Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Tuesday, February 07, 2006

One country, two rules

Israel is a state where all citizens are treated equally, unless, of course, you're an Arab:

"Shin Bet security services show more leniency toward Jewish terror suspects than toward Israeli Arab or Palestinian suspects, the services chief, Yuval Diskin, was taped as saying on Monday.

"'If we're talking about discrimination, you would find out that the discrimination leans much more in favour of Jews than Arabs,' Diskin said in his talk last month."

Meanwhile, the settlement population in the West Bank rose in 2005. Yet another example of the Jewish state's dedication to the peace process.

10 Comments:

Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

Israel is faced with terrorism every day, to protect its citizens it's simply targeting the demographic most likely to commit terrorist attacks.

Israel cant afford to be politically correct in their security.

The Court's dealings with Jews are naturally going to be more lenient than with foreigners who are seeking to destroy Israel.

You call it discrimination, I call it realism.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:56:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

I call it racism

Wednesday, February 08, 2006 10:35:00 pm  
Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

How? Because Israel has accepted that the main threats to its security will clearly come from Muslims?

Like I said, Israel cant afford to be politically correct in their security.

Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:14:00 pm  
Blogger Progressive Atheist said...

Palestine can't afford to be politically correct in its efforts to protect its citizens.

They are simply targeting the demographic most likely to commit atrocities against themselves - Jews.

You call it discrimination, I call it realism.

Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:51:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

Interesting (although perhaps I mean utterly hypocritical) that you'd agree with such thinking, "Progressive Atheist", but you should realise that this course of action is strategically suicidal for the Palestinians due to the disparity of power between the two protagonists.

Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:18:00 pm  
Blogger Progressive Atheist said...

... this course of action is strategically suicidal for the Palestinians due to the disparity of power between the two protagonists.

Which makes a folly of the claim that Hamas would drive Israel into the sea.

In any case you missed the irony in my post. Look at clumsy bird's first post.

Friday, February 10, 2006 12:52:00 am  
Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

Did you read the article, Atheist? It claimed discrimination against Arab Muslims in the Courts and by the Shin Bet. How is the 'discrimination' by these two, that is, the former coming down harder on Muslims in sentencing, and the latter focusing attention on investigating, questioning, and detaining Muslims, similar to terrorists targeting Jews for death to- at best- produce a Palestinian state or their more likely aim, to destroy the Jewish state?

Israeli courts will be soft on Jewish terrorists (when they pop up) because their aim is not to destroy Israel (although I'm sure the odd exception to this comes up). Muslims that are trying to destoy Israel deserve a tougher sentece (preferably the remainder of their wasted lives in prison)

Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:30:00 am  
Blogger James Waterton said...

No, I didn't miss the irony in your post. What you suggested was an "eye for an eye" solution - if it's good enough for the Israelis, it's good enough for the Palestinians. So basically you're as bad as those you disdain. It's just that your boys are weaker than the other team.

And no, it doesn't make folly of the belief that Hamas would drive Israel into the sea - they most certainly would. If they could. Oops! What was that? Oh, it's just the point eluding you. Again.

Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:50:00 am  
Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

James, did Atheist ever explain why he decided Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem? I seem to have lost the post...

Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:05:00 pm  
Blogger Progressive Atheist said...

Jesus was not born in Bethlehem because he probably never existed. There are too many contradictions in the gospel attributed to Matthew, not to mention outright historical inventions, e.g., the so-called slaughter of the innocents, the "star in the east", the visitation of the Magi, the flight into Egypt.

The "star in the east" is taken from stories of earlier pagan godmen, and is ill-adapted to 1st century Palestine. If the Magi followed the star in the east, and they travelled west to Bethlehem, the star would have been at their backs.

If your critical faculties had not been closed down by years of Sunday school miseducation, the multitude of contradictions in the gospel stories might have registered with you.

Sunday, February 12, 2006 12:32:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home