Israeli RABBI Calls For Annihilation of Arabs

Obviously when Rabbis are saying something like this then it must be part of their religious teaching - I mean in this case Judaism.

When there is more than one Rabbi saying that, that means it is part of Juadiac teaching

Settler Rabbi publishes “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” —

And he added (the Israeli Justice Minister) : "I suggest that we not learn from the ways of the Palestinians and speak in verbal blows like these."

Exactly. There are sermons on arab TV every day inciting murder of Jews, but the hypocrites get all cross when a crank Rabbi does it. They would do better to get their own house in order.

Ramikay - Wow - I can believe it. It is right their the whole story on Professor Israel Shahak's page on this subject.

You got it right my friend, friend request sent. Please accept.

Deputy prime ministers of Netanyahu from Shas party ? Just one breadth away from becoming Prime Miniters and all hell will break lose.

More ridiculous nonsense. I wonder if some of these people even know why they hate each other so much. What a waste of time.

ramikay,

Please note, we still need to hear from the good Rabbi, to determine if he has retracted his statements, as this article is dated 2001.

these people...

Yes ''these people'' know why they hate eachother , it is because of a very simple reason , party of them stole the homeland of the other party and turned them into refugees , imagine it happens to you and your people would you say then: what a aste of time?

Thanks ramikay, you'r right I should've cleared that I was replying this comment in msg #3.14 :

More ridiculous nonsense. I wonder if some of these people even know why they hate each other so much. What a waste of time)

Bloody hell, I missed that. This was dredged up from 2001.

Now why would anyone seed a 10 year old article?

Slow news on the Israel demonisation front. Only scraps of Israel/Jew hate to work with.

Let's dig up some long dead and forgotten news to stir some @!$%# up with because there's nothing current available to incite Jew hate with.

Clever or what?

I hope the Rabbi is reading this. He could learn a lot of lessons in incitement of hatred from the old hands spewing Jew hate on this thread.

What are you trying to do? Prove him right?

crank Rabbi

Chief Rabbi of Israel.

Dangerous to world peace?

Joke of the century. You are seriously trying to kid anyone that Israel will go on the rampage with a mission to murder arabs worldwide. And you try to do this with tenm year old "news"?

Don't judge Israel's outlook and mentality by that of the arabs. Murder of Jews and destruction of Israel may be high on the arab agenda but that is part of their culture, not Israel's.

The world has a lot more to fear from Iran, Syria, Afghanistan even Pakistan than it does from Israel which would be perfectly happy if the arab world just left it in peace for a change.

I see from comment 1.3 Deputy PM is Shas party leader, Minister of internal affairs is Shas party, Besides Foreign Minister is Lieberman another extremist party. Why don't you see or just pretend not to see ?

Chief Rabbi of Israel.

No, he's not. you just made that up, didn't you?

This was dredged up from 2001.

As of late, a common trick by the anti-Israel crowd.

Deputy PM is Shas party leader

Pretty much the whole world and his wife are Deputy Prime Minister (of this current Government) -- there are about six of them, maybe seven.

Deputies -

Ehud Barak

Avigdor Lieberman

Dan Meridor

Eli Yishai

Vice Prime Minister -

Silvan Shalom

Moshe Ya'alon

No, he's not. you just made that up, didn't you?

That's silly. Even Zionists can google it..... right?

Ovadia Yosef (Hebrew: עובדיה יוסף‎) (born September 23, 1920) is the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel,^[1] a recognised Talmudic scholar and foremost halakhic authority

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

seven extremists around Netanyahu !!! so what can you say about Netanyahu ? Too close for discomfort I can say. Extremists are in fact running the conundrum of extremist policy and affairs with recent black laws to supress freedom of press and expression. Extremists are incharge

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta both slammed Israel over the weekend, with Clinton accusing the country of being undemocratic, and Panetta blaming its isolation in the region.

Clinton, Panetta turn up the heat on Israel

and see how the extremist cabinet ministers attacked Clinton

JERUSALEM -- Israeli Cabinet ministers on Sunday criticized Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton over remarks attributed to her in which she expressed concerns over Israel's democracy.

Israeli officials criticize Clinton

That's silly

Nope. wasn't aware we were talking about forty years ago :p kind of like seeding a "news" article, forgetting to mention it's Ten years old.

recent black laws

I'd wait a bit, see which of the proposed-laws in fact passes, before passing judgment.

I'd wait a bit, see which of the proposed-laws in fact passes, before passing judgment.

yeah, wait-and-see advice ... because it has manged to prolong antiquated colonial policies for decades. In my judgement it's significant that the black laws would even be proposed and clearly supports the assertion of extremism at the helm of Israeli governance.

Trying to big up Israeli "extremism" with the fanatics of Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran, Syria all around is a bit like complaining about the water quality in a shark-infested pool.

Give over.

Israel has its shades of opinion from right to left, religious to secular, but it is not a hotbed of extremism. That you'll find in the disputed territories and neighbouring arab nations. They do good extremism there if you want to go extremism spotting.

I do think Israel is a hotbed of extremism.

The extremists are those that normalize the occupation, and/or support the colonial enterprise, that oppresses millions of residents. Now whether this is accomplished by religious justifications or by physical force of military or policing expression the absense of a shared political goal for ending the occupation defines extremism in my book.

Dwright

see comment 2.1 below. Do some homework before commenting.

And here is helping you with some more information

Israeli TV crew attacked by ultra-Orthodox in city that has seen rise in religious extremism

JERUSALEM — Israeli police say a TV crew has been attacked by a group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men in a city that has become a symbol of violent religious extremism.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld says ultra-Orthodox men surrounded a Channel 2 news truck and hurled stones at it, lightly wounding one member of the TV crew.

He says the rioters also stole TV equipment. The attack took place in Beit Shemesh, a city of 85,000 just outside Jerusalem.

On Friday, Channel 2 aired a story about tensions in the city between modern Orthodox residents and the extremist ultra-Orthodox Haredi sect.

The story featured an 8-year-old American girl who says she is afraid to walk to school in the morning because the town’s Haredim have spat on her and cursed her.

I do think Israel is a hotbed of extremism.

Maybe you do believe that, maybe you are just saying it, but it isn't. Israel has its extremists as all nations do, but it is cheek of the highest order to complain about Israel's extremists compared with the fanaticism of the surrounding arab entities.

The extremists are those that normalize the occupation, and/or support the colonial enterprise, that oppresses millions of residents. Now whether this is accomplished by religious justifications or by physical force of military or policing expression the absense of a shared political goal for ending the occupation defines extremism in my book.

Translation: You have redefined extremist as anyone who supports not just giving up the State of Israel and handing the keys over to the arabs so that you can bandy the word "extremist" about quite a lot when talking about Israel in the hope that it will stick. Par for the course for Israel-demonisers.

Do some homework before commenting.

Do some thinking before commenting.

By "demonize" you mean stuff like your line referring to the fanaticism of the surrounding arab entities? Right? Because I don't demonize or make enemies of "arabs" then I'm a thoughtless Israel-demonizer. I'm recognizing your personal attack on me, Dennis, following a disagreement over what constitutes extremism.

Hah! When you have Hamas chanting "Death to Israel! Death to America!" and preaching Jew murder on their TV stations there is no need for demonisation. The only wonder is that you ignore it and keep looking for excuses to make Israel look bad.

sorta like the Jewish hate preacher featured in the seed?

I'd like to add that my political opposition to the occupation is not limited to Israeli nationals who contribute to the on-going subjugation of Palestinians but to all who support the Israeli-style apartheid.

I'd like to add that my political opposition to the occupation is not limited to Israeli nationals who contribute to the on-going subjugation of Palestinians but to all who support the Israeli-style apartheid.

Excellent point Meloney. Wright is as ever deep in denial. He refuses to accept that the extreme right are fanatics and did his usual everyone one has extremists but they don't compare to "arab" ones the key word being "arab."

thanks TC - Dennis frames the issue as an ethno-religious conflict and compares one ethnicity to another as though they were symmetrical sides. They are not. What Dennis intentionally ignores is Israel's colonial domination over Palestinians and the injustice that it creates. If he were to reframe the issue into a political (rather than ethnic) relationship it would threaten the cause for which he engages debate on this matter.

What Dennis intentionally ignores Israel's colonial domination over Palestinians and the injustice that it creates

How do you ignore something that isn't there?

Israel came into control of land with arab residents as consequence of a war they did not start. The UN calls for the land to be given back (to Jordan and Egypt who previously controlled it) as part of a negotiated settlement. Land for peace - remember that?

The disputed territories are being held by Israel to exchange for peace but they do have to get peace and real peace. And the arabs are holding out on offering that real peace needed before that exchange can happen.

Gaza was given up prematurely, unilaterally and that pushed peace further away and endangered Israelis with rocket fire. Unilateral concessions are clearly not the way.

So this is the truth of it. Israel holds land waiting for the arabs to come to terms with Israel's existence so they can at long last offer a genuine peace and receive in exchange land on which to establish their own state. Their failure to accept a continuing Israel is the sole reason there is no peace and no Palestine. In the meantime the threats to Israeli citizens emerging from the disputed territories have forced Israel to take defensive measures - they can hardly leave their people exposed to risks of violence and terrorism.

And THIS you characterise 100% disingenuously as colonialism (colony of WHAT state for heaven's sake?) and domination.

And as for injustice, well there have been plenty of injustices all round and everyone concerned will just have to put up with a bit of injustice won't they because otherwise we just get eternal conflict and misery.

Anyone genuinely interested in peace would quite whining about injustice, stop bleating about how nasty Israel is, give the terrorists a good telling off and get round the negotiating table ASAP with good faith and honesty.

From which we can conclude that the Israel demonisers have zero interest in promoting peace, which makes their complaints that Israel "does not want peace" about as hypocritical as it is possible to get.

Gaza was given up prematurely, unilaterally and that pushed peace further away and endangered Israelis with rocket fire. Unilateral concessions are clearly not the way.

Newsflash for Wright: Israel still controls Gaza with it's illegal, immoral blockade which is an act of war, and here's the definition of Blockade just for you Wright.The isolating, closing off, or surrounding of a place, as a port, harbor, or city, by hostile ships or troops to prevent entrance or exit. Note the words hostile Wright. Wake up to reality please.

The disputed territories are being held by Israel to exchange for peace but they do h

ave to get peace and real peace.

There's no dispute Wright Israel is an illegal, brutal occupier. Further evidence of your denial of the obvious.

Israel came into control of land with arab residents as consequence of a war they did not start.

Absolute BS Wright Israel started the 1967. Boy you really are proving the infamous maxim about the big lie no?

And THIS you characterise 100% disingenuously as colonialism (colony of WHAT state for heaven's sake?) and domination.

Pick up a dictionary once in a while Wright and there are plenty available online. Here's dictionary.com's definition of colonialism just for you. The control of one nation by “transplanted” people of another nation. Got it now Wright. There it is in a nutshell you are a cheerleader for the transplanted Apartheid-Welfare State Wright. What say you now?

... anyone genuinely interested in peace would quite whining about injustice, stop bleating about how nasty Israel is, give the terrorists a good telling off and get round the negotiating table ASAP with good faith and honesty.

From which we can conclude that the Israel demonisers have zero interest in promoting peace, which makes their complaints that Israel "does not want peace" about as hypocritical as it is possible to get.

You seem to have missed this critical bit Confessor so I thought it was worth trying again.

There's no dispute Wright Israel is an illegal, brutal occupier

But just so we can be clear who is spewing BS (hint it's not me) let me restate that the legal position is based on UN resolution 242 which calls for exchange of land FOR PEACE.

Got that confessor? It doesn't say "holding the land is illegal so just hand it over, no argument", it talks about LAND FOR PEACE.

Should the arabs ever one day offer a genuine permanent peace and Israel refuse to negotiate reasonably for handover of land then you might have a point but as it stands you don't.

Wright you are deliberately misstating UN Resolution 242 which clearly states that the acquisition of land by the use of force is illegal. (Hint Israel's being clearly defined as the aggressor i.e. starting the 1967 war)

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

There you go Wright paragraph one calls for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces that's why your beloved Apartheid-Welfare State is officially know as a brutal, illegal, occupier. Again, quit with the excuses. The Resolution also calls for peace but first and foremost Israel must withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. That's all Abbas is asking for instead of that your Apartheid-Welfare State continues to steal Palestinian land and destroy their homes some 44 years after UN Resolution 242. Time to drink more coffee Wright?

You must think readers are soooooo stupid.

...include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Notice the use of the word both.

The resolution talks explicitly of land for peace. You shamelessly try to twist it to mean "give up land and hope for peace".

Found out I'm afraid. Want to carry on arguing ... be my guest. You've already given me something I can link to in future threads you participate in so readers know who they can trust. The URL is noted.

The UN calls for the land to be given back (to Jordan and Egypt who previously controlled it) as part of a negotiated settlement. Land for peace - remember that?

So why are the israelis stalling? There is peace agreements between israel and Jordan as there is between israel and Egypt.

So why are the israelis stalling?

What planet are you on? Israel is ready to talk and has repeatedly invited Abbas to the negotiating table.

It is Abbas who is stalling, hiding behind preconditions and other excuses. They even gave him the settlement freeze he wanted as a sign of good faith, but put a time limit on it to ensure he did not just keep stalling. He stalled anyway and tried to abuse it to engineer a longer freeze offering nothing in exchange.

Israel is not the problem, unless you live behind a reality distortion field where Israel is automatically to blame for everything

You would interpret (for if it was "explicit" we'd see that) this resolution to exclude justice - an end to the occupation - and enforcing a quality of which Israel is the judge?

There can not be peace without justice.

The UN calls for the land to be given back (to Jordan and Egypt who previously controlled it) as part of a negotiated settlement. Land for peace - remember that?

The above are YOUR words, my question is Why does israel not give the land back to Jordan and Egypt if it is agreed on as part of a negotiated settlement?

They are stalling because they have NO intention of giving it back , ever.

There can not be peace without justice.

All the justice either side can expect is in the Resolution.

What do you want? Legal or illegal?

You want it legal you go with the Resolution. That means the disputed land is handed over in return for peace, so long as it's a real peace.

If there's not enough "justice" in that for you then you are left chasing after something illegal. Is that your position?

The above are YOUR words, my question is Why does israel not give the land back to Jordan and Egypt if it is agreed on as part of a negotiated settlement?

Israel would give the land to those countries if a comprehensive peace were on offer in return. Personally, I would far favour that to the creation of Palestine. The militants and terrorists would then become citizens of countries at peace with Israel and it would be Egyptian and Jordanian soldiers putting their necks on the line to keep the troublemakers quiet.

But Egypt and Jordan have renounced their claims in favour of a new state to be called Palestine. So the land for peace exchange has to be with the WB/Gaza arabs.

Same principle applies. Israel is ready for talks. Arabs are stalling. They still need to commit to peace to get their land and their state. No talks no state.

They are stalling because they have NO intention of giving it back , ever.

As I said. Israel is not stalling. Where have they refused to talk?

Justice here is quitting the occupation. That's probably why withdrawal precedes the call to negotiate in 242 eh?

The idea that negotiations might foster justice and peace is exhausted. It's a failed process.

Justice here is quitting the occupation. That's probably why withdrawal precedes the call to negotiate in 242 eh?

No. The legal position is as set out in the resolution. That land is the only bargaining chip Israel has that it can exchange for peace. It will not use it until it is sure it has got a real peace.

If the arab intent is peaceful why aren't they prepared to offer genuine peace to get that land? Do they want both the land and a continued conflict? Why on earth would Israel ever agree to that. Answer: they won't.

The idea that negotiations might foster justice and peace is exhausted. It's a failed process.

Balls to "fostering" peace. You don't foster it. You agree it. If the process "failed" it's because the arabs have always baulked at confirming Israel in situ. Loath to make any concessions, loath to give up on the hopes of Israel vanishing in a puff of smoke.

It is very simple - watch my lips.

Arabs: "I agree to accept you as my permanent neighbour as you are and to never attack you or your people. In return you agree to hand over land where I can create my new state, to accept that state as it is in perpetuity and to never attack it or my people."

How terrible is that? It is all UN 242 expected but the arabs have never brought themselves able to accept anything that meant giving up on destroying Israel.

The resolution talks explicitly of land for peace. You shamelessly try to twist it to mean "give up land and hope for peace".

You better drink your coffee Wright the resolution explicitly mandates the withdrawal of Israel back to the pre 1967 borders then the peace talks can begin. Why you insist in trying to spin it as the other way around is simply incredilbe, the preamble to 242 prohibits the acquisition of land by force i.e. that Israel was and remains the aggressor in the 1967 war. Why is that so difficult for you to understand Wright?

Read it again. It says no such thing. It stipulates two requirements, not a step by step process.

Both requirements need to be met to comply with the resolution. Your way would no doubt suit you if Israel went along with it, because Israel would hand over land and get bombs back in return. Israel is not that stupid.

I say again, if the arabs are honest about wanting peace they lose nothing by agreeing the terms then everything gets implemented at once on the agreed basis - land exchange and peace treaty together. That's the way it should be.

Wanting to do it any other way can only be taken as sign of bad faith.

Dennis you brought up your interpretation of 242 (unconvincingly) to support of denial of Israel's colonial domination over Palestinians (your 1.44). Apparently you'd have us think that Israel is a hapless victim of UN "law" that constrains them to peace before serving justice of abandoning the military occupation.

Domination is merely an unintended consequence of the diligent effort to follow the law, eh? Even so this dominance works out as a leveraging tool, a bargaining item, with which Israel can use armed force (ironically) as a negotiating chip for peace. OK. If Israel is so diligent why hasn't Israel taken great care to follow earlier "legal" prescriptions in 194 - say, the right of refugees to return?

The resolution is perfectly clear. No interpretation is necessary. You are the one trying to interpret it to say something it does not.

This colonialism and domination are your constructs and have nothing to do with the physical or legal situation. It's just your gloss, your agenda overlaid on something much simpler and more straightforward.

You are doing what Eric Albert used to try to do; put everything through a filter of proletariat vs capitalist, slave vs colonial oppressor. The model does not fit, is not applicable, is not necessary.

The resolution simply says - agree a settlement which brings two things together: exchange land and cease hostilities forever.

Twisting that into "you must hand over land first then we'll talk" is a recipe for scuppering a simple process.

The arabs have been trying it "your way" for decades. Israel is trying to get them to do it the UN 242 way but they won't have it.

So keep banging on about colonialism, justice, domination, occupation and all that other crap if you must but if you also protest (as you did) that the peace process has failed then at least acknowledge the blame - it lies with your side.

The process failed because there is no peace without justice.

The process failed because when logic was against them the arabs retreated behind vague mantras such as the one you just trotted out. When it comes down to it, that slogan is just a shorthand for "no peace ever for Israel because we don't want it there at all".

No peace for Israel, no self-determination for the arabs. Israel can live with that. Hope the arabs enjoy the next 6 decades as much as the last.

;-)

If Israel is so diligent why hasn't Israel taken great care to follow earlier "legal" prescriptions in 194 - say, the right of refugees to return?

Because allowing the so called right to return would give the arabs an easy solution to bring about the end of Israel. It would be suicide. Which means it just won't happen and it is crazy to imagine Israel would ever agree.

So why keep banging on about it? There is no possibility of a peace deal that includes the right of return. Anyone serious about peace would recognise that and deal with it within a peace negotiation, by seeking to secure financial compensation or suchlike. That's the nearest to your "justice" that can be achieved in practice within the spirit and letter of UN 242.

Continuing to insist on obvious dealbreaker demands says only one thing "I don't really want peace, I want you gone". Is that your position?

right to return would give the arabs an easy solution to bring about the end of Israel

No it would not. The reason you call it suicide is because the people who are entitled to return don't meet some demographic standard. They are not the right ethnicity or religion for some people so Israel flagrantly flaunts 194 (11) while supposedly upholding another resolution interpreted to their convenience to maintain military control, physical oppression, of people who don't fit the desired demographic standards of Israel.

There is no possibility of a peace deal that includes the right of return.

Then Israel is the law breaker. Refusal to recognize this human right is denial of justice. No justice - no peace.

The more grown up among us understand that sticking mindlessly to "idealist principles" does not always work. The world is more complicated than that. There are lots of interests to balance out, different groups each looking for "justice" and with different ideas of what "justice" means, and with different priorities. You demand justice for the arabs while ignoring all the injustices their "cause" has wreaked on Israel and the world. I think any moral high ground they might once have claimed has long since been exhausted on the backs of murders, terrorism and abuse of their own refugees for political ends.

I talk about potential real world solutions to a difficult conflict and you just hurl back lofty principles that can never be fulfilled and lead only to an impasse, to no-one's benefit.

Who has the moral high ground when my way delivers an improvement in everyone's lives and yours stops it in its tracks.

You will go to the grave demanding a "justice" that will never come about while the people you claim to support suffer for it. Maybe you will stick to your guns and claim it was worth it. History will be the judge, no doubt.

principles that can never be fulfilled and lead only to an impasse, to no-one's benefit

Yes, they can be fulfilled by political will to do so. It's happened to other marginalized and oppressed groups (as you are well aware).

What your position demonstrates is a double standard. You fulfill those lofty goals only as expedient to your political goals. Ignoring or denying principles, many of which the state of Israel was founded upon, has become transparently a political tool to sustain an ethno-religious division of civil order.

It's not only morally unacceptable, it can not be sustained in a world that increasingly relies on democratic principles for credible governance.

Oh, please. We have a UN resolution that would see a worthwhile outcome for everyone, but is being blocked by impossible arab demands in the name of "justice" and other such blithering nonsense - so everyone loses.

I need no lectures on "morality" and "rights" from you.

Goodbye and a Happy New Year.

We have a UN resolution that would see a worthwhile outcome for everyone

Everyone except the Palestinians.

The more grown up among us understand that sticking mindlessly to "idealist principles" does not always work

Like Human Rights and Justice...