Arutz 7 again
am...@nsof.co.il-n0spam
been put behind bars years ago!
--
Amos Shapir
Paper: nSOF Parallel Software, Ltd.
Givat-Hashlosha 48800, Israel
Tel: +972 3 9388551 Fax: +972 3 9388552 GEO: 34 55 15 E / 32 05 52 N
Amir Salzberg
>It's about time. Those murder-inciting hypocrite parasites should have
>been put behind bars years ago!
>
Are you talking about the Palstinian media?
Bacause comparing to thir media, Arutz-7 is the voice of peace...
Giora Drachsler
public broadcast(s).
--
Giora Drachsler
Jerusalem, Israel
Mordechai Housman <"NOSPAM@mordecha"@erols.com> wrote in message
<6pioa3$7vn$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>Giora Drachsler wrote:
>
>> Today, the leftist police recommended to the Leftist State Prosecuting
>> Attorney
>> to charge 30 innocent Arutz 7 activists. What a hypocrisy!
>
> On what charge?
Giora Drachsler
Giora Drachsler
Jerusalem, Israel
Poul A. Costinsky
in article <6pjp9u$8e$1...@news.huji.ac.il>
|According to the leftist media, they will be charged of illegally operating
|public broadcast(s).
Or will be not - prosecution still didn't decide.
You're as accurate as usual. BTW you owe us explanation
about your free frequencies claim. Me and Mark presented
you some numbers, and you had no answer, our radioactive
Giora.
--
Hope this helps. Regards, Poul.
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
(`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(il).-'' (li).' ((!.- ®
Poul A. Costinsky Po...@earthling.xxx.net http://bounce.To/Poul
==========Disclaimer:All my words are my own.==========
Two things inspire me to awe -- the starry heavens above
and the moral imperative within. Emmanuel Kant.
Poul A. Costinsky
in article <6pjp2a$t0p$1...@news.huji.ac.il>
|I don't know if Arutz 7, even relatively, can be called the Voice of =
|Peace. =20
|The issue is its legal nature, as well as the legal character of about =
|many|other pirate transmitters, jamming the air and disturbing legal =
|transmissions.
This is what you pretend, radioactive Giora.
Mark Barkan
> I don't know if Arutz 7, even relatively, can be called the Voice of
> Peace.
> The issue is its legal nature, as well as the legal character of about
> many other pirate transmitters,
Let's assume your ONLY objection to existing of Arutz7 is it's supposed illegal
nature.
Do you know what reasons (rather then obvious political ones) meant legislator
in the current Broadcasting Authority law? I don't.
I suppose the above law, legislated by previous gov't serves political interests
of Labor and Meretz and have nothing common with "the right of people to know".
The only limit to establishment new radio/TV station could be an available free
frequency and reasonable quality of equipment / maintenance. By that criteria
Arutz7 could be legal tomorrow.
The law preventing free exchange of information /opinions should be changed and
I hope the current (political) investigation will lead to just opposite
consequence - undemocratic Broadcasting law will be changed.
> jamming the air and disturbing legal
> transmissions.
It was explained not ones - this statement is completely bullshit.
Mark.
Giora Drachsler
You, Pasha, as a socialist.
--
Giora Drachsler
Jerusalem, Israel
Poul A. Costinsky wrote in message ...
am...@nsof.co.il-n0spam
>According to the leftist media, they will be charged of illegally operating
>public broadcast(s).
What will they be charged with, according to the rightist media?
Mark Barkan
am...@nsof.co.il-n0spam wrote:
> "Giora Drachsler" <gi...@cc.huji.ac.il> writes:
>
> >According to the leftist media, they will be charged of illegally operating
> >public broadcast(s).
>
> What will they be charged with, according to the rightist media?
>
I don't know what was Giora's source, according to Haaretz they MAY be charged if
General Prosecution will decide so.
It's hard to speak about rightist media in the country where media occupied by
left mafia and exists current Broadcasting law intended to conserve their (left
mafia) monopoly.
Mark.
> --
> Amos Shapir
Giora Drachsler
How would you describe a rightist media? Do you have some examples of that
kind of media in present days or in the near past ?
--
Giora Drachsler
Jerusalem, Israel
Mark Barkan wrote in message <35BDD7D9...@geocities.com>...
Mark Barkan
Giora Drachsler wrote:
> How would you describe a rightist media? Do you have some examples of that
> kind of media in present days or in the near past ?
>
Ask please the author of the term.
Mark
.
.
george
BTW there aren't many right wing journalists as the left demonizes them.
Giora Drachsler wrote:
> How would you describe a rightist media? Do you have some examples of that
> kind of media in present days or in the near past ?
>
Giora Drachsler
judge but the law you should be wary of.
--
Giora Drachsler
Jerusalem, Israel
Mark Barkan wrote in message <35BDA1FB...@geocities.com>...
>Giora Drachsler wrote:
>
>> I don't know if Arutz 7, even relatively, can be called the Voice of
Peace.
>> The issue is its legal nature, as well as the legal character of about
>> many other pirate transmitters,
>
>Let's assume your ONLY objection to existing of Arutz7 is it's supposed
illegal
>nature.
>
>Do you know what reasons (rather then obvious political ones) meant
legislator
>in the current Broadcasting Authority law? I don't.
>
>I suppose the above law, legislated by previous gov't serves political
interests
>of Labor and Meretz and have nothing common with "the right of people to
know".
>
>The only limit to establishment new radio/TV station could be an available
free
>frequency and reasonable quality of equipment / maintenance. By that
criteria
>Arutz7 could be legal tomorrow.
>
>The law preventing free exchange of information /opinions should be changed
and
>I hope the current (political) investigation will lead to just opposite
>consequence - undemocratic Broadcasting law will be changed.
>
>> jamming the air and disturbing legal
Mark Barkan
> I agree with you that it's not fair, but again, it's illegal.
> It's not the judge but the law you should be wary of.
First of all side note:
a) from your post it's hard to understand WHAT is not fair and WHAT is illegal, may
be it worth to put your text immediately after the sentences you are answering on.
b) I could recall some country where being on the street without yellow star was
illegal. I agree, it was not a judges despite I've read somewhere an International
Court decided other way.
And now to the essence.
Is your objection to Arutz 7 on a legal ground only? In other words does it mean you
would not have objections to Arutz 7 would it be legal after the current
Broadcasting law would be changed?
I'm aware you prefer not to answer directly my questions, so intending to save your
valuable time I'll ask only one at a time. Sorry, I don't know a method to elaborate
your POV other way.
Mark.
y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
I cannot answer for Giora, but I have no objection to a legal Arutz 7 as long
as:
1) Everyone else who wants to broadcast can (I guess there will be some fee
you'll have to pay.
2) There is a ban on racism and incitment (for an example, raising a toast to
Ami Popper).
Yuval
BB BS OT
BTW: AFAIK (I amy be wrong) in the USA a man can have control of no more than
one communication channel. That is, if he owns a newspaper he cannot own a TV
station. In Israel it is quite impossible.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
barka...@my-dejanews.com
y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
> In article <35C29D86...@geocities.com>,
> Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > Giora Drachsler <gi...@cc.huji.ac.il> <6prkd0$c7h$1...@news.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> > > I agree with you that it's not fair, but again, it's illegal.
> > > It's not the judge but the law you should be wary of.
> >
mean you
> > would not have objections to Arutz 7 would it be legal after the current
> > Broadcasting law would be changed?
> >
>
> as:
I'm very happy to read it. Thank you.
> 1) Everyone else who wants to broadcast can (I guess there will be some fee
> you'll have to pay.
Take it for granted (with few tecnical limitations).
> 2) There is a ban on racism and incitment (for an example, raising a toast to
> Ami Popper).
Agree. Only the minor point - if I've not mistaken current law forbides racist
propaganda and incitment. So what was the purpose of this note?
BTW, I'm not sure your example will hold at a court.
Now, if we so liberal, what is your opinion on Second Broadcusting Authority
law? Could you agree this law significally limits a freedom of speach
therefore is anti democratic?
Mark.
Giora Drachsler
I believe in freedom of speech and in law, even if it's unjust. After all,
an injustice
applied to all, is also a form of justice. But I guess that the problem
with Arutz 7 is
the supervision that comes with legalization. The same supervision that is
applied to ALL other legal stations.
Giora Drachsler
==============================================
Mark Barkan wrote in message <35C29D86...@geocities.com>...
>Giora Drachsler <gi...@cc.huji.ac.il> <6prkd0$c7h$1...@news.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>> I agree with you that it's not fair, but again, it's illegal.
>> It's not the judge but the law you should be wary of.
>
>First of all side note:
>
>a) from your post it's hard to understand WHAT is not fair and WHAT is
illegal, may
>be it worth to put your text immediately after the sentences you are
answering on.
>
>b) I could recall some country where being on the street without yellow
star was
>illegal. I agree, it was not a judges despite I've read somewhere an
International
>Court decided other way.
>
>And now to the essence.
>
>Is your objection to Arutz 7 on a legal ground only? In other words does it
mean you
>would not have objections to Arutz 7 would it be legal after the current
>Broadcasting law would be changed?
>
Mark Barkan
Giora Drachsler wrote:
> Although I don't agree with many views and opinions broadcast on Arutz 7,
> I believe in freedom of speech and in law, even if it's unjust.
That are wonderful ideas of brainwashed lefty. Let's see their evaluation...
> After all,
> an injustice
> applied to all, is also a form of justice.
Long live the Great Stalin Constitution, the best constitution in the world.Long
live The Great Nuremberg Laws, the authentic appearance of Aryan race theory.
> But I guess that the problem
> with Arutz 7 is
> the supervision that comes with legalization. The same supervision that is
> applied to ALL other legal stations.
And long live Stalin's Politburo, the organizing and guiding force of the
society.And long live the Dr. Goebbels <sp?> and it's struggle for race purity
of the media.
Sorry men, it's fascism (but if you insist, I don't care to call it socialism,
for me it's the twins).
I respect myself too much to discuss with you why fascism is not good for jews.
Mark.
> Giora Drachsler
Giora Drachsler
Instead of respecting yourself too much, avoid insulting other’s
intelligence.
Like Pasha, you are dissecting the message and answer to the individual
words instead to the idea behind the whole message. If you’ll read my
posting again, maybe you’ll get, at least partially, what I meant.
About fascism and socialism, that’s a different topic, not related to the
license of Arutz 7. About the level of your postings, I can only quote
Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Mark Barkan
Giora Drachsler wrote:
I thoroughly reread the message, the idea behind it seems fascist anyway but
you are still allowed to elaborate ...
> About fascism and socialism, that’s a different topic, not related to the
> license of Arutz 7.
No, you are wrong.
Some time ago on this NG there was a message, claiming modern socialist parties
(other poster called them moderate) rejected their idea of armed rebelling and
now intended to take power by democratic way, i.e. elections.
The counter argument was that changing the WAY of taking power doesn't change
the anti democratic CHARACTER of socialism. The suggested measure was what are
those parties deeds AFTER they took a power.
The Second Broadcasting Authority law was legislated in 1993 when at power was
Labor/Meretz coalition.
I suppose analyses of this law could provide a measures of real intentions of
Israeli socialists.
Those who legislated a law, significant suppressing the freedom of speech,
shouldn't tell forged stories about their democratic principles.
> About the level of your postings, I can only quote
> Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
> stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Definitely. Still remember nice AM/FM story, the claim about shortage free
frequencies in Israel, support Nuremberg's Laws?
Mark.
> Giora Drachsler
.
.
.
.
y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>
> Giora Drachsler wrote:
>
> > Mark Barkan wrote in message <35C5E558...@geocities.com>...
> > >
> > >
> > >Giora Drachsler wrote:
> > >
> > About fascism and socialism, that’s a different topic, not related to the
> > license of Arutz 7.
>
> No, you are wrong.
>
> Some time ago on this NG there was a message, claiming modern socialist parties
> (other poster called them moderate) rejected their idea of armed rebelling and
> now intended to take power by democratic way, i.e. elections.
>
> The counter argument was that changing the WAY of taking power doesn't change
> the anti democratic CHARACTER of socialism. The suggested measure was what are
> those parties deeds AFTER they took a power.
>
falsified it?
Your argument was that the Nazi party came to power by means of democratic
elections, and therefore democratic elections, like revolutions, can lead to
dictatorship.
I showed that while this was, AFAIK, the ONLY case in which dictatorship was
established by means of elections, revolutions usually lead to dictatorships.
Even your argument about the alleged "anti democratic CHARACTER of socialism"
was falsified-In many west European countries the moderate left came to
power, and none became a dictatorship as a result (In the original post I
forgot the revolution in Greece. Your friend Yeroslavski corrected it while
doing TWO bigger mistakes).
Now, after you admotted your mistake, you repeat your erroneous argument? Is
your memory so short?
> The Second Broadcasting Authority law was legislated in 1993 when at power was
> Labor/Meretz coalition.
Another example of your short memory. There was never a Labour/Meretz
coalition. There was a Labour/Meretz/Shas coalition.
>
> I suppose analyses of this law could provide a measures of real intentions of
> Israeli socialists.
>
You have a minor problem here: The news are prepered by a private company.
> Those who legislated a law, significant suppressing the freedom of speech,
> shouldn't tell forged stories about their democratic principles.
>
The labour and Meretz were not the majority in the Knesset during this time.
If the law is so undemocratic, why didn't other parties block it?
> > About the level of your postings, I can only quote
> > Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
> > stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
>
> Definitely. Still remember nice AM/FM story, the claim about shortage free
> frequencies in Israel, support Nuremberg's Laws?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where does this accusation come from? (Oops, I forgot. It is a question. a
question cannot (by Stinky's definition) be an accusation. Do you still beat
your wife, Mark?). And about mistakes, did you already forget the nonesense
you and the comrade wrote when you tried to disprove what I wrote about Karl
Popper and the philosophy of science? Or your support of his idiotic
mathematical calculations in one of the evolution threads? And I have many
other examples.
Yuval
BB BS OT
fraenkel nethanel
: In article <35C73A75...@geocities.com>,
: Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
: >
Dear Yuval,
You take those guys to seriously; they attack the Israeli left using
the anti-socialist weapons; for them Shinui (one of Meretz component)
and HaAretz are RED_SOCIALISTS; they forgotten that the the
split between the so called right and left in Israel is according to
the position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has nothing
to do with the economy; HaAretz has a 50 year old record of combating
the socialist governments and the Histadruth, Shinui was raised as an
anti-Mapai party and participated in the first non-Mapai government
in 1977. But they are against "Eretz Israel HaShleima" so they are
lefties, socialist, commies, anti-liberals, etc. etc. etc.
And if the anti-socialist weapons are a bit rusty, they will take
out from the arsenal the anti-communist weapons and it doesn't matter
that in Europe the Socialist governments fight the communism with
the same obstinacy as the non socialist one and in the so called
communist countries the socialist leader were arrested before the
right parties leaders.
And, if there are some obstinate lefties which didn't break ,
they use the final and absolute weapon the National Socialism;
it doesn't matter that the Nazi were brought to power by the right
as a shield against the RED Danger, it doesn't matter that they
didn't touch the private propriety what is more important is that
the name contain the anathemized word "Socialist".
So, please stop bothering them with facts because they have a theory.
Regards,
Sany
: >
#
: > The Second Broadcasting Authority law was legislated in 1993 when at power was
Poul A. Costinsky
In article <6q9rh2$r14$1...@goethe.tau.ac.il>
|In soc.culture.israel y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
| : Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
|Dear Yuval,
|You take those guys to seriously; they attack the Israeli left using
|the anti-socialist weapons; for them Shinui (one of Meretz component)
|and HaAretz are RED_SOCIALISTS; they forgotten that the the
fraenkel nethanel, as usual, lies.
I dunno about Mark, but for me Shinui is OK;
BTW, reportedly, after short affair with MAPAM commies,
they're on the way out from Meretz.
|they forgotten that the the
|split between the so called right and left in Israel is according to
|the position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has nothing
|to do with the economy;
Liar, liar; MAPAM and Avoda are typical socialist parties
of different levels of degradation.
|HaAretz has a 50 year old record of combating
|the socialist governments and the Histadruth, Shinui was raised as an
|anti-Mapai party and participated in the first non-Mapai government
|in 1977.
Avoda also was "50 year combating Histadruth"? MAPAM?
|But they are against "Eretz Israel HaShleima" so they are
|lefties, socialist, commies, anti-liberals, etc. etc. etc.
Yuval, whom you jumped to support, is self-admitted voter
of Israeli Communist party. Giora, whom Mark was initially
discussing with, many times expressed his socialist views
on economy. And you, fraenkel nethanel, are complete ignorant.
|And if the anti-socialist weapons are a bit rusty, they will take
|out from the arsenal the anti-communist weapons and it doesn't matter
|that in Europe the Socialist governments fight the communism with
|the same obstinacy as the non socialist one and in the so called
Well, we're bit out of focus, aren't we?
Where in Europe are Socialist governments fight the communism?
In France, maybe?
|in the so called communist countries
What does "so called" mean here?
|the socialist leader were arrested before the
|right parties leaders.
Of course; but communists of wrong kind were arrested even before
socialists.
|And, if there are some obstinate lefties which didn't break ,
|they use the final and absolute weapon the National Socialism;
|it doesn't matter that the Nazi were brought to power by the right
|as a shield against the RED Danger, it doesn't matter that they
|didn't touch the private propriety what is more important is that
|the name contain the anathemized word "Socialist".
It's usual leftie defending idiocy, which answered zillion times.
Enough to mention, on this Hitler himself answered, that why should
he nationalize manufactories if he can nationalize manufacturers?
And so he did.
|So, please stop bothering them with facts because they have a theory.
Bring finally some meaningful facts, liar.
| : > Giora Drachsler wrote:
| : > > Mark Barkan wrote in message <35C5E558...@geocities.com>...
| : > > >Giora Drachsler wrote:
| : > > About fascism and socialism, that’s a different topic, not related to the
| : > > license of Arutz 7.
| : > No, you are wrong.
| : > Some time ago on this NG there was a message, claiming modern socialist parties
| : > (other poster called them moderate) rejected their idea of armed rebelling and
| : > now intended to take power by democratic way, i.e. elections.
| : > The counter argument was that changing the WAY of taking power doesn't change
| : > the anti democratic CHARACTER of socialism. The suggested measure was what are
| : > those parties deeds AFTER they took a power.
| : The counter argument was yours. Why are you shy about it? Only because I
| : falsified it?
| : Your argument was that the Nazi party came to power by means of democratic
| : elections, and therefore democratic elections, like revolutions, can lead to
| : dictatorship.
The initial argument was mine. It presumed an opponent with a little more
brains than YoYo and fraenkel nethanel: that besides pure democracy and
dictatorships, there are grades. In Israel, for example, they didn't
dare to openly declare dictatorship, but used many totalitarian
measures to prevent democratic process. Limiting freedom of speech
was one of them.
| : I showed that while this was, AFAIK, the ONLY case in which dictatorship was
| : established by means of elections, revolutions usually lead to dictatorships.
| : Even your argument about the alleged "anti democratic CHARACTER of socialism"
| : was falsified-In many west European countries the moderate left came to
| : power, and none became a dictatorship as a result (In the original post I
| : forgot the revolution in Greece. Your friend Yeroslavski corrected it while
| : doing TWO bigger mistakes).
| : Now, after you admotted your mistake, you repeat your erroneous argument? Is
| : your memory so short?
YoYo's stupidity is meaningless. In how many European countries were
revolutions?
| : > The Second Broadcasting Authority law was legislated in 1993 when at power was
| : > Labor/Meretz coalition.
| : Another example of your short memory. There was never a Labour/Meretz
| : coalition. There was a Labour/Meretz/Shas coalition.
Shas went out from coalition very fast.
| : > I suppose analyses of this law could provide a measures of real intentions of
| : > Israeli socialists.
| : You have a minor problem here: The news are prepered by a private company.
Scrupulously selected by left, monopolistic private company.
| : > Those who legislated a law, significant suppressing the freedom of speech,
| : > shouldn't tell forged stories about their democratic principles.
| : The labour and Meretz were not the majority in the Knesset during this time.
| : If the law is so undemocratic, why didn't other parties block it?
They had out-government support of communists and Arab parties.
| : > > About the level of your postings, I can only quote
| : > > Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
| : > > stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
| : > Definitely. Still remember nice AM/FM story, the claim about shortage free
| : > frequencies in Israel, support Nuremberg's Laws?
| : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| : Where does this accusation come from? (Oops, I forgot. It is a question. a
| : question cannot (by Stinky's definition) be an accusation. Do you still beat
| : your wife, Mark?). And about mistakes, did you already forget the nonesense
| : you and the comrade wrote when you tried to disprove what I wrote about Karl
| : Popper and the philosophy of science? Or your support of his idiotic
| : mathematical calculations in one of the evolution threads? And I have many
| : other examples.
What "khomer" did you take?
Mark Barkan
y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
> In article <35C73A75...@geocities.com>,
> Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >
> > Giora Drachsler wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Barkan wrote in message <35C5E558...@geocities.com>...
> > > >
> > > >Giora Drachsler wrote:
> > > >
> > > About fascism and socialism, that’s a different topic, not related to the
> > > license of Arutz 7.
> >
> > No, you are wrong.
> >
> > Some time ago on this NG there was a message, claiming modern socialist parties
> > (other poster called them moderate) rejected their idea of armed rebelling and
> > now intended to take power by democratic way, i.e. elections.
> >
> > The counter argument was that changing the WAY of taking power doesn't change
> > the anti democratic CHARACTER of socialism. The suggested measure was what are
> > those parties deeds AFTER they took a power.
> >
> The counter argument was yours. Why are you shy about it?
Though it's my POV too originally it was atP...@NOSPAM.earthling.net (Poul A.
Costinsky) wrote
in article <MPG.102130874...@news.netvision.net.il>
=========================
fraenkel nethanel(sa...@post.tau.ac.il) wrote
In article <6p5mbf$2o2$1...@goethe.tau.ac.il>
|most important one is that the modern socialism accepted the democratic
|system and abandon the revolution dream.
How is a WAY to get to power is relevant to WHAT to do after
receiving a power?
=========================
At my school I was learned attribute the ideas to the right author (if you need URL
it could be sent to you on demand).
> Only because I falsified it?
> Your argument was that the Nazi party came to power by means of democratic
> elections, and therefore democratic elections, like revolutions, can lead to
> dictatorship.
> I showed that while this was, AFAIK, the ONLY case in which dictatorship was
> established by means of elections, revolutions usually lead to dictatorships.
One's more your twisted logic.Revolutions usually lead to dictatorships, it's right,
but unrelated to the democratic way.
To falsify my point you should prove DEMOCRATIC way couldn't lead to dictatorship.
After you admitted "it was" I'm not sure it possible.
> Even your argument about the alleged "anti democratic CHARACTER of socialism"
> was falsified-In many west European countries the moderate left came to
> power, and none became a dictatorship as a result
So as I can understand they was not succeeded. Does it means they was not tried?
Hardly. See the story of Broadcasting law.
> (In the original post I
> forgot the revolution in Greece. Your friend Yeroslavski corrected it while
> doing TWO bigger mistakes).
> Now, after you admotted your mistake, you repeat your erroneous argument? Is
> your memory so short?
I would be appreciated if you could post, was exactly I admitted? What mistake you
are speaking about?
> > The Second Broadcasting Authority law was legislated in 1993 when at power was
> > Labor/Meretz coalition.
>
> Another example of your short memory. There was never a Labour/Meretz
> coalition. There was a Labour/Meretz/Shas coalition.
Does it mean Shas forced enlighten Labor/Meretz legislate anti democratic law? A very
law, with forbidden Shas nation-wide radio station? Please, elaborate.
> >
> > I suppose analyses of this law could provide a measures of real intentions of
> > Israeli socialists.
> >
> You have a minor problem here: The news are prepered by a private company.
The minor problem is yours. The original law, as it legislated at 1993, doesn't allow
to private company preparing news, except LOCAL ones (like a sell in a nearest
supermarket). The News (political ones) it should retransmit from Reshet Bet.
Some kind of local democracy.
BTW, is not it strange not you, not Giora could post your opinion about the
Broadcasting law?
If the above law is the symbol of Israeli democracy, just say it; but if you think
otherwise, don't be too shy. It seems enlighten people could accept human rights
violations when those human are not belongs to the enlighten camp.
>
>
> > Those who legislated a law, significant suppressing the freedom of speech,
> > shouldn't tell forged stories about their democratic principles.
> >
> The labour and Meretz were not the majority in the Knesset during this time.
> If the law is so undemocratic, why didn't other parties block it?
Please elaborate who except Labor/Meretz/Shas was in coalition (majority, isn't it).
Are you accusing Hadash?
>
>
> > > About the level of your postings, I can only quote
> > > Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
> > > stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
> >
> > Definitely. Still remember nice AM/FM story, the claim about shortage free
> > frequencies in Israel, support Nuremberg's Laws?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Where does this accusation come from?
You simply snipped relative statement. I restore it. It reads:Giora Drachsler wrote:
> >> Although I don't agree with many views and opinions broadcast on Arutz 7,
> >> I believe in freedom of speech and in law, even if it's unjust.
> >> After all, an injustice applied to all, is also a form of justice.
Try to apply this definition to the above laws.
Mark.
> < childish drivel snipped >
> Yuval
y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
No need to, I'll do it:http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=374818011.
Who wrote the following, Mark (Click the link if your memory is too weak)?
<quote>
> > How is a WAY to get to power is relevant to WHAT to do after
> > receiving a power?
> >
> Simple, comrade: In a democratic regime, even after you assumed power, you
> can lose it if the majority of the people think you don't use it right. I
> used 26 words to explain this, and I think a child can easily understand my
> point.
>
Let's compare this fine theory to reality:
In 1933 in democratic Germany national-socialist party gets a power
... Could you enlighten readers when was next elections?
</quote>
Q.E.D
>
> > Only because I falsified it?
> > Your argument was that the Nazi party came to power by means of democratic
> > elections, and therefore democratic elections, like revolutions, can lead to
> > dictatorship.
> > I showed that while this was, AFAIK, the ONLY case in which dictatorship was
> > established by means of elections, revolutions usually lead to dictatorships.
>
> One's more your twisted logic.Revolutions usually lead to dictatorships, it's right,
> but unrelated to the democratic way.
> To falsify my point you should prove DEMOCRATIC way couldn't lead to dictatorship.
No I don't. I only need to prove that in the majority of cases it doesn't,
even if a "socialist" party is elected.
> After you admitted "it was" I'm not sure it possible.
>
Your argument was about "socialist" parties. Your example was the Nazi
party. There is a world of difference (not the least of them is the fact
that before they came to power (not elected, as they were a minority in the
1933 elections), the Nazis didn't even do a token effort to hide their
distaste for democracy.
> > Even your argument about the alleged "anti democratic CHARACTER of socialism"
> > was falsified-In many west European countries the moderate left came to
> > power, and none became a dictatorship as a result
>
> So as I can understand they was not succeeded. Does it means they was not tried?
Have you got any example of this, or are you shooting in the dark?
> Hardly. See the story of Broadcasting law.
>
> > (In the original post I
> > forgot the revolution in Greece. Your friend Yeroslavski corrected it while
> > doing TWO bigger mistakes).
> > Now, after you admotted your mistake, you repeat your erroneous argument? Is
> > your memory so short?
>
> I would be appreciated if you could post, was exactly I admitted? What mistake you
> are speaking about?
>
Look at dejanews, then read about Spain and Portugal.
> > > The Second Broadcasting Authority law was legislated in 1993 when at power was
> > > Labor/Meretz coalition.
> >
> > Another example of your short memory. There was never a Labour/Meretz
> > coalition. There was a Labour/Meretz/Shas coalition.
>
> Does it mean Shas forced enlighten Labor/Meretz legislate anti democratic law? A very
> law, with forbidden Shas nation-wide radio station? Please, elaborate.
>
I don't know who else was involved in the preparation of the law, probably it
was supported by the Likud as well. Anyway, my point was your weak memory, and
your tendency to forget that there was never a Labour/Meretz government in
Israel.
> > >
> > > I suppose analyses of this law could provide a measures of real intentions of
> > > Israeli socialists.
> > >
> > You have a minor problem here: The news are prepered by a private company.
>
> The minor problem is yours. The original law, as it legislated at 1993, doesn't allow
> to private company preparing news, except LOCAL ones (like a sell in a nearest
> supermarket). The News (political ones) it should retransmit from Reshet Bet.
>
> Some kind of local democracy.
>
To remind you, the second channel which is opperated by private owners only
has it's own news comnpany.
> BTW, is not it strange not you, not Giora could post your opinion about the
> Broadcasting law?
> If the above law is the symbol of Israeli democracy, just say it; but if you think
> otherwise, don't be too shy. It seems enlighten people could accept human rights
> violations when those human are not belongs to the enlighten camp.
You have another problem here: You cannot prevent anyone from distributing
every piece of information he has. No one can prevent you from posting it to
the Net or the newspapers.
> >
> >
> > > Those who legislated a law, significant suppressing the freedom of speech,
> > > shouldn't tell forged stories about their democratic principles.
> > >
> > The labour and Meretz were not the majority in the Knesset during this time.
> > If the law is so undemocratic, why didn't other parties block it?
>
> Please elaborate who except Labor/Meretz/Shas was in coalition (majority, isn't it).
> Are you accusing Hadash?
I don't remember who supported the law and who didn't. I only know one thing:
If the Likud, Shas, NRP, etc. didn't want the law, it wouldn't pass without
struggle. There was no struggle. Conclusion?
> > > > About the level of your postings, I can only quote
> > > > Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
> > > > stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
> > >
> > > Definitely. Still remember nice AM/FM story, the claim about shortage free
> > > frequencies in Israel, support Nuremberg's Laws?
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Where does this accusation come from?
>
> You simply snipped relative statement. I restore it. It reads:Giora Drachsler wrote:
> > >> Although I don't agree with many views and opinions broadcast on Arutz 7,
> > >> I believe in freedom of speech and in law, even if it's unjust.
> > >> After all, an injustice applied to all, is also a form of justice.
Again, I cannot see the connection. Care to post the relevant part from the
Nuremberg's Laws?
> Try to apply this definition to the above laws.
>
> Mark.
>
> > < childish drivel snipped >
>
What's your problem, mark? You like to expose other's ignorance, but when your
ignorance is exposed, you snip it? In my dictionary, such behavior is called
"hypocrisy", "cowardice", and "double standards". What do you call it?
Mark Barkan
fraenkel nethanel wrote:
> In soc.culture.israel y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
> : In article <35C73A75...@geocities.com>,
> : Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> : >
>
> Dear Yuval,
> You take those guys to seriously; they attack the Israeli left using
> the anti-socialist weapons; for them Shinui (one of Meretz component)
> and HaAretz are RED_SOCIALISTS;
Some corrections. Up to this moment I was sure Haaretz is a newspaper and not a
political party. Was I wrong? On the other hand majority (I try to be fair) it's
journalists belongs to left camp.
> Shinui was raised as an
> anti-Mapai party and participated in the first non-Mapai government
> in 1977.
And now united with communist Mapam and fascist Ratz (I used your suggestion to
distinguish them by relation to private property). That's why Shinuy's liberalism is
very questionable for me.
> And, if there are some obstinate lefties which didn't break ,
> they use the final and absolute weapon the National Socialism;
> it doesn't matter that the Nazi were brought to power by the right
> as a shield against the RED Danger,
Do you mean Nazis was less evil then Communists? It's very sad, but here I believe you.
BTW, in Israel you distinguish left and right by relation to "Eretz Israel HaShlema",
what about German right at 1933?
> it doesn't matter that they
> didn't touch the private propriety what is more important is that
> the name contain the anathemized word "Socialist".
You are wrong. What is important is their totalitarian ideology. Their relation to
private property could only characterize what harm they could cause to state's economy.
After crash of fascism at takes to Germany about 10 years to recover. Guess how long
it'll take to Russia.
So the difference is actually very minor. That could explain why former communist can
easily become fascist and vice versa. Take for example Mitteran <sp?> who started his
career at fascist Peten <sp?> administration and became a socialist or russian
neo-fascists, former communists.
Mark.
> So, please stop bothering them with facts because they have a theory.
As you wish ...
> Regards,
> Sany
Mark Barkan
y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
> In article <35C89084...@geocities.com>,
> Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
> > > In article <35C73A75...@geocities.com>,
> > > Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > > > Giora Drachsler wrote:
> > > > > Mark Barkan wrote in message <35C5E558...@geocities.com>...
> > > > > >Giora Drachsler wrote:
> > > > > About fascism and socialism, that’s a different topic, not related to the
> > > > > license of Arutz 7.
> > > > No, you are wrong.
> > > > Some time ago on this NG there was a message, claiming modern socialist parties
> > > > (other poster called them moderate) rejected their idea of armed rebelling and
> > > > now intended to take power by democratic way, i.e. elections.
> > > > The counter argument was that changing the WAY of taking power doesn't
> > > > change
> > > > the anti democratic CHARACTER of socialism. The suggested measure was
> > > > what are
> > > > those parties deeds AFTER they took a power.
> > > >
< childish drivel snipped >
I'll mark your claims to clarify discussion.
LABEL_1:
> > Simple, comrade: In a democratic regime, even after you assumed power, you
> > can lose it if the majority of the people think you don't use it right.
It was written by you.
> Let's compare this fine theory to reality:
> In 1933 in democratic Germany national-socialist party gets a power
> ... Could you enlighten readers when was next elections?
It was written by me.
> >
> > > Only because I falsified it?
> > > Your argument was that the Nazi party came to power by means of democratic
> > > elections, and therefore democratic elections, like revolutions, can lead to
> > > dictatorship.
> > > I showed that while this was, AFAIK, the ONLY case in which dictatorship was
> > > established by means of elections, revolutions usually lead to dictatorships.
> >
> > To falsify my point you should prove DEMOCRATIC way couldn't lead to dictatorship.
>
> No I don't. I only need to prove that in the majority of cases it doesn't,
> even if a "socialist" party is elected.
Now GOTO LABEL_1 and reread what claim started this intellectual loop. Now you should to
rephrase it. I'm not interested to continue to the second cycle.
>
> > After you admitted "it was" I'm not sure it possible.
> >
> Your argument was about "socialist" parties. Your example was the Nazi
> party.
=========== quote ===========
All the Marxist errors are on show here. Hobsbawm says Nazism and fascism were
essentially capitalist phenomena. In truth they were hybrids but basically socialist.
This orientation concerns more than their unmistakably egalitarian ideologies, though it
is worth noting that Hitler was mouthing socialistic platitudes to the end. It also
relates to their economic policies. These included not only central planning but also the
suppression of the free labor market, without whose operation the Marxist analysis of
capitalism is rendered utterly meaningless. I am not saying Marxist analysis of
capitalism "works," only that an economy lacking so central a piece of the anatomy as a
free market in labor cannot qualify for the Marxist title "capitalist."
Nor does Hobsbawm treat properly the now well-known thesis that fascism and Nazism were
in some respects Marxist heresies (see Richard Pipes, Russia under the Bolsheviks
1919-1924, chapter 5). All we get are a few pages on the "radical" elements in Nazism and
fascism. He admits that the old Soviet line that Hitler was a child of big business is
false. On the other hand, he insists Hitler was not a socialist. All one can say is that
the monster repeatedly said he was. Moreover, though the point leads to untestable
counterfactuals, we do not know what course Nazi economic evolution would have taken had
the Axis powers won the war.
AUTHOR: O'Keeffe, Dennis
TITLE: Marxist unrepentant.
SOURCE: World & I. v11 n2, Feb 1996, p. 276. 5 pages
http://www.reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/lh/History/hobsbawm/do_eh.htm
========= unquote ===========
> There is a world of difference (not the least of them is the fact
> that before they came to power (not elected, as they were a minority in the
> 1933 elections), the Nazis didn't even do a token effort to hide their
> distaste for democracy.
Wrong, they did it; and they did it the very same way the Labor/Maretz did it at 1992.
=========== quote ===========
By 1932, Hitler had gained the support of key people in the army and in big business.
These individuals thought they could use Hitler for their own financial interests. So,
they accepted Hitler’s demand to join the government only if he became Chancellor. Since
the government was a coalition consisting of two Nazis and nine conservatives, they
reasoned that Hitler could be used and controlled. And so, on January 30th, 1933, Hitler
legally became the Chancellor of Germany.
Hitler moved quickly to establish a dictatorship. He used terror to gain power while
maintaining an air of legality throughout. He called for new elections to Parliament and
then had the Parliament building burned to the ground. He blamed the Communists for this
act thus helping to get them out of the way and out of any possible public following. He
convinced President Hindenburg to sign an emergency act that [1] abolished the freedom of
speech and [2] abolished the freedom of assembly. On March 23, 1933, the Nazis pushed the
Enabling Act through Parliament, thus making Hitler dictator for a period of four years.
Communist Party members were arrested, the Catholic Center Party withdrew all opposition
and the Social Democratic Party was dissolved. So it was that Germany, like Soviet Russia
under Stalin, became a one party State.
Steven Kreis
The Age of Totalitarianism: Stalin and Hitler
http://www.pagesz.net/~stevek/europe/lecture10.html
========= unquote ===========
You see, the methods are:
1) " terror to gain power while maintaining an air of legality throughout" - compare to
"special legal treatment" of settlers which the current General Attorney just was not
dare to publish.
2) "abolished the freedom of speech" - compare to Broadcasting law we are speaking about.
3) "abolished the freedom of assembly" - compare to persecution of Zo Artzeynu.
Now pay attention this methods was applied while maintaining an air of legality
throughout, obviously to hide their "distaste for democracy" - compare to Rabin's "it
don't fack me" or "propellers".
BTW, author don't pretend to hide his socialist positions; but I don't see reasons not to
believe to historical facts he mentioned.
>
> > > Even your argument about the alleged "anti democratic CHARACTER of "socialism"
> > > was falsified-In many west European countries the moderate left came to
> > > power, and none became a dictatorship as a result
> >
> > So as I can understand they was not succeeded. Does it means they was not tried?
>
> Have you got any example of this, or are you shooting in the dark?
No I don't. See a phrase bellow, but if it's not enough see above some new ones.
>
> > Hardly. See the story of Broadcasting law.
> >
> > > Now, after you admotted your mistake, you repeat your erroneous argument? Is
> > > your memory so short?
> >
> > I would be appreciated if you could post, was exactly I admitted? What mistake you
> > are speaking about?
> >
> Look at dejanews, then read about Spain and Portugal.
>
Oy veavoi li, you slandered me and now I should prove I'm innocent. Is it a new method of
enlighten intellectuals?
> > > > The Second Broadcasting Authority law was legislated in 1993 when at power was
> > > > Labor/Meretz coalition.
> > >
> > > Another example of your short memory. There was never a Labour/Meretz
> > > coalition. There was a Labour/Meretz/Shas coalition.
> >
> > Does it mean Shas forced enlighten Labor/Meretz legislate anti democratic law? A very
> > law, with forbidden Shas nation-wide radio station? Please, elaborate.
> >
> I don't know who else was involved in the preparation of the law, probably it
> was supported by the Likud as well.
The mentioned law was so called Gov't law, which mean prepared and applied by the Gov't.
Please, next time before you'll answer, study who was at Gov't that time and probably a
number of ministers from all coalition parties.
> > > > I suppose analyses of this law could provide a measures of real intentions of
> > > > Israeli socialists.
> > > >
> > > You have a minor problem here: The news are prepared by a private company.
> >
> > The minor problem is yours. The original law, as it legislated at 1993, doesn't allow
> > to private company preparing news, except LOCAL ones (like a sell in a nearest
> > supermarket). The News (political ones) it should retransmit from Reshet Bet.
> >
> > Some kind of local democracy.
>
> To remind you, the second channel which is opperated by private owners only
> has it's own news comnpany.
>
Second Channel is THE ONLY TV station which was allowed to prepare news (monopoly or
freedom of speech?) and it's owners was chosen by the committee appointed Labor/Meretz
coalition.
But possibly you've forgotten we are speaking about freedom of speech (supposedly many
opinions) and Arutz 7 (supposedly RADIO station) which are NOT ALLOWED to prepare news.
> > BTW, is not it strange not you, not Giora could post your opinion about the
> > Broadcasting law?
> > If the above law is the symbol of Israeli democracy, just say it; but if you think
> > otherwise, don't be too shy. It seems enlighten people could accept human rights
> > violations when those human are not belongs to the enlighten camp.
>
The question still unanswered. I suppose my guess was right.
> You have another problem here: You cannot prevent anyone from distributing
> every piece of information he has.
I wasn't dare to. What prevent you from distribution your opinion about the mentioned
law? Me??? Or you lack information about your own opinion?
> > > > Those who legislated a law, significant suppressing the freedom of speech,
> > > > shouldn't tell forged stories about their democratic principles.
> > > >
> > > The labour and Meretz were not the majority in the Knesset during this time.
> > > If the law is so undemocratic, why didn't other parties block it?
> >
> > Please elaborate who except Labor/Meretz/Shas was in coalition (majority, isn't it).
> > Are you accusing Hadash?
>
> I don't remember who supported the law and who didn't.
So go and study it.
> I only know one thing:
> If the Likud, Shas, NRP, etc. didn't want the law, it wouldn't pass without
> struggle. There was no struggle.
Now reread your statement "I don't remember ..."
> Conclusion?
You don't remember.
> > > < childish drivel snipped >
One's more.
Mark.
Gabriel Etinzon
ISRAEL is only a pseudo democracy. No other democracy in the world chooses from its
inhabitants who can vote (Jews and Arabs in the pre 67 boundaries , jews only in the
territories) and who can not (Palestinians) , with the strange "reason" that they are not
citizens.
Arutz 7 is illegal mainly because other undemocratic laws. Other laws let the government
keep people in jail without charges , etc.
No party in Israel is really a left Party , apart for the Arab parties. Ratz was in the
government that bombarded a school in Lebanon. This can be left only in Israel.
About Socialism and Communism : they are close friends everywhere.
You can find enemies in the LEFT: Anarchists can't stand Trotskists that do not talk to
Leninists and so on. These are left from regular Communists.
Mark Barkan
> Both of you are right:
>
> ISRAEL is only a pseudo democracy. No other democracy in the world chooses from its
> inhabitants who can vote (Jews and Arabs in the pre 67 boundaries , jews only in the
> territories) and who can not (Palestinians) , with the strange "reason" that they are not
> citizens.
I see you have strong knowledge of Israeli reality. Please explain who is the citizen of a
country (say France?) and what democracy in the world allow to NOT citizens participate in
elections.
Mark.
.
.
fraenkel nethanel
: fraenkel nethanel wrote:
: > In soc.culture.israel y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
: > : In article <35C73A75...@geocities.com>,
: > : Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
: > : >
: >
: > Dear Yuval,
: > You take those guys to seriously; they attack the Israeli left using
: > the anti-socialist weapons; for them Shinui (one of Meretz component)
: > and HaAretz are RED_SOCIALISTS;
: Some corrections. Up to this moment I was sure Haaretz is a newspaper and not a
: political party. Was I wrong? On the other hand majority (I try to be fair) it's
: journalists belongs to left camp.
The left is the parties, their voters and according to many right wingers
(I try to be fair) the media in general and HaAretz in particular.
: > Shinui was raised as an
: > anti-Mapai party and participated in the first non-Mapai government
: > in 1977.
: And now united with communist Mapam and fascist Ratz (I used your suggestion to
: distinguish them by relation to private property). That's why Shinuy's liberalism is
: very questionable for me.
Do you expect a serious answer after calling Ratz, a movement which
was almost synonym with the defence of the civil right, fascist?
: > And, if there are some obstinate lefties which didn't break ,
: > they use the final and absolute weapon the National Socialism;
: > it doesn't matter that the Nazi were brought to power by the right
: > as a shield against the RED Danger,
: Do you mean Nazis was less evil then Communists? It's very sad, but here I believe you.
No, I think that they are worst but the difference isn't big, you can also
see it in my previous message that I think that they are worst; so, why do
you ask????
: BTW, in Israel you distinguish left and right by relation to "Eretz Israel HaShlema",
Thank you for quoting from my previous post (I used the term Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is the same thing).
: what about German right at 1933?
What about? (I even don't dare to think that you made a parallel between
the Israeli right with "Eretz Israel HaSleima" and the German right in
1933 with the "Great United Germany"; even myself, a traitorous lefty
think that this is bad and unfair comparison).
: > it doesn't matter that they
: > didn't touch the private propriety what is more important is that
: > the name contain the anathemized word "Socialist".
: You are wrong. What is important is their totalitarian ideology. Their relation to
: private property could only characterize what harm they could cause to state's economy.
: After crash of fascism at takes to Germany about 10 years to recover. Guess how long
: it'll take to Russia.
: So the difference is actually very minor. That could explain why former communist can
: easily become fascist and vice versa. Take for example Mitteran <sp?> who started his
: career at fascist Peten <sp?> administration and became a socialist or russian
: neo-fascists, former communists.
No, I'm right, you got me wrong; you repeat almost exactly my arguments
and from some unknown reason you think that you argue with me.
As I state in many previous posts the real difference is between
democratic and totalitarian regimes;
My letter pointed out that there are many right wingers which make a
strange melange from Nazi, communists, Socialists and attack them as
one entity.
In an other order of ideas, Petain, which was The Ist WW hero, was
nominated by the right wing parties as Head of France after the defeat;
he wasn't a fascist he was only an ultra righter.
Mitterand, was Petain supporter till 41-42, then he quited him and joined
the Maquis (the armed French resistance); I newer heart that he was a
communist (what do you mean by "rusian neo-fascist"????, do you refer
to Jirinovsky's movement?).
: Mark.
: > So, please stop bothering them with facts because they have a theory.
: As you wish ...
I didn't meant you pesonally.
: > Regards,
: > Sany
am...@nsof.co.il-n0spam
>I see you have strong knowledge of Israeli reality. Please explain who is the citizen of a
>country (say France?) and what democracy in the world allow to NOT citizens participate in
>elections.
But that's exactly Gabriel Etinzon's point: how come some people, who
have been living in this country for centuries, are still not citizens,
while others, who have never really lived here, are?
Poul A. Costinsky
In article <35CC6B98...@hol.fr>
|Both of you are right:
|ISRAEL is only a pseudo democracy. No other democracy in the world chooses from its
|inhabitants who can vote (Jews and Arabs in the pre 67 boundaries , jews only in the
|territories) and who can not (Palestinians) , with the strange "reason" that they are not
|citizens.
Well, there are a lot of them who do exactly this, for example, France
and USA.
|Arutz 7 is illegal mainly because other undemocratic laws. Other laws let the government
|keep people in jail without charges , etc.
|No party in Israel is really a left Party , apart for the Arab parties. Ratz was in the
What is "really a left Party" by your definition? Communists?
|government that bombarded a school in Lebanon. This can be left only in Israel.
|About Socialism and Communism : they are close friends everywhere.
|You can find enemies in the LEFT: Anarchists can't stand Trotskists that do not talk to
|Leninists and so on. These are left from regular Communists.
The more you post, the more it looks that you're right wing troll trying
to smear left by declaring your affiliation to them.
Mark Barkan
fraenkel nethanel wrote:
> In soc.culture.israel Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> : fraenkel nethanel wrote:
>
> : > In soc.culture.israel y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
> : > : In article <35C73A75...@geocities.com>,
> : > : Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> : > : >
> : >
> : > Dear Yuval,
> : > You take those guys to seriously; they attack the Israeli left using
> : > the anti-socialist weapons; for them Shinui (one of Meretz component)
> : > and HaAretz are RED_SOCIALISTS;
>
> : Some corrections. Up to this moment I was sure Haaretz is a newspaper and not a
> : political party. Was I wrong? On the other hand majority (I try to be fair) it's
> : journalists belongs to left camp.
> The left is the parties, their voters and according to many right wingers
> (I try to be fair) the media in general and HaAretz in particular.
> : > Shinui was raised as an
> : > anti-Mapai party and participated in the first non-Mapai government
> : > in 1977.
>
> : And now united with communist Mapam and fascist Ratz (I used your suggestion to
> : distinguish them by relation to private property). That's why Shinuy's liberalism is
> : very questionable for me.
> Do you expect a serious answer
Yes, I do.
> after calling Ratz, a movement which
> was almost synonym with the defence of the civil right, fascist?
You see, usually I don't read Haaretz, so I'm unaware of it's synonyms. Seriously I suggest to judge them not by their
words, when they was at opposition, but by their deeds, when they was at the power.
I've mention some of their deeds at <35CACE52...@geocities.com> in this thread.
> : > And, if there are some obstinate lefties which didn't break ,
> : > they use the final and absolute weapon the National Socialism;
> : > it doesn't matter that the Nazi were brought to power by the right
> : > as a shield against the RED Danger,
>
> : Do you mean Nazis was less evil then Communists? It's very sad, but here I believe you.
> No, I think that they are worst but the difference isn't big, you can also
> see it in my previous message that I think that they are worst; so, why do
> you ask????
Because it was not clear to me.
> : BTW, in Israel you distinguish left and right by relation to "Eretz Israel HaShlema",
> Thank you for quoting from my previous post (I used the term Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is the same thing).
> : what about German right at 1933?
> What about?
How do you distinguish left from right in Germany at 1933?
> : > it doesn't matter that they
> : > didn't touch the private propriety what is more important is that
> : > the name contain the anathemized word "Socialist".
>
> : You are wrong. What is important is their totalitarian ideology. Their relation to
> : private property could only characterize what harm they could cause to state's economy.
> : After crash of fascism at takes to Germany about 10 years to recover. Guess how long
> : it'll take to Russia.
>
You don't answer, could I conclude you agree with me?
> : So the difference is actually very minor. That could explain why former communist can
> : easily become fascist and vice versa. Take for example Mitteran <sp?> who started his
> : career at fascist Peten <sp?> administration and became a socialist or russian
> : neo-fascists, former communists.
> No, I'm right, you got me wrong; you repeat almost exactly my arguments
> and from some unknown reason you think that you argue with me.
So you agree the differences are very minor? Assuming you agreed with previous statement, you don't bother answer, I
couldn't realize where is the point of our disagreement?
> As I state in many previous posts the real difference is between
> democratic and totalitarian regimes;
> My letter pointed out that there are many right wingers which make a
> strange melange from Nazi, communists, Socialists and attack them as
> one entity.
And my point is this melange is not so strange if one think a little. Despite minor differences like relation to private
property, they have much in common; and it's the fact they could realize their intention only by totalitarian methods. So
it doesn't matter which way they get the power, their intentions are to convert it to totalitarian regime as close as
possible. The examples of such policy of the late Labor/Meretz gov't are in my mentioned message (see below).
> In an other order of ideas, Petain, which was The Ist WW hero, was
> nominated by the right wing parties as Head of France after the defeat;
> he wasn't a fascist he was only an ultra righter.
Ones more you used a term "right" in different contexts without definition. Whom do you mean?On the other hand, I can
give you one more example: Mussolini <sp?> in his first incarnation was socialist, Hitler claimed he is socialist (I've
read one historian we couldn't know it for sure, because we don't know which economic system he would establish would he
win a WWII).
> Mitterand, was Petain supporter till 41-42, then he quited him and joined
> the Maquis (the armed French resistance); I newer heart that he was a
> communist
How it disprove my claim?
> (what do you mean by "rusian neo-fascist"????, do you refer
> to Jirinovsky's movement?).
Not only, there are many others, who call them selves fascists (there is essay in Vesti, something like "Anthology of
russian fascism"; ask somebody to translate it for you).
Mark.
.
.
.
.
Mark Barkan
am...@nsof.co.il-n0spam wrote:
> Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> writes:
>
> >I see you have strong knowledge of Israeli reality. Please explain who is the citizen of a
> >country (say France?) and what democracy in the world allow to NOT citizens participate in
> >elections.
>
For your convenience I'll restore Gabriel's point.Gabriel Etinzon wrote:
> ISRAEL is only a pseudo democracy. No other democracy in the world chooses from its
> inhabitants who can vote (Jews and Arabs in the pre 67 boundaries , jews only in the
> territories) and who can not (Palestinians) , with the strange "reason" that they are not
> citizens.
> But that's exactly Gabriel Etinzon's point: how come some people, who
> have been living in this country for centuries, are still not citizens,
I suppose "this country" means Israel. After declaration of Independence and an Independence
War those who lived in the country ("pre 67 boundaries" and "inhabitants" by Gabriel) gets
citizenship.
After the Six Day War (1967) some territories (Golan Hights and East Jerusalem) was declared as
Israeli sovereign territory. The population of above territories gets citizenship (if they
wanted to). The others, are living on controlled territories, which is (I hope still) not
Israeli sovereign territory, are not citizens.
> while others, who have never really lived here, are?
The immigration laws is interior affair of every state, being a Jewish state and established as
a homeland of the Jewish people, Israel legislated "The law of return"; by this law every jew
returning to Israel gets citizenship.
Answering Gabriel question regarding jews living in the territories, they are Israeli citizens.
Israeli citizen by law remains citizen without connection to the place of his actually living.
Mark.
> Amos Shapir
fraenkel nethanel
: fraenkel nethanel wrote:
: > In soc.culture.israel Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
: >
: > : fraenkel nethanel wrote:
: >
: > : > In soc.culture.israel y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
: > : > : In article <35C73A75...@geocities.com>,
: > : > : Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : >
skipped....................
: > : > Shinui was raised as an
: Yes, I do.
As in any part in Europe the difference is in their economical position;
it has also some minor differences regarding nationalism, militarism etc.
but the main differences are economic.
Once it was the same in Israel before the Six Day war; as an example,
Achduth HaAvoda, Heruth and parts of Mapai were militants and the
Liberals, the Independent Liberals and Mafdal were pacifists; but all
this changes after 1967 and from this point the split between right
and left in Israel had nothing to do with the economy and relates only
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
: > : > it doesn't matter that they
: > : > didn't touch the private propriety what is more important is that
: > : > the name contain the anathemized word "Socialist".
: >
: > : You are wrong. What is important is their totalitarian ideology. Their relation to
: > : private property could only characterize what harm they could cause to state's economy.
: > : After crash of fascism at takes to Germany about 10 years to recover. Guess how long
: > : it'll take to Russia.
: >
: You don't answer, could I conclude you agree with me?
Of course, I never questioned this thing.
: > : So the difference is actually very minor. That could explain why former communist can
: > : easily become fascist and vice versa. Take for example Mitteran <sp?> who started his
: > : career at fascist Peten <sp?> administration and became a socialist or russian
: > : neo-fascists, former communists.
: > No, I'm right, you got me wrong; you repeat almost exactly my arguments
: > and from some unknown reason you think that you argue with me.
: So you agree the differences are very minor? Assuming you agreed with previous statement, you don't bother answer, I
: couldn't realize where is the point of our disagreement?
I agree of course that the extreme right and the extreme left are very similar
eapecialy regarding their "modus operandi"; our disagreement is that you put toghether socialist, soccial-democrates, communists and fascist. I strongly disagree on the first two.
: > As I state in many previous posts the real difference is between
: > democratic and totalitarian regimes;
: > My letter pointed out that there are many right wingers which make a
: > strange melange from Nazi, communists, Socialists and attack them as
: > one entity.
: And my point is this melange is not so strange if one think a little. Despite minor differences like relation to private
: property, they have much in common; and it's the fact they could realize their intention only by totalitarian methods. So
: it doesn't matter which way they get the power, their intentions are to convert it to totalitarian regime as close as
: possible. The examples of such policy of the late Labor/Meretz gov't are in my mentioned message (see below).
What totalitarian methods and totalitarian regime are installed in
England, France, Israel during Rabin-Peres Government. Please keep
out from your arguments the communist countries and give examples
regarding the west European countries and Israel.
: > In an other order of ideas, Petain, which was The Ist WW hero, was
: > nominated by the right wing parties as Head of France after the defeat;
: > he wasn't a fascist he was only an ultra righter.
: Ones more you used a term "right" in different contexts without definition. Whom do you mean?On the other hand, I can
: give you one more example: Mussolini <sp?> in his first incarnation was socialist, Hitler claimed he is socialist (I've
: read one historian we couldn't know it for sure, because we don't know which economic system he would establish would he
: win a WWII).
I agree that nobody can know for sure their future intention; what
we know is that he proclaim himself as "The shield against Communism";
they collaborated with the big industrialists and they imprisoned,
tortured and killed the socialist and the communists.
Regarding things they did when they were young, Begin was a member of
HaShomer HaTzair when he was young, so what?
: > Mitterand, was Petain supporter till 41-42, then he quited him and joined
: > the Maquis (the armed French resistance); I newer heart that he was a
: > communist
: How it disprove my claim?
You called Mitterand a communist, a rusian neo-fascist and you forgot
to mention his Maquis period; a part this Marquis, everything is OK.
: > (what do you mean by "rusian neo-fascist"????, do you refer
: > to Jirinovsky's movement?).
: Not only, there are many others, who call them selves fascists (there is essay in Vesti, something like "Anthology of
: russian fascism"; ask somebody to translate it for you).
No, I don't intend to read Vestii and the "Anthology of russian fascism"
has nothing to do with the fact you called Mitterand "rusian neo-fascist";
so please don't divert the discussion to unrelevant directions.
: Mark.
: .
: .
: .
: .
am...@nsof.co.il-n0spam
>I suppose "this country" means Israel. After declaration of Independence and an Independence
>War those who lived in the country ("pre 67 boundaries" and "inhabitants" by Gabriel) gets
>citizenship.
Eventually they did (ca. 1965). But according to a law passed right
after the war, all refugees who were residents of enemy states on some
date in 1948, were declared "absentees" (Nifqadim) and lost all rights to
their property left behind. Those who came back (or found themselves in
Israeli held territory) did not gain their rights to this day, and are
considered "resident absentees" (Nifqadim Nokhechim). (It sounds just as
absurd an oxymoron in Hebrew too!).
>After the Six Day War (1967) some territories (Golan Hights and East Jerusalem) was declared as
>Israeli sovereign territory. The population of above territories gets citizenship (if they
>wanted to). The others, are living on controlled territories, which is (I hope still) not
>Israeli sovereign territory, are not citizens.
They do not *get* citizenship, only residentship -- that means, they can
vote in city elections, but not for the Knesset. They can ask for
citizenship, but their request can be denied by any clerk at the Ministry
of the Interior, without giving any reason whatsoever. Their legal
status is that of "resident absentees", which means they lose their
resident status and property rights if they leave Israel, even for a
short while, even if they just go on to live across the street in an area
that hasn't been officially annexed to Israel.
>The immigration laws is interior affair of every state, being a Jewish state and established as
>a homeland of the Jewish people, Israel legislated "The law of return"; by this law every jew
>returning to Israel gets citizenship.
And gets to keep it forever even if he leaves after just one year.
Besides, its these Ministry of the Interior clerks again who have
absolute power in deciding who gets to be considered a Jew for that
purpose.
>Answering Gabriel question regarding jews living in the territories, they are Israeli citizens.
>Israeli citizen by law remains citizen without connection to the place of his actually living.
Yes, Jews who live in the occupied territories get to keep all their
rights, and they do vote -- unlike Israelis who live elsewhere outside
Israel, who cannot generally vote (except diplomats and sailors on
Israeli ships). They also get subsidized housing, pay less taxes, and
are closely guarded by the IDF (protection not afforded to residents of
Israel proper, even those living near hot borders).
In short, Israel is a democracy -- for those of its inhabitants the
government wishes to grant such rights; the rest are just slaves.
Mark Barkan
> In soc.culture.israel Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> : fraenkel nethanel wrote:
> : > In soc.culture.israel Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> : > : fraenkel nethanel wrote:
> : > : > In soc.culture.israel y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
> : > : > : In article <35C73A75...@geocities.com>,
> : > : > : Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> : > : > : >
> : > : >
> skipped....................
> : > : > Shinui was raised as an
> : > : > anti-Mapai party and participated in the first non-Mapai government
> : > : > in 1977.
> : >
> : > : And now united with communist Mapam and fascist Ratz (I used your suggestion to
> : > : distinguish them by relation to private property). That's why Shinuy's liberalism is
> : > : very questionable for me.
> : > Do you expect a serious answer
>
> : Yes, I do.
I see you don't has one. OK.
> : > after calling Ratz, a movement which
> : > was almost synonym with the defence of the civil right, fascist?
>
> : You see, usually I don't read Haaretz, so I'm unaware of it's synonyms. Seriously I suggest to judge : them not by their
> : words, when they was at opposition, but by their deeds, when they was at the power.
>
But I see you are incapable to do it.
> : I've mention some of their deeds at <35CACE52...@geocities.com> in this thread.
>
< slightly snipped for clearance >
> : How do you distinguish left from right in Germany at 1933?
>
> As in any part in Europe the difference is in their economical position;
> ...
> but the main differences are economic.
> Once it was the same in Israel before the Six Day war; ...
> ; but all
> this changes after 1967 and from this point the split between right
> and left in Israel had nothing to do with the economy and relates only
> to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I suppose it's a the root of our misunderstanding. You got this definition "for granted"; but I couldn't agree with you. I suspect the division on left (enlighten word) and right (all
others) is artificial, intended mainly to serve need of the former ones.
For me more important measure is a political system parties need to establish to realize their wishes. This way I suggest analyze political parties by their intentions (and it doesn't
matter if all members of the above understand those intentions) towards totalitarian regime.
> : > : > it doesn't matter that they
> : > : > didn't touch the private propriety what is more important is that
> : > : > the name contain the anathemized word "Socialist".
> : >
> : > : You are wrong. What is important is their totalitarian ideology. Their relation to
> : > : private property could only characterize what harm they could cause to state's economy.
> : > : After crash of fascism at takes to Germany about 10 years to recover. Guess how long
> : > : it'll take to Russia.
> : >
>
> : You don't answer, could I conclude you agree with me?
>
> Of course, I never questioned this thing.
>
And if you agree the most important is totalitarian ideology, why you insist on division left/right?
> I agree of course that the extreme right and the extreme left are very similar
> eapecialy regarding their "modus operandi"; our disagreement is that you put toghether socialist, soccial-democrates, communists and fascist. I strongly disagree on the first two.
>
> What totalitarian methods and totalitarian regime are installed in
> England, France, Israel during Rabin-Peres Government. Please keep
> out from your arguments the communist countries and give examples
> regarding the west European countries and Israel.
I referred you to my previous answer to other poster, but if you have some difficulties I can copy part of it.
I compare the methods of Hitler and Rabin/Peres government
=========== quote ===========
... on January 30th, 1933, Hitler legally became the Chancellor of Germany.
Hitler moved quickly to establish a dictatorship. He used terror to gain power while
maintaining an air of legality throughout. He called for new elections to Parliament and
then had the Parliament building burned to the ground. He blamed the Communists for this
act thus helping to get them out of the way and out of any possible public following. He
convinced President Hindenburg to sign an emergency act that [1] abolished the freedom of
speech and [2] abolished the freedom of assembly. On March 23, 1933, the Nazis pushed the
Enabling Act through Parliament, thus making Hitler dictator for a period of four years.
Communist Party members were arrested, the Catholic Center Party withdrew all opposition
and the Social Democratic Party was dissolved. So it was that Germany, like Soviet Russia
under Stalin, became a one party State.
Steven Kreis
The Age of Totalitarianism: Stalin and Hitler
http://www.pagesz.net/~stevek/europe/lecture10.html
========= unquote ===========
You see, the methods are:
1) " terror to gain power while maintaining an air of legality throughout" - compare to
"special legal treatment" of settlers which the current General Attorney just was not
dare to publish.
2) "abolished the freedom of speech" - compare to Broadcasting law we are speaking about.
3) "abolished the freedom of assembly" - compare to persecution of Zo Artzeynu.
4) blaming the Communists on burning the Parliament building to get them out of the way - compare to activity of agent-provocateur Raviv.
Now pay attention this methods was applied while maintaining an air of legality
throughout, obviously to hide their "distaste for democracy" - compare to Rabin's "it
don't fack me" or "propellers".
Is it enough? And this is activity of Social-Democratic Labor and Social-Fascist Meretz coalition.
Mark.
> You called Mitterand a communist, a rusian neo-fascist
Now I've got it. In a sentence like "take for example Mitteran ... or russian neo-fascists ..." it is supposed you get two different examples, but if it wasn't clear I should state I
never meant Mitterand as russian neo-fascist; I'm sure he is french.
Gabriel Etinzon
Mark Barkan wrote:
> Gabriel Etinzon wrote:
>
> > Both of you are right:
> >
> > ISRAEL is only a pseudo democracy. No other democracy in the world chooses from its
> > inhabitants who can vote (Jews and Arabs in the pre 67 boundaries , jews only in the
> > territories) and who can not (Palestinians) , with the strange "reason" that they are not
> > citizens.
>
> I see you have strong knowledge of Israeli reality. Please explain who is the citizen of a
> country (say France?) and what democracy in the world allow to NOT citizens participate in
> elections.
>
> Mark.
>
Well , whoever was in Alsace in 1943 was not a french citizen(in 1943). Yet when Alsace came
back to France in 1945 they got citizenship and rights to vote.
> .
>
> .
Gabriel Etinzon
> Israeli citizen by law remains citizen without connection to the place of his actually living.
Israelis living out of Israel do not have the right to vote.
Gabriel Etinzon
Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
> Gabriel Etinzon(gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote
> In article <35CC6B98...@hol.fr>
> |Both of you are right:
> |ISRAEL is only a pseudo democracy. No other democracy in the world chooses from its
> |inhabitants who can vote (Jews and Arabs in the pre 67 boundaries , jews only in the
> |territories) and who can not (Palestinians) , with the strange "reason" that they are not
> |citizens.
>
> Well, there are a lot of them who do exactly this, for example, France
> and USA.
As I wrote before , an illegal alien can hope to vote one day.
>
>
> |Arutz 7 is illegal mainly because other undemocratic laws. Other laws let the government
> |keep people in jail without charges , etc.
> |No party in Israel is really a left Party , apart for the Arab parties. Ratz was in the
>
> What is "really a left Party" by your definition? Communists?
>
And Socialists, and sometimes even Labour.
> |government that bombarded a school in Lebanon. This can be left only in Israel.
> |About Socialism and Communism : they are close friends everywhere.
> |You can find enemies in the LEFT: Anarchists can't stand Trotskists that do not talk to
> |Leninists and so on. These are left from regular Communists.
>
> The more you post, the more it looks that you're right wing troll trying
> to smear left by declaring your affiliation to them.
???????????????????????
Grigori Khaskin
: Gabriel Etinzon(gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote
: |About Socialism and Communism : they are close friends everywhere.
: |You can find enemies in the LEFT: Anarchists can't stand Trotskists that do not talk to
: |Leninists and so on. These are left from regular Communists.
: The more you post, the more it looks that you're right wing troll trying
: to smear left by declaring your affiliation to them.
No way, simply left one. But increadibly stupid
Sincerely,
G.K.
fraenkel nethanel
: > out from your arguments the communist countries and give examples
: > regarding the west European countries and Israel.
: I referred you to my previous answer to other poster, but if you have some difficulties I can copy part of it.
: I compare the methods of Hitler and Rabin/Peres government
: =========== quote ===========
Mark,
I have no intention to continue a discussion with a Jew which is making
such a parallel, it disgust me.
Mark Barkan
fraenkel nethanel wrote:
> In soc.culture.israel Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> : I compare the methods of Hitler and Rabin/Peres government
> Mark,
> I have no intention to continue a discussion with a Jew which is making
> such a parallel, it disgust me.
I thought I'm discussing with open mind intellectual. I was wrong. I'm really sorry I taught you religion feeling.
By,
Mark.
gabriel...@hol.fr
Poul A. Costinsky
In article <35CF583C...@hol.fr>
|> |ISRAEL is only a pseudo democracy. No other democracy in the world chooses from its
|> |inhabitants who can vote (Jews and Arabs in the pre 67 boundaries , jews only in the
|> |territories) and who can not (Palestinians) , with the strange "reason" that they are not
|> |citizens.
|> Well, there are a lot of them who do exactly this, for example, France
|> and USA.
|As I wrote before , an illegal alien can hope to vote one day.
This doesn't change you idiotic claim that "No other democracy in the
world.." etc.
|> |No party in Israel is really a left Party , apart for the Arab parties. Ratz was in the
|> What is "really a left Party" by your definition? Communists?
|And Socialists, and sometimes even Labour.
If you paid attention, I asked for your DEFINITION of "really a left
Party", so we'd be able to evaluate it against real ones.
Nah, you can't comprehend such a "difficult" matter.
Poul A. Costinsky
In article <6qnnrv$fi$3...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
|: The more you post, the more it looks that you're right wing troll trying
|: to smear left by declaring your affiliation to them.
|No way, simply left one. But increadibly stupid
It's hard to believe that one can be SO stupid and yet be
able to operate newsreader.
Poul A. Costinsky
In article <6qohe3$6fo$1...@goethe.tau.ac.il>
|I have no intention to continue a discussion with a Jew which is making
|such a parallel, it disgust me.
As usual, fraenkel nethanel remains speechless ™.
Grigori Khaskin
: In article <6qnnrv$fi$3...@morgoth.sfu.ca>,
: kha...@sfu.ca (Grigori Khaskin) wrote:
: > Poul A. Costinsky (Po...@NOSPAM.earthling.net) wrote:
: > : Gabriel Etinzon(gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote
: > : |About Socialism and Communism : they are close friends everywhere.
: > : |You can find enemies in the LEFT: Anarchists can't stand Trotskists that do
: not talk to
: > : |Leninists and so on. These are left from regular Communists.
: >
: > : to smear left by declaring your affiliation to them.
: >
: > No way, simply left one. But increadibly stupid
Extra "A" will not change a status quo.
Besides, I was not enjoying having one of "aryan" latin languages as my
first language and do not care much about spellchecker either.
G.K.
: >
: > Sincerely,
M. Waldman
<barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Gabriel Etinzon wrote:
>
>> Both of you are right:
>>
>> ISRAEL is only a pseudo democracy.
>
>... what democracy in the world (doesn't) allow (it's) citizens to
participate in
>elections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elections are neither a sufficient nor required criterion for the existence
of a democratic government. FYI, the ancient Greeks chose their law makers
by almost literally pulling the names out of a hat.
The "quality" of modern democracies can be judged by assessing the level of
control that the voters have over their elected governors, the legislators"
between statutory elections. In Israel, the governors can only be removed
from office when there are elections. This is a very low level of control
and Israel, accordingly, has a low quality democracy. Furthermore, the
party-list nature of the Israel electoral system means that incompetent or
biased legislators can be re-elected by pandering to their party members
and staying on the party-list with good legislators. Personalized
elections, where the voters choose the candidate by name and not just the
name of the party, raises the "quality" of a democracy significantly..
FYI, there are only 4 countries in the world where personalized elections
take place including the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia.
All other countries have a party-list system in whole or in part.
Regards,
Mark Waldman
AlphaNet Design
--
remove NOSPAM to send me email
Giora Drachsler
>: >
>: > No way, simply left one. But increadibly stupid
>: increAdibly? Who's the stupid here?
>
>Extra "A" will not change a status quo.
>Besides, I was not enjoying having one of "aryan" latin languages as my
>first language and do not care much about spellchecker either.
>G.K.
I would say that you don't care much about other things too. But that's
not your fault.
--
Giora Drachsler
Jerusalem, Israel
Peter Stern
be significantly raised by having primary elections for the candidates on
the party list, thus minimizing the influence of the party machine. In
the United States, by the way, there are primary elections to choose the
candidate which will represent each party for a particular area. In
Britain which has a Parliamentary system as in Israel (and perhaps in
Canada and Australia, as well), the personalized candidate runs for
office in a particular district (unlike Israel) and, therefore, has a
specific electorate to which he is accountable.
Peter
y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
6qrd0e$m3d$1...@news.huji.ac.il>,
"Giora Drachsler" <
He just forgot he's posting as Khaskin. It can
happen when you have so many false identities.
Yuval
BB BS OT
Mark Barkan
> In article <35CD1CC7...@geocities.com>, Mark Barkan
> <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >Gabriel Etinzon wrote:
> >> ISRAEL is only a pseudo democracy.
> >... what democracy in the world (doesn't) allow (it's) citizens to
> > participate in elections.
>
The original sentence was "what democracy in the world allow to NOT citizens
participate in elections." After the editing the meaning was changed to the
opposite.
> Elections are neither a sufficient nor required criterion for the existence
> of a democratic government.
If elections are not required criterion how do you see a democracy without them?
> The "quality" of modern democracies can be judged by assessing the level of
> control that the voters have over their elected governors, the legislators"
> between statutory elections.
Right, but this control shouldn't be too tight otherwise a government and
legislators couldn't produce unpopular decisions, say budget cuttings or long
term projects, which doesn't get an immediate gain.
> In Israel, the governors can only be removed
> from office when there are elections.
Wrong, the governors could be removed by decision of legislators' majority.
Regarding legislators I'm unaware of democratic state, where they could be
removed between elections. Are you?
> This is a very low level of control
> and Israel, accordingly, has a low quality democracy. Furthermore, the
> party-list nature of the Israel electoral system means that incompetent or
> biased legislators can be re-elected by pandering to their party members
> and staying on the party-list with good legislators. Personalized
> elections, where the voters choose the candidate by name and not just the
> name of the party, raises the "quality" of a democracy significantly..
On the other hand at personalized elections "incompetent or biased legislators
can be re-elected by pandering to their" voters. Furthermore, to reach every
voter, such candidate will need much more money, which could lead to situation,
when would be elected not most competent but the richest one (or supported by
richest interesant).
> FYI, there are only 4 countries in the world where personalized elections
> take place including the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia.
> All other countries have a party-list system in whole or in part.
So there are reasons to prefer party-list system? Any opinion?
Mark.
> Mark Waldman
.
.
.
Gabriel Etinzon
Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
> Gabriel Etinzon(gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote
> In article <35CF583C...@hol.fr>
> |Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
> |> Gabriel Etinzon(gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote
> |> |Both of you are right:
> |> |ISRAEL is only a pseudo democracy. No other democracy in the world chooses from its
> |> |inhabitants who can vote (Jews and Arabs in the pre 67 boundaries , jews only in the
> |> |territories) and who can not (Palestinians) , with the strange "reason" that they are not
> |> |citizens.
> |> Well, there are a lot of them who do exactly this, for example, France
> |> and USA.
> |As I wrote before , an illegal alien can hope to vote one day.
>
> This doesn't change you idiotic claim that "No other democracy in the
> world.." etc.
>
No other country lets people that never left their land without citizenship.
> |> |No party in Israel is really a left Party , apart for the Arab parties. Ratz was in the
> |> What is "really a left Party" by your definition? Communists?
> |And Socialists, and sometimes even Labour.
>
> If you paid attention, I asked for your DEFINITION of "really a left
> Party", so we'd be able to evaluate it against real ones.
> Nah, you can't comprehend such a "difficult" matter.
Easy: a party that will refuse to participate in any act of war not for defense purposes.
Gabriel Etinzon
Kisses from your friends the Nazi Hooligans.
Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
> Grigori Khaskin(kha...@sfu.ca) wrote
> In article <6qnnrv$fi$3...@morgoth.sfu.ca>
> |Poul A. Costinsky (Po...@NOSPAM.earthling.net) wrote:
> |: Gabriel Etinzon(gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote
> ...
> |: The more you post, the more it looks that you're right wing troll trying
> |: to smear left by declaring your affiliation to them.
> |No way, simply left one. But increadibly stupid
>
> It's hard to believe that one can be SO stupid and yet be
> able to operate newsreader.
>
igal_pe...@my-dejanews.com
: Coming from a pig mouth , your words sound like roses.
: Kisses from your friends the Nazi Hooligans.
: Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
: > Grigori Khaskin(kha...@sfu.ca) wrote
---------------
---------------
Everyone knows that I am the most peacefull and polite person in the israeli
and jewish newsgroup, despite my five grade level educational. But what I saw
here coming from the mouth of so-called jew(?) etinZona is something I can
not stay aside. If mr. Etinzona will be born in times of Dreifus he will be
one who throw stones at him. To name some of respectfull right wing members
of proud internet community "Nazi Hooligans" and throw words to fellow jew
like 'pig mouth' can only faithfull slave of Karl Marx (some traitor of
jewish people as well) and Robespier (killer of thousands of French). I see
in your post anti-Russian bias as well. If you are not a coward, please come
to Washington state (Bellevue) and I spit into your Red face and kick your
fat traitorous ass.
----------------Socialism = Fascism----------------------------
I=P
Grigori Khaskin
: > >
: > >Extra "A" will not change a status quo.
: > >Besides, I was not enjoying having one of "aryan" latin languages as my
: > >first language and do not care much about spellchecker either.
: > >G.K.
: >
: > I would say that you don't care much about other things too. But that's
: > not your fault.
: He just forgot he's posting as Khaskin. It can
: happen when you have so many false identities.
Nodding in "favour" to your fellow racist, adding another conspiracy
theory? Good boy! And that is after the supposition in another post that I
was "distinct" at SFU. Ha-ha!
If some Left with such a zeal would follow REAL clues in Rabin killing
- that he died because of chest wounds - the real perpetrators would be
charged and not sitting in the Knesset trying to topple government.
Back to my insignificant self: It is a guy from Tel-Aviv University
- a visiting prof. - who resently arrived here. As I remember when we
were sipping coffee with him - he told he will be staying here till Yom
Kippur. When'll be at SFU I ask him to drop you e-mail or phone
collect to tell his impression on number of Israelis and people from f-SU
here. Will it make you happy and relieve from sleeping disorder? (I think
unfortunately not. You will think that he is part of my imagination as
well). Anyway, another day came: Happy paranoidal Thurthday!
G.K.
: Yuval
: BB BS OT
: -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Grigori Khaskin
: Coming from a pig mouth , your words sound like roses.
: Kisses from your friends the Nazi Hooligans.
What a pank!
G.K.
: Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
: > Grigori Khaskin(kha...@sfu.ca) wrote
: > In article <6qnnrv$fi$3...@morgoth.sfu.ca>
y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
kha...@sfu.ca (Grigori Khaskin) wrote:
> y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
> : > >
> : > >Extra "A" will not change a status quo.
> : > >Besides, I was not enjoying having one of "aryan" latin languages as my
> : > >first language and do not care much about spellchecker either.
> : > >G.K.
> : >
> : > I would say that you don't care much about other things too. But that's
> : > not your fault.
>
> : He just forgot he's posting as Khaskin. It can
> : happen when you have so many false identities.
>
> Nodding in "favour" to your fellow racist, adding another conspiracy
> theory?
Conspiracy? As far as I remember, to have a conspracy you need more than one
person.
Good boy! And that is after the supposition in another post that I
> was "distinct" at SFU. Ha-ha!
I didn't rule out any option, except, of course, that Yeroslavski and "I=P"
are really to seperate people. That's too much.
>
> If some Left with such a zeal would follow REAL clues in Rabin killing
> - that he died because of chest wounds - the real perpetrators would be
> charged and not sitting in the Knesset trying to topple government.
>
The problem with your conspiracy theory is that it is just too complicated to
be believable. You really need to be a paranod to believe it
> Back to my insignificant self: It is a guy from Tel-Aviv University
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> - a visiting prof. - who resently arrived here. As I remember when we
> were sipping coffee with him - he told he will be staying here till Yom
> Kippur. When'll be at SFU I ask him to drop you e-mail or phone
> collect to tell his impression on number of Israelis and people from f-SU
> here. Will it make you happy and relieve from sleeping disorder? (I think
> unfortunately not. You will think that he is part of my imagination as
> well).
From whch machine will ha send his e-mail?
Anyway, another day came: Happy paranoidal Thurthday!
>
Did you make so many spelling mistakes and used "I=P" and "Dmitry" terms
(insignfcant self, sipping coffee) to ignite my "paranoia"?
Poul A. Costinsky
In article <6qu7im$rvr$2...@morgoth.sfu.ca>
|Gabriel Etinzon (gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote:
|: Coming from a pig mouth , your words sound like roses.
Even your curses are stupid.
|: Kisses from your friends the Nazi Hooligans.
I don't have friends between Nazi, commies, Hamas or similar
groups.
|What a pank!
Don't insult punks.
Poul A. Costinsky
Gabriel Etinzon <gabriel...@hol.fr> wrote:
> Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
> > Gabriel Etinzon(gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote
> > This doesn't change you idiotic claim that "No other democracy in the
> > world.." etc.
> No other country lets people that never left their land without
> citizenship.
This still doesn't change your idiotic claim.
> > |> |No party in Israel is really a left Party , apart for the Arab
parties. Ratz was in the
> > |> What is "really a left Party" by your definition? Communists?
> > |And Socialists, and sometimes even Labour.
> > If you paid attention, I asked for your DEFINITION of "really a left
> > Party", so we'd be able to evaluate it against real ones.
> > Nah, you can't comprehend such a "difficult" matter.
> Easy: a party that will refuse to participate in any act of war not for
> defense purposes.
Since Israel never participated in any act of war not for defense
purposes, this definition is good for vast majority of Israeli parties,
even those who'll refuse accept your grant of "really left".
Refine your idiocy.
M. Waldman
<pe...@WISCPA.WEIZMANN.AC.IL> wrote:
>However, even in a "party-list system" the quality level of democracy can
>be significantly raised by having primary elections for the candidates on
>the party list, thus minimizing the influence of the party machine. In
>the United States, by the way, there are primary elections to choose the
>candidate which will represent each party for a particular area. In
>Britain which has a Parliamentary system as in Israel (and perhaps in
>Canada and Australia, as well), the personalized candidate runs for
>office in a particular district (unlike Israel) and, therefore, has a
>specific electorate to which he is accountable.
>
>Peter
------------------------------------------------
Dear Peter,
I differ with you. Primary elections do not, unfortunately, raise the
quality level of a democracy. First, I want to reiterate my definition of
how to determine the "quality of a democracy":
"The quality of a democratic is determined by the level of control over the
elected officials that is available to the electors after the elected
officials are installed in office."
Whether or not the elected officials are initially chose via a system of
primary elections or whether they are chosen by party bosses, the level of
control avialable to the voters after the elected officials are installed
in their offices is still the same, viz., there is no control until the
next election. At least this is the case in Israel...sadly.
Your description of the systems in Britain, Australia and Canada is, in the
main, accurate. The operative phrase is: accountability to the electorate.
In Israel elected officials are, first and foremost, accountable to their
party members and specifically to those people who put them onto the party
list!
I doubt if there will ever be "personalized" elections in Israel. In an
election for "Knesset Yisrael" in the 1920's an experiment was held in
quasi-personalized elections. The idea was dropped like "a hot pototoe"
when the party bosses realized that it might lead to the elected officials
being accountable to the voters.
A better reason why the current party-list system in Israel will never
change to personalized elections is simply that democracy is foreign to
Jewish thinking! FYI, with one exception, no Jewish thinker contributed to
the growth of modern democratic concepts. Amongst the group that included,
Hobbs, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, and others, there was not one thinker
whose background and culture was Jewish. There was one expection:
Spinoza; howver, as you know, Spinoza was excommunicated in 1656 and later
grew so disgusted with Judiasm that he even changed his name from "Baruch"
to "Benedict". I have also found it particularly interesting that amongst
the American founding fathers there was not one Jew. The Jews arrived in
the "New World" in 1654 so the question remains: Why didn't they take part
in the greatest revolution for freedom in recorded history?
Grigori Khaskin
: Conspiracy? As far as I remember, to have a conspracy you need more than one
: person.
Are you not the one "bright" fellow in BGU :-) who posting the same thing
here? Or you using several accounts, ha-ha?
: I didn't rule out any option, except, of course, that Yeroslavski and "I=P"
: are really to seperate people. That's too much.
Happy I=P encounters of the third kind !;-)
: From whch machine will ha send his e-mail?
"ha" will send if he would like to do so - on his own discression from
whatever machine he has - I danno - but I think he must have an account
in .il. Anyway, I will e-mail him to sfu and ask to become a part of
conspiracy and say that I am not three but one. Will you be happy, son?
Because we were "sipping coffee" made by Dmitry in his personal lab
coffee-maker I will ask "ha" to assure that we are not a siamise twins
either.
: Did you make so many spelling mistakes and used "I=P" and "Dmitry" terms
: (insignfcant self, sipping coffee) to ignite my "paranoia"?
Yep --> that was integral part of organized right wing religious
anti-Mertz, anti-Hadash, anti-acommunist, anti-socialist, Zionist
conspiracy. Happy now?
G.K.
Gabriel Etinzon
igal_pe...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Robespier (killer of thousands of French).
Robespierre was the first European to give jews equal citizenship and to write it
down as a law. (Loi relative aux juifs , Paris , 13 November 1791).
I see
> in your post anti-Russian bias as well.
God Forgive ! My ancestors are Russian , and Lenin and Trotsky and Mayakovskyand
Malevitch..........well , all my heroes!
> If you are not a coward, please come
> to Washington state (Bellevue) and I spit into your Red face and kick your
> fat traitorous ass.
Traitor ? You are the Traitor! Go Read the Bible:Vehahavta lereaha kamoha
Vehaia im tireh iehudi make goy........
You are vomit on Shabat hamalka's dress.
Gabriel Etinzon
Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
> In article <35D201BD...@hol.fr>,
> Gabriel Etinzon <gabriel...@hol.fr> wrote:
> > Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
> > > Gabriel Etinzon(gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote
> > > |As I wrote before , an illegal alien can hope to vote one day.
> > > This doesn't change you idiotic claim that "No other democracy in the
> > > world.." etc.
> > No other country lets people that never left their land without
> > citizenship.
>
> This still doesn't change your idiotic claim.
>
You mean that is too rational for you to answer?What other country does not
give citizenship to people that never move from their place?
ANSWER?
> > > |> |No party in Israel is really a left Party , apart for the Arab
> parties. Ratz was in the
> > > |> What is "really a left Party" by your definition? Communists?
> > > |And Socialists, and sometimes even Labour.
> > > If you paid attention, I asked for your DEFINITION of "really a left
> > > Party", so we'd be able to evaluate it against real ones.
> > > Nah, you can't comprehend such a "difficult" matter.
> > Easy: a party that will refuse to participate in any act of war not for
> > defense purposes.
>
> Since Israel never participated in any act of war not for defense
> purposes,
AAAAA , "Anvei Hazaam" (or the Kana Massacre , as it is known outside Israel)
was a defensive act? Against what , votes for the Likud in the election that
came after maybe?
Igal_Pe...@yahoo.com
: Robespierre was the first European to give jews equal citizenship and to
writ$ : down as a law. (Loi relative aux juifs , Paris , 13 November 1791).
.......and murdered Jews in huge amount. The same road followed commi in
Russia, gave the rights for Jews to be Russian :), but for firm Jewish guys
that deny another culture/ideology commi stay only one way to Kolima Stalin'
camps. God forbid for such "equal citizenship"
: God Forgive ! My ancestors are Russian , and Lenin and Trotsky and
Mayakovsky$ : Malevitch..........well , all my heroes!
------
Fun is fun, do you know that Malevich with his black hole :) was forbiden in
USSR and in the book of "history of USSR and communist party" in USSR Univ-tes
he was example of capitolism disedent culture. Beter choose Muchina or
Nalbandian that were one firm dung of commi art.
Mayakovsky suicide because of commi pressure ( and not because of love story)
and Trotsky was quite disappoint in commy ideology and killed by Stalin.
Your examples only confirm that Socialism=Nazism
: Traitor ? You are the Traitor! Go Read the Bible:Vehahavta lereaha kamoha
: Vehaia im tireh iehudi make goy........
I am treating ("make" - you interpretation) goys as "yourself", do not worry,
all my numerious non - Jewish girl-friends can confirm this obvious fact of my
life.
: You are vomit on Shabat hamalka's dress.
Possible, if I'll saw you commi red face. So, better do not come
to Washington state (Bellevue) because I will trough out after watching your
stupid disgasting red face of the complitely ignorant and can lead to
dissapointing in the French jewish diaspora. Toda raba, le roce.
I=P
Igal_Pe...@yahoo.com
: I didn't rule out any option, except,
: of course, that Yeroslavski and "I=P"
: are really to seperate people. That's too much.
--
Do you have some brain tumoring or what, that you can not belive in proven
fact?
I am not mr. Jaroslavsky, not G.K, not Dimitry, not Serhio or somebody else.
Call me Igal Peacemaker, please.
LEO
I saw enough trigger worlds here: 'conspiracy', 'Siamese twins',
'coffee' and a 'Happy' -
to be 'igniteed' .
What is a 'demoCRACY'? Direct rule of croud/brotherhood? Even if
(almost) everybody in a croud was in the ARMY, and posses technical
knowledge? Or 'police' / MACABY 'DEMOcratic' fraternity, where GOOD
guys 'democratically' decide what and how to do stuff to everybody?
Or 'demo' of NATURAL green to perform áctions' direct?
State Law (which respect different views/beliefs) and it's sure
enforcement by 'legal' OPEN means - that is what most important. This
appear not to be a case in Israel, rite now.
Are enlightened Israelis (elite and not) or Jewish people at all,
communicate via forced 'TELEPATHY' - to create an instant (SHAS)
'spiritual' (hasidim style) unity, and make everybody aware of what is
going on? (To make 'demoCRATic' decisions) Or am I among 'chosen' -
(by my name?) few?
Is not it a part of a LIVE control?
below are included my last received 'transmission', that I published
on my WEB site:
Aug 14, 98: Peoples ''justice'' submitted "movie'' about me with
another (corporate style, serious) guy going for a
construction work into an ''aristocratic'' - ROTCHILDs? - (Polish or
Hungary, in Bney Brak, or Boro Park?) most
probably, Sephardic, big family house, although, they speak Russian
(with a Swiss accent). There, everything is based
on signs and deep traditions (italian style) - they don't say directly
what they want/expect. When I realize, I need to go
to a front lawn to dig something, (for water stream?) I ask a
colleague, who came with me, to explain stuff. And
somehow they (dream submiters) made me feel, that this stream digging
and a date, when it is being done, related to
Rabin's murder; Another work at the same house, also ''means''
something to happen, beside simple work result.
Such a nice, IBM HiTek, Aristocratic Style, 'movie!'
It ('dream') had it continuation, when I fell asleep again (Green
GORGEOUS Caring ): I am going to hotel for a day,
(in dream; and I have no idea, what for, in reality) and I am given a
(golden? Locker, Be!:-)) key, which latter
appeared to be not from any hotel room (hotel is overbooked this time,
no place there, unlike my first visit here) but to
an entrance (from inside the hotel) to the host(ess), owners -
dwelling, and a number on a key 222 (intriguing? almost
3 musketeers!). The owners of the hotel, the same honorable
(aristocratic) family, that is described in part 1. There
is another number, that flied through the part 2 'dreams' - 188.
Which number WINs a billion? :-)
You have to have attention for details (like security always mumled in
IBM), to be ''chosen'' by GORGEOUS players!
So, how (BIG) 'brothers' evaluate 'Joseph's dreams :-) ? Will the
Biggest one send me to a psychiatrist? Ale! Or, it is
better, to ask a FARAon (of the 'animals')?
TOV
Leo Shmi_dov !__! my http://members.xoom.com/LEO_Dov/
/..\ "to think - is to speak quietly &
\- / to speak - is to think aloud"
patented->
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?&patent_number=3951134
On 13 Aug 1998 18:51:30 GMT, kha...@sfu.ca (Grigori Khaskin) wrote:
>y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
>
>: Conspiracy? As far as I remember, to have a conspracy you need more than one
>: person.
>
>Are you not the one "bright" fellow in BGU :-) who posting the same thing
>here? Or you using several accounts, ha-ha?
>
>: I didn't rule out any option, except, of course, that Yeroslavski and "I=P"
>: are really to seperate people. That's too much.
>
gabriel...@hol.fr
Po...@NOSPAM.earthling.net (Poul A. Costinsky) wrote:
> Grigori Khaskin(kha...@sfu.ca) wrote
> In article <6qu7im$rvr$2...@morgoth.sfu.ca>
> |Gabriel Etinzon (gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote:
> |: Coming from a pig mouth , your words sound like roses.
>
> Even your curses are stupid.
>
> |: Kisses from your friends the Nazi Hooligans.
>
> I don't have friends between Nazi, commies, Hamas or similar
> groups.
>
> |What a pank!
>
> Don't insult punks.
And I say (it is not original of course): "Nazi punks fuck off"
Yes ,it is you I'm talking to.
>
> --
> Hope this helps. Regards, Poul.
> ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
> (`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
> (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
> _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
> (il).-'' (li).' ((!.- ®
> Poul A. Costinsky Po...@earthling.xxx.net http://bounce.To/Poul
> ==========Disclaimer:All my words are my own.==========
> Two things inspire me to awe -- the starry heavens above
> and the moral imperative within. Emmanuel Kant.
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
gabriel...@hol.fr
Igal_Pe...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Gabriel Etinzon (gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote:
>
> : Robespierre was the first European to give jews equal citizenship and to
> writ$ : down as a law. (Loi relative aux juifs , Paris , 13 November 1791).
>
> .......and murdered Jews in huge amount.
No. This is a lie. He killed lots of people , but mostly rich and very
catholic. No jews.
>
> : God Forgive ! My ancestors are Russian , and Lenin and Trotsky and
> Mayakovsky$ : Malevitch..........well , all my heroes!
>
> ------
>
> Fun is fun, do you know that Malevich with his black hole :) was forbiden in
> USSR and in the book of "history of USSR and communist party" in USSR Univ-tes
> he was example of capitolism disedent culture. Beter choose Muchina or
> Nalbandian that were one firm dung of commi art.
>
The USSR was not real communism , not so after 1923. Both Malevitch and
Mayakovsky were , for a certain time , revolutionary artists (Mayakovsky was
recognized after his death , better late than never...). The revolution went
aside from its real sources after (and even a little before) Lenin's death.
> Mayakovsky suicide because of commi pressure ( and not because of love story)
> and Trotsky was quite disappoint in commy ideology and killed by Stalin.
>
His primary ideology (Trotsky's) is ever alive today.
> Your examples only confirm that Socialism=Nazism
?
>
> : Traitor ? You are the Traitor! Go Read the Bible:Vehahavta lereaha kamoha
> : Vehaia im tireh iehudi make goy........
>
> I am treating ("make" - you interpretation) goys as "yourself", do not worry,
> all my numerious non - Jewish girl-friends can confirm this obvious fact of my
> life.
Why ? You f.. them as you f.. everybody else? Go F.. Yourself!
>
> Toda raba, le roce.
>
Le roce?
> I=P
Mark Barkan
Gabriel Etinzon wrote:
> Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
>
> > In article <35D201BD...@hol.fr>,
> > Gabriel Etinzon <gabriel...@hol.fr> wrote:
> > > Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
> > > > Gabriel Etinzon(gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote
> > > > |As I wrote before , an illegal alien can hope to vote one day.
> > > > This doesn't change you idiotic claim that "No other democracy in the
> > > > world.." etc.
> > > No other country lets people that never left their land without
> > > citizenship.
> >
> > This still doesn't change your idiotic claim.
> >
>
> You mean that is too rational for you to answer?What other country does not
> give citizenship to people that never move from their place?
> ANSWER?
If you insist it couldn't be easier.
As far as I remember:
USA doesn't give it's citizenship to russians living in Moscow, despite they
never move from their place.
France doesn't give it's citizenship to germans, who never moved from Munich.
Israel doesn't give it's citizenship to arabs, who never moved from their place
in Yeuda and Shomron (as well as to americans still living in NY).
Now guess what common in the above examples?
Mark.
Grigori Khaskin
: >
: The USSR was not real communism , not so after 1923.
How did you put that 1923 treshhold? Read books of comrad Marshe or
Trotsky?
And was it real before was 1923? According to you - yes.
OK, lets take a look on the tip of that real communist iceberg in the
ocean of imperialists. The real communism was introduced by Lenin in 1918
politics of "War Communism" when everything was expropriated from
peasants.
The same wonderfull year brought creation by both your communist heroes -
Lenin, Trotsky and the rest of the gang - the first political
concentration camps, actually half of them were death camps, because after
assasination of Uritsky bolsheviks started politics of "Red Terror". The
typical method of dealings with imperialistic burgua family was or bullet
in the head in cellars during detention or drowning several hundreds of
people (of course they were class enemies and parasites - old aristocratic
ladies, small kids - members of enemy families, teachers, retired
military, poets, priests, rabbies) at a time packing them in the barge.
Some documented cases of fiery death when "class" enemies were locked in
barns - why waste bullets or food in camps?
When you hero Trotsky became war minister he gave the first Red Cavalry
Corp a cart blansh in dealings with local population. Guess what? - tens
of thousand of jews died in Red Pogroms. But it was done by your hero
Trotsky, so it is OK for you. Kind a "haver" you are! No, no you are not a
jew of course - comrad, - commies have no nationality.
Still think what a nice Real Communism it was even before 1923?
Lenin deeds to people and nations did not stop in what I described above.
In 1917 bolsheviks proclaimed freedom of self-determination. All colonies
seceeded -Ukraine, Poland, Finland, Middle Asian tribes, Caucasus. Did
bolsheviks tolerated that freedom in your real communist utopian
1917-1923? Hardly.
War broke out everywere (but Finland - they started the war there in
1940). Communist ideas triumphantly won hards of population at the end
(heards of thous who was not eager to join paradise were shot through of
course). The final aggression for "liberation" of former colonies from
everything - wealth, dignity, and millions of their inhabitants of their
lives started by Lenin was against Poland in 1920-1921 and was
spectacularly lost. Anyway, Shabbat will come shortly and I have no
intentions to teach you history now, I have to go. If it was not enough to
describe peacefull deeds of communists in workers paradise, anyone can ask
me to proceed further. Will do with "pleasure".
One think I wish did not happen - the equivalent of Nuremberg trial
against the worse imaginable after (or before?) the nazis plague -
communism. I would like to live long enough to see in an international
court will officially equate your heroes with Hitler, Himler and the rest
of nazi swines, and communist ideology will be put on display for mankind
to spit at.
Shabbat shalom to all normal people, sorry, you excluded.
G.K.
Poul A. Costinsky
in article <6r18vj$1ir$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
|> : God Forgive ! My ancestors are Russian , and Lenin and Trotsky and
|> Mayakovsky$ : Malevitch..........well , all my heroes!
It's either Lenin or Trotsky, you moron.
But it seems you feel pretty comfortable with mass murder
ideology of both.
Why did you put Malevitch in this company, may be explained
only this is only Russian name you was able to recall;
or his picture in Pompidu Center was the only you was able
to recognize.
|The USSR was not real communism , not so after 1923.
Blah, blah, blah, the same commie bullshit again.
|Both Malevitch and
|Mayakovsky were , for a certain time , revolutionary artists (Mayakovsky was
|recognized after his death , better late than never...).
Your ignorance is astonishing.
y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
and Samaria are not a part of Israel. Congratulations, new leftist. Will
join us in our game of bashing Stinky?
> Mark.
Good work, Gabriel!
You got some sense into Mark! And turned him into a leftist. How did you do
that? And now to the real challenge: Turn Stinky into an honest man.
Yuval
BB BS OT
Poul A. Costinsky
In article <35D357F9...@hol.fr>
|Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
|You mean that is too rational for you to answer?
No, I mean you still doesn't make any sense.
|What other country does not
|give citizenship to people that never move from their place?
|ANSWER?
Any country I can imagine.
|> > > |> |No party in Israel is really a left Party , apart for the Arab
|> parties. Ratz was in the
|> > > |> What is "really a left Party" by your definition? Communists?
|> > > |And Socialists, and sometimes even Labour.
|> > > If you paid attention, I asked for your DEFINITION of "really a left
|> > > Party", so we'd be able to evaluate it against real ones.
|> > > Nah, you can't comprehend such a "difficult" matter.
|> > Easy: a party that will refuse to participate in any act of war not for
|> > defense purposes.
|> Since Israel never participated in any act of war not for defense
|> purposes,
|AAAAA , "Anvei Hazaam" (or the Kana Massacre , as it is known outside Israel)
|was a defensive act? Against what , votes for the Likud in the election that
|came after maybe?
I agree that "Grapes of Wrath" was the bloodies election campaign in
Israel ever; nevertheless, it was legit response to Hizbullah bombings.
Mark Barkan
y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
> In article <35D4C50F...@geocities.com>,
> Mark Barkan <barka...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Gabriel Etinzon wrote:
> >
> > > Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <35D201BD...@hol.fr>,
> > > > Gabriel Etinzon <gabriel...@hol.fr> wrote:
> > > What other country does not
> > > give citizenship to people that never move from their place?
> > >
> > If you insist it couldn't be easier.
> >
> > As far as I remember:
> >
> > USA doesn't give it's citizenship to russians living in Moscow, despite they
> > never move from their place.
> >
> > France doesn't give it's citizenship to germans, who never moved from Munich.
> >
> > Israel doesn't give it's citizenship to arabs, who never moved from their place
> > in Yeuda and Shomron (as well as to americans still living in NY).
> >
> > Now guess what common in the above examples?
> >
> Moscow is not a part of the USA, Munich is not a part of France, and Judea
> and Samaria are not a part of Israel.
I see you got my point; though I would prefer using term jurisdiction and not "a part
of".
> Congratulations, new leftist.
I hardly could understand, how do you get such conclusion? I suppose the logical
sequence was as follows:
poster states Ye"sha in not under Israeli jurisdiction THEREFORE poster against
Israeli jurisdiction on Ye"sha THEREFORE poster is leftist.
Anyway the conclusion is false. I support declaring Israeli jurisdiction on Jehuda
and Shomron.
> Will join us in our game of bashing Stinky?
No.
Mark.
Gabriel Etinzon
Poul A. Costinsky wrote:
> gabriel...@hol.fr(gabriel...@hol.fr) wrote
> in article <6r18vj$1ir$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> |> : God Forgive ! My ancestors are Russian , and Lenin and Trotsky and
> |> Mayakovsky$ : Malevitch..........well , all my heroes!
>
> It's either Lenin or Trotsky, you moron.
> But it seems you feel pretty comfortable with mass murder
> ideology of both.
>
> Why did you put Malevitch in this company, may be explained
> only this is only Russian name you was able to recall;
Try my ignorance you slug. Try it.All you know as answer is blahblahblah andthe
Khaskin guy - just lies and speaks about "possible future".
What about facts?
> or his picture in Pompidu Center was the only you was able
> to recognize.
>
> |The USSR was not real communism , not so after 1923.
>
> Blah, blah, blah, the same commie bullshit again.
>
> |Both Malevitch and
> |Mayakovsky were , for a certain time , revolutionary artists (Mayakovsky was
> |recognized after his death , better late than never...).
>
> Your ignorance is astonishing.
>
JoHn
>
> y...@bgumail.bgu.ac.il wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I see you got my point; though I would prefer using term jurisdiction and not "a part
> of".
>
> > Congratulations, new leftist.
>
> I hardly could understand, how do you get such conclusion? I suppose the logical
> sequence was as follows:
>
> poster states Ye"sha in not under Israeli jurisdiction THEREFORE poster against
> Israeli jurisdiction on Ye"sha THEREFORE poster is leftist.
>
> Anyway the conclusion is false. I support declaring Israeli jurisdiction on Jehuda
> and Shomron.
>
> > Will join us in our game of bashing Stinky?
>
> No.
>
> Mark.
Mark, relax. These guys thinks that they are pros in fallacy game
(logical chains,
where expression N2 is logical conclusion from expression N1, N3 from
N2, etc. but
usually chain is broken in the middle).