Hello George Orwell?

[BewareofNick]

Once again, let's prove ad rian wrong and show how his hatreed of all things Jewish blinds him to the real world. ad rian has falselt claimed ad nauseum that Israel is a militarisitc theocracy. Let's break down those words, shall we?

 

Main Entry: mil·i·ta·rism

Pronunciation: 'mi-l&-t&-"ri-z&m

Function: noun

Date: 1864

1 a : predominance of the military class or its ideals b : exaltation of military virtues and ideals

2 : a policy of aggressive military preparedness

- mil·i·ta·rist /-rist/ noun or adjective

- mil·i·ta·ris·tic /"mi-l&-t&-'ris-tik/ adjective

- mil·i·ta·ris·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

 

Main Entry: the·oc·ra·cy

Pronunciation: thE-'ä-kr&-sE

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -cies

Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy

Date: 1622

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

2 : a state governed by a theocracy

 

I could concede the militaristic part, but Israel is by definition NOT a theocracy.

 

Therefore, ad rian's conclusion in this regard are completely wrong, once again blinded by his unabashed hatred of all things Israel.

[BewareofNick]

Once again, let's prove ad rian wrong and show how his hatreed of all things Jewish blinds him to the real world. ad rian has falselt claimed ad nauseum that Israel is a militarisitc theocracy. Let's break down those words, shall we?

 

Main Entry: mil·i·ta·rism

Pronunciation: 'mi-l&-t&-"ri-z&m

Function: noun

Date: 1864

1 a : predominance of the military class or its ideals b : exaltation of military virtues and ideals

2 : a policy of aggressive military preparedness

- mil·i·ta·rist /-rist/ noun or adjective

- mil·i·ta·ris·tic /"mi-l&-t&-'ris-tik/ adjective

- mil·i·ta·ris·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

 

Main Entry: the·oc·ra·cy

Pronunciation: thE-'ä-kr&-sE

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -cies

Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy

Date: 1622

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

2 : a state governed by a theocracy

 

I could concede the militaristic part, but Israel is by definition NOT a theocracy.

 

Therefore, ad rian's conclusion in this regard are completely wrong, once again blinded by his unabashed hatred of all things Israel.

[woodlawn]

>hey ad rian,

>since u always seem to like to steer these conversations

>towards your anti-Israeli views, what are your views on the

>treatment of gays, women and minorities in arab countries?

>also, how do you defend not just the anti-isreali teachings in

>palestinian schools, but downright the anti-jewish teachings

>and feelings throughout the arab world these days?

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. It is so absurd for him to say that he supports 'secular pluralistic democracy' and then demand that the US take actions that will aid those who want to destroy the only democracy in the Mideast and set up an Islamic 'caliphate' reaching from Morocco to India.

[woodlawn]

>hey ad rian,

>since u always seem to like to steer these conversations

>towards your anti-Israeli views, what are your views on the

>treatment of gays, women and minorities in arab countries?

>also, how do you defend not just the anti-isreali teachings in

>palestinian schools, but downright the anti-jewish teachings

>and feelings throughout the arab world these days?

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. It is so absurd for him to say that he supports 'secular pluralistic democracy' and then demand that the US take actions that will aid those who want to destroy the only democracy in the Mideast and set up an Islamic 'caliphate' reaching from Morocco to India.

[ad rian]

>I think you hit the nail on the head. It is so absurd for

>him to say that he supports 'secular pluralistic democracy'

>and then demand that the US take actions that will aid those

>who want to destroy the only democracy in the Mideast and set

>up an Islamic 'caliphate' reaching from Morocco to India.

 

What a crock! Let'see, you refer to the democracy of General Sharon which was preceded by the democracy of General Barak which was preceded by the democracy of Major Netanyaahu which was preceded by the democracy of General Rabin .....! What a joke. I say make them all secular cosmopolitan democracies or bomb those militaristic theocracies right back into the Old Testament, but what ever we don't tread on my civil liberties, thank you very much.

[ad rian]

>I think you hit the nail on the head. It is so absurd for

>him to say that he supports 'secular pluralistic democracy'

>and then demand that the US take actions that will aid those

>who want to destroy the only democracy in the Mideast and set

>up an Islamic 'caliphate' reaching from Morocco to India.

 

What a crock! Let'see, you refer to the democracy of General Sharon which was preceded by the democracy of General Barak which was preceded by the democracy of Major Netanyaahu which was preceded by the democracy of General Rabin .....! What a joke. I say make them all secular cosmopolitan democracies or bomb those militaristic theocracies right back into the Old Testament, but what ever we don't tread on my civil liberties, thank you very much.

[ad rian]

>When you ask

>me to declare my support for secular and pluralistic

>democracy, I ask you what happens when the voters choose to be

>governed by Islamists. And you do not reply.

 

The same thing as happens when they choose to be governed by Zionists. I have replied. You just don't like what you read. Again I don't care for any militaristic theocracies. Will you join me in that principle?

 

>The argument you use to connect the sacrifice of our civil

>liberties with support for Israel depends on the assumption

>that we are being attacked by terrorists because we support

>Israel. I say that assumption is utterly false. To

 

Well, here we are going in circles yet again. Nobody agrees with you on that not even Tony Blair, but hey I guess you know more than the whole world combined, or perhaps you are just so blinded by your fealty to that militaristic theocracy that you refuse to see the truth. I see it, and I have no interest in trading my civil libeties for the defense of a racist 19th century Germanic nationalism. Sorry, not in my name!

[ad rian]

>When you ask

>me to declare my support for secular and pluralistic

>democracy, I ask you what happens when the voters choose to be

>governed by Islamists. And you do not reply.

 

The same thing as happens when they choose to be governed by Zionists. I have replied. You just don't like what you read. Again I don't care for any militaristic theocracies. Will you join me in that principle?

 

>The argument you use to connect the sacrifice of our civil

>liberties with support for Israel depends on the assumption

>that we are being attacked by terrorists because we support

>Israel. I say that assumption is utterly false. To

 

Well, here we are going in circles yet again. Nobody agrees with you on that not even Tony Blair, but hey I guess you know more than the whole world combined, or perhaps you are just so blinded by your fealty to that militaristic theocracy that you refuse to see the truth. I see it, and I have no interest in trading my civil libeties for the defense of a racist 19th century Germanic nationalism. Sorry, not in my name!

[ad rian]

>When you ask

>me to declare my support for secular and pluralistic

>democracy, I ask you what happens when the voters choose to be

>governed by Islamists. And you do not reply.

 

The same thing as happens when they choose to be governed by Zionists. I have replied. You just don't like what you read. Again I don't care for any militaristic theocracies. Will you join me in that principle?

 

>The argument you use to connect the sacrifice of our civil

>liberties with support for Israel depends on the assumption

>that we are being attacked by terrorists because we support

>Israel. I say that assumption is utterly false. To

 

Well, here we are going in circles yet again. Nobody agrees with you on that not even Tony Blair, but hey I guess you know more than the whole world combined, or perhaps you are just so blinded by your fealty to that militaristic theocracy that you refuse to see the truth. I see it, and I have no interest in trading my civil libeties for the defense of a racist 19th century Germanic nationalism. Sorry, not in my name!

[ad rian]

>When you ask

>me to declare my support for secular and pluralistic

>democracy, I ask you what happens when the voters choose to be

>governed by Islamists. And you do not reply.

 

The same thing as happens when they choose to be governed by Zionists. I have replied. You just don't like what you read. Again I don't care for any militaristic theocracies. Will you join me in that principle?

 

>The argument you use to connect the sacrifice of our civil

>liberties with support for Israel depends on the assumption

>that we are being attacked by terrorists because we support

>Israel. I say that assumption is utterly false. To

 

Well, here we are going in circles yet again. Nobody agrees with you on that not even Tony Blair, but hey I guess you know more than the whole world combined, or perhaps you are just so blinded by your fealty to that militaristic theocracy that you refuse to see the truth. I see it, and I have no interest in trading my civil libeties for the defense of a racist 19th century Germanic nationalism. Sorry, not in my name!

[ad rian]

>Therefore, ad rian's conclusion in this regard are completely

>wrong, once again blinded by his unabashed hatred of all

>things Israel.

 

Interessting, but you might want to tell that to the Shas Party inter alia who have been the king-makers in Israeli politics for quite a while now. But you don't have to go there, just read the first article of the Israeli constitution. I was saddened that my other interlocutor here was too embarassed to quote it. You are not fooling anybody. you defend that militaristic theocracy at the expense of my civil liberties, and I am not amused.

[ad rian]

Or maybe the democracy of General Amram Mitzna if not that of General Binyamin Ben-Eliezer....So many Generals, so little democracy!

[woodlawn]

> Again I don't care for any militaristic theocracies. Will

>you join me in that principle?

 

Since your definition of 'militaristic' is any country that defends itself against terrorism and your definition of 'theocracy' is any country that has 'blue laws,' no I will not.

 

>>The argument you use to connect the sacrifice of our civil

>>liberties with support for Israel depends on the

>assumption

>>that we are being attacked by terrorists because we

>support

>>Israel. I say that assumption is utterly false.

>

>Well, here we are going in circles yet again. Nobody agrees

>with you on that not even Tony Blair,

 

Nobody but the vast majority of my fellow Americans. Why would I give a rat's ass what Tony Blair thinks? He's not responsible for protecting the interests of my country.

 

but hey I guess you know

>more than the whole world combined,

 

You cite the opinion of other countries when it supports you but you dnn't want to take any responsibility for their actions or opinions in other situations. I asked you, which of those countries whose opinions you are citing has the kind of record that allows them to lecture Israel (or anyone else) on human rights and you made some stupid remark about an atlas. You want to justify your position by referring to what they say, fine, then you are going to have to start carrying their baggage. I won't let you weasel out of it this time.

 

 

or perhaps you are just so

>blinded by your fealty to that militaristic theocracy that you

>refuse to see the truth.

 

The truth seems to be that the other posters who accuse you of anti-Semitism are right. They've seen this kind of behavior from you before, apparently.

[ad rian]

>The truth seems to be that the other posters who accuse you

>of anti-Semitism are right. They've seen this kind of

>behavior from you before, apparently.

 

Well if defending civil liberties, secular democracy and cosmopolitan pluralism is to be equated with antisemitism, then yes call me what ever you like, but I will continue to resist your militaristic theocracy, and will not surrender my rights on its behalf. Not in my name!

[ad rian]

>Since your definition of 'militaristic' is any country that

>defends itself against terrorism and your definition of

>'theocracy' is any country that has 'blue laws,' no I will

>not.

 

 

Let me make this very simple for you. I call a militaristic government one that is governed by a succession of Generals, posesses weapons of mass destructions, sells the same to apartheid South Africa, occupies land of another people in contravention of customary international law and UN Resolutions, and that engages routinely in torture (approved by its Supreme Court) and whih engages in collective punishment in contravention of the Geneva Convention. I define a theocracy as a government run by religious fundamentalist parties who seek to impose their religion on their citizens who do not share their faith, and which is by the first article of its constitution defined to function solely in the interests of one particular religion and ethnicity that just also happens to be a minority in the lands over which it seeks dominion. Can you name me countries other than Israel that satisfy both those tests? I won't sacrifice my civil liberties for any such putrid anachronisms!

[woodlawn]

>Let me make this very simple for you.

 

May I make a suggestion? Take your patronizing, insulting crap and shove it back where it came from.

 

>I call a militaristic

>government one that is governed by a succession of Generals,

 

Like 'General' David Ben Gurion, 'General' Golda Meir, 'General' Menachem Begin and 'General' Shimon Peres? LOL!

 

>posesses weapons of mass destructions, sells the same to

>apartheid South Africa, occupies land of another people in

>contravention of customary international law and UN

>Resolutions, and that engages routinely in torture (approved

>by its Supreme Court) and whih engages in collective

>punishment in contravention of the Geneva Convention.

 

Uh, you mean like Russia and China?

 

I

>define a theocracy as a government run by religious

>fundamentalist parties

 

For most of Israel's history it has been run by the socialist Labor Party. That is your idea of a religious fundamentalist party?

 

who seek to impose their religion on

>their citizens who do not share their faith, and which is by

>the first article of its constitution defined to function

>solely in the interests of one particular religion and

>ethnicity that just also happens to be a minority in the lands

>over which it seeks dominion. Can you name me countries other

>than Israel that satisfy both those tests?

 

Yes. India for one. I could name several others, but why bother? It's obvious you're trying to create a special category of 'evil nation' that fits only Israel.

 

 

I won't sacrifice

>my civil liberties for any such putrid anachronisms!

 

Well, it looks like you're up shit creek without a paddle then, doesn't it? The U.S. isn't going to end its alliance with Israel. If you're a conservative politician in this country you need the support of evangelicals who believe that the State of Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. I heard the head of the Southern Baptist Convention say exactly that on Sixty Minutes last month. If you're a liberal you need the support of Jews. There just isn't a lot of room here for politicians who hate Israel, so our policy is not going to change. Get used to it.

[jackhammer91406]

Well, this thread seems to have gone off in a different direction discussing foreign policy and other odds and ends. Perhaps there should be a new thread started to carry on the discussion of middle eastern policy and differences in approaches to foreign governments and let this thread stand or go by the wayside on it's own.

Jack

[ad rian]

I commend you for starting the thread. It's an important issue, but I have to take issue with you if you think that the civil liberties issue at home can be discussed apart from the foreign policy concerns abroad. It is precisely that bifurcation that has got us into this mess. These discussions may not be pleasant, but they are necessary precisely because they require getting outside of the politically correct sacred cows that frame our debate about foreign policy in this country. That is precisely why some on this Board want to silence that debate, but note they not only tried to silence me on the foreig policy angle, but you on the domestic side as well. Their intentions are clear, and that is why they must be resisted, defeated or deported back to their militaristic theocracies.

[ad rian]

>>Like 'General' David Ben Gurion, 'General' Golda Meir,

>'Gener

al' Menachem Begin and 'General' Shimon Peres? LOL!

 

I was waiting for that one. You forgot Shamir the Ergun terrorist buddy of Begin. Yep, him too!

 

>Uh, you mean like Russia and China?

 

Did they sell arms to apartheid South Africa like Israel?

 

> I

>>define a theocracy as a government run by religious

>>fundamentalist parties

>

>For most of Israel's history it has been run by the socialist

>Labor Party. That is your idea of a religious fundamentalist

>party?

 

>Yes. India for one. I could name several others, but why

>bother? It's obvious you're trying to create a special

>category of 'evil nation' that fits only Israel.

 

Oh, so you think Muslims are a majority in India? Interesting!

 

>If you're a liberal you

>need the support of Jews. There just isn't a lot of room here

>for politicians who hate Israel, so our policy is not going to

>change. Get used to it.

 

I don't knoew about that where the institutional and organized Jewish community targeted critics of Israel in Alabama and Georgia, the Democrats lost all state wide offices. Get used to it! It is truly amusing to see how quickly you folks have forgotten the lesons of the Holocaust! There was a time when Jews believed in civil liberties. Now the ones who do can't assimilate fast enough. (See todays NYT OP ED.)

 

"First they came for the Muslims and I did not speak out because I was not a Muslim. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

[ad rian]

>>For most of Israel's history it has been run by the

>socialist

>>Labor Party. That is your idea of a religious

>fundamentalist

>>party?

 

We are still waiting you for us to defend the first article of the Israeli constitution. I understand your embarasment though. As for Israel, is it your contention that Labor has governed Israel for most or even a substantial part of the last 30 years? As for Labor, I would suggest that David Ben Gurion and Shimon Peres were the architects of the Israeli dance with apartheid South Africa - a defense they made on the grounds of protecting Jews. Interesting. Ben Gurion died defending that stance, and Peres who once lay a wreath at the foot of the Voortreker Monument so far has refused to repudiate for his support for apartheid in either English or Hebrew. We know who and what these people are. They are militaristic theocrats for whom no sacrifice of civil liberties is justified.

[woodlawn]

>We are still waiting you for us to defend the first article

>of the Israeli constitution.

 

You are going to be waiting for that until your ass falls off, if not a good deal longer. I didn't write it, didn't say I agree with it, and have no obligation to defend it. And who is "We?" I don't see anyone but YOU trashing Israel around here.

 

 

I understand your embarasment

>though.

 

I am indeed very embarrassed for you. It's embarrassing to watch someone get so excited about vilifying Israel that he forgets how to spell.

 

 

As for Israel, is it your contention that Labor has

>governed Israel for most or even a substantial part of the

>last 30 years?

 

Yes. In case no one told you, Labor was a part of Sharon's governing coalition until a couple of weeks ago. The Defense Minister was a Labor member, as well as the Foreign Minister. And this is not the first time in recent years Labor has been part of a coalition government with Likud.

 

>We know who and what these people are. They are

>militaristic theocrats for whom no sacrifice of civil

>liberties is justified.

 

No one in this country is sacrificing any civil liberties for Israel. That is merely a fabrication you have created to justify what I am told is one of a series of anti-Israel tirades. Did you think no one would notice? Several people obviously have.

[woodlawn]

>>Uh, you mean like Russia and China?

>

>Did they sell arms to apartheid South Africa like Israel?

 

 

Of course. And now you are citing their opinions to justify your position.

 

>>Yes. India for one. I could name several others, but why

>>bother? It's obvious you're trying to create a special

>>category of 'evil nation' that fits only Israel.

>

>Oh, so you think Muslims are a majority in India?

>Interesting!

 

Muslims are certainly the majority in Kashmir, a state ruled by India without the consent of its population. So where is the outrage? Where are the demonstrations in Muslim countries over the Muslims who were burned alive by Hindu mobs in India earlier this year? Well? I guess killing or oppressing Muslims is only bad when Jews do it, right? Your problem isn't with human rights violations. Your problem is with Jews.

 

>I don't knoew about that where the institutional and

>organized Jewish community targeted critics of Israel in

>Alabama and Georgia, the Democrats lost all state wide

>offices.

 

In fact the Democrats WON all statewide offices in Georgia except the governorship and the senate seat. But who told you that only Democrats support Israel? Do you ever watch the Fox News Channel? Or CBN? Or read The Weekly Standard? If you do you will discover that there is no one in this country who speaks as harshly about Arafat and his group as the Christian Right. Sharon's biggest admirers in America are not liberal Democrats. They are evangelical Christian Republicans. Why do you think Bush is so afraid to antagonize him?

 

 

Get used to it! It is truly amusing to see how

>quickly you folks have forgotten the lesons of the Holocaust!

 

 

The lesson of the Holocaust is very simple: Jews can't trust people of other religions to protect them. They can rely only on themselves. Until the Nazi era, no country in Europe had as good a record of treatment of its Jews as Germany. That's why the UN decided a Jewish homeland is necessary.

[ad rian]

>Yes. In case no one told you, Labor was a part of Sharon's

>governing coalition until a couple of weeks ago. The Defense

>Minister was a Labor member, as well as the Foreign Minister.

>And this is not the first time in recent years Labor has been

>part of a coalition government with Likud.

 

Well that's an interesting take on history. So I guess if tey form a coalition with religious fundamentalists then it is fair to tag them with the policy of there cohorts. And why are you so shy about defending the role of Shas as king-maker in Israeli politics?

 

>That is merely a fabrication you have created to

>justify what I am told is one of a series of anti-Israel

>tirades. Did you think no one would notice? Several people

>obviously have.

 

I plead guilty as charge. I reject that militaristic theocracy without hesitation or apology. Hey if you want to side with Bewarewofnick feel free. As often happens on this Board, I get a lot of private emails and IM thanking me for exposing this rot. I am not surprised. Civil liberties are important to gays, and folks who want to procure escorts on-line. Why you defend these abridgements of our liberties here while you could no doubt do so in gay old Jerusalem is beyond me, unless of course you know that it ain't quite so gay after all.

[ad rian]

>>>Uh, you mean like Russia and China?

>>

>>Did they sell arms to apartheid South Africa like Israel?

>

>Of course. And now you are citing their opinions to justify

>your position.

 

Where have you heard that from. Both China and Russia supported Nelson Mandela's ANC. You aren't fooling anybody. The whole world knows that Israel was the greatest ally of the Apartheid Soutrh Africa, and I have pointed out leaders from Ben Gurion to the present have nt apologized for that. They are honest, at least, they know that there is no way to oppose apartheid without opposing Zionism and vise versa.

 

>In fact the Democrats WON all statewide offices in Georgia

>except the governorship and the senate seat. But who told you

>that only Democrats support Israel?

 

I never said that only Jews support Democrats. I just pointed out that targeting McKinney an Hilliard resulted in a lower turn out of their base so the Democrats lost all the big ticket races in the last elecion cycle, including that of the on again off again Jewish Govenor of Alabama. Maybe you can't see the writing on the wall, but Diane Feinstein has been singing a very different tune recently so the electoral calculus for the Jewish emocrats is going to become a lot more complicated from here on in.

 

>The lesson of the Holocaust is very simple: Jews can't trust

>people of other religions to protect them. They can rely only

>on themselves. Until the Nazi era, no country in Europe had

>as good a record of treatment of its Jews as Germany. That's

>why the UN decided a Jewish homeland is necessary.

 

Maybe, but if the UN was so important then, one might expect a little decency and respect for its Resolutions, but then again I am still waiting for you to point to a single UN Resolution that endorses the current borders of Israel. Hmmh? Intersting.

[jackhammer91406]

ad rian

I understand your point and I wasn't trying to stifle debate on the policy re: Middle east and I think you know that. I was curious for other's reactions to the thread which is why I started it. Glad that it has sparked some attention at least. I had several times thought about sending you a private message along those lines but couldn't because I have no access to your profile. Thanks for your support and continue to speak your mind regarding these issues.

jack