This is an Arab nation with an extremist government, and they believe that they will eventually be strong enough to reclaim all of Palestine. This is no reason for the continued occupation of their land. Hamas has over 90% support from the Palestinian people whether Israel or anybody else likes it or not.

Oppression leads to extremist governments, look at the ANC in South Africa, and the IRA in Ireland. All extremists, all engaged with politics, all led to peace.

The school attack was on occupied territory and was called 'God's vengeance' and a 'natural reaction to Israeli attacks' by Hamas.

It is their view that Israel belongs to them because that is the view of the Palestinian people. Why does this excuse Israel from occupying their land? Millions of their people are refugees because of the occupation. Do you think that Israel are right to invade Palestine, bulldoze down homes, leaving 1.5 million refugees? Do you think that the Hamas charter somehow gives Israel permission to do this? Do you think that the people of Palestine should do nothing in retaliation to continued Israeli attacks?

Why is Israel withdrawing and a 10 year ceasefire not an acceptable solution to you? Because Hamas won't relinquish their claim to Isreal? How do you know that is not a legitimate and stable political position enabling a ceasefire? Do you know that the Irish republicans still lay claim to the North of Ireland and this was acceptable to the British government, and enabled a ceasefire and a peace process? Why is this somehow different?

I can send you the dates of some pro-Palestinian rallies if you are interested. I don't think you'll find a pro-Israel one anywhere in the world.

"that's a good step but a lot more went into each effort falling apart."
Bollocks. Absolute total categorical bollocks. Now I know you don't know what you're talking about.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas' charter calls for a withdrawal from all land occupied by Isreal since 1967, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.


No, it doesn't:
Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences:
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad...

Plainly Hamas Charter defines Palestine as all of modern Israel in addition to the occupied territories.


That is their legitimate goal and attacks sanctioned by Hamas are against military targets on occupied Palestinian territory. Attacks inside Isreal are not sanctioned by Hamas and are condemned by Hamas.


And yet the most recent school shooting inside Israel was praised by Hamas. That is of course consistent with their Charter since all of Israel is rightfully part of Palestine in their view.

I'll walk through the various truce offers made when I've got time make sure I have the correct sources. I clearly recall Hamas' stance on the 10 year truce to be that it was only acceptable as an interim step to re-claiming all of Palestine. None the less, that's a good step but a lot more went into each effort falling apart.

Hamas' charter calls for a withdrawal from all land occupied by Isreal since 1967, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.


No, it doesn't:
Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences:
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad...

Plainly Hamas Charter defines Palestine as all of modern Israel in addition to the occupied territories.


That is their legitimate goal and attacks sanctioned by Hamas are against military targets on occupied Palestinian territory. Attacks inside Isreal are not sanctioned by Hamas and are condemned by Hamas.


And yet the most recent school shooting inside Israel was praised by Hamas. That is of course consistent with their Charter since all of Israel is rightfully part of Palestine in their view.

I'll walk through the various truce offers made when I've got time make sure I have the correct sources. I clearly recall Hamas' stance on the 10 year truce to be that it was only acceptable as an interim step to re-claiming all of Palestine. None the less, that's a good step but a lot more went into each effort falling apart.

Hamas' charter calls for a withdrawal from all land occupied by Isreal since 1967, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. That is their legitimate goal and attacks sanctioned by Hamas are against military targets on occupied Palestinian territory. Attacks inside Isreal are not sanctioned by Hamas and are condemned by Hamas.

The unilateral withdrawal offered by Sharon that you mention was in fact a 10 year truce mediated by Jimmy Carter in return for complete withdrawal of Isreal forces from the occupied lands taken in 1967, and a return to the 1967 borders. Isreal never responded to it.

Hamas then offered another truce in June this year mediated by Egypt. They have agreed to stick to the timetable but will continue to respond to Isreali attacks. Isreal didn't respond to that either.

In 2006 Hamas announced it would cease all violence if Isreal recognised the 1967 borders and withdrew from occupied territory.

I hope you are seeing the parallels with the Irish struggle.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas does not exist to stir retaliatory strikes from Isreal, that is American propoganda and is completely untrue. Hamas wants to liberate their country which has been illegally occupied by Isreal and wants to reassemble their nation which is an entirely legal and legitimate goal.

By Hamas own charter, they define the illegally occupied country as the ENTIRETY of Israel. If taking that 'back' is a legal and legitimate goal I'm content to disagree.


Isreal is circling and taking over Palestinian land, the idea that they are encouraging any kind of withdrawal is laughable and untrue.


Israel took the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights after the six-day war from, not the Palestinian people, but from Jordan and Syria. Israel was not concerned with circling the Palestinians, as they were not in control of those regions, they were concerned with the armies that Egypt, Syria and Jordan were massing on their borders.

As for withdrawal, have the Palestinians put forward anything similar to Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan? I'd think that, at the least, somewhat qualifies as encouraging withdrawal.

Hamas does not exist to stir retaliatory strikes from Isreal, that is American propoganda and is completely untrue. Hamas wants to liberate their country which has been illegally occupied by Isreal and wants to reassemble their nation which is an entirely legal and legitimate goal.

By Hamas own charter, they define the illegally occupied country as the ENTIRETY of Israel. If taking that 'back' is a legal and legitimate goal I'm content to disagree.


Isreal is circling and taking over Palestinian land, the idea that they are encouraging any kind of withdrawal is laughable and untrue.


Israel took the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights after the six-day war from, not the Palestinian people, but from Jordan and Syria. Israel was not concerned with circling the Palestinians, as they were not in control of those regions, they were concerned with the armies that Egypt, Syria and Jordan were massing on their borders.

As for withdrawal, have the Palestinians put forward anything similar to Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan? I'd think that, at the least, somewhat qualifies as encouraging withdrawal.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Am genuinely surprised they didn't just shoot him. That's the usual response I have been used to hearing from Israel. So I guess that is a good sign.


Guess they would have been a bit hesitant with the news crew there. Heard certain human rights organizations are handing out video cameras to Palestinians in the West Bank so they can provide evidence of them being illegally expropriated from their land in court.

Oh gods... that is JUST what we need to add to the mix in Iraq right now... fucking hell... Would someone please find a way to get these people to realize that missionary activities in Iraq are just about a helpful to the international peace and well being of the world as sending more Jews to the settle in the West Bank in some ridiculous bid to bring about the second coming?

I never cease to be amazed that supposedly 'peaceful' and 'life-loving' Christians have no qualms with stirring up religious violence and getting a whole lot of people killed in the process. Sickens me to the core.

I disagree, Israel does not concede land, it paints itself as being the ever ready benefactor waiting for a 'deserving peace partner', while it builds new illegal settlements, asking the Palestinians to sort themselves by which time they claim new stretches of land because lo and behold Israelis live there now.

The problem is not, as Israelis often claim, that Palestinians do not know how to compromise. (Another former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, famously complained that ‘Palestinians take and take while Israel gives and gives.’) That is an indecent charge, since the Palestinians made much the most far-reaching compromise of all when the PLO formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949 armistice border. With that concession, Palestinians ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN’s partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants. They have never received any credit for this wrenching concession, made years before Israel agreed that Palestinians had a right to statehood in any part of Palestine. The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.

The whole process of Peace in the regards to Israel and Palestine is non-existent, there is a huge imbalance of power that allows Israel to constantly come off as being the retailator of enemy attacks when it stages so many incursion of it's own into Palestinian areas. You claim that they use precision strikes when they form just one component of Israeli occupational strategy which works through road blocks, choke points, incursions into areas, random searches, arrests, house demolitions, removal of citizens, attacking civilian centers. The whole Gaza strip and West bank areas are enclosed open air prisons, movement to and forth is highly controlled.

I don't see how you can reduce this issue to them just needing to get a job and make peace as if violent fighting against Israeli is coded in Palestinian genes, maybe the reasons that attacks continue is because there is actual legitimate abuses that are committed?

Not that this is in any way legitimaizing the terrorist attacks that occur, but after so long I don't see how else the Palestianin people would have not responded.

You mention that Arab countries prosecute Christians and Jews, yet in Iran itself plays host to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel. Iran is not against Israeli people but against Zionism.

Not fair to compare Military prisons to blatant terrorism? So The Decider can pick and choose who he defines as a enemy combatant hold them and torture them as long as necessary with any heabus corpus rights? What of Abu Graibh then? Was that a military prison? Water boarding? I don't understand how degrading our moral standing makes us come off any better. As for the results that this practice produces we are never allowed to know for reasons of national security, yet the government expects us to give them a blank check for everything that they carry out, if we ask too much there 'will be bodies in the streets'.

"The hate you see in this video has nothing to do with the true teachings of Islam - and I object to the implication that it does. It is a perversion brought about by over fifty years of Israel's deliberate oppression of the Palestinians - including daily humiliation, terrorism and murder, and a concerted effort to steal more Palestinian land and annex Jerusalem."

Sure, blame Israel. This kind of hatred is displayed in other places outside of Gaza, and the West Bank. If it's not Israel, it's the West, if not the West, it's the Buddhists. Even when Muslims kill other Muslims it's somehow Israel's fault, always the same rhetoric. How are these clips so pernicious to Islam? It's obviously happening, and it does affect people, so why try to delegitimize it if you're against extremism. A small fraction of Muslims have been radicalized but it translates to a whole mess of people. Jews were hated LONG before the establishment of Israel, and getting a state of their own by defeating the Arab armies mortified the Arabs. Israel is not guilt-less, but we might have seen a Palestinian state if Israel wasn't attacked in 1948.

Found it quite stimulating and refreshing upon returning m'self......I love it when I'm accused of being from the right......and been here long enough for a school kid to figure me out.....Three cheers for the lovers of all races, creeds and colors, without regard to imprints, upbringing, limited exposure and indoctro-education.

I wanna have a Bar-b-que, with brothers from the west side, brothers from the west bank, and mothers from the barrios', brothels, and barrooms....perhaps some laplanders and swedes thrown in the mix, couple of token Canadians, gotta get some Brits, frogs, and wops, for the euro-mutt contingent, and Hayzeus Allah, can't forget the Chinese, the future overlords of the planet. The DJ is an Egyption, born to two mothers invitro-fertilized by Moishe and Akmehd, the homsexual Arab-Isralei acrobats, and there is a Bollywood room with hookahs, saris, and purple lassi-punchbowls .......let's get the party started........

Did I leave out anyone, shit, South America is gonna kick my ass, gotta have some Columbians, and Peruvian flakes. This is what I want my funeral to be like....lotsa dancin' and food, and nekkid preacher eulogies.....and Joseph, you're invited too, so stop yer Stalin!!!

And you see the exact same kind of taboo against discussing the American relationship with Saudi Arabia, even beyond the financial ties of the Bush family. Only in the last 2-3 years have I seen a growth of pro-Palestinian media, but mostly on the web and notably still lacking in the academy. Jimmy Carter certainly helps to move the discussion (following in the steps of Edward Said) and the untenable and inhumane conditions in Palestine since the collapse of talks in 2000 requires foreign intervention.

The interesting thing about the Harvard article is that the pro-Israel groups seem more disturbed by the fact that it is a Harvard publication than the actual content of the article itself. I believe that they are seeking a control of media and academic outlets that can no longer realistically exist. You are correct that I don't think much of the Harvard article because there do seem to be large gaps in the substantiation of its sources and I believe that it fatally falls sway to the simplistic "Jewish Lobby is the root of evil" mentality.

At the same time, I am extremely happy that Harvard published it because it does shed light on some of the evils of AIPAC and it fosters discussion about both the article and the inevitable reaction. It also keeps Palestine in the public eye and provides political traction to relief organizations within Gaza and the West Bank.

One point at a time:

"And I think it profoundly oversimplifies things to say that the American presence is widely loathed. Certainly, the Sunnis loathe the American presence. The Kurds love us. The Shiites are ambivalent at best. Some of the most reliable reporters on the ground in Iraq (Burns, Packer, et al.) seem to indicate a deep ambivalence rather than a widespread loathing."

You're right - not everyone loathes the Americans. But the vast majority of Iraqis resent the American presence because of its ineffectiveness, and the brutality of its troops. They are also starting to see through the lies that America used to justify the invasion. Historical perspective is important here. The roots of modern political Islam lie in the Islamic movements that opposed colonialism/imperialism - be it European or Ottoman - in the nineteenth century. If you look at the impact of British imperialism on the Islamic world in the nineteenth century you will see many paralleles with the current situation in Iraq. At first the British were liked - even praised - by the Islamic communities they colonised. For example, Muhammad Iqbal - one of the most important Muslim leaders in the subcontinent and one of the chief architects of an independant Pakistan - at first praised the British Empire as a 'civilizing factor'. He argued that: "England, in fact, is doing one of our own great duties, which unfavourable circumstances did not permit us to perform. It is not the number of Muhammadans [Muslims] which it protects, but the spirit of the British Empire which makes it the greatest Muhammadan [Islamic] Empire in the world." Yet only a few years later Iqbal was condemning the negative influence of the British Empire. In general, as time went by the colonised began to realise that the colonial/imperialistic program of the British Empire was motivated purely by self-interest - economic interest, strategic interest, etc. Disillusionment set in and resistance began to grow. The same is happening in Iraq. Furthermore, as the situation deteriorates it is no wonder that Iraqis are looking to other regional powers like Iran to help resolve the situation. It is also simplistic to say that the Kurds love the Americans. While the situation in Northern Iraq has improved it is important to remember that the Kurds had more autonomy than any other region before the illegal invasion. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether the Kurds will achieve their long-term political goal of independence. America will not support an independent Kurdistan because such a situation would severly antagonise Turkey - a key ally of America and Israel. Therefore the Kurdish opinion of the Americans could change dramatically if their autonomy and long-term political goals are undermined by the Americans.

"To the extent that the continued American presence radicalizes polity in the Middle East, it is the world we now live in. Radical Islam will not go away if Gaza and the West Bank is handed over to the Palestinians, though its appeal to young Muslims may indeed be dented by such actions."

Palestine is one of the greatest injustices in the world today. The Palestinian people have been appallingly treated for over fifty years by the Israelis and the Americans have not only stood idly by, they have funded it! It is not only a rallying point for 'radical Islam' but for all Muslims, and all other peoples who oppose injustice and oppression. The vast majority of people in the world are appalled by the way Israel treats the Palestinians and they cannot understand how America - a country which is meant to stand for freedom and justice - could not only allow this to happen, but could openly support it. Add to this the illegal invasion of Iraq, the illegal invasions of Lebanon, and American support for tyranical regimes throughout the Middle East, and you understand why the majority of Muslims - and a large number of non-Muslims - detest America. This is why they will not cooperate with the Americans. Contrary to what many American politicians, AIPAC, and the Israeli government argue organisations like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas do not 'hate our freedoms' they hate the injustices that are committed by Israel and America on a daily basis. The prinicpal political objectives of these organisations are the liberation of Palestine, and the overthrow of the Gulf monarchies. America and Britain have only been targetted because of their blind support for Israel. Again, I'm not advocating that we stop supporting Israel, I'm advoacting that we start supporting Palestine and being more objective. All funding and aid to Israel should be suspended until they start recognising the right of the Palestinian people to live a life free from terror and oppression. But thanks to the concerted efforts of AIPAC this will never happen. And day by day more Palestinian land is stolen and more Palestinian kids are killed as Israel extends its illegal settlements - funded by US aid. People in Iraq do care about what is happening in Palestine - they can sympathise greatly with an oppressed people let down for fifty years by the Americans. And they do worry about the power of AIPAC precisely because AIPAC is preventing any kind of multilateral talks or engagement with countries like Iran and Syria who could help resolve the situation in Iraq.

"wumpus - if Iran were to attack Iraq they'd suffer even worse than the Americans are suffering now - while some Iraqis band together against Americans, the ensuing bloodbath against an Iranian invasion would be many times worse, despite the weak Iraqi government."

Very good point Krupo! If Sunni militants resent the American presence in Iraq, they would be twice as determined to get Iran out as they see all Shi'a Muslims as evil heretics.

"If the U.S. were to pull out, Iran will almost certainly move in to take over. There are already Iranian agents in Iraq mounting attacks against military and civilian targets, and with all the oil and resources in Iraq, it's an opportunity far too rich to pass up and if they don't someone else will. The key difference is that the U.S. is held accountable in the media everyday for everything it does and happens. Iran is not."

The US media is starting to hold Bush to account for his actions but it is five years too late. Furthermore, the enormous political bias of so much of the American media ensures that many people are kept in the dark. Furthermore, the power of AIPAC and other unquestioning supporters of Israel in the media ensures that many of the most contentious issues are kept out of the news. As I have said before, and as Krupo has argued, Iran does not wish to conquer Iraq - they are fully aware of the potential consequences of such an invasion. You talk about Iranian agents helping to plan attacks against the Americans and the civilian population of Iraq because this is what Bush, the neocons and AIPAC want you to talk about. The vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Sunni militants - yet the Whitehouse has held several press conferences highlighting the role of Iranian agents. Why? Could it be part of AIPAC's continual campaign to sully Iran's image in the build up to a pre-emptive strike on Iran? You bet it could!

"The American campaign is aimed at defeating the armed insurgency and helping the country back on its feet. An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible."

No - the American campaign is aimed at establishing a new ARAMCO, removing a potential threat to Israel, and establishing a new American base in the Middle East. America is only interested in defeating the insurgency because it threatens their vision of an American and Israeli dominated Middle East. If America was truly interested in helping the country back on its feet it would have had a better plan at the beginning, backed up with the full support of the international community. Furthermore, it would be engaging with other regional powers like Iran and Syria in order to resolve the current situation. American troops have killed far more Iraqi civilians than Iranian agents. When you say that "An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible" you are simply wrong. The Iranians are no more cold hearted butchers than the Americans, and the Americans are just as ruthless when it comes to silencing opposition.

But we all agree that there is a very real police problem in Iraq. While I agree that multilateral enforcement and opening diplomatic channels with Iran and Syria are necessary (and let us not forget Turkey who is very wary of a potential Kurdistan), if the "number" is anywhere close to being correct, only more security forces can begin to quell the unchecked violence and the roving militias of all stripes.

I can't imagine that a person living outside of the Green Zone right now cares a whit about AIPAC or Palestine. They want, need, and deserve electricity, running water, and basic security. And American presence is essential to resolving this current problem (created and fostered by the incompetent and feckless bullish policies cited by Farhad) because the Americans are the only party with any resources. The moderate Iraqis have been starved by the stupid economic sanctions, the Kurds still decimated by Saddam, and the Baathists with knowledge/experience of governmental functions are still locked out.

And I think it profoundly oversimplifies things to say that the American presence is widely loathed. Certainly, the Sunnis loathe the American presence. The Kurds love us. The Shiites are ambivalent at best. Some of the most reliable reporters on the ground in Iraq (Burns, Packer, et al.) seem to indicate a deep ambivalence rather than a widespread loathing.

To the extent that the continued American presence radicalizes polity in the Middle East, it is the world we now live in. Radical Islam will not go away if Gaza and the West Bank is handed over to the Palestinians, though its appeal to young Muslims may indeed be dented by such actions.

This isn't personal. In the marketplace of ideas, we are both selling and buying.

Have you thought this out thoroughly? What happens when/if "the Palestinians" get their "own" nation? It will end up another launchpad for rockets.

http://factsandlogic.org/ad_77.html

But how about the legal aspect of this matter? Isn’t the “West Bank” “occupied territory” and therefore the Jews have no right to be there? But the historic reality is quite different. Very briefly: The Ottoman Empire was the sovereign in the entire area. In 1917, while World War I was still raging, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. It designated “Paleatine” — extending throughout what is now Israel (including the “West Band”) and what is now the Kingdom of Jordan — as the homeland for the Jewish people. In 1922, the League of Nations ratified the Balfour Declaration and designated Britain as the mandatory power. Regrettably, Britain, for its own imperial reasons and purposes, separated 76 percent of the land — that lying beyond the Jordan River — to create the kingdom of Trans-Jordan (now Jordan) and made it inaccessible to Jews. In 1947, tired of the constant bloodletting between Arabs and Jews, the British threw in the towel and abandoned the Mandate. The UN took over. It devised a plan by which the land west of the Jordan River would be split between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews, though with heavy heart, accepted the plan. The Arabs virulently rejected it and invaded the nascent Jewish state with the armies of five countries, so as to destroy it at its birth. Miraculously, the Jews prevailed and the State of Israel was born. When the smoke of battle cleared, Jordan was in possession of the West Bank and Egypt in possession of Gaza. They were the “occupiers” and they proceeded to kill many Jews and to drive out the rest. They systematically destroyed all Jewish holy places and all vestiges of Jewish presence. The area was “judenrein.”

In the Six-Day War of 1967, the Jews reconquered the territories. The concept that Jewish presence in Judea/Samaria is illegal and that the Jews are occupiers is bizarre. It just has been repeated so often and with such vigor that many people have come to accept it.

How about the “Palestinians,” whose patrimony this territory supposedly is and about whose olive trees and orange groves we hear endlessly? There is no such people. They are Arabs — the same people as in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and beyond. Most of them migrated into the territories and to “Israel proper,” attracted by Jewish prosperity and industry.

The concept of “Palestinians” as applied to Arabs and as a distinct nationality urgently in need of their own twenty-third Arab state, is a fairly new one; it was not invented until after 1948, when the State of Israel was founded.

But here’s a thought: How about a deal by which the “settlements” were indeed abandoned and all the Jews were to move to “Israel proper.” At the same time, all the Arabs living in Israel would be transferred to Judea/Samaria or to wherever else they wanted to go. That would indeed make Judea/Samaria “judenrein,” and what are now Arab lands in Israel would be “arabrein.” The Arabs could then live in a fully autonomous area in eastern Israel and peace, one would hope, would descend on the holy land.

"Prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, no serious movement existed for a Palestinian homeland.

Palestine never existed as a nation-state and has never been ruled by Arabs.

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture and there has never been a land governed by Palestinians.

When the kingdom of Jordan ruled Palestine, the "Palestinians" never accused Jordan of "occupying" Palestinian land. Where were the Palestinians when Jordan occupied the entire West Bank, including Jerusalem? Why didn't they make claims of wanting their own state then?

Arabs who live in Israel are treated better and have more political, religious and economic freedoms than most Arab citizens in any of the other 22 Arab states, all of which are varying degrees of police states."

So pray tell, why must the democratic oasis of Israel be compromised and destroyed? To what end?

Could Palestinians be the Middle Eastern counterparts of those in America who blame "Whitey" for all their ills while ignoring the helping hands at the ends of their own arms???

A short film highlighting the work of Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) in Israel. RHR is an organization of Israeli rabbis committed to defending the human rights of all people in Israel and in the territories under Israeli control: Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, young and old, rich and poor, citizens and foreigners.

Who they are:

Rabbis for Human Rights on January 21st, 2000

“Happy are those who keep the judgments, and practice righteousness at all times”. - Psalm 119

Rabbis for Human Rights is the only organization in Israel today concerned specifically with giving voice to the Jewish tradition of human rights.

Rabbis for Human Rights teaches a different understanding of the Jewish tradition.

Rabbis for Human Rights is the only Israeli rabbinic organization comprised of Reform, Orthodox, Conservative and Reconstructionist rabbis and students.

Rabbis for Human Rights counts among its members rabbis in national leadership positions, as well as educators and congregational rabbis capable of influencing change from the grass roots.

Rabbis for Human Rights is an important outlet for information on human rights in Israel and the territories.

Rabbis for Human Rights is widely respected by journalists and other human rights organizations, and is often quoted in international media.

Rabbis for Human Rights received the “Speaker of the Knesset’s Award for the Quality of Life in the field of Enhancing the Rule of Law and Democratic values, Protecting Human rights, and Encouraging Tolerance and Mutual Respect.

Rabbis for Human Rights is the rabbinic voice of conscience in Israel.

Rabbis for Human Rights was founded in 1988, in response to serious abuses of human rights by the Israeli military authorities in the suppression of the Intifada. The indifference of much of the country’s religious leadership and religiously identified citizenry to the suffering of innocent people seen as the enemy was a cause of concern toRabbis for Human Rights organizers.

Rabbis for Human Rights reminds and demonstrates to both the religious and the non-religious sectors of the public need to be reminded that Judaism had another face. Human rights abuses are not compatible with the age-old Jewish tradition of humaneness and moral responsibility or the Biblical concern for “The stranger in your midst.”–even in the face of the danger to public order and safety which the uprising represented.

Rabbis for Human Rights membership includes some ninety ordained rabbis,plus a number of rabbinic students.

Rabbis for Human Rights has no affiliation with any political party or ideology. Its members are Israeli citizens.

Rabbis for Human Rights brings specific human-rights grievances to the attention of the Israeli public and to pressure the appropriate authorities for their redress.

Rabbis for Human Rights is involved in ecumenical dialogue and educational activities. In addition to dealing with violations of human rights of West Bank Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.

Rabbis for Human Rights concerns itself with foreign workers, the Israeli health care system, the status of women, Ethiopian Jews, an Israeli bill of rights, to name only a few issues.

Rabbis for Human Rights publishes scores of timely books and articles. Our latest book, Life, Liberty and Equality In the Jewish Tradition by Noam Zohar has been very warmly received.

http://rhr.israel.net/