Diplomat: I can no longer represent Israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4036889,00.html

(snip)
Veteran diplomat Ilan Baruch quits, says he can no longer represent government; Israel's foreign policy is 'wrong,' he says, adds that blaming global anti-occupation views on anti-Semitism is 'simplistic, artificial'

Foreign Ministry earthquake: A veteran diplomat says he has resigned from his post because he had a hard time defending the policies of Israel's current government, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Wednesday.
Ilan Baruch says he quit because "Israel's foreign policy is wrong," pointing to the Palestinian issue.
Should this trend continue, he warned, Israel will turn into a pariah state and face growing de-legitimization.
Baruch told Israel TV Wednesday that Israel's standing was in danger because of its policies, which he said were "difficult to explain."
"I can no longer honestly represent this government," he said earlier. "As (Foreign Minister) Lieberman was elected by a large public in a legitimate manner, I cannot question him – but I don't have to serve him, and therefore I'm quitting."
(snip)

Brave man.

I think it's a great global awakening.

More tips for information warriors

1. “Every Israeli wants peace.” This will just bliss your audience out, this will fill them with warm feelings for Israel. My, my, my, every Israeli wants peace. Every single one, including the Hebron settlers, including the Kachniks, including the ones who burn mosques and shoot Palestinians – every Israeli wants peace. Who can deny it? Do you know any Israeli who wants to get killed in a war? No, which means every Israeli wants peace. OK, it’s not saying much, it’s basically saying every Israeli wants to stay alive, you could just as easily say every Iranian wants peace, every Congolese wants peace – which is why you don’t want to dwell on any one point too long. Hit ‘em hard and fast, then move on.

<snip>

3. “We support a Palestinian state, but not one that will threaten Israel’s security.” What could be more reasonable than that? If a Palestinian state has an army, that will threaten Israel’s security. If it can forge military alliances, that will threaten Israel’s security. If it controls its own borders, terrorists will be able to come in and threaten Israel’s security. If it controls its own airspace, Israeli spy planes won’t be able to fly over, which will threaten Israel’s security. We simply can’t allow it. The Palestinians can have their state, but no army and no military alliances, and Israel controls their borders and their airspace. Two states for two peoples, like the US and Vermont.

And if anybody asks you if it’s fair for a militarized, sovereign Israel to be able to threaten the Palestinians’ security but not vice versa, explain that Israel doesn’t threaten the Palestinians’ security because Israel is trustworthy and harmless. A Palestinian state, you point out, would threaten Israel because Palestinians are liars and murderers, and then you conclude by saying that the day Palestinian leaders show the courage to prepare their people to accept this reality, Israel will know it has a partner.

.

5. “A Jew has the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem.” How much of an anti-Semite to you have to be to say otherwise? I’m sure Obama would agree that a Jew has the right to live anywhere in Washington DC (publicly he’d agree, privately who knows what President Hussein thinks?) so how can he say a Jew doesn’t have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem? The idea! Alright, an Arab can’t live anywhere he wants in Jerusalem, but people have to understand – this is a Jewish state. Here the Jews are the majority, and the majority says all of Jerusalem is for the Jews and only the Arab part is for the Arabs – if they behave. That’s not democracy? That’s more democracy than they’ve got in Saudi Arabia, or Malaysia, or wherever Obama was born.


http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=211479

but my R didn't R.

Good for him.

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/the-current-print-issue-of-tikkun

woner if there will be a campaign against him or will it be ignored as if it never happened?

he gets his article, makes his stand, and looks for a new job....just like any other israeli citizen who makes a political stand....(hes not that important)

just the fact that you wrote what you wrote leads me to believe one of two things:


your not interested in learning about israeli society or

your views are so ideologically based that the actual character of the israeli society is irrelevant..and demonization is your norm (as per your two options above, both are attempts to demonize israeli democracy, once again)
------------

he wont be shot as a "collaberator". He'll just get a new job and live his life. I appreciate anybody standing up for what they believe.

this article is from 9 days ago and barely a blip has been heard since as to the majority of Israeli's who did they put into power? That is about all that needs to said for Israeli society as we also hear that the 'left wing' has been reduced to a fringe minority that also speaks for a society, something else I remember someone an Israeli as I remember saying that the military in Israel is the basis of or has replaced most other social and religious norms or institutions in Israel, a military that is the gate keepers of not only an occupation but also what some would call a colonization effort by the Israeli government

he quit, it was published in the paper, as you read it....and its not big deal. Hes not a house hold name,....why do i care if he quit because he doesn't like the govts polices or libermans? From my point of view he did the right thing, but then, that is what we expect so why should he get any praise?

____

clearly you are used to politicians that have no values, no principles and assume that other countries have the same system. Once again you have shown to be wrong about israel, its policies, its neighbors etc...amazing.

and so now your calling the IDF as an occupier of the israeli govt and people?...quite the imagination, but then it makes sense given the lack of reality of your other posts.....

If you REALLY didn't care, wouldn't you just be ignoring this thread?

and the usual lack of knowledge about israel.....and of course the attempts to demonize israel as well.

The iron fist doesn't work, anyway.

And neither do the settlements. Or the Wall. Or carpet-bombing Gaza.

BTW, I'm aware that there is a small progressive community in Israel who speaks out and I admire the military resisters as well(they are the only ones who truly represent what the original Zionist vision was supposed to be about, not this corroded remnant of it that has reduced itself to the most useless form of nationalism-defending the state for the SAKE of defending the state).

What THOSE people do is admirable. Nobody is saying this man is the first dissenter in Israeli history.

one example ....the wall:

since the wall has gone up, israelis being killed by buses blowing up are down to zero....did you miss that fact. And since the wall has gone up there has been no need for all the checkpoints, hence they too are down in numbers. (and yes attempts are stil made to smuggle in bombs....)

see how that works?...events, history, facts

or perhaps and this is probably closer to the truth; facts are not really relevant to you nor is your view point based on facts is it?

example?
your now claiming that israel has "carpet bombed' the Palestinians in Gaza. Are you using the dictionary definition or just one that you have decided to make up yourself?
Classic Demonization of an entire people and country....

Or carpet-bombing Gaza

so do you actually believed we carpet bombed gaza?

There was no real attempt to make the bombing targets precise there. This is established fact.

And, clearly, none of the bombing had any positive effects. Hamas is still in power there, and the only alternatives to it IN Gaza are much crazier groups. This is on a continuum of the same course of actions that gave Hamas its big break in show business in the first place...the insistence on isolating and trying to destroy Arafat and the Fatah leadership(Yes, the corruption within Fatah did contribute as well). If you focus, anywhere, on trying to resolve a dispute by crushing the leadership on the other side, ALL you can hope to achieve, in present-day circumstances, is to replace that leadership with something worse. It will never be possible again to totally crush one side's leadership in a conflict and have that leadership be replaced by something better.

There was no real attempt to make the bombing targets precise there. This is established fact

and why you used it:

F-16's cannot by definition carpet bomb......(they dont carry enough bombs for that)

what place was in ruins?...all of gaza? gaza city? han junis? rafah?....

It's not as if there were any significant areas left unscathed. Gaza is a tiny little strip of land, so leaving most or all of it desolate doesn't take that much effort.

And if you have enough planes, even if an individual plane can't carpet-bomb by itself, you can get the same effect if ALL of them drop the bombs.

It was heavy, massive bombing, no matter what you call it. Hairsplitting serves no purpose here.

pretty much ALL of it?.....one of the most densest populations on earth, totally destroyed and yet only 1300 people lost their lives?.....and since there has been little rebuilding, we can assume that all of gaza is still in ruins?


its not hair splitting...we're talking about either massive ignorance or massive ignorance....i cant decide which it is...

----

are you interested in the truth?...or is that irrelevant?

go to google maps, go to gaza and turn on the picts.

You'll find lots of nice buildings all still standing all around gaza...(click on the picts to get info of when they were taken).

its clear to me that its not really relevant to your view point, the fact that you are so wrong, here, but and there is always hope when once has to face the fact that they have been a willing victim of some elses propaganda......(its clear you didn't do even the most basic research)

It's not like the high command even tried to spare civilians.

I'll go to google maps but there's nothing there that proves that what was done was no big deal.

Here's one image on how thorough the damage was and how indiscriminate:

?w=717&h=1014

Up and down the strip, with heavy bombing in urban areas.

you'll see pictures of gaza city all intact....with a few picts of bombed areas....not the massive devastation that you are claiming. (oops, time to modify the claim...)
__________________________________

Hows your command of the english language?..
Here's one image on how thorough the damage was and how indiscriminate:

I didn't see anything in that map of targets or why those areas were targeted and others areas were not (btw, there are lots of areas that according to the map had no bombs fall on them?....hmmm doesnt that contradict your "carpet bombing" claim?
____

i have no problem of you having a different opinion, but so far its not based on facts as per your claim, only hyperbole and what is obviously lies that someone fed you.

____

as far as trying to spare the civilians, i guess you don't know about the phone calls.........(perhaps some research on your part is in order?)

with a bit of disingenuous misinterpretation thrown in but that is the norm for some here

and then disappear or "modify" my accusations"...or before the previous ones are dealt with, put out some new ones.....

and the times when i've been wrong, i clearly state with it without any attempts to pretend i'm still right even though facts have proven me wrong.

as far as interpretation of events, its true i have the advantage of knowing the local language, culture, have additional news sources than most of the other posters here, so its probably reasonable to assume the i have a better interpretation.

but then again, as i have been shown time and time again, knowledge is not relevant when it comes to demonizing israel and its citizens.....

you live in a society where no one lives/acts on their principles...hence you think/believe that its some kind of supernatural act (perhaps you never met anyone in your life that lives and acts on their principles even though it has a cost? (this is my guess)

in israel it happens all the time starting from age 18..kids on their principles volunteer for combat units, others make a stand against the draft and army and so and so forth...its simply nothing that is so out of the ordinary.

it must be hard living in a society where so few actually stand on their principles...why else would you think his action is so special?

Why is it so important to you to minimize the importance of this?

To my knowledge, no Israeli diplomat has ever done this...I haven't even heard of an AMERICAN diplomat doing this(none of them ever quit because they couldn't stand defending what the U.S. was doing in Vietnam(or in Central America in the Eighties).

He's going to be labeled "self-loathing" and probably also called a kapo. Will you be denouncing those who issue such slanders?

BTW, we'd all be praising a diplomat from any OTHER country who made a similar stand.

he hasn't been called a Kapo...nor will he be. As i wrote israelis from the age of 18 start making decisions that affect their entire lives based on their beliefs.

Clearly in your life, you haven't had to make such decisions hence you seem to believe hes some kind of super hero...here he just a run of the mill politician who found that working for a govt that doesnt has his beliefs was too much...so he did what others have did before him.

your actually comparing american politician to israelis?...American politicians couldn't win a local race in israel with their backgrounds....
_____


and when hes not called a "kapo, self loathing...will you admit you were wrong? and that it appears you know nothing about israeli society and have let your usual intolerance influence your writings?

It's just that I can't understand why you're belittling what this man has done. It's not as if he DESERVES your dismissal or your contempt. I admire anyone, anywhere, who stands against ugliness.

And people like him get called "kapos" all the time. It's a word that should be retired from the acceptable terms of debate, because there is no comparison between an Israeli who supports Palestinian self-determination and a death camp inmate who beats up others inmates on the orders of the Nazi guards. It's wrong to use terms like "kapos" or "self-loathing Jew" against people like this man, OR Amira Hass, or Gideon Levy, or Noam Chomsky. All ANY of those people are are people of conscience who don't accept the "it's ok when THIS side does it" mindset, a mindset that has never led to anything positive in this world, btw.


Finally, my admiration for the diplomat is NOT an attack on Israel, and there's no reason it should prompt any hostility from you. If more Israelis DID act like this, the country would be at peace and wouldn't be a global pariah.

thats why, he did nothing out of the ordinary, hes not a hero, hes not special, he just did what we EXPECT.

and that goes for politicians on both sides of the aisle.

And there's no reason for you to minimize it or to act like it's no big deal.

And what he did didn't harm Israel in the slightest. None of the policies he refuses to defend is essential to Israel's survival anyway.

And I go to the Haaretz and YNET talkboards and see how people like this man are venomously attacked. Will you condemn those that do THAT?

Why does it bug you so much that people are applauding this?

SHOULDN'T people of conscience always be recognized and supported?

and that is a principle...meaning it works for those on the right and left, irreguardless of whether or not i agree with their politics. I condemn anybody who attacks a person who acts out of principle...(something you wouldn't do)

..hes just not a hero or anything super in my eyes for doing such.

democratically elected the current right wing government didn't they?

years ago his view was the majority and those on the right were the minority and some of them quit their jobs or lost them.....this country swings back and forth depending upon events on the ground and people act according, some to their principles some less.

he doesn't get praise for adhering to his principles...thats what we expect, it doesnt matter if he is in the majority or minority, because principles have nothing to do with popular votes.

shhheeesh that really has to be explained?

You're pissed off at the guy and you probably see him as a traitor.

anytime someone disagrees with you, you immediately assume hes on the "other side"....thats not really how tolerance works, thats not very "liberal of you"....

my obsession is with massive distortion of israel that people who know so little, who seem to just make up their own facts about israel and israelis and that they actually believe they know more than israelis

As far as I know, this is the first instance of an actual Israeli DIPLOMAT resigning because he came to the conclusion that he couldn't defend the policies of the Israeli government and retain his humanity.

And, once again, my criticisms are aimed at the Israeli GOVERNMENT...not Israelis as a group and not "Israel" as an entity. The government is NOT the people.

You have the right to disagree with me as you do with anyone else, and I'm fine with that...but this isn't about "intolerance". You're only using that word because it's the word of the day from the Ministry of Hasbara.

because thats the best description (other then when you make up stuff to demonize me, my kids, my friends, my neighbors, my coworkers, etc as well all serve in the IDF)
of your posts when someone doesn't believe as you do.

as far as israeli diplomats quitting....perhaps you should learn about menchim begin as an israeli who kept to his principles. A lot of meretz members also were known for not being able to be bought by political power....

I have nothing against you as an individual. If you and I were to might, I'd probably buy you a beer(assuming you partake, of course)and we'd have a good talk. I'd have the same interaction, I'd suspect, with most ordinary Israelis AND most ordinary Palestinians(granted, with the Pals, it'd be more likely to be tea rather than beer, but I can work with that).

I'm against the Occupation. I support the resisters. But I don't think everybody IN the IDF is personally evil. There is no reason for the IDF to be in the Territories at all anymore, and there's never been any reason for it to defend the settlements.

Begin and the Meretz people weren't diplomats. It's rare to see diplomats of ANY country quitting over points of principle.

You might want to actually consider the merits of what the man is saying by this. It's not as though any of the things he's feeling he can't defend are REQUIRED for Israel's mere survival. And he's right to admit that opposition to the Occupation of the West Bank and Israel's treatment of Palestinians is NOT driven by antisemitism.

It's people like him who are standing up for what Israel was SUPPOSED to be like...rather than the garrison state the Right has turned it into. Brute force is not the answer.

Please stop interpreting every criticism of the Israeli government OR the Occupation OR the IDF as a personal attack. They're not.

If the IDF commits crimes...the those who serve are committing the crimes....if the IDF is carpet bombing then there are pilots who dropping bombs, if the IDF is accused of massacring Palestenians then there are IDF personal that are pulling the triggers.

When you claim the IDF is some kind of evil dehumanizing machine, it means that those who serve are that as well......you can't separate the institution from those who serve within it.

and yes it rare when career diplomats quit over points of principle....its doesnt mean i dont expect that of them....i.e hes not a hero for listening to his conscience at least not in israel.

and yes i 'm against the occupation...i'm just more against naivety and getting blown up while shopping.

Yr telling Ken what yr opinion is, and while *you* see things like that, that doesn't mean that Ken or anyone else does, or has to...


I've got a question. If you think that of any criticism of the IDF, then doesn't that mean you feel the same about any criticism of the US military?

btw, that diplomat's a fucking hero to me. He's not only done something that's taken a lot of bravery given the shit he's going to cop in Israel, but he's also been brave in putting his own beliefs above that of his career and making what is unarguably a career limiting move. I wouldn't have what it takes to do something like that if I were in his position...

:hi:

its far less personal...i dont believe you'll find US politicians sons and daughters nor US military generals kids and grandkids are on the front lines.

so if you assuming that Israeli politicians and generals ordered carpet bombing or other soldiers to massacre Palestinians its fair to assume that their kids, grandkids, or other relatives were involved....hence any general or gross accusation about israeli policy/IDF policy affects its citizens..its very much a peoples army with all combat soldiers being volunteers.

accuse the IDF of massacring people, your accusing a large part of the israeli population of willing to go along with it.....
same too with the govt. The israeli population is very active in changing its govt..one that lasts means that the majority are behind it.

as far as the diplomat goes....like i wrote, i expect anybody whos job is against his conscience to quit, it makes him a person who has and is willing to stand by his principles. For that he gets my respect, but nothing more than that....I also wouldnt want to work under lieberman.

Israel is full of people living by their principles, be it settlers going to dangerous areas to make their point, or anarchist joining in the protests against the fence...kids signing up for extra years in the army so they can do additional community service in remote areas or kids doing community service and not going in to the army...all have long term repercussions but none of them make any of them heros......

i just define hero as someone doing something very rare, AND very dangerous....the diplomates decision was not dangerous at all.
-------------

i have no problem with various opinions including those that are the exact opposite of mine...i don't expect the right nor the religious to have tolerance for other opinions, but i do expect that out of the left that supposedly raises the flag for "the other" , that claims to express tolerance for the other etc.

and i admit to having a problem with accusations that are not based on facts that are easy to check up on. Interpret them as you will, i just don't like them when they're made up.
_______

the problem which seems to be difficult to grasp is that Yes the people are responsible for their govts actions as well as the IDF actions. We vote them in, we vote them out, we protest on policies we dont like and we get them changed, thats how its been for the last 60+ years..our govts change policies when the people vote in a new govt with new policies an these effect the IDFs policies asd well.

other countries like the US are larger, less responsive less personal.....this is puny country with our generals and politicians living amongst us, across the street, down the block, we know who they are and they respond to us...or we kick them out. Accuse them, your accusing us, which is fine, just make sure the accusations are accurate.

to personally demonizing every individual who serves in it?

Sounds like you're really more concerned with setting up emotional blackmail than looking at the actual situation.

I don't hate everybody who serves in the IDF. The orders given out by the high command and the politicians are the issue.

And it's perfectly possible to separate the policies of the Israeli government from the Israeli people as a group, and to speak about Israeli government policies without having any hateful feelings about the group that Israel purports to exist in the name of.

theres a difference between making up stuff, blanket demonization of a largely volunteer organization and making specific accurate claims....try it, it will be a new experience for you.

Those "high command" and politicians also have kids in the army....hence their orders have a direct affect upon them as well (going to war means their own kids are put in danger first and foremost....)

and since we vote in our govts, be it right or left and we kick them out, they very much speak in the name of israeli citizens....be they jewish or not, perhaps its time you started respecting the views of israeli citizens ("purports to exist in the name of?)...theres that lack of tolerance showing again. Anything you dont like you demonize.

or the government does is a personal attack on everybody in Israel, what you're really saying is that ANY criticism of what the Israeli leadership does is a personal attack on everyone there.

My intent was to make a clear distinction between the people and the government, thus AVOIDING what YOU call demonization(and what is in reality merely legitimate criticism)of the people for the acts of their leaders. If you believe in democracy, than you MUST always make a distinction between the leaders and the people, in any country.

If I take your view, I'd also have to accept that since we, in the U.S. ALSO vote in our governments and can kick them out, any attack on the policies of OUR leaders is a personal attack on every American. And since accepting that means accepting that no criticism of my OWN country's government can be legitimate, I can't accept such a thing.

It sounds like what you're REALLY arguing is that, if the majority of Israelis support what their government is doing, it can't be legitimate for anyone else to disagree with it. Please tell me you don't mean THAT.

Some people in Israel will disagree with me. Some will agree. I don't hate any ordinary Israelis or wish to demonize them. But if I were to do what YOU seem to want, and accept that I have no right to criticize anything their government does because you can't accept that there's a distinction between the state and the people, I'd have to give up my humanity. I couldn't look the other way at what they do to Palestinians and still be a civilized human being(anymore than I could look the other way at the countries that denied Jewish refugees sanctuary in the late 1930's and early 1940's, as MY country did to its eternal shame). I couldn't stay silent on what happens in the West Bank and STILL retain the right to claim to be progressive or humane on anything else. And the diplomat whose stand you are minimizing came to feel the same way.

There are things in the early values of Zionism I admired-the idea of the kibbutz, especially. But most of those things, in terms of the actual state, are now gone and it looks pretty much like its just going to be the right-wing non-choice of Likud and Kadima(parties who only disagree on trivial side issues) from here on in. This saddens me. It should sadden you. For some reason, you don't mind living in a country that's never going to stop being ultraconservative and is just going to get more and more ultrareligious(in the toxic American way)from now on. Israelis could get all that by just moving to Texas.

And why do you see Israeli politicians and generals as anymore trustworthy than any others? Hasn't it sunk in yet that those people, in the political/military class, don't WANT peace(at least in terms of those in the governing coalition OR Kadima)? OK, in theory, they have kids fighting...but do you really think that means more to them than the generals in any OTHER country, including the U.S.? If Israel ended up at peace, it would be a much less important country in international terms. Nobody, in terms of global power, would really care about it(ask yourself this: when is the last time the SWISS Foreign Minister got big press coverage for visiting Washington?, or for that matter, any press coverage at all?) Those of you in Israel who see yourself as "tough liberals" need to accept the fact that your leaders have a vested personal interest in NOT having the war end. And you need to acknowledge that this should be taken into consideration when evaluating their actions.

They also have a vested interest, therefore, in keeping the Israeli public frightened and regimented, so as to limit or shut down critical thought.

This is why, for your own mental health, you can't just take their word for it when they say "there's no choice". There is ALWAYS a choice-it's just that the choice might not necessarily be in the political self-interest of your leaders.

To let them pull the "we speak in your name" thing is to let them play you. Don't do that. No politicians anywhere are any more trustworthy than any others. And no one in office anywhere really wants peace, so the people have to MAKE them make the effort.

The people AREN'T the state. And the state is always less moral THAN the people. That's universal, Pelsar.

that you actually have little knowledge about the goings on in israel and its value system (carpet bombings?...gaza totally destroyed?).

i find it very difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who either has little knowledge, doesnt do any research (or cares to) or claims he/she knows the truth and facts when clearly he/she doesnt. I wont even mention your convoluted definition of democracy that promotes the concept that political groups should be allowed to take secret money and not by law have to be transparent......(is this just for israel or do you promote that concept in the US as well for republicans?).

yes i know what you intention was....to separate me, kids, my friends from the general who lives across the street from me..as if he is some kind of animal that is not part of our neighborhood (should i not say hello to them?). Should my daughter, avoid a different generals daughter in her unit who lives about 20miles away?..she is after all part of the "military class."

and as you put it so clearly those guys have no problem with putting us in danger (and their own kids) for the sake of power.....what kind of animal is my neighbor anyway?
__________________

btw that carpet bombing (you probably believe there was a massacre in Jenin (may 2002)...who do you think does the bombing/shooting? who plans the targets, who loads the planes? who does the navigation?...this exclusive "military class of robots?.......is the whole country a bunch of victims to the "military/political" class? who have no problem putting their own kids in danger for their own power?....ANIMALS all of them!

_______

as far as your points go, before i address them....some have something to talk about some are nothing more than empty slogans. But like i wrote, your credibility with me is pretty low:
I'm still stuck on your definition of democracy for some and not for others, and the devastation of gaza that never was that you obviously still believe:...i repeat go to google see the picts of gaza city today (for example) and explain to me how they rebuilt the whole damn city so quickly.....

I'm going to do more research. Never have I claimed to be infallible.

But, I'm puzzled...why shouldn't you separate yourselves from the leadership? It doesn't make your country's political culture any better to totally buy into this "we're all in this together" thing...you need to accept that, in ANY country, the leadership has different interests than the people. That's why, in most countries, it's the leaders who end up pushing the people into a war that the people, themselves, never wanted. There's simply no reason for you to think that Israeli generals and Israeli politicians have any more regard for human life than the politicians in any other country. Or to take attacks on them as attacks on you when you know perfectly well they aren't.

You need to understand that you should NEVER trust your leaders with your lives. Leaders are always just in it for themselves, wherever you go...they are fully willing to sacrifice everyone else for their own interests. If you assume that this somehow doesn't apply in Israel, than you are letting those leaders have a level of "benefit of the doubt" that is deeply unhealty. And, in saying that, I'm not saying anything that a fair amount of ISRAELIS haven't said, and in far more vivid language than I used.

It's a deadly dangerous thing to assume that your leaders are somehow morally superior to those of any OTHER country's. Here in the U.S., we have to wage a continual battle against that mindset...the mindset of "American Exceptionalism". What you don't seem to realize is that Israeli politicians and military leaders have devoted themselves to propagandizing people like yourself with "Israeli Exceptionalism"(I suspect that the American political-military influence on Israel helped plant the seeds of YOUR country's sense of "Exceptionalism", and for that I'd like to apologize as an American). It's THAT mindset that has led to a great deal of arrogance in the Israeli approach to Palestinians...such as the often-expressed view that "Palestinian leaders would use an army to wipe out Israel, but Israeli leaders can trusted NOT to wipe out a Palestinian state with THEIR army"(an assertion that flies in the face of the way the IDF has, under the orders of its leadership(and no, I didn't call them "animals"-the term I would use instead is self-interested cynics)treated Palestine.

Why are you so defensive about negative characterizations of your country's political and military leadership? What makes THEM so special, really? Yes, Israel is a small country...but it has the most massive war machine in the Middle East and the clout to extract massively disproportiate aid from the United States(aid it no longer needs OR deserves, and aid that should not be beyond debate in the U.S. Congress but is, due to the despicable AIPAC insinuation that any serious questions about this aid could ONLY be driven by "antisemitism"). Israel is not an endangered, victim state, and it is not in anything remotely like an "existential crisis".

That general across the street from you can take care of himself. He's probably ordered the destruction of whole Palestinian villages(and those villages probably did nothing to deserve it). Why are you worried about a GENERAL's hurt feelings? Why not worry about the injured bodies of those who were attacked on the general's orders? And why not worry about what trusting the generals and accepting the poisonous "no choice" mantra have done to your country?

I'm not the enemy. Your leaders are. They're no different and no more saintly than the leaders in any OTHER country. And trusting them blindly makes no more sense than trusting any OTHER country's leaders. It does, however, inflate the egos of your leaders and lets them feel entitled to be much more reckless than they otherwise would be.

its not difficult, you just have to learn tolerance for what you dont understand:

I'm not the enemy. Your leaders are....no they are not. Our leaders, many of our politicians, our generals are not from the "elite"..many come from the simple families, from the farming communities etc. Not all, but a nice percentage, and they're moms and dads who are still farming, etc have not suddenly become our enemies as well.

i realize that is probably one the most difficult concepts for you to grasp, but you might start with the idea that your culture is not the same as israels.

concept two, that your having a problem with...the concept of a principle.
When you believe in the principle of democracy, that means you believe that everyone lives by the same rules-you apply the rules to EVERYONE!!!!. Of course many will try to get around those rules for their personal agenda, but they do not believe in the principle of democracy;

A basic democratic principle is that ALL public groups should be transparent by law, you either believe in that principle as a principle or you dont. It doesn't make a difference who it helps more or who it helps less.

The diplomat who quit, did so because of his principles, he applied them to his job and decided that it didn't work, so he followed his principles and lost his job, that was not easy, but thats how its suppose to work.
----------

and your credibility is now down to zero:
He's probably ordered the destruction of whole Palestinian villages(and those villages probably did nothing to deserve it)
will you please name for me perhaps one of the villages that he ordered destroyed? Hes 54 years old, that should help you in your time line.

and back to gaza...i'll wait for you to return after you did some research on how the IDF carpet bombed gaza city and they rebuilt it all within a few years...I'm still waiting for that (and of course the villages that you have now accused my neighbor of ordering to wipe out?....(which soldiers did the massacring, who was pulling the trigger...were they friends of mine? my son...maybe it was my cousin-someone had to do the killing?

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

you should ask first...your assumptions so far are all wrong......

serving in the IDF is hardly a prereq for being a citizen of israel..many dont for a multitide of reasons, that hardly makes the farmers son/holocaust survivors , who is now an army general or politician an enemy....

NGO's are public....they don't pay taxes on their donations. If they were corporations they would pay taxes and would not have to revel their funds.... got it?
_________

so hows that gaza research going?...or do you prefer ignorance?

as they unlike corporations or even individuals are not making a profit for their work exactly what would they be taxed on? I would think that their salaried employee's do pay taxes on their income however

serving in the IDF is hardly a prereq for being a citizen of israel..many dont for a multitide of reasons, that hardly makes the farmers son/holocaust survivors , who is now an army general or politician an enemy....

I never said anything of the sort, you said "one of us" in reference to criticism of Israel's government, but I did 'love' the way you felt it somehow necessary to throw in the 'Holocaust Survivor' reference, yes must always remind the reader of that

what the government does to Palestinians, and are outraged that what happened to them is invoked over and over again by Netanyahu and Lieberman to justify the infliction of suffering on people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust.

as you put it: one of our enemies....the last general who was chief of staff is the son of a survivor....

I said nothing about "one of our enemies" but I know we leftist are so alike hard to tell us apart and all

But an event that is totally irrelevant to the Israel/Palestine dispute, because the Palestinians had nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust and were never the successors in infamy to the Third Reich.

The Holocaust does not justify the Occupation or what was done to Gaza or the settlements. And it doesn't exempt the SON of a survivor from criticism.

In the name of decency, its time to retire Holocaust references from the I/P debate.

of course the "animal like war mongering, general" is not immune from criticism......Nor should the Holocaust be used to justify the occupation or the (your definition) compete devastation of gaza due to carpet bombing (btw hows that research going...or do you believe its permissible to make up stuff and false claims).

But the Holocaust is a reference point....nor is it irrelevant to the I/P conflict. 100,000 jewish refugees were still in DP camps a year after the war since all the nice countries had their jew quotas filled up. Not to mention the concept of being potential victims (as were the polish jews in 1948 The Kielce pogrom) still existed.

Hence when some hamasnik/Hizballa/PLO/Iranian/ etc make threats that remind us of previous threats that were made good on, or tried to...we listen. Its not important to us whether you believe that THIS time we should believe that "nah, they dont mean it", because we do.


As far as the Palestinians having nothing to do with the Holocaust....so?....WWII was full of victims, the Palestinians were simply one more people that had their lives turned upside down because of WWII. They were no different from the Okinawans, french, Belgium's, Polish, Gypsies etc. All who had massive land and people transfers.

Don't put words in my mouth like that. As I said, I know nothing of the specific general you live near.

Whatever you call it, Gaza DID receive massive bombing. The term for that is irrelevant. The people of Gaza don't consider what happened to be only minor damage. Why shouldn't I believe THEM? They were the victims of it. The word used to describe the bombing doesn't matter.

It is despicable that Holocaust survivors were left in the DP camps. But again, THAT was the responsibility of European Christians, not the Arab population of Palestine. ONLY those who caused the Holocaust or persecuted its survivors can fairly have that event invoked to justify their treatment. All Arabs were innocent of any role in that event. This is an important thing to remember, since Hitler's monstrous deeds were used, again and again, to justify everything the Israeli government did in the name of "security". They were used to silence debate on what that government did and to cast dark aspersions on anyone who questioned any of it.

And must I remind you that, when it mattered, DURING World War II, the Jewish communities of the Arab countries and of Iran were completely unscathed. Those countries NEVER cooperated with Hitler on his deadly project(which is a hell of a lot more than France, or the UK or even, on bad days, the United States could say, since all of those countries denied or at least severely restricted the availability of sanctuary to the Jewish refugees from Europe when they were begging for their lives). And this at a time when it would have been easy for those countries to just put those communities on freighters headed for Marseilles or(after Mussolini stopped protecting Italian Jews)an Italian port and sent them to their deaths. The wartime king of Morocco has been nominated by the Moroccan Mizrahi community in Israel to be the first Arab enshrined in the "righteous of the nations" section of Yad Vashem. THIS history is why you can assume that Arabs are not going to revive Hitler's work. It's only European Christians who are capable of creating something like Auschwitz. Arabs and Muslims would never lower themselves to such a despicable thing...no matter what they feel about Zionism. The fact that Iran, with the most visibly ugly leadership of any Arab country, hasn't done much of anything to those Jews who still live there bears this out. Arabs and Muslims are not utopian saints, but it's time to admit that they aren't subhuman monsters either. And it's ALSO time to admit that they aren't pathologically capable of ever really making peace with Israel-remember, to actually have a peace deal, there MUST be the assumption that it's at least possible for your enemy to agree to REALLY and TRULY end the war. If you assume that they never can, than you're not going to do anything that could actually ever LEAD to peace.

So it is totally inappropriate to invoke the Holocaust as a justification for anything the Israeli government does to Palestinians today. Palestinians are NOT the successors to the Nazis, and no other Arab state ever deserved that accusation either(and it was a bit of rhetorical slander that people like Ben-Gurion, who KNEW it was a lie, resorted to again and again in the post-1948 period).

Finally, Israel's leaders might have considered, if they actually ever WANTED peace with the neighboring countries, that no country makes peace with a country that habitually insults it, dehumanizes it(as Israeli propaganda has done for decades in insisting that Arabs are somehow pathologically incapable of behaving as civilized people, that Arab culture is inherently inferior to the culture of Israel, a country that presented itself as bringing "European civilization" to a backward region)and in general arguing Arabs and Muslims are incapable of reforming a societies and democratizing them on their own terms(assumptions that the events in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere in the region have now totally discredited). The whole "why can't they be as good as we are?" thing was always going to prevent peace, and the arrogance of that tone should be apologized for.

if i show you that your wrong, in large parts of your post above..not your interpretations, but what your claiming as facts and history...

will you either do the research to show me that perhaps that i am wrong?...or if your not capable of doing such research, will you rewrite you post based on your new knowledge?

but theres two conditions: and these will be the most difficult for you:
all definitions have be by the dictionary
every and all claims have to be back up with at least on relevant link

that means no imagination and no false/exaggerated claims.

personally i dont think you can do it, since it requires real research while keeping all claims limited to real info with links. Now feel free to get help (voilet has a wealth of info and is very experienced here)

do you think you can do it?

There's clearly nothing in the funding sources of the NGO's that could possibly discredit them in and of itself. None of them are being funded by Satan's minions on Earth.

i think you prefer a less freedom oriented type of govt.

the NGOs made their own decision to be tax-exempt, that is their right in a democracy. They have chosen to be tax exempt and chosen to hide their funding. Both in israel are presently legal, which is exactly what the settlers do...and both are wrong.

both use the same arguments that mimic yours.....your all the same: you all think your better than us mere citizens

A person doesn't HAVE to favor making foreign NGO's reveal their funding sources to be "pro-democracy". This is becoming personally abusive on your part.

And again, why should we assume that their funding matters? If they had Arab funding, the Mossad would know anyway. There's no funding source they could have that could possibly be inherently damning.

And my position is that of everyone in Israel who actually supports human rights.

To my knowledge, no left-of-center people at all support Lieberman and Bibi on this. I'm not even sure all the right-wing people do.

Why shouldn't I trust THEM when they say this is an attempt to drive the foreign NGO's out and chill dissent?

And it's not as if there's 90% support for this bill there.

Why shouldn't I trust THEM when they say this is an attempt to drive the foreign NGO's out and chill dissent?

That could very well be their position...personally they dont frighten me...Betsalem is hardly scared of the settlers and their friends.

What you don't understand is israeli society....this seems to be a problem with your view. No israeli is afraid of the govt nor of the "animal like" generals. Each govt tries its best to gets its agenda through,many using anti democratic means, and they're all wrong as are their supporters.

its simple: I believe the principles of democracy are more important that the "ends justifies the means" but you obviously disagree ( just dont kid yourself, that is exactly what you believe-which is ok, most of us have beliefs that we feel like that)

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

If you not for us, your agains us mentality
Why don't you just admit that you want all foreign NGO's kicked out of Israel AND the West Bank? Clearly that's your objective

-------------
You have no moral right to question my commitment to democracy
sorry ken, I'm writing from israel, where we have every right to question the morality of anybody and everybody, we believe that nobody is morally superior than anybody else and we can question anything we want, without fear.....

----------------
this is classic "believer" mentality, even slightly question the believers belief and you must be a heretic. I like it when the things come out, it clarifies you stance. NO TOLERANCE, for others who do not believe like you.

and further proof, that your also a believer in "groupthing'...that if many believe in something, then it must be true:
And your position on this issue is not a consensus position within Israel
personally i think its one of the most idiotic methods of attempting to prove something is true, (flat earth anyone?)..so it doesnt really work with me as a tool to convince me that i am wrong. Are all consensuses correct?

and THANK YOU
The citizens have full freedom to debate what the NGO's do...they can debate the actions of those groups. It's the actions that are the point. The funding is irrelevant.
thats so nice of you...we can debate, but not ask too many questions..i mean if we start asking about funding----ooops, time to SHUT DOWN the debate. Just dont ask the wrong questions (why does that remind of communist china?).

I have no idea why you keep bringing up the Mossad, they have no relevance on the citizens right to ask, inquire, research and know...you just dont iike us inquiring about your holy issues----hmmm, maybe your really hiding something.....

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

when it comes to willful ignorance and false accusations about israel...no question about it.

wrong assumption again:
i support NGOs...as long as they play by the democratic rules

of please...don't be so pathetic:
Obviously the only reason you could want to find their funders is that you don't want anyone to know what happens in the West Bank

we get more than enough news about whats going on from our own groups.....
_____

its clear you believe that "your group" is better than the others and hence don't need to play by the general rules of democracy. I accept that...lots of groups here in israel believe the same.

i just believe that all of you guys: settlers, NGOs, etc are all wrong.

The funding makes no difference in terms of the outcome of their research. I could understand your intransigence on this if the NGO's were being caught in slanders or lies. If they were, it's enough that the government could rebut them factually and that, by itself, would discredit them. But the fact is, they haven't been. And it's time to let Durban go already.

You seem convinced that finding out the sources of the funding would prove something inherently damning about the foreign NGO's. Why would they put their reputations at risk by doing anything that wasn't factual or totally accurate? They'd be caught out on that on the merits of their actions if they tried it.

And again...why not just introduce legislation BANNING foreign NGO's? Wouldn't THAT be the honest thing for the government to do, since the government's intentions here are clearly just to drive the foreign NGO's out? It's not like Bibi wouldn't have the votes for that.

Isn't the issue WHAT the NGO's do, rather than who funds them?

And are you ever going to apologize for falsely implying that I'm anti-democratic just because I disagree with you on this one thing?

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

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

nah i missed it ..so pm me..( i hate when they delete the posts....)

I've just PMed it to you :hi:

your so full of empty slogans that it could be book.....
Generals never WANT the wars to stop.
Israeli generals are exactly like American generals


sorry my neighbor isn't a monster, loves his daughters very much as do other israeli generals/politicians and don't relish putting them, their sons, their cousins, their brothers, their grandkids in danger just for their own glory.

i believe what you have expressed is called either ethnocentrism..when you believe all cultures are like you own.....the kind of thing the elite believes in
____

and i 'm still waiting on your gaza research...i also don't believe in letting false accusations go...you are doing it correct? I mean you made it clear you believe we flattened gaza, so it shouldn't be hard to find the picts, the gazans are very internet savvy.

Most people in Gaza would regard the damage as massive. Why shouldn't I believe THEM? They're the ones who were bombed. And there was never a justification to kill MORE people there than the rockets killed.

Most people in Gaza would regard the damage as massive

I got a simaler argument from my 15year old nephew (different subject).....he based his argument on 'what most people believe" I dont know how old you are, but basing ones belief on "what most people think (groupthink anyone), is not something i would be bragging about. I read somewhere where kids today are not learning how to think critically and do their own research. Perhaps your an example of this.

I know, that you really have no idea what "most people in gaza think/believe" so i have no idea why your even attempting to use such an argument. I mean do you really expect me to believe that you know.....or perhaps you actually believe that know what the gazans think? is that it?

_____

actually i will admit to what i have learned about the progressive point of view since i've been here: information does not have to be definitive, facts, accuracy, none of them are relevant (as per your claims). What is important is getting out your belief and doing/saying/claiming what ever it takes to convince people that your right.
(again we see the concept of "the ends justifies the means" in play.


which is why you'll never do the research on gaza, and that fact that israel actually used pinpoint bombing on specific targets, (see link to electronicintifada)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10165.shtml
During the IOF's military operations, it directly targeted 142 houses with guided missiles and shells.

that is what your research, had you done any, would look like

Schools, or any other place where children gather, are ALWAYS supposed to be off-limits to bombing.

Stop acting like the bombing was trivial. It was intense, no matter what it's called. And it was unacceptably intense.

ok with that tiny 10 second bit of research of mine we have gone from massive carpet bombing that devastated all of gaza to "Intense." I can accept that, a 1,000lb bomb is rather intense.

now your putting words in my mouth, where all i'm going for is a bit of accuracy in your posts....as accurate as it can be. Yes israel bombed schools and mosques and homes...thats what war is about....destroying stuff.

as far as your moral outrage...spare me.....The IDF learned it lesson in lebanon where it did spare schools and mosques, and they were used by Hizballa to kill us. Lesson well learned.
______

so as i understand you now admit that we didnt carpet bomb and consequently bomb indiscriminately as per your initial post..correct?...which means the bombs were infact dropped on specific targets and not the general population (which means we're not total monsters).

It was severe bombing and you're not entitled to act like it was nothing.

carpet bombing is massive indiscriminate bombing designed to kill as many people as possible......murder on a large scale.

targeted bombing, that requires extensive information, hours and hours of people working around the clock to target and/or kill a specific group of people or destroy something when the least amount of people are around is a very different world.

if it was a mere technical difference that there would have been over 10,000 Palestinian deaths as opposed to 1300....thats not a mere technicality.
__________________
More so there was a reason you chose to claim that we devastated gaza and used carpet bombing....you chose those words because you wanted to demonize a whole country: Israel devastated gaza, indiscrimate bombing, carpet bombing.....the conclusion you want? Israel is evil.

and finally when your called out on it, not only do you refuse to do any actual research (or maybe you did and your now ashamed at your false accusation?) you want to move on...to your next gross accusation.

i simply have a hard time with gross distortions that are claimed to be merely "technical"...when forced to explain....you'll do it again.....i'm not worried.

"democracy for some but not for others"...The fact that it is Netanyahu and Lieberman leading the fight against the NGO's proves that this isn't about "transparency".

No left-of-center Israeli politicians want the NGO's to be attacked. They know that the attack is about silencing dissent.

Forcing NGO's in Israel to reveal their funding sources couldn't contribute to democracy for all. You already KNOW who funds those groups...and none of them shade their findings to please their funders. It's the attacks on the NGO's that is an attack on democracy, and efforts to drive them out can only weaken Israeli democracy, since the ones who'd be allowed to survive would ONLY be the ones who parroted the Likudnik line without question. None that posted findings critical of the Occupation would be tolerated, and certainly none that highlighted abuses of Palestinians by the IDF would be tolerated. And the people who want the foreign NGO's out won't stop until they've silenced B'Tselem as well. The attack on the NGO's is for one reason, and one reason only...to protect the Israeli government from criticism. There can't be a legitimate reason to try to discredit those groups.

If they government wants the NGO's out, its enough that it could just ban them.

The fact that it is Netanyahu and Lieberman leading the fight against the NGO's proves that this isn't about "transparency".

why should i care what they believe?.... I believe that a democracy should be transparent and all public NGOs should be transparent...no DOUBLE STANDARDS. (democracy for me and not for thee)

you believe in double standards, thats ok, thats pretty much standard within the progressive community, or so i've discovered.

I believe in democracy just as much as you do, and you've slandered me in implying that you can ONLY believe in democracy if you support a witchhunt against the NGO's.

My position is just as democratic as yours is, and perhaps more so...since mine is anti-McCarthyite.

its pretty standard, where one group believes that know better than the other groups, therefor they don't have to play by the rules.

you want exceptional rules because your values are better than rest of ours, your agenda is simply superior to the rest of us who simply are not smart enough to realize it, and we should be (re) educated to accept that. And if that doesn't help we should just accept your superior knowledge of right and wrong.

did i get that right?

The Mossad already knows who funds them anyway. If they were Arab- or Iranian-funded, the Mossad would release proof of that. Everyone already knows everything about these groups. There isn't anything about their funding that could actually be inherently damning or discrediting. The intent is to discourage American or European groups from funding these NGO's by exposing them to being slandered as "anti-Israeli". That's not an acceptable tactic and nobody who funds those groups IS anti-Israeli.

It simply doesn't make any difference who funds the NGO's. None of them lie or distord. If they did, you'd be providing evidence that they do. This is still just payback for Durban, and Durban doesn't matter anymore.

Why are you so obsessed with this one issue? Israeli democracy doesn't hinge on knowing the NGO funding sources. Besides, the government could take away their tax-exempt status at any time, and that would make little difference to their operations.

It simply doesn't make any difference who funds the NGO'

and you (nor does my govt) have no right to tell me, a citizen, what is and what is not important to me....thats for me to decide and for me to decide who i believe is lying and or distorting -i do not accept someone telling me what I should believe because "they say so."

this is just one example of israelis imperfect democracy and how some people defend it, i as a citizen do not like it, when the govt hides information from me.

I skipped your question:
And are you ever going to apologize for falsely implying that I'm anti-democratic just because I disagree with you on this one thing?
the answer is no, i do not believe someone can believe in the principles of democracy and also believe that public action groups have the right to hide information from me as a citizen about what they are doing and who is supporting them.

I accept your position, and understand that you fully believe that your position is essential for the Palestinians and is completely compatible with democracy. (just as i accept that very same argument from others that replace Palestinian with israeil), but i shall never agree nor understand it.

The reason there's a push for full disclosure is so that AIPAC can intimidate anyone in the U.S. out of funding the NGO's. This is simply an unacceptable thing for them to do.

And everyone knows what the NGO's DO. You can go to their websites and they'll tell you EVERYTHING that they do. There's nothing being hidden.

And everyone knows what the NGO's DO. You can go to their websites and they'll tell you EVERYTHING that they do. There's nothing being hidden.

i know your a believer.....what i find fascinating about you believers is how you don't see the mirror image of yourselves on the other side.

its amazing, you all use the same arguments, you all have the same condescending tone towards us regular citizens, always explaining to us, that what ever we need to know is there, and that we should trust you.

i always get a "kick' when a believer on one side, moves over to the other side. Whats always fun is that after the switch, they have the same intensity of belief. It must be type of personality that you've got that lets you believe that you know better than us, and that we should trust you, and if we want to know more?....demand transparency?..you explain that we dont need to...all we need to know is already there.....
______

did i foget the "scare tactics"....thats also always the same..some kokimamy scary story why us regular folk should just sit down and shut up, otherwise the sky will fall down.....

That term doesn't even mean anything. It's just that I trust the Israeli human rights community, who universally oppose this. And quit acting like the NGO's somehow persecute Israelis. They don't harm Israelis at all.

in my eyes is someone who believes that, there way is so true, that it may not even be questioned. In fact the act of questioning it, is in itself an act of treason. More so they (and only they) are permitted to make any accusation irreguardless of whether its true or not, because its irrelevant. The accusation(s) are enough to make the point.

my questioning your "purer than white snow" NGOs got me accused of being pro settlers etc by you (I would guess in your view thats probably the worst insult possible). You cant even accept the concept that its my right as a citizen to know as much as i choose to about these various public groups...and that i dont have to trust them just because you say so.

those are the characteristics of a religious person...i.e. a true believer.

an excellent value but one that can become (as you have said of other things) a 'religion' and be distorted in ways that lead to bad consequences.

'Freedom' can be transmuted by ideologues into meaning 'no state provision of services; let the poor starve'

'Justice' can be transmuted by ideologues into meaning 'endless war'

And 'transparency' can be transmuted by ideologues into meaning 'a government's authoritarian surveillance of its citizens'.

The point here is that demands for financial transparency were only one part of the proposed legislation; the MKs were also proposing an investigation of the role of NGOs in 'delegitimizing' the IDF. That should be a red flag, as far as I'm concerned. Governments should not be demanding the right to investigating the evil deeds and motives of their political opponents. And that goes as much for left-wing governments investigating RW organizations as for right-wing governments investigating LW organizations. The whole point of having NGOs is so that they can be independent of government. This sort of government investigation goes against all such independence.

I do not think I have double standards, as I am perfectly aware that my own freedom to support organizations that criticize or campaign against my government means that others have freedom to support the EDL or a teabagger organization. It's the price that one pays for freedom to criticize one's government without being investigated for 'delegitimizing'.

As regards financial transparency: I think that citizens have the right, perhaps the moral duty, to demand transparency from any charity or NGO to which they are considering contributing money, and to refuse contributions to organizations which are insufficiently transparent. However, I think that governments only have the right to make such demands if they are funding an organization, or giving it financial benefits such as tax-exempt status', or if an organization appears to be engaging in criminal or terrorist activity, not just political activities with which the government disagrees. Or if they *are* to demand such financial transparency - let it be from ALL organizations; not just 'left-wing NGOs'.

would have opened that door so that all public funding organizations would have to publish their funding. And the reason it failed was because neither the right nor the left wanted it.

i'm very aware that liberal societies have to use illiberal methods to survive, i have no problem with that either. In this particular case i see no danger in transparency for funding of tax-exmpt organizations

Israel is a very imperfect democracy, this would have been a nice step toward making it a better one.
------

and i obviously have a problem when i'm told i dont need to "know' that i should trust group A because I'm told i should trust them (excuse me while i gag on that thought).

It's just an illiberal method. period. The Israeli government doesn't HAVE to investigate the NGO's just to preserve Israel's physical survival. You haven't provided ONE example of the NGO's actually endangering Israel's survival.

i do not care to live in a country that is not democratic and does not have democratic values.

a country that is not democratic in my view, is an illegal country and has no right to exist, hence its "physical survival" that your mention is of no importance to me if its not a democracy.

that it might actually not be a GOOD idea?

both the right and left want to hide the source of funding from the joe public....and you actually want me to believe that, this is good thing?

not in my world......

isn't it possible that it actually WAS?

The proposal might have been so bad if it had been left at revealing the sources. A government investigation of the NGO's could never be justified though, and WOULD have to be considered McCarthyism(just as the 1940's-1950's Red Scare "investigations" in the U.S. were also unjustified, even though those who demanded them said the people the government was investigation "threatened democracy".)

And everything the NGO's do is, itself, public knowledge. Aren't their activities the real point here?

no way....anything they do that involves hiding information from the public trust is first and foremost suspect, until proven otherwise (funny how that is with you, on previous posts your telling me that i should never trust the elitist politicians, and when they do something you like, all of a sudden i should trust them-principles are not your strong point).

A govt/public investigation of any public institution is always on the table. You obvious trust the people who believe like you, and thats always comforting for people like you. I dont have that luxury of blind belief in any cause.

Aren't their activities the real point here?
and no, once again your blinded by the "ends justifies the means mentality. Their activities, whatever they are, are for them to decide, i as joe public, want the raw knowledge to decide MYSELF if what they are doing is good or bad...who are "you' and them, to tell me, to "trust them". If i feel like it, i want the option to see their office documents about who is funding, who are their board of directors, what exactly are they are doing and where...etc (and of course i dont trust their website....we're not so niave in israel)

as far as your "scare tactics" the ghost of McCarthysim, is actually an excellent example of why transparency in govt is essential. With the whole thing being public and good citizens making their stand, the concept of transparency, of democracy came shinning through.

hence your McCarthyism "scare" is not even something to be worried about.

Can you imagine if McCarthy had your values?....where the public doesnt need to know, and that they should "trust him." now THATS SCARY.

I think you should care very much what the motivations are for Nutty and his gang doing what they're doing. While you can support *how* they do it, what you shouldn't do is ignore that there's no consistancy in what they're doing, and the motivations for doing it are coming out from a place that's far closer to fascism than to that of an open and healthy democracy. I'm strongly opposed to the way they're going after NGO's that are critical of Israel, and there's very good reason for the concern.

I was reading back through the archives looking for something else and found this article. I think you should read these bits because if they're already obligated to be transparent about their funding, what is yr argument?

'By using a very broad definition of "political activity", in reality, the measure will severely restrict a wide range of civil society organisations from carrying out their work. First, their tax-exempt status would be removed, which means that they would have to pay tax on donations. Even more damaging, government and private donors are generally legally restricted from paying taxes to a foreign government, so losing tax-exempt status would threaten these groups' ability to receive donations entirely. Second, any representative of one of these groups appearing in public – even for a mere 30 seconds – will be legally bound to state, at the outset, that their organisation receives foreign funding. This would restrict freedom of speech. Third, members of such organisations will face the same legal constraints as the officials, a provision that would almost certainly produce a decline in support.

In fact, the law is unnecessary as not-for-profit organisations already have to be completely transparent about their funding, mission and work. It will affect groups concerned with human rights, women's rights, the environment, migrants, peace and social change. They will be publicly delegitimised and suffer increased state monitoring. Their employees and members will face arrest, prosecution, fines and up to one year in jail.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/26/israel-ngo-laws-nif

See, pelsar? the transparency is ALREADY there.

that you have no problem with democracies not being transparent towards its citizens....that is what the discussion was about and the fact that you either dont believe israel is a democracy or that you dont believe the people of israel, its institutions can be trusted with democratic values.

"McCarthyism" doesn't scare us, and the NGO law didn't have a chance of passing...it just brought out your value system and how you feel about trusting the citizens of a democracy- you dont.

(it was fun reading your posts of how i should not trust the govt, and then you reversed yourself saying i should....interesting....)

What I said was that, if most of the Knesset thinks it was a bad idea, that that might actually be a good indicator that the proposal ON THE MERITS was a bad idea.

If parties representing the majority of the Israeli electorate agree with you, rather than me, than maybe you don't speak for "the people" in quite the way you thought you did. Maybe it's just about you having beef with the NIF.

i have no idea who are what the NIF is

is that clear? you'll have to work your imagination more now to think of something else.

It's the group that the extreme right-wing "Irn Tirtzu" organization viciously and unjustifiably attacked as being anti-Israel. This attack is what led to the introduction of the anti-NGO legislation.

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

Here's a backgrounder on Irn Tirtzu:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/22/im-tirtzu-israel-jewish-statehood

i can't really have a "beaf" with the NIF, if i don't know who they are...correct?...hence you premiss is once again (millionth time?) wrong

heres another inherent contradiction of yours

What I said was that, if most of the Knesset thinks it was a bad idea, that that might actually be a good indicator that the proposal ON THE MERITS was a bad idea.

Most of the knesset agreed to invade lebanon, agreed to invade gaza.....so according to your point of view, if one even considers consistency as a virtue, then i guess you'll agree that invading lebanon and gaza on the MERITs was a good idea.
_____

know i shall explain why you dont understand the contradiction:

if one has principles in ones beliefs, one attempts to be consistent, in who they believe, who they trust, even when they are not so sure that they agree. Someone who is less principle and more concerned with their agenda (i.e. the ends justifies the means), does what you do.....when the knesset agrees with your point of view, you point to them and say "see, even they agree, so there must be some merit". When the knessest does something that you disagree with, you dismiss them as being untrustworthy war mongers.

when has principles and attempts to live by those, there is a certain consistency in their views and what they say (consensus, groupthink are all irrelevant)....you on the other hand say what ever you feel like, claim whatever feels good and use whatever group at the moment agrees with you, as some sort of confirmation on your view point. In fact you sincerly believe that if a large group of people believe something, then there must be some merit to the idea (except history has shown that to be false.).
_____

if one were to make a conclusion, it would be that you firmly believe in the concept of "the ends justifies the means" how far you will take that, is anybodies guess, but you definitely don't have a set of principles that you apply consistently across the board.

You have NO RIGHT to say that I don't.

You don't have to support YOUR view on the NGO thing to have principles and beliefs. You are not the ONLY person with principles and beliefs.

Stop the arrogance already.

And no, I DON'T believe in "the end justifies ANY means".

Your position on the NGO thing is not the ONLY democratic position.

i'm not saying you have to support my belief, my take on the NGO law. I'll argue it, but you dont have accept it. BUT......

i didn't say you believe that the "ends justify ANY means"...but its clear you are willing to sacrifices some basic rights to get to your means (i.e. keep secrets from the citizens of israel- that is after all what your backing).

You have NO RIGHT to say that I don't.
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE:
thats the principle of freedom of speech...your supposed to defend it, even when you dont like the results at a particular moment (or do you believe that right should be taken away from me?)

The NGO's are already transparent, so I don't know what you were complaining about...

.....he believes in less info for the citizens and that some info from some public organizations are "off limits" for the public.

i disagree: i believe in the principal that all public organizations should be transparent to the public with no secrets allowed...no matter who or what they are.

that is the point of the argument....

i believe in the principal that all public organizations should be transparent to the public with no secrets allowed...no matter who or what they are.


But I'm more interested in yr argument than I am in mine. The problem is I'm interested in it in a way that has nothing to do with the I/P conflict, which could get a bit boring, but to do with large govt departments and the risks involved in making all their information available to the public. I was involved in some discussions at work last week because new legislation means we have to make available publicly anything the public requests of us. The problem is that we're bound by privacy obligations to not share information we gather from citizens, and that's the way it should be. I don't want the information I as a citizen provide being made public. So we have to balance the line between protecting privacy and being seen as being open and transparent. Who makes the call on where the line gets drawn? And one thing Wikileaks taught us is that large volumes of information being released result in people reading things that aren't in their original context and can easily be misunderstood. And when it comes to secrets, as a public servant with a busy email inbox, there are things I say in email that I'd cringe about if it got out into the public. No-one but me and my friends need to see my vents about someone in the office who drives me absolutely batshit crazy with their unending stream of random questions that always flow in at the worst time possible. It's just not possible or realistic to be totally open, especially if the organisation is a large one...

But when it comes to finances and running costs and boring shit like that which I care little for, we have an Annual Report which waffles on and gives tables and pretty graphs and tells the public what we spent to do our job and how much we got back in. I would expect any public organisation to do that as a bare minimum...

and what i expect out of it.....whereas i suspected that the law existed (though i never checked, thanks for the research), i just enjoyed going back and forth with ken, wondering how far he will take it. Long discussions, bring out more information about us, far better than the two bit back and forth of 5-10 posts. I personally especially found it interesting when he told me that i should consider my neighbor, the general, my enemy and that he cares little for my life, nor my kids or even his own.....its those bits and pieces of information that i actually enjoy reading.

as far the govts attempt to shut down NGO's.....they didn't have a snowballs chance in hell. This place thrives on protesting, on funding to different groups, etc... However i do very much expect all govts to try their best to get their agenda past, and i expect there will be attempts on either side of fence to stop what they dont like. Thats important, to have a society, to have a govt that does react to change, is not afraid of making changes, where politicians are actually forced to make a stand. Sometimes it will go my way, sometimes it wont, as long as we both abide by the rules, then i'm not worried.

I dont not want a static govt that is not challenged daily by the different groups with different values. One of the lessons of the kibbutzim was that the ones that survived, that made lives good for their members were the ones who realized that they have to be flexible, to modify their values as the generations change and modify theirs. Top down indoctrination of "trust us, we know better" was a massive failure. We still have socialist youth groups (of which my son is a member), but they too have adjusted (just for fun, i always enjoy his arguing with my wife-ex kibbutznik about living in a "commune/kibbutz)

There will be those attempts, and there are many, many that are racist, many unfair and those that get past the knesset get knocked down by the supreme court...and thats how it should be.

The NGO law, wasn't going anywhere, thats the beauty of an open press and transparency and democracy.

Your position on this issue is NOT the ONLY "democratic" one...and the fact that the majority of the Knesset, in the end, was against this bill is a sign that YOU, not me, are the one who is out of step with the values of your country on this issue. I think we can assume your own country's parliament is "pro-democracy".

Your argument was that it was legitimate for the state to use illiberal methods in the name of "preserving democracy". Illiberal means are far more "anti-democratic" than anything I said or even could have said. And neither the Goldstone Report nor anything the NIF did were ever threats to Israeli democracy or to Israel itself.

I'm not antidemocratic and this was never about "transparency". It was about some people wanting to stick it to the NIF because they falsely assumed it was primarily responsible for the Goldstone Report(which, of course, was actually exclusively the work of Goldstone and his own investigators).

You lost and you slandered me in losing.

i live in a very real world where both my physical well being as well the health of the democracy i live in are always threatened. a discussion on an internet forum is nothing more than interesting, its has nothing to do with "winning or losing"

i personally think your value system and your definition of democracy is very dangerous for democracies that value first and foremost the right of the citizens to know.

I also dont believe in groupthink...if the majority believe something, that means its right and i should believe it too. i don't understand that view, but obviously you have that. I also don't believe that the ends justify the means....you also believe that. I don't know how far you take that, but its clearly part of your values.

But i think what is clearly most obvious is that you don't know or understand the difference between having principles and sticking to those principles no matter how hard no matter nor what the cost vs having a goal and principles will not get in the way to achieve it.

Because you dont understand that, your more than willing to contradict yourself as long as it furthers you goal: for example:

you say dont trust the govt and the political elites, unless of course they agree with you, in which case you can trust them....
that inconsistency is a good indication of a very non principled viewpoint.

you werent slandered, your viewpoint and value system were just brought out and i believe that they are not compatible with a citizen driven democracy.

Addressing what you said, I don't think there's any dispute that many times the safeguards built into the political system work as they should and more extreme laws don't see the light of day as much as the fringe extremists in govts would like to see them. That's a function built into all democracies, though sometimes extreme and dangerous things do get turned into law (an example here was WorkChoices legislation which made average workers totally powerless). My stance on the proposed laws affecting NGO's was and is that it was something that was aimed at NGO's that the govt saw as being critical of Israel, and that regardless of there being a chance it wouldn't clear the final hurdle and become law, it was something that people needed to strenuously oppose. And while Nutty's coalition is in power, my guess is there'll be more of this sort of stuff trying to be passed into law. I hope that next election Nutty becomes a thing of the past and a sane and responsive govt forms. I think it's something both you guys and the Palestinians deserve....

That's interesting what you said about the kibbutzim ( or is the plural 'kibbutzes'?) that survived doing so coz they adapted and were flexible. I read an article a while back about them and how they were losing their youngsters to the cities and jobs there, and that what remain have now become successful businesses and survive that way...

The whole "transparency" thing is about punishing the New Israel Fund for the Goldstone Report(under the false assumption that most of the report is the NIF's work or at least responsibility).

All is revealed. This is nothing more than political payback.

i have no idea who or what this New Israel fund is nor do i care...but i certainly find your imagination for what motivates people that you dont even know to be quite an interesting aspect of your personality.

not much of psychiatrist, but i'm sure theres a name for it (my favorite btw is your explanation of why the kassams kept on coming after israel left gaza-because the Palestinians were insulted by israel, so they just had to keep on trying to kill israelis..-love that one!!!)

more slander on your part.

ready slower...i never said you defended them, you just gave your version of why they kept on coming after israel left

It's not as if the ONLY acceptable response to the Kassams is to say "they're wrong and that's ALL there is to say". Of course they're wrong...but it isn't as simple as that.

Ken....when you discuss things with me, read what i am writing..you make way to many assumptions:You tend to believe that i write/think like you do..where your either "with us or against us"..and there is no gray area in between.

you explained and i do not see an explanation as a defense, it explains what one believes what and why events happen. It just so happens that your particular explanations are always very imaginative as they are not based on any real events or include the actual people involved.

generally your explanations have little to do with reality and i believe are more based on your beliefs, which you, in the classic elite/believer fashion place on every event ignoring the people involved, the cultural differences-basically trampling and ignoring anything that is "not like you"......
____

and shooting random missiles over a border to terrorize and kill people......is wrong, and that infact is as simple as that.

It doesn't have to be dismissed as simple.

And no, my making an explanation doesn't prove anything diabolical about me. Please stop acting as if you know everything about me.

I'm not ignorant and you have no right to treat me with such utter disrespect as a human being.

your not an army general are you?.....

Please stop acting as if you know everything about me.

hmm..now THATS and interesting statement coming from you..shall i quote your own generalizations about other people/groups that you know nothing about, yet claim to know everything about them?

seems to me if you can do it to others, why would you have a problem with it being done to you?

.