such speech or should it suppress it?

a Western-style democracy should strive to have as much tolerance as possible for minority groups. some nations feel that racist speeches endangers that. others do not.

as an American, I understand our incredible support for freedom of speech, even racist speech. though i understand why other Democracies disagree on that issue.

[parky76]

Edited response to modded post.

[Eyeron]

By the way- what is "Semitism"?
Anybody?

From wiki:

In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic (from the Biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם, translated as "name", Arabic: ساميّ) was first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Akkadian, Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Ge'ez, Hebrew, Maltese, Phoenician, Tigre and Tigrinya among others.

As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.

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

[Skeptic]

I expect people in those countries to do about what Parky is doing here: use free speech to point out how reprehensible this kind of teaching is.

But they are doing just that in Israel, as I noted. It is front page news -- and everybody is condemning it. Certainly, in any case, most major newspapers are. For most of the population, the rabbi's sayings doesn't reach the level of "criticism": it is an eye-rolling, "oh goody, another loony rabbi, that's all we needed".

By the way, interestingly, in the last 24 hours since the exposition, the discussion about him in the local scene in Israel (as see in the Hebrew-language follow-up articles about possible legal action against him, and/or the comments on the articles in the Hebrew press' web sites) has moved on from universal condemnation to the more interesting point, namely, what is to be done? Should he be punished or silenced?

Here, the consensus is -- again, quite correctly -- that he should not. People are pissed at him, but he is clever enough to write in a language that is abstract and generalized enough for it to count as free speech, not incitement to immediate violence of the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre sort. For example, he never mentions "Arabs" or "Palestinians" or "left-wingers" -- he only talks about "gentiles" (goyim) in general or "Jewish traitors" in the general terms. Never does he say, "you should go and kill them"; he always says, "my considered opinion is that the halacha, in theory, permits such killing".

He is, in short, very expertly staying on the legal side of the free speech issue and not falling into incitement in the legal sense. This is annoying and infuriating, but the same is true of, say, the Ku Klux Klan's "scientific articles" about Blacks, or the IHR's "academic discussion" about whether the holocaust happened. Free speech means people pulling tricks like that must be tolerated.

Tolerated, however, is of course not the same thing as liked or not criticized. The general opinion in Israel is, "disgusting schmuck -- but we can't do much more than shame him publicly". Which is precisely what the press is doing.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But they are doing just that in Israel, as I noted. It is front page news -- and everybody is condemning it. Certainly, in any case, most major newspapers are. For most of the population, the rabbi's sayings doesn't reach the level of "criticism": it is an eye-rolling, "oh goody, another loony rabbi, that's all we needed".
And I am pleased to hear that. I was responding to a question that I think suggested that people who find this teaching abhorrent should either shut up or seek to undo free speech by supressing the speech of hateful lunatics. As if criticism of something like this necessitates repression.

However, I don't know if the consensus is actually as you describe. Maybe this rabbi in particular is considered to most Israelis the way most Christians considered Phelps here, but again that research Dawkins cited (I'll look it up here in a minute) suggests that people are actually teaching Israeli children something very similar.

It was the experiments of Israeli psychologist George Tamarin published in 1966 and 1973. Dawkins described it in The God Delusion. (Basically, he asked school children whether they approved of the morality of Joshua's destruction of Jericho, slaughtering young and old men & women, children, animals, burning the place, etc. He also described the same story but set it in "a Chinese kingdom 3000 years ago" rather than in their own national past and asked similar questions.)

Hopefully mainstream education in Israel has changed since then. But someone had to be teaching children something very similar to what the rabbi in this story is teaching not so terribly long ago.

ETA: Again, if things have changed dramatically since the early '70s, and teachings like this are generally condemned, then I am very pleased.

[WildCat]

Israel, unlike its Islamist and pseudo-Secular authoritarian regime neighbors, is a Western-style liberal Democracy. And as such, it should be held to a much higher standard. I hold Israel to the same standard as I do the USA, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, etc.

I expect a whole lot more from Israel then I do its neighbors, just as I expect more from the USA then I do Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
So it's OK for non-western style liberal democracies to violate human rights. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Well I didn't get that from the OP.
No, you'd have to get it from reading parky threads.

parky's first instinct when someone points out how radical Islam has become mainstream in some places ( as evidenced by Iran's hanging of homosexuals, Palestinian children's shows advocating suicide bomber as a future vocation, or Saudi Arabia's whipping of women for getting raped) is to rush out and find some fringe lunatic Rabbi with little to no following and no influence at all politically to show that Jews are just as bad.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So it's OK for non-western style liberal democracies to violate human rights. :rolleyes:

I don't think it follows that holding them to a higher standard means we should remove free speech to silence this sort of thing. I don't think anyone has proposed any such draconian measures. I think it means we should criticize and condemn it, which is apparently what's happening.

The same thing happens here when you criticize someone for saying something stupid. People accuse the critic of being against free speech. In fact, criticism is the exercise of free speech too.

ETA: As Fiona pointed out, in the OP, Parky was actually praising the people of Israel for condemning this sort of thing. He made a plea that, "Such attitudes should make people of all faiths question and stand up to extremism when they hear it." I heard nothing about a proposal to rescind free speech. In fact, again, making a plea like this is also protected free speech.

[Yoink]

If this guy is a "fringe lunatic rabbi" with "no following at all" what do we make of this part of the Ha'aretz piece:

Several prominent rabbis, including Rabbi Yithak Ginzburg and Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, have recommended the book to their students and followers

Is that simply a lie? Are they mischaracterizing these rabbis as "prominent"?

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, you'd have to get it from reading parky threads.

That's hardly fair or legitimate argumentation. You're giving yourself permission to ignore the statement someone actually made in order to respond to what your bias (based on his past posts) makes you think is what he intended to say.

[Soapy Sam]

So it's OK for non-western style liberal democracies to violate human rights.

No- he's saying he is more apt to expect it of such states. He's not approving it.

[WildCat]

I don't think it follows that holding them to a higher standard means we should remove free speech to silence this sort of thing. I don't think anyone has proposed any such draconian measures. I think it means we should criticize and condemn it, which is apparently what's happening.
You missed the point. Humans don't have any less rights simply because they live in a non-western style liberal democracy. parky is making the case that they do indeed have fewer rights.

[lionking]

No, you'd have to get it from reading parky threads.

parky's first instinct when someone points out how radical Islam has become mainstream in some places ( as evidenced by Iran's hanging of homosexuals, Palestinian children's shows advocating suicide bomber as a future vocation, or Saudi Arabia's whipping of women for getting raped) is to rush out and find some fringe lunatic Rabbi with little to no following and no influence at all politically to show that Jews are just as bad.
Bingo. The OP is an exercise in trolldom, nothing else.

[WildCat]

No- he's saying he is more apt to expect it of such states. He's not approving it.
Of course, why expect the same from mud people? They don't know any better. Not like us smart white guys.

We can safely excuse their behavior, after all they can't help it.

[Yoink]

By the way, here's a link to Google Translate version of the Ma'ariv page (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=iw&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrg.co.il%2Fonline%2F1%2FART1%2 F964%2F544.html)about this that Skeptic referred to earlier. The page itself seems neither condemnatory nor celebratory--it simply seems like news reporting (of course, this is through the many veils of Google Translate, so I may be missing something crucial). The comments are pretty obviously condemnatory for the most part, but also quite obviously not universally so. I think Skeptic was rather overselling the notion that this kind of opinion is universally execrated by virtually all segments of the Israeli populace. But, then again, Skeptic obviously reads Hebrew and I don't, so I would welcome correction.

[Skeptic]

However, I don't know if the consensus is actually as you describe. Maybe this rabbi in particular is considered to most Israelis the way most Christians considered Phelps here, but again that research Dawkins cited (I'll look it up here in a minute) suggests that people are actually teaching Israeli children something very similar.

Absolutely, positively, totally false.

I can show you my childrens' textbooks. The title of the third-grade's textbook is "to live together in Israel" -- "together" means differnet communities. It is, if anything, politically correct to the point of bleeeeeeeeeegh. The authors are meticulous in making sure every single ethnic group in the country -- including, rather prominently, Arabs -- are shown in a positive light.

I can show you my old textbooks. Heck, I can show you my parent's textbooks. They, too, if not as politically correct, could be charged at most with being somewhat patronizing, or perhaps not giving enough attention, to minority groups or their problems (and we're talking about the 1950s to 1970s era). But bothing remotely like what this Rabbi is teaching.

In fact I am a teacher in a teacher's college. I was, for other reasons than this, concerned about what people teach about "race relations" (i.e., Jewish-Arabs relations) in Israel. Not only are most of the official teching programs for all grades not remotely racist -- they actually emphasize a lot of diversity.

It was the experiments of Israeli psychologist George Tamarin published in 1966 and 1973. Dawkins described it in The God Delusion. (Basically, he asked school children whether they approved of the morality of Joshua's destruction of Jericho, slaughtering young and old men & women, children, animals, burning the place, etc. He also described the same story but set it in "a Chinese kingdom 3000 years ago" rather than in their own national past and asked similar questions.)

A totally different issue. Here it is teaching what the bible said in bible class. It was enough for the children at this age that "God said to do it". If they were told that God said to destroy the Chinese kingdom, they would probably agree with that, too.

What this leads us to is the issue of whether it is possible at all to teach the bible in a secular school in the lower grades without indoctrinization. I assure you, again both from my, my parents, and my children's experience, that the teacher does NOT proselyte: "And therefore, children, you must do likewise". But for young children, the very fact that an old book says that God ordered something is enough.

(In context, I think that it is this general fact, not an attack on Israeli education in particular, that is Dawkins' point in quoting that study).

But, again, this is a matter of age and general childish belief of what adults say -- not intentional indocrinization, let alone indoctrinization in mass murder. In higher classes (again, I happen, due to my professional position, to know) certainly the emphasis in bible studies is the same as it is in the university: that is, (a) textual analysis, looking at the sources of the writing, etc., and (b) moral lessons drawn from the prophets' criticism of the kings and the people, their view of a just society, and so on, not "God said to kill X".

Hopefully mainstream education in Israel has changed since then. But someone had to be teaching children something very similar to what the rabbi in this story is teaching not so terribly long ago.

I can give you my professional view that, yes, it changed a LOT, and yes, partially due to this issue. But I disagree it is the same thing to begin with.

The enormous difference is that the effect Dawkins is quoting was unintentional: the teachers, the writers of the material to be taught in bible class, etc., had no intention to make children believe mass murder is OK. And it was NOT in any way some sort of general goal of the educational system: on the contrary, if anything, the educational system kept stressing plurality and diversity since the 1960s. It was the unintended result of teaching a particular part of the bible.

To sum up:

If the kids were deliberately taught mostly "God said to kill X" parts of the bible and also this conclusion was emphasized in civics class, then absolutely it would be the same thing. That would be equivalent to what the rabbi here said.

But kids were taught that part as on of many, many parts of the bible they were taught in bible class; the "it's OK to do it" result was unintended -- due to the children's age, not indoctriniation as a goal; and civics class taught the exact opposite.

[Skeptic]

Just to clarify: was it wrong to teach this part of the bible to young children? Yes. Was it intentionally wrong, part of an indoctrination program to teach them to despise and kill non-Jews? Absolutely not.

Sorry about the long-winded reply above, but, as it happens, I am in a position to know.

[Skeptic]

By the way, here's a link to Google Translate version of the Ma'ariv page (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=iw&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrg.co.il%2Fonline%2F1%2FART1%2 F964%2F544.html)about this that Skeptic referred to earlier. The page itself seems neither condemnatory nor celebratory--it simply seems like news reporting (of course, this is through the many veils of Google Translate, so I may be missing something crucial).

The translation is OK, but... you're translating the wrong article.

This isn't the original article, exposing the rabbi. It is the official "right of reply" by the man's friends and colleagues, which is standard practice every time a paper exposes some corruption of wrongdoing (the "in reply, so-and-so said that...").

Such "right of reply" articles by definition are neither pro nor anti, mostly for legal and professional reasons.

Here (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=iw&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrg.co.il%2Fonline%2F1%2FART1%2 F964%2F544.html) is what you are looking for. The google translator is not bad, but makes some odd mistakes. The Hebrew is (on the whole) stronger and more condemnatory in tone than the translator, but even without the tone, you can see:

1). In the sub-heading: "this is the material from which Jewish terrorism is made".

2). The (rather garbled in translation) first paragraph expressed incredulity that a 230-page book can deal with such a subject and that the book's answer to the question of "when is it permitted to kill non-Jews" is "almost always" (i.e., in numerous practical situations). The point of pointing this out is to emphasize that hiding behind "we're just giving the answer to a theoretical religious question" (oh yeah? for 230 pages?) and the "it's not relevant to real life, just theoretical" excuses isn't working.

3). It emphasizes that the book's attempts for legitimacy of the "well, it's usually forbidden to kill non-Jews, BUT..." sort are a cover up: "Very quickly, the authors move form the prohibited to the permitted, and..."

4). Emphasizes that the book's "theoretical" use of the word "goyim" (non-Jews) instead of "Arabs" or "Palestinians" isn't fooling anybody;

5). Notes the book was sold in "a memorial for Meir Kahane" to emphasize its popularity in the extreme right;

Etc., etc.

The inescapable conclusion of the article is that this book is not a theoretical religious tract in anything except the purely formal sense, and in reality it's merely a blanket permission to kill any Arab one dislikes (as well as Jews that oppose your political views, too), and that this is why it's making the rounds in Kahane meetings.

And I emphasize: this exposition and criticism was not some page-22 thing; it was on half of the first page.

[scratchy]

Just as it should be.

Israel, unlike its Islamist and pseudo-Secular authoritarian regime neighbors, is a Western-style liberal Democracy. And as such, it should be held to a much higher standard. I hold Israel to the same standard as I do the USA, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, etc.

I expect a whole lot more from Israel then I do its neighbors, just as I expect more from the USA then I do Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Expecting and holding to a standard isnt the same thing. I see no reason to measure arab countries by any lower standard than that to which we hold western democracies. I might however expect different outcomes of that measure.

[Yoink]

The translation is OK, but... you're translating the wrong article.

This isn't the original article, exposing the rabbi. It is the official "right of reply" by the man's friends and colleagues, which is standard practice every time a paper exposes some corruption of wrongdoing (the "in reply, so-and-so said that...").

Such "right of reply" articles by definition are neither pro nor anti, mostly for legal and professional reasons.

Here (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=iw&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrg.co.il%2Fonline%2F1%2FART1%2 F964%2F544.html) is what you are looking for. The google translator is not bad, but makes some odd mistakes. The Hebrew is (on the whole) stronger and more condemnatory in tone than the translator, but even without the tone, you can see:

1). In the sub-heading: "this is the material from which Jewish terrorism is made".
2). The (rather garbled in translation) first paragraph expressed incredulity that a 230-page book can deal with such a subject.
3). It emphasizes that the book's attempts for legitimacy of the "well, it's usually forbidden to kill non-Jews, BUT..." sort are a cover up: "Very quickly, the authors move form the prohibited to the permitted, and..."
3). Emphasizes that the book's "theoretical" use of the word "goyim" (non-Jews) instead of "Arabs" or "Palestinians" isn't fooling anybody;
4). Notes the book was sold in "a memorial for Meir Kahane" to emphasize its popularity in the extreme right;

Etc.

And I emphasize: this exposition and criticism was not some page-22 thing; it was on half of the first page.

Thanks for the reply, Skeptic. I should note that your link took me back to the page I'd originally linked to; but I found that I could follow a link (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=iw&tl=en&u=http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/964/186.html&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhghxWZenc0CGnLXs1vjjYJUv1Ep7A)on that page which took me to the story you're talking about.

I can't say, alas, that the story as it appears on Google translate is as stoutly condemnatory as you describe it. Obviously much can be lost in translation in the matter of tone and so forth. Yes the subhead mentions Jewish terrorism, but then the authors of the book are quoted as explicitly offering a theory and justification of a "balance of terror." It's not obviously condemnatory to describe as "terrorism" a theory which overtly embraces that descriptor.

I think you must be using your own translations when you talk of "cover up"s and "moving from the prohibited to the permitted"--I can't find those strings on the page. I notice, though, that you skip over this claim near the beginning of the story:

Although the book is not distributed networks leading books, but it gets hot recommendations on the right factors, including book recommendations printed at such prominent rabbis Yitzhak Ginzburg, Dov Lior, Yaakov Yosef, and more.

Again, it simply can't be true to say that this book is being universally condemned in Israel if "prominent rabbis" are giving it "hot recommendations." That isn't, of course, to say that it represents mainstream Israeli opinion, but it clearly has a constituency.

You also didn't respond to my point about the comments. This original story is also full of comments and, once again, many of them are of the "what's the big deal? Of course we have to defend ourselves!" kind. You are the one who represented this newspaper and its readers as typical, mainstream Israelis. Well, a surprisingly large number of typical, mainstream Israelis read this story and say, effectively, "right on!"

[parky76]

Expecting and holding to a standard isnt the same thing. I see no reason to measure arab countries by any lower standard than that to which we hold western democracies. I might however expect different outcomes of that measure.

well, I also believe that there should be consequences to holding a nation to a much lower standard. in regards to trade agreements, aid, security treaties, etc.

Islamist states and secular Authoritarian regimes should reap the profits of their behavior, and that won't be much.

[Doctor Evil]

Thanks for the reply, Skeptic. I should note that your link took me back to the page I'd originally linked to; but I found that I could follow a link (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=iw&tl=en&u=http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/964/186.html&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhghxWZenc0CGnLXs1vjjYJUv1Ep7A)on that page which took me to the story you're talking about.

I can't say, alas, that the story as it appears on Google translate is as stoutly condemnatory as you describe it. Obviously much can be lost in translation in the matter of tone and so forth. Yes the subhead mentions Jewish terrorism, but then the authors of the book are quoted as explicitly offering a theory and justification of a "balance of terror." It's not obviously condemnatory to describe as "terrorism" a theory which overtly embraces that descriptor.

I think you must be using your own translations when you talk of "cover up"s and "moving from the prohibited to the permitted"--I can't find those strings on the page. I notice, though, that you skip over this claim near the beginning of the story:


I read the original article, and can comment on that. The article does not explicitly express the opinions of the writer, instead focusing on the claims made in the book, in a dry and factual manner. (I would guess that the headline, as well as the sub headline, were written by an editor.) The author also state some of the possible implications of the claims made in the book.

Yet, in my opinion, the author of the article is very critical of the content of the book. (And rightfully so!) This can be clearly seen by his selection of material, which mostly focuses on justifications for attacks against innocents. To my judgment, the author attempted to highlight the worst parts of the book and let the readers judge for themselves. The author tries to highlight how some of the claims are constructed so that they could be interpreted as permitting various violent acts.


Again, it simply can't be true to say that this book is being universally condemned in Israel if "prominent rabbis" are giving it "hot recommendations." That isn't, of course, to say that it represents mainstream Israeli opinion, but it clearly has a constituency.
I do not think that said rabbis are that prominent. I have only ever heard of one of them, and he is mostly known for his extreme right wing views. As a complete atheist I an not sure I am the right person to answer this, but I doubt the claim to prominence. May be relevant if you only consider the Jews living in settlements like Itzhar, but probably not so relevant if you want to consider all religious Jews in Israel.


You also didn't respond to my point about the comments. This original story is also full of comments and, once again, many of them are of the "what's the big deal? Of course we have to defend ourselves!" kind. You are the one who represented this newspaper and its readers as typical, mainstream Israelis. Well, a surprisingly large number of typical, mainstream Israelis read this story and say, effectively, "right on!"

Welcome to the world of newspapers talkbacks. These are always dominated by the most extreme obsessive readers.

[Skeptic]

I can't say, alas, that the story as it appears on Google translate is as stoutly condemnatory as you describe it.

This is google translator's issue. I don't know how it works on your browser, but in mine, if you highlight material, it shows the original Hebrew, which I was using. So yes, I was using my own translation. Google translator comes out rather bland, yes.

The original Hebrew article is polite and non-hysterical, yes. It doesn't go, "oh my god look at the evil rabbis!!!" but concentrates on the facts. But it is all the more efficient due to that -- since it concentrates precisely on the facts that condemn the book and show how bad it is, how much it is really a blanket permission to kill Arabs, denials notwithstanding. It lets the facts speak for themselves.

[Skeptic]

Again, it simply can't be true to say that this book is being universally condemned in Israel if "prominent rabbis" are giving it "hot recommendations."

It can -- because "prominent rabbis" give "warm recommendations" (a better translation) to LOTS of books. It is the rabbinical world's equivalent, not of any support base, but of having a back-cover blurb; or, more accurate perhaps, the idiotic practice of "advanced praise for" -- which actually tells you, right on the back cover blurb, that those praising the book haven't actually read it.

I am not saying all of those rabbis would disagree with the book. But this certainly is no proof, any more than "advance praise" for a book means much. In the orthodox Jewish world, there will not be a rabbinical book, no matter how worthless, that will be published at all without getting a "warm recommendation" from somebody. That hardly means there is a strong base of support.

[Beerina]

West Bank Rabbi: "Its ok to kill Gentile babies and children if they threaten Israel"

Midwest Beerina: The god Yahweh is a first-class ******* since he sits around on his fat ass while people kill each other.

[Skeptic]

An analogy might be in order.

Suppose a far-right man with ties to the KKK published a book "proving" the genetic inferiority of Blacks.

Will the book be published by a main publishing house, or sold in main bookstores? Probably not. Same here with this rabbi's book.

Will the back cover blurb have some "advanced praise" from "prominent" (it says so right on the back cover, so it must be true!) sociologists / politicians / whomever, about how the book is "brave" and "breaks taboos" and whatever? Probably so. Same with the rabbi's book.

If exposed by, say, Time magazine, will the comment section be full of "but what do you expect? Everybody knows blacks are inferior, you're just hiding it for political correct reasons" talkbacks? Unless Time censors the comments, probably so. Same with the rabbi's book.

Will it be a big hit in KKK and white-power rallies? Probably so. Same with the rabbi's book, a big hit with Kahane's fans.

But:

Does any of this mean there is "widespread support" in American society for such a view?
Or that America is "deeply racist"?
Or that is is morally equivalent to the Jihadis in Darfur -- the Jihadis think Blacks are inferior and so does this author, so what's the difference?

No, no, and, most emphatically, no.

Same with the rabbi's book.

[Yoink]

This is google translator's issue. I don't know how it works on your browser, but in mine, if you highlight material, it shows the original Hebrew, which I was using. So yes, I was using my own translation. Google translator comes out rather bland, yes.

The original Hebrew article is polite and non-hysterical, yes. It doesn't go, "oh my god look at the evil rabbis!!!" but concentrates on the facts. But it is all the more efficient due to that -- since it concentrates precisely on the facts that condemn the book and show how bad it is, how much it is really a blanket permission to kill Arabs, denials notwithstanding. It lets the facts speak for themselves.

But facts don't "speak for themselves." When Al-Jazeera reports on Muslim extremists, the loonies on the right say "see! see! they're the media arm of Al Qaeda!" simply because they report on what Al Qaeda does and says. There's a yawning gulf between your original claim (that this mainstream Israeli paper's report on this book was strongly condemnatory) and your current claim (which, as far as I can see, is much closer to the truth) that it simply reported on the fact of this book's existence. Now, yes, you and I read those facts and are horrified. From the reader comments on the article it is clear than many, many, Israeli citizens are equally horrified. That's all to the good. But those comments make it equally clear than many, many Israeli citizens learn these "facts" and think "yes, of course!"

It can -- because "prominent rabbis" give "warm recommendations" (a better translation) to LOTS of books. It is the rabbinical world's equivalent, not of any support base, but of having a back-cover blurb; or, more accurate perhaps, the idiotic practice of "advanced praise for" -- which actually tells you, right on the back cover blurb, that those praising the book haven't actually read it.

I am not saying all of those rabbis would disagree with the book. But this certainly is no proof, any more than "advance praise" for a book means much. In the orthodox Jewish world, there will not be a rabbinical book, no matter how worthless, that will be published at all without getting a "warm recommendation" from somebody. That hardly means there is a strong base of support.

It is the newspaper article from the newspaper which you, yourself, recommended as one that is fair and reliable and representative of mainstream Israeli opinion which says that the book is getting "warm recommendations" (to use your translation) from "prominent rabbis." The question of what is written on the back cover blurb of the book is really irrelevant here. This book as written is being warmly recommended by Israeli rabbis who are "prominent" in the opinion of an Israeli newspaper that you regard as reliable, without a specific axe to grind, and representative of mainstream Israeli opinion.

An analogy might be in order.

Suppose a far-right man with ties to the KKK published a book "proving" the genetic inferiority of Blacks.

Will the book be published by a main publishing house, or sold in main bookstores? Probably not. Same here with this rabbi's book.

Will the back cover blurb have some "advanced praise" from "prominent" (it says so right on the back cover, so it must be true!) sociologists / politicians / whomever, about how the book is "brave" and "breaks taboos" and whatever? Probably so. Same with the rabbi's book.

If exposed by, say, Time magazine, will the comment section be full of "but what do you expect? Everybody knows blacks are inferior, you're just hiding it for political correct reasons" talkbacks? Unless Time censors the comments, probably so. Same with the rabbi's book.

Will it be a big hit in KKK and white-power rallies? Probably so. Same with the rabbi's book, a big hit with Kahane's fans.

But:

Does any of this mean there is "widespread support" in American society for such a view?
Or that America is "deeply racist"?
Or that is is morally equivalent to the Jihadis in Darfur -- the Jihadis think Blacks are inferior and so does this author, so what's the difference?

No, no, and, most emphatically, no.

Same with the rabbi's book.

I'm not making the claim that Israel is "deeply racist" or that there is "widespread support" for the rabbi's p.o.v, or that Israeli citizens are the moral equivalents of the Jihadis in Darfur (where the hell did that come from?). I'm saying that your original characterization of this view as one with essentially no support in Israeli society at large and one that is almost universally condemned by Israeli citizens is clearly a vast overstatement; just as it would be a vast overstatement to say that racism is "dead" in the US or that "no one in the US believes that blacks are inherently inferior to whites" etc. etc.

And no, if someone said "racism is a serious problem in the United States, even today" it would not be a reasonable response to say "how dare you suggest that every single American is a member of the KKK!!!"

[Darth Rotor]

It is of course NOT OK to kill babies and children of any persuasion and its NOT Ok to kill anyone for any reason in an ideal world.
Whoa, closet Pro-Lifer in the house? :eek:


(J/K)
Why all the point scoring - or, should I not be surprised?
No, need not be surprised. You know "where" you are. :)

DR

[JoeTheJuggler]

You missed the point. Humans don't have any less rights simply because they live in a non-western style liberal democracy. parky is making the case that they do indeed have fewer rights.
I don't read anything in the OP to support your allegation.

As Fiona pointed out, he actually praised Israelis for their response. I didn't hear him calling for a reduction in rights for anyone.

You seem to be leaping to a conclusion that is not supported by the facts. Where, in this thread, did Parky say anything about reducing human rights for anyone?

I think he said he has higher expectations of Israelis than their neighbors.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Absolutely, positively, totally false.
What is?



A totally different issue. Here it is teaching what the bible said in bible class. It was enough for the children at this age that "God said to do it". If they were told that God said to destroy the Chinese kingdom, they would probably agree with that, too.
No. Tamarin found the very opposite. The children did find the story to be immoral if the actors were Chinese rather than their own ancestors.

Again, someone at least back then certainly was teaching something very similar to what the silly rabbi in this story is teaching.

If it's not so anymore, then I am very happy to learn that.


What this leads us to is the issue of whether it is possible at all to teach the bible in a secular school in the lower grades without indoctrinization.
That's a very good question. In fact, I think it can point to the more general question as to whether any system of government based on theocratic principles is compatible with democracy. (I've made the same point about the government and constitution of Iran. Their attitude toward these holy people is not the healthy sort of cynicism we have toward our elected leaders.)

I assure you, again both from my, my parents, and my children's experience, that the teacher does NOT proselyte: "And therefore, children, you must do likewise". But for young children, the very fact that an old book says that God ordered something is enough.
Please read about Tamarin's work.

(In context, I think that it is this general fact, not an attack on Israeli education in particular, that is Dawkins' point in quoting that study).

Well Dawkin's point was that not only does religion not prevent hatred and violence, it actually can be the source of it. At any rate, I agree these issues aren't unique to Israel. I never claimed otherwise.


If the kids were deliberately taught mostly "God said to kill X" parts of the bible and also this conclusion was emphasized in civics class, then absolutely it would be the same thing. That would be equivalent to what the rabbi here said.

But kids were taught that part as on of many, many parts of the bible they were taught in bible class; the "it's OK to do it" result was unintended -- due to the children's age, not indoctriniation as a goal; and civics class taught the exact opposite.
I don't think that's an accurate description of what Tamarin found. It seems the kids were able to exercise moral reason. (Again, moving the exact same narrative to ancient China was a way to test for that.)

Whether the indoctrination was intentional or not doesn't seem terribly relevant. If you're teaching kids that it's OK to slaughter non-Jews because they're non-Jews, it's very similar to what the rabbi in this recent story is teaching.

That would be like saying Phelps' intentions are actually loving because he wants gay people to realize their sin and get right with God before they die. That might be so, but what he's spreading is hatred and intolerance. Or maybe that any of these political shock characters (Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh) really only intend to provide entertainment, and therefore it's different than spreading hatred and intolerance.

[sonofgloin]

Israel is not racist in any way shape or form.

I suppose that statement does not take into account the animosity and ongoing social division in Israel in regard to the Russian and Ethiopian influx. Here is an exerpt from a news item regarding the Ethiopian migrants.

Israelis are developing a negative image of Ethiopians, warns Yair Tsaban, who was immigration minister during the second immigration wave. "The absorption of the Ethiopians could be a source of pride for the country," he says. "But if the Ethiopian immigrants are associated with crime and violence in the minds of other Israelis, there can be alienation. People could ask 'Why have they been brought here?' "

Eeyron all states are bigoted, all people are bigoted, you just have to find a contentious point and that point must be, or is thought to be a trait of a particular group. Israel has no special humanistic dynamic even though the Jews have copped negatives forever, they like all of us would visit it on someone else given the right motivation.

[parky76]

Um, almost every state has some racism, or has had a racist past. Canada, the USA, Britain, etc.

to claim that Israel is in NO way racist, is just silly. Israel would be the only state on Earth that has no racism, if this was the case.

[Eyeron]

Eeyron all states are bigoted, all people are bigoted, you just have to find a contentious point and that point must be, or is thought to be a trait of a particular group. Israel has no special humanistic dynamic even though the Jews have copped negatives forever, they like all of us would visit it on someone else given the right motivation.

x9CSnlb-ymA

:w2:

[Skeptic]

Folks -- you're confusing two things. Whether some people are racist in Israel (they are, duh) with whether Israel is a racist state.

[Skeptic]

That would be like saying Phelps' intentions are actually loving because he wants gay people to realize their sin and get right with God before they die.

Thinks of it this way. A regular church spends 95% of its time teaching tolerance and love they neighbor, but happens to have one lesson that teaches the "bad parts" (like Joshua etc.) of the bible. Would such a church be "preaching hatred"?

I remember being taught this chapter in school in fifth grade. I do no recall is whether the fact that it was written down that "God did it" made me think it was OK. I don't think so. But even if it unconsciously did, it most definitely did NOT make me do so because of anything the teacher said about justifying hatred of non-Jews, let alone killing them. I was most definitely not taught hatred. What's more, I repeat: if it was "preaching hatred", the entire social studies curriculum -- which preaches tolerance and diversity and did for decades -- is pointless.

Indeed, the official teaching plans of the time (I checked in the teaching college) of this part of the bible said nothing at all about teaching any hatred of non-Jews, when its very language is always that of "Should": "The student should know / be able to do / whatever" (as in, "the student should be able to multiply two two-digit numbers after this lesson"). Need I add that the relevant part simply states that the student should know what the bible said about Joshua's conquest, not to they "should" justify massacres?

[jmh423]

Um, almost every state has some racism, or has had a racist past. Canada, the USA, Britain, etc.

to claim that Israel is in NO way racist, is just silly. Israel would be the only state on Earth that has no racism, if this was the case.

If the leadership of Israel had your vision and insight, a peaceful solution would be not only possible, but probable. Fortunately, at this time I understand that there are a growing number of Jews in Israel that share your rational beliefs...Is critical mass close? I hope so. Thanks

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thinks of it this way. A regular church spends 95% of its time teaching tolerance and love they neighbor, but happens to have one lesson that teaches the "bad parts" (like Joshua etc.) of the bible. Would such a church be "preaching hatred"?

I'm just curious how you would answer that question. To me the answer is clearly yes.

Logically whether or not the religion has other teachings that are not hateful and which don't advocate the slaughter of the out-group is irrelevant to the question of whether or not this teaching is an example of teaching such hatred and advocating the slaughter of outsiders.

Let me try a different approach, if I make 100 statements and 5 of them are lies, would you say it's accurate to claim that I am not a liar?

How about if 99.999% of my life I obey all the laws, but one time I commit a felony. Would you say that I am not a criminal?

[jmh423]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126890.html

Such is the insanity that religion can cause. More then a few Muslims, Jews, and Christians, are infected by such vile and evil thoughts.

Gross. Such attitudes should make people of all faiths question and stand up to extremism when they hear it.

It is a tribute to the Jewish people, that we have exposed this disgusting Rabbi. I hope Christians and Muslims would do the same, when their own leaders speak such filth.


If the US press would follow the example of Haaretz and print the truth sometime, we would have a more informed public as to the Israel/Palistine conflict and the US could become an agent for the solution rather than a major perpetrator of the problem.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Folks -- you're confusing two things. Whether some people are racist in Israel (they are, duh) with whether Israel is a racist state.

I don't think that's what I'm doing. I'm claiming that there are or at least have been those who teach religious-based bigotry and hatred of outsiders (including advocating the slaughter of outsiders) in Israel.

I don't know the details of Israel's constitution, but if this is caused by theocratic elements in the state (at least poor church/state separation or the preference of one religion over others and non-belief in state supported schools) it is a problem resulting from the set up of the state. (That isn't the same as claiming it's a racist state.)

[parky76]

If the US press would follow the example of Haaretz and print the truth sometime, we would have a more informed public as to the Israel/Palistine conflict and the US could become an agent for the solution rather than a major perpetrator of the problem.

Hear hear!!! oh...wait.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Indeed, the official teaching plans of the time (I checked in the teaching college) of this part of the bible said nothing at all about teaching any hatred of non-Jews, when its very language is always that of "Should": "The student should know / be able to do / whatever" (as in, "the student should be able to multiply two two-digit numbers after this lesson"). Need I add that the relevant part simply states that the student should know what the bible said about Joshua's conquest, not to they "should" justify massacres?

Yes, and while the slavery of blacks was an active institution of the United States, we claimed official policies of democracy and human rights.

The fact that it was official policy to teach this way is no guarantee that it was taught that way. Again, the Tamarin stuff is a pretty strong indicator that someone was teaching kids these ideas.

[Skeptic]

JoetheJuggler --

I am not saying you think Israel is essentially racist or evil because of the teaching of this part of the bible. I am just saying you are you are wrong in thinking that this means the Israeli educational system teaches hatred. Both in its official documents about teaching this part of the bible class, and in its civics curriculum, and in my personal experience as a teacher, student, and parent, this is just not true.

Could it be it is the hatred is a message passed by some teachers nevertheless? Not only could it be, it probably is. Teachers can be bigots, too. Could it be that this lesson -- the massacre of Jericho -- should not be taught? I tend to think you're right. But both of these conclusions do not support your view that there is some widespread indoctrination to hatred. The exact opposite, I repeat, is the case -- both the curriculum and the actual teaching have become more and more inclusive and liberal and anti-racist.

As for the Israeli constitution: there isn't any, but there is a bunch of "hukey yesod" (basic laws) that are a de facto constitution. Some of them, yes, were influenced by the religious right in Israel, and so has the educational curriculum: the religious people are pushing, naturally, for more bible classes, more classes about the Talmud, etc. But to the best of my knowledge nobody serious have ever demanded that the curriculum include indoctrination to hatred.

[parky76]

Until Segregation was officially removed from laws within the USA, it would have been very fair to call the USA a racist country.

Does Israel have laws that discriminate against citizens that are not Jewish? Yes it does.

Does that make Israel a racist state? in some ways, yes indeed.

[Magyar]

What do you expect Israel to do about this Rabbi? What, in general, do you expect Western-style liberal Democracies to do about citizens who say unpopular things?

I've been thinking about this for some time and while I am still of 2 minds on this, part of me says that if anyting should, this kind of thing and people like the KKK and Phelps are what the definaition of a hate crime should be. And having just watched 1984 a couple fo days ago, I am well aware of the concerns of thought crime. However we already have limits on speach, this should be out of bounds.

[parky76]

racial incitement in Israeli is illegal. so, this Rabbi should be arrested.

[Magyar]

I'm condemning the motives of the op. He only started posting articles like this because somebody started posting articles about Hamas and Muslims condemning Israel and calling for its death and destruction and the same thing for all Jews everywhere. His purpose was not to bring this point out but rather to present a message that all Jews are hateful and racist against all Muslims and Arabs everywhere because of Israel and the Muslims and Arabs who call for the death and destruction of Israel and Jews Israel is not racist in any way shape or form.

Well, if that is his goal that he is failing completely!

and then he double fails with the tu qougue about "the only reason any one is upset withthis thread is cause it shows Jews as racists.

As shown in this thread when a jewish nutter says something like this 80% of the people are outraged and march AGAINST him, when a Muslim/arab/Palistinian says something like thi 80% of the people cheer him on and march in a parade thrown for him.

[Magyar]

Racism.....ethnic bigotry....religious intolerance.......its all kinda the same thing.

And if your standard of determining that a whole nation is racist.. bigoted and religiously intolerant is based on the rantings of one complete batsh8 crazy loon,


THEN would you mind pointing me in the direction of the planet X you live on where no such people exist!?

People like this are going to exist everywhere and always. The level of tolerance for the stupid is partially what determines the strength of your democracy and the out pouring of condemnation - which based on the articles posted is pretty damned strong- is what determines how tolerant a society is.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am just saying you are you are wrong in thinking that this means the Israeli educational system teaches hatred.
<snip>

Could it be it is the hatred is a message passed by some teachers nevertheless? Not only could it be, it probably is.

So these teachers who teach hatred aren't part of the Israeli educational system?