Facebook, Zuckerberg Sued For $1 Billion Over Intifada Page 350
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from ZDNet: "Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, has filed a lawsuit against Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg for their role in furthering a 'radical' Facebook Page called 'Third Palestinian Intifada,' which openly advocated another uprising against the citizens of Israel. The complaint reserves the right to be amended into a class action suit and prays for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $1 billion. ... As a quick refresher, Facebook originally said it would not remove the page but would monitor it instead. The company later pulled the page after discussions degraded into violence and hatred."
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's an attempt to apply Israeli values to the American Facebook site and that's just not going to stick in an American court, and an Israeli court has no nexus to force Facebook to care about its result. They should be happy the page was pulled and go home.
Re: (Score:2)
It is nothing more that a publicity hound seeking more public attention. A failed Israeli Senate candidate (really US but he definitely demonstrates far greater loyalty to Israel) is trying to gain attention for another political run and to ensure future cash flows of billions of dollars from the US treasury to Israel.
He just got a bit confused in this instance about where the money is coming from a US company rather than the US government.
The main reason for Facebook to not take down the page, censors
Re: (Score:3)
It's an attempt to apply Israeli values to the American Facebook site and that's just not going to stick in an American court, and an Israeli court has no nexus to force Facebook to care about its result. They should be happy the page was pulled and go home.
Just to set the record straight, I don't see such a claim succeeding in Israel either. While Israel does have laws prohibiting speech if it advocates violence, those are criminal laws (i.e. - you cannot sue yourself), and cases of anyone being successfully prosecuted with those laws are extremely rare. The Israeli laws have a mixed record of what to do when a site is sued for content uploaded by site's users, but the general consensus is that this is harder to sue in Israel than in the US. Lastly, filing a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, why not? Israel wouldn't and couldn't even continue to exist without the undying and enthusiastic support of the USA
What makes you say that? They seemed to do quite fine for all those years we didnt support them.
You DO realize they are a first world country, with an incredible military, right? Id be interested to see in what way and for what reason you think they wouldnt "continue to exist" without our support (and what on earth makes you think our support has been "undying" historically).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They seemed to do quite fine for all those years we didnt support them.[/url]
When was that? Israel has always been a major recipient of US aid [fas.org] and was the largest recipient of US aid (something like a third of total foreign aid) for about 30 years.
You DO realize they are a first world country, with an incredible military, right?
An incredible military certainly, but a population barely larger than Hong Kong and an economy smaller than Ireland or Egypt. In comparison the UAE alone has a bigger economy and a bigger population.
There is no way Israel could have sustained its military without massive outside assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Was there more than trivial US support for Israel from 1950 to 1969? That's about 20 years they survived on their own
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is some aid in the Israel agreements, but it's a factor of the camp David accords with Egypt. Both nations are handed loads of cash each year for not fighting. The majority of the US support for Israel is in the form of loans backed by the US government to the government of Israel. The US banking sector makes a mint on those loans as Israel's never missed payment and with interest rates approximately 2-3% above the prime rate the US banks that make the loans make a TON of profit on those loans. It's b
Re: (Score:2)
It will fail, but not even for the (valid) reasons you state. It is simply a publicity stunt, it's not an attempt to win a trial.
The complaint can be downloaded http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/110331-Fbook-Complaint.pdf [freedomwatchusa.org] [pdf] but it's really just a poorly written collection of innuendo and personal slurs. No judge would bother giving it a second glance, except the clown who allegedly wrote it. It is as much about the completely irrelevant case the same clown is pursuing against the Islamic center plan
Re: (Score:2)
Just literacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Westboro Babtist Church advocates praying for the death of soldiers [wordpress.com], I think it's a reasonable conclusion that they hate them.
Re: (Score:2)
> But they do not hate the dead soldiers
Yes, they actually do.
It would be kind of hard to prove that, as you could probably make a compelling argument that theyre really just litiguous trolls looking to countersue the first local government that tries to clamp down on them (as that IS what they do...).
Re:Fail (Score:4)
>It would be kind of hard to prove that,
The Phelps' ultimate stated goal is not just the lawsuits. It's to "turn people away from God" and make them hate.
The Phelps are a hate cult. QED.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
A bunch of naked guys running around with swords. Sounds like a great way to take over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, Larry once sued his own mother, no really: http://www.slate.com/id/2317/ [slate.com]
That's an informative story. The guy's completely crazy. No one would take him seriously.
Uh, except maybe Fox News.
Come on, FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
Enough already, they are not even funny to begin with. Seriously, April Fools is overrated and the domain of the inferior intellect.
Re: (Score:3)
A) You're a joykill.
B) It's not a joke.
Thought it was a joke at first (Score:2)
I also support free speech.... (Score:5, Insightful)
...except for people I disagree with.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
-- H.L.Mencken
Re:I also support free speech.... (Score:5, Informative)
We don't tolerate people who scream fire in movie theaters
Man, I hate that example. It comes from the Schenck case (which held, basically, that it was illegal to distribute pamphlets opposing the draft), which is no longer good law, and which, in any event, is never properly used.
Back in the old days (the Schenck case is nearly a hundred years old) theaters were deathtraps should they catch on fire, which was not an infrequent occurrence. Not only would the fire and smoke be deadly, but the panic as people trampled one another to escape, or pushed those near the exits (assuming they could be opened) so hard that they couldn't breathe, were serious threats. (Recall the infamous Station nightclub fire some years back to get an idea) Of course, were there a fire, it would be heroic to shout that out and warn everyone, panic or no. Schenck was concerned with falsely shouting fire, and causing a panic maliciously.
The standard in Schenck, however, was whether the speech and the circumstances surrounding it were such that there was a clear and present danger of causing some harm which could constitutionally be rendered illegal.
The Schenck Court by its own words would not find anything wrong with even falsely shouting fire in a theater that wasn't crowded, since there'd be no real danger of a deadly panic as people fled.
In any event the standard nowadays is that speech regarding illegal actions is not itself illegal unless it is intended to result in imminent illegal activity and is actually likely to do so. This is a much higher standard, and pretty tough to achieve.
As an example, Tea Partiers can run around with signs implying that they advocate violence against politicians and government officials or even outright armed rebellion, but they're protected because no one really takes them seriously and they don't actually do anything but posture.
Advocating genocide is protected speech in the US so long as there's no imminent danger of it being acted upon. Protecting that lets us protect all sorts of protests and advocacy; as usual, the First Amendment protects speech you don't like as well as speech you do. And it's important to uphold it, lest you find yourself on the unpopular end of things. Who around here would want to do time for merely talking about how it's right to pirate music or something?
Besides, it's handy to have hateful people out themselves. It saves an awful lot of trouble in identifying them, gathering information about them, etc. What good does it do to have them go underground?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we tolerate people being punished for lying into court ?
Why are some companies held accountable over their declarations ?
Freedom of speech is a slight misnomer. The freedom exists to transmit information. Any information. That is the intent. But in some case people are required to transmit information accurately (the officer's case), or to authenticate an information they have (court and
Why is this news? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Am i the only one spotting the irony that is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Freedom Watch"? Isn't that the title of a Fox Business Network (the minor league farm club of Fox News Channel) which is hosted by a guy they call "judge" despite the fact his only experience in that role was the one-and-done season show "Power of Attorney" where used OJ Simpson lawyers argued "People's Court"/"Judge Judy" style cases.
Re: (Score:2)
If you ignore the 7 years as a NJ Superior Court Judge, then yes that was his only experience. That would be just a little dishonest though.
Re: (Score:2)
Judges have nothing to do with cleaning crime up anyway.
Oh, no... (Score:4, Funny)
Facebook opened a can of worms (Score:5, Insightful)
If Facebook is going to ban one side's speech, let's see them do the same for the others. And yet Facebook pages with such titles as "mavet laaravim" (Death to the Arabs) abound...
Facebook did it to themselves... (Score:4, Interesting)
When they said they would not pull it, but would monitor it, they opened themselves up for litigation. This is the sort of thing that's allowed common carriers at least the illusion of immunity from persecution over what goes through their networks. As soon as Facebook said they would monitor it, that was a statement that they are not a common carrier. By "monitoring" it, they assumed responsibility for it.
Bad move on their part, no matter what you might think of the subject.
Facebook does good? (Score:2)
Facebook originally said it would not remove the page but would monitor it instead. The company later pulled the page after discussions degraded into violence and hatred.
Facebook allowing free speech, only removing things once they get to the TOS (and law)-breaching point of hate-speech? It it still April 1st over there? o_O
Why stop at sueing Facebook? (Score:2)
But in the mean time (Score:3)
it's totally all right to, for example, steal more and more land from the Palestinians...
When will the extremists on both sides stop frustrating every step towards a solution...
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the billion is punitive damages which basically wants to make an example of Facebook saying allowing anti-Israel speech should never be allowed. Kinda flies the the face of the US's 1st Amendment freedoms, but they have no such concept in Israel. Still, see my other post on the problems with picking a venue.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the same when I saw the following story:
UN staff beheaded as Afghans rage against pastor who burnt Koran
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/un-staff-beheaded-as-afghans-rage-against-pastor-who-burnt-koran-2260108.html [independent.co.uk]
There are certain parts of the world that could be sucked in to the bowels of the earth with nothing of value being lost save some interesting lamb dishes.
Re: (Score:2)
They really should program the site for the East Coast USA audience because that's where the most Slashdotters actually live,
your hypothesis is not only 'out of ass' grade, but also incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
percentages matter.
give us percentages.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of those countries have 'long form names' which like those who call "America", calling it "Mexico" is incorrect, you should refer to it as the "United Mexican States". "Republic of Costa Rica", "Republic of Nicaragua", etc Also, I'm sure that you're insulting someone by using the English spellings. It's called a nickname, Skippy.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the April Fools joke stories were all marked with the fill-in-your-own-word combo boxes. We're now past 8pm ET which means it's past Midnight GMT and we're into April 2nd in GMT and half the world. They really should program the site for the East Coast USA audience because that's where the most Slashdotters actually live, but they're geeks in love with GMT.
Actually, they're not in love with GMT, they're in love with UTC...
Re: (Score:2)
...but they're geeks in love with GMT.
No, they're geeks in love with UTC! [/pedantic]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the April Fools joke stories were all marked with the fill-in-your-own-word combo boxes. We're now past 8pm ET which means it's past Midnight GMT and we're into April 2nd in GMT and half the world. They really should program the site for the East Coast USA audience because that's where the most Slashdotters actually live, but they're geeks in love with GMT.
If you read the actual complaint, you will see that it is indeed an April Fool's joke. Let me quote one particularly telling passage from the complaint,
As depicted in the award winning film “Social Network,” Defendant Zuckerberg in particular lacks strong ethical and moral character, having cheated his partners out of their shares and/or ownership in Facebook early on, for which he was forced to pay large settlements once sued.
No one would use a fictionalized Hollywood film to back up a claim as to the character of the defendant in a legal document submitted to the court. This is a joke folks. Let's move along.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize it's hard to tell, but it is on Freedom Watch's web site.
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/ [freedomwatchusa.org]
It's a strange-looking filing.
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/110331-Fbook-Complaint.pdf [freedomwatchusa.org]
It doesn't have a stamp from the court, it doesn't have a filing number, and it doesn't cite any statutes or court cases. He says he's filing pro se.
Doesn't look very serious.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you can't imagine ever learning a language other than your own doesn't mean no one else will. A good portion of Europeans speak English to varying degrees, especially the younger generations.
From my experience (I know, citation needed) English is also becoming more and more common in the former east block countries, I have several friends in Poland and Hungary who I communicate with in English.
Myself? I'm Danish, but that doesn't mean I don't speak and understand English. Please take your opini
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Israelis would stop committing crimes against humanity it might be a bit easier to take them seriously. But as it's presently war criminals against terrorists and the people they represent, it's really hard to grant either side any sort of moral authority.
Re:Welcome Back... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty much my opinion. I've said it dozens of times in various places: There are no "Good Guys" in this conflict. Only the naive - amend that - only the naive who live protected lives in ivory castles - can believe otherwise.
progress (Score:2)
Israeli courts have moved the course of the wall several time based upon Palestinian territorial claims, for example.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Fair enough that there are no good guys but if we're going to count every feud back to the dawn of civilization then most of the world would be at war. For example, France and Germany did not just one but two world wars last century, and yet now they're both EU members with open borders, common currency and whatnot. At some point you need to leave the past behind you and accept that it happened, but that you don't need to get even anymore. Particularly if that "getting even" is dealing twice as much as you
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, and more than that. The victorious Allies felt they had to do something about the attrocities commited in Germany against the jewish people. So they wanted to give them their own homeland. That's great. But they didn't of course offer a chunk of England, or France or the US or even of Germany. They used Britain's colonial power to give them a bit of someone else's land (which admitedly they had historical ties to and substantial moveement wanted back). And then the colonial power left. So a state was
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You risk giving the impression that the Allies suggested Palestine, to which the Jews responded "Wow, we never even considered that as a location!!!" Other locations were considered, but given Jewish history it seemed almost inevitable that Palestine would be the location. I don't think that there was a lot of enthusiasm anyway for hosting this new home, but the lucky Palestinians got volunteered. The Torah accounts are pretty amusing. Not so much a case of being given land by God, more being told by God to
Re: (Score:2)
You risk giving the impression that the Allies suggested Palestine, to which the Jews responded "Wow, we never even considered that as a location!!!"
Hence this bit of my post:
So yes, there was a substantial movement amongst the Jewish people that wanted the state of Israel there. But the blame for actually creating a country surrounded by enemies rests primarily with those that did it, not those that just wanted it.
The fact that at least some of those who wanted it felt they had some divine entitlement to the area should have only made it more clear what a terrible idea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't particularly like a lot of things Israel does, nor do I particularly like a lot of things anyone in their general neighborhood does. Even so, the Palestinians got their land taken.
So?
This is "How the World Works 101". Damn near every country in the world has both taken land and had land taken from it. Every. Country. Why is Palestine so special? Because it happened in the last 100 years?
How come nobody's crying over Hawaii (psst, we straight up stole an entire country, albeit a small one.) The Russi
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is this: if someone was born on some land, they have a better moral case than those who were not.
Israel was recognized in 1948 (or so)... I'm willing to wager that a healthy quorum (if not majority) of Israelis were born there by now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not convinced there's ever been any "Good Guys" in any conflict whatsoever. People love to point out World War II as an example, but even a cursory knowledge of history would show that many of the Allies' actions were worse even than those of most modern dictators and despots.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, but context comes in to it. Slavery is illegal and considered immoral in most modern countries, yet George Washington had slaves. Washington becomes a bad guy, at least in this regard and by current standards. Discussion of specific examples is probably more useful than a vague notion. "Many" is a weasel word. It's purpose here is to indicate a large quantity of something that hasn't even been defined, but all we need to know is that it's a lot of something that's really bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been of the view that WW2 was a political power transfer from Europe to Russia and North America. In the long term, the biggest loser was Britain, exiting the superpower stage to give way to the Cold War. Germany was the excuse the USA needed then, as 9/11 was the excuse USA needed a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
If this wasn't 1984's definition of "permanent war" then there would be a good guy and bad guy to pick from. This is only Slashworthy because it pulls in Facebook and we've got a SlowNewsDay in effect.
Hey YOU CANT SAY THAT!! (Score:2)
I live in Germany, so I can tell you, you are not allowed to say anything against the Jews. It does not matter what they do, how many kids they kill, how many lives they destroy. You are an anti-Semite if you say anything other than, jews are awesome and can do no wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree that both sides are not stellar examples of morality, only one of them brainwashes [youtube.com] their [youtube.com] children [youtube.com]. In my opinion, this is sufficient to make it clear-cut.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the murder of Sabra and Shatila was made Prime Minister. The siege of Gaza is ongoing collective punishment. Israeli forces committed what would be considered piracy if civilians had done it against a humanitarian aid convoy.
Citation needed? More like getting your head out of your ass needed.
Like the GP said, it's war criminals against terrorists.
Re: (Score:3)
Just sayin'....
Course, then I believe the best thing that could happen would be for someone to release a dirty bomb in Jerusalem that would render the whole damned place uninhabitable for 1000 years. Hopefully by that time both sides could either A) not care about the desert shit hole they live in anymore or more optimistically B) we might find proof t
Re:Welcome Back... (Score:4, Informative)
FYI, Israel started the 6 day war. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
FYI, only under thread of it in the first place.
Israel struck first, took a bunch of their weapons they were massing on the borders claiming to be for an invasion into Israel, then used them against them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Statements like yours is big reason why this conflict is still raging. As long as the conspiracy theories, omission of facts, and outright lies continue to circulate the level of animosity will continue to grow. Until the Arab's stop threatening Israel's existence there will be no peace. The Arab's initiated this conflict in 48 and then got their asses handed to them in 67 and again in 73. It was in 48 when the Arabs repudiated the UN decision to create the state of Israel and then evacuated most of the Arab's in the expected area of conflict with promises they could come back in a few days after they finished killing all the Jews. Everyone knows how that turned out. The Arab's should have paid lip service to the UN decision at least long enough to work out some type of plan before rushing the war. I'll admit I don't know whether the UN resolution was a good decision or not but time has made that irrelevant today. The fact is the resolution was passed and Israel does exist and I seriously doubt the Israeli's are going to pack up and leave anytime soon. In 48 the world was still recovering from war and the horrors associated with war. The discovery of the death camps was fresh in every ones mind at that time and that generated a lot of sympathy for the Jews and I have to believe that sympathy made a big impact when it came to passing the resolution.
And if the UN stepped in and took half or more of your country away from you because a western country couldn't control the populace, you wouldn't be pissed off? I'd damn well expect my neighboring countries to step up and defend against an annexation.
Re: (Score:3)
What country did the UN step in and take half or more of.
I hope to hell you are not talking about Palestine as that was never a country- even. It was a territory under the control of the ottoman empire which ended up in British and french hands due to the league of nations declaration after the ottoman empire disappeared with the ending of World War One. The Balfour decree was already in place circa 1920 so there was never any expectation of Palestine becoming a country to the exclusion of the Jews.
The jews
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Welcome Back... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cool, so you're saying that so long as people aren't on your side it's ok to commit war crimes?
Maybe talk to the Jews who survived auschwitz about that one. Tell them that it's ok their families were gassed because the Jews were on the wrong side of WWII. Maybe tell the families that survived occupied France that it was just to kill off dissidents because France sided with the allies.
Tell the families of Vietnam that their agent orange babies are cool because they sided with the USSR.
It's easy to shrug off war crimes as "necessary" when you're siding with the ones committing the war crimes. War crimes are war crimes, there's no way to dodge the issue. No matter what an aggressor does it's never ok to commit war crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Either you are a troll or you are so embedded in this dispute that you are completely unable to approach this issue with a rational critical mind.
This thread of conversation has nothing to do whatsoever with making apologies for the behaviour of Palistinians or any other group that has inflicted harm upon the Jewish community. What part of "it's really hard to grant either side any sort of moral authority." are you failing to comprehend?
Re: (Score:3)
He was not responding to "it's really hard to grant either side any sort of moral authority", he was responding to the guy who said "Perhaps if the Palestinians hadn't thrown their hat in with their Arab neighbors during the 6 day war...then Israel wouldn't need to have war criminals?"
Re:Welcome Back... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you?
Now lets look at history and revise the above scenario.
In this case Isreal had experienced over 120 acts of terror against it in the preceding 18 months by the new PLO and had seen major troop build ups and movements by both Syria and Egypt.
SO back to my original scenario, you see someone lurking outside your home with a gun, rapping on the windows and breaking into your car in the driveway. Do you wait until they enter the house and kidnap your family? Or do you act first?
I know what I would I do.....
Re: (Score:3)
This is where you are mixing up the facts and the discussions. The creation of Israel in the first place is not something that should be debated at this point, it was done long enough ago that arguing the existence of Israel is like debating about if the Civil War was justified. Looking at new events as they happen and then discussing who is right or wrong about their actions IS something to be debated.
So, let's look at some of the more recent activities. Israel has made a number of gestures to try
Umm no, mass murder isn't the answer. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Six Day War doesn't matte now. The old rhetoric about driving the Jews into the sea probably doesn't matter either. I think thus far the problem has been :
(a) The Palestinians have never had a really credible peace directed leader.
(b) Israel only rarely has leaders who credibly want peace.
If even a significant minority of the Palestinians were following some strong Imam who preached peace, well that'd likely inspire the Israelis to elect someone sane. Instead : The PLO/PA's leadership focusses more upon their own bank accounts. Hamas' are a bunch of religious psychopaths. Israel's right wing are equally psychopathic. And Israel's moderate politicians cannot retain power without acquiescing to the right.
The wall is helping though.
Re: (Score:3)
"Throwing their hat in" meaning what? Fleeing their homes because they didn't want to get caught in a war?
Re: (Score:2)
And Miss Teacher, HE punched back FIRST!
But he did, but he did first, but only because he did, but he said, but he ... fuck that! Is that some kind of justification?
Re: (Score:2)
It damn well is a justification to punch another guy if he punches you, and keeps punching with a clear intent to continue until you're dead.
Re: (Score:2)
It becomes slightly less justified if you include the fact that you're sitting on his back, cutting off his toes.
Re:Welcome Back... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean, like, siding with those that fight the guys that won your home in an international raffle?
Hey, imagine it's 200 years from now and the native Americans suddenly get a UN resolution passed that kicks you out of your home because they kinda-sorta owned the place some 100 years ago and want it back. Will you side with Canada and Mexico in their battle to kick the Indians butt?
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta say that while Israel isn't guiltless that's a lot like comparing a guy who kills another guy in a bar brawl with a guy who blows up a school full of elementary students. I think I'll pick Israel's side in this one. They aren't perfect but their enemies are perfect....perfectly murderous.
Re: (Score:2)
yeh, because the Israelis never kicked Arabs or Bedouin off their land at all. As has been said, copy/pasta propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Winning wars is not genocide, but forcibly displacing ethnicities as the result of your winning the war (or for any other reason) is.
Re: (Score:2)
Displacing people isn't genocide. Look up the definition.
That having said... the acts commited by the Irgun Stern during that time, however, were war crimes pure and simple. Sabra and Shatilah, same thing. The shelling of refugees hiding around a UN outpost, perfectly well known to the commanders that opened fire with artillery - same thing. Shelling civilians with white phosphorus - another one.
Not genocidal, no - don't make the stupid mistake of confusing a war crime with an act of genocide. But they are
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Arabs in Israel enjoy more civil rights and a higher standard of living than the Arabs living in West Bank and Gaza.
No sh*t, few people in the world live as poorly as those who live in Israel's gutters. The ones you let vote are a minority to those of your specific religion that you've imported from around the world. Even refusing to extradite wanted criminals of Jewish decent who manages to make it 'home'.
If Isreal gave up the "if you're Jewish you're a citizen", and started repatriating Palestinians it might just gain a little credibility. Instead, you'all are locked in a police state mentality. You just can't 's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They "chose" to leave in 1948? Most were fleeing with good reason. The Irgun Stern (Stern-gang) alone was responsible for killing hundreds of man, women and children when they didn't want to leave. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre [wikipedia.org] . The news of the massacre caused a lof of other people to flee (and probably rightly so). Considering this to be voluntary is... well, I'd do a comparison with the Kristallnacht but that would be a Godwin violation. I think you get the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Larry Klayman is suing facebook for failing to violate another persons Freedom of Speech.
Freedom Watch is clearly a false flag operation much like the so called "Anonymous" if someone says something you don't like, attack them. But gain supporters by pretending to support free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah... you miss the point of the name Freedom Watch. You see, he's just Watching out so you don't get too much Freedom. :)
they arent any different. (Score:2)
moreover, their culture is totally the same. judaism, islam, christianity are only minor branches. ALL of these build upon established (thousands of years ago, even before themselves) traditions and legends and beliefs of the region.
they are one people. but one thing you are right about is, they are indeed the source of all the problems of the world - their c
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well, clearly Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were religious folks. Athiests cant be repressive, violent, or murderous, no sir.
Seriously, every time someone makes this claim I wonder if they were asleep through all of their history classes. The story of mankind is one of tyranny and violence whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Re: (Score:3)
I know Palestinians people did suffer a lot (so did the Israelis), but look around us, look at Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, i promise you, the Palestinians in occupied territories have a lot more rights, freedom and are safer then citizens in this countries.
Seriously, I sometimes can't for the life of me figure if you people are just plain delusional and believe this or if you're lying consciously.
Palestinians did suffer a lot you say. First, I would say "Palestinians do suffer a lot". Secondly, exactly how much land, or relatives have you, or any of your ancestors lost in Israel at any time? Can you provide us with that info?
Thirdly, it's not just Palestinians we're talking about. Last time I did the math, the retribution ratio applied by the government and
Re: (Score:3)
Its not about clean hands...its about who has the aparthied state.
Recall Israel conquered its Greater Israel in 1967 and almost immediately began moving its civilians onto the conquered lands into exclusive Jewish âoesettlementsâ, showing its clear intent to permanently include so-called Judea and Samaria into Greater Israel. It did so in direct contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits such population transfers as well as territorial annexations by an occupying power. It did s
Re: (Score:3)
HAMAS just shoot rockets at Israel as this some kind of child game, but it's not a game. and in many cases, it's actually children who shoot the rockets (and miss, because they didn't read the manual? or don't know to read?)
Maybe it's because those rockets are about as basic as one can make them and they lack sophisticated target acquisition and navigation systems? I'm sure that if they had Tomahawks they wouldn't miss so much. Also, the allegation that it is children that fire those rockets is, as far as I've ever seen, just that: an allegation. I've never seen footage of children firing the aforementioned rockets. Or ever seen any Hamas element admitting so. Anyway, even if it is children that fire the rockets (why would peo
Re: (Score:3)
what you call "disregard" i call just standing for it's self, we won't take every crap US, EU or UN has to throw at us. it's only 60 years ago EU was a Concentration Camp for Jews, and about the same time ago, Black people in the US were still slaves. while the UN did very little to actually solve any conflict since it's creation. so who are you to teach us the rights and wrongs? nobody asked you to "scramble" or "apply damage control" - but it's just probably the right thing to do.
You won't take crap from anyone heh? Who would've said.. Oh, that's right! I said it in my post. I was apparently right. Except that what you call crap is actually called dialogue, negotiation and compromise (and also billions of dollars - is that crap you don't take also? Figured not...) in the civilized countries. But that doesn't really interest you now does it?
So, sixty years ago there was a concentration camp for Jews you say. Well, for starters, nobody's talking about Jews. I though we were talking a
Re: (Score:3)
Well, first of all, let me thank you (no sarcasm now) for a reasonable response. It seems quite more productive now to actually have a discussion with you. Which is really more than I can say about most people that take your side on this issue, if it makes sense to take a side at all.
I think we both explained our views elaborately already and that is a good thing. Others can come, read, and make up their own mind. And your last post actually made some sense and seems to me quite reasonable. I'll therefore