Radical Jews suspected of burning mosque in Israel

[oberliner]

JERUSALEM (AP) — Arsonists torched a mosque in an Arab village in northern Israel Monday, setting off protests by residents who clashed with police. Graffiti sprayed at the site suggested Jewish radicals, suspected in other recent mosque fires, were involved.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said carpet was burned inside the mosque in Tuba-Zangria and interior walls were damaged. Copies of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, were also burned, Israeli media reported.

The words "price tag" were spray painted on the mosque, Rosenfeld added — a reference to a Jewish settler practice of attacking Palestinians or the Israeli military in retaliation for government operations or attacks against Jewish settlements.

Army Radio reported that the family name of a settler and his infant son killed last week in a car crash near the West Bank town of Hebron was scrawled on a wall of the mosque. Israeli police have said Palestinian rock-throwers struck the man in the head, causing him to lose control of the car.

http://news.yahoo.com/radical-jews-suspected-burning-mosque-israel-132059725.html

[Ken Burch]

1. And the reason Yahoo couldn't have said "Radical Israelis" or "Zionist Radicals" was...?

Doing things like this has nothing to do with Judaism, or the true values of any other religion.

[sabbat hunter]

3. for the same reason they use terms like

radical Islamists/Muslims.

[oberliner]

4. It's not Yahoo

It's written that way in the body of the AP article.

[Ken Burch]

14. In that case, why was the AP being so inflammatory?

It's not particularly fair to the Zionist cause or Judaism as a religious or cultural tradition to allow these extremists to wrap themselves in its mantle.

[oberliner]

21. The story itself is pretty even-handed

It mentions several Israeli Jewish groups who condemned the crime and marched in solidarity with the victims.

[Ken Burch]

22. I'm glad it did

I guess that it strikes me that there are so many buttons being pushed and so many possible weird interpretations of a headline phrased like that...

[pelsar]

5. because using jews is a more accurate description...

you really don't like accurate descriptions of events if its not politically correct do you?

they weren't druze, they weren't a rival muslim sect....they are jews who did it for political/ religious reasons.......and they have every right to believe that they have the true values of Judaism, (i suppose i should put in the obvious that it was illegal/immoral/hateful what they did and they should all be tossed in jail....) and they probably believe that you know zilch about what the "true values" and Judaism are....

but then again tolerance is not a strong part of the DU is it?

[azurnoir]

7. OOH thanks for your condemning this act but OTOH

give the other stuff a break the title took me by surprise for minute and you know or should know by now that if someone else a Pro-Palestinian poster had posted a similarly titled article from the same source or say Al Jazeera then Pro-Israeli posters would be here talking about it being an antisemitic post

[pelsar]

8. ...i like accuracy...it is a good description

nor do i really care what others think..but along those lines, given your past posts if a synagogue was burnt, with text on the walls indicating muslims, you would probably protest the headline....(and give a list of reasons)

am i correct?

[azurnoir]

9. It depends on the headline for instance

there has been only one time that I have protested a headline about including the word Muslim/s at least that I can recall and it was in the LBN forum and because the poster added the word Muslim in parenthesis to indicate that the 'perp' was Muslim it was not in the actual headline LBN's headline rules are like I/P's

Now I have asked posters or a poster why a particular headline was chosen if it casts something in a negative light when one or more other headlines from other sources cast the same thing in a positive light

[pelsar]

16. fair enough...

i was actually thinking about your posts...but i don't believe its that relevant.......(i was just reacting without much thinking behind it-...anyways ken is much more fun)

[Ken Burch]

13. I don't like inflammatory descriptions of events.

And I don't know that these people acted out of any religious conviction. They acted out of nationalist conviction.

Also, it's not an unchallengable point that Zionism is interchangeable with Judaism, or that those who act in an extreme way associated with Zionism can be said, absolutely, to be acting as "Jews" or in the name of "the Jews".

It also serves the interests of one side in the conflict to refer to these people with that word, and implies that anyone who might question it is hostile to Jews as a group.

I'd be equally offended to see stories about bloodsoaked Crusader maniacs referring to them as "Christians".

And I don't have to agree with what you want these people called to prove that I'm tolerant.

(If I were you, I'd be going out of my way to make it clear that I had nothing in common with them...why aren't you doing that?)

[pelsar]

15. you don't actually know...now do you....tbe people involved

my guess is that they are probably more religious than zionistic, that would be the profile, hence the jew headline is far more descriptive than some kind of PC whitewash of it.

whether it serves one group or another, is irrelevant in my world, far more important is to be as factual as possible. I understand that your views and morals, you consider truth and facts secondary to your goal....once again we meet the 'ends justifies the means" in the progressive world. After all these years its finally being clear, very clear. (true and facts are only relevant if they meat the goal, if not, then discard them). This explains a lot about your posts, why you so easily make things up.

Tollerance is not based on agreeing with what they do, tolerance is based on accepting that they in fact have a viewpoint, and they believe its as valid as yours (actually you probably have more in common with them than i do).

but its also clear to mean that you really don't understand what being tolerant is all about..
-----

as far "going out of my way to declare that i have nothing in common with them......this is just an internet forum, any a puny one at that. I hardly think any declaration of my means "squat" in the real world. And if you can't figure out my views by now (which is quite possible given what you've written about me), than a "declaration" on my part will do little to change that.

[Ken Burch]

17. To my knowledge, there is little historical record of religious Jews

attacking the houses of worship of other religions. They were usually on the receiving end of that. Do you know of any such instances of that occurring in pre-Zionist history?

I'm not sure why you'd want to credit these people with anything to do with "religion". Zealotry, yes, mental illness, good likelihood of that...but religion?

And it's not necessarily factual to describe these people as Jewish. Factual would have been to call them "terrorists", or "violent extremists". Those are the only things we can absolutely say are factual about them.

Obviously, these people have "a viewpoint". Anyone would accept that. Does that obligate me to agree that their viewpoint, in fact, derives from what THEY say it derives from? The Ku Klux Klan claimed to be defending "Christianity". I don't have to agree that the guys in the white sheets should be taken at their word about that

The position you are taking here is not really helpful to the cause you are so very loyal to-it's not as if accepting that these guys have some connection to Judaism is helpful to Zionism OR to Judaism, or that its fair to either of those groupings to use them interchangeably.

I have enough respect for Judaism as a religion and a culture, and for the better values of Zionism, to NOT want maniacs like this to be associated with either. That's an acceptable viewpoint to you, isn't it?

[pelsar]

19. yes it religion.....hamas has got it too....

so to does the far left. And yes, if one believes that their belief is based on christianity (KKK) or islam, or Judaism, or Marxism then it makes perfect sense to accept what they believe. One does not tell someone that the core of their belief is wrong and that you "know their religion better".

mainly because everyone believes that...of their own "religion" whatever it may be. Tolerance of the other begins with the basic respect that what someone believes, cannot be so easily dismissed as "wrong."

again you make assumptions based on your "superior knowledge." I am as loyal to them as i am to the guys in white sheets or the guys with the funny cloth hats, i just have a basic respect for beliefs, knowing that they are different and fanatics, be they jews, muslims, progressives, etc all get a basic respect for their beliefs-then we can take them out and shoot them.

i have lots of maniacs associated with me...starting here with the DU, so it doesn't bother me to "defend" their beliefs.


you are, btw, an excellent example: your as fanatic as they come, your usually completely wrong, and here i am at the DU explaining to your just how wrong your beliefs are, how you have completely ruined the real "left" and what do you do?.....you accept nothing and then tell me how hateful i am (and that btw is more or less the reaction i get from all fanatics after digging enough). They may burn mosques as part of their religion, you proclaim "all you want is peace" as yours, but your cores are the same....intolerance for the other.

so spare me the mantra, that they can't be jews, because "real jews" don't do that sort of thing and you really "respect" Judaism....you respect the jews who stood by while the russians, poles etc massacred them, you respect the jews who walked in to hitlers ovens passively, you might have noticed that your preferred jew didn't make it through WWII. This new Jew has also spawned its own fanatic wing, but they are still jews, hence the description was correct.

and the left? you guys hijacked the real definition of 'liberal' to fit your cause, i would appreciate getting it back

[Ken Burch]

20. So now you're insulting Hitler's victims?

Look, it simply isn't true for you to imply either that

1)I only have respect for Jewish people who died without a fight(where the hell do you get THAT from anything I've ever posted?);
2)Zionists were the only Jewish people who EVER fought back against their enemies(Jews have done that since time immemorial, whether or not they personally favored Zionism).
3)I'm against the "new Jew" just because I don't defer to you on what Israel supposedly needs for "security"(in fact, I mainly defer to other Israelis who happen to reject your approach...I assume that, since they live in the line of fire just as you do, that you'd accept that THEY have the right to disagree with you without being called ignorant).


There were Jewish militias all over Europe fighting against Hitler-many of which were not Zionist. There was the Jewish Bundist movement that started as a resistance movement against both Tsarism and the German and Austro-Hungarian empires, there were autonomsts, there were all sorts of Jewish groups that heroically fought against those who wanted to create a Judenrein Europe. There were the partisans of the Warsaw Ghetto, who fought, Zionist and NON-Zionist alike, against Hitler. You owe an apology to the memory of all those heroes for your disgusting implication that anyone who wasn't focused on creating the State of Israel was a coward who accepted extermination without a fight. Shame on you for implying that about them. Whatever you say about me, you have no right to mock THEIR memories.

And you never explain how my beliefs are supposedly wrong...you simply stoop to personal insults(something I've never done to you)or implying that I'm ignorant, or even pretty much calling me an idiot. I'm NONE of those things...I just disagree with you. And so do a lot of other people.

You haven't made any real case for how simply "staying the course" can actually be good for Israeli security-OR how it could possibly be appropriate to use concern for "human rights" as a rationale for subjugating an entire people. All you ever say to me is "no, you've got it wrong...no, you've got it wrong...no, you've got it wrong". Saying someone is wrong is not the same thing as proving that person is wrong.

I'm not your enemy, nor am I Israel's enemy...I just don't follow "the line" without question. And I haven't ever advocated anything that would put Israel as a country or Israelis as people into danger. Again, I simply disagree with you.

If you want to identify those maniacs with a religion whose values they mocked with this act, that's your call, but no one has to agree with you about that just to prove that we are "tolerant". No one has to accept your framing of anything just to prove they aren't prejudiced against you. And it's really sickening that you would resort to implying that I want Jewish people to be weak or helpless simply because I question what the Israeli government or wackjobs like these guys have done. Destroying a house of worship is never strength. Questioning such destruction is not opposition to ACTUAL strength. I don't want ANYONE to be oppressed. End of discussion. OK?

[shira]

24. Looks like you have a problem with Zionists and Zionism, Ken. Am I right? n/t

[Ken Burch]

25. Wrong. What I was objecting to

was pelsar's implication that, prior to the emergence of the Zionist movement, Jewish people never defended themeselves against attack. They did, time after time. If they hadn't, they couldn't have survived.

It read to me as if he was saying that any Jewish person who wasn't Zionist was a coward, and that all of the victims of antisemitism went to their graves without a fight.

That simply isn't true.

There was self-defense against antisemitism and resistance to oppression throughout Jewish history...it didn't start with Herzl.

[LeftishBrit]

10. Because this reflects religious extremism, not just nationalism

I agree that it has nothing to do with mainstream Jewish or other religious values; but these people are not mainstream; they are extremists.

[shira]

2. The BBC originally blamed 'settlers' in northern Israel for this blasphemy....

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/10/bbc_blames_settlers_for_arson.html

[Ken Burch]

18. And, of course, you're going to assume that they did it on purpose.

:eyes:

[classysassy]

6. If Arabs had torched a Jewish Temple

I am sure one of Israels supporters would have called for a UN security council meeting to condemn the rascals,don't look for condemnation of the Jewish cowardly attack against Arabs,after all Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.sarcasm

[oberliner]

12. Wow - everything in your post is wrong

Prime minister, MKs and local community leaders condemn 'price tag' attack in northern Galilee village of Tuba Zangaria. Police arrest several suspects

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4130234,00.html

[BeenThereDoneThat]

23. History is not your favorite topic

Have you forgotten what Arabs did to Synagogues pre 1967 in Jerusalem? Both acts acts are despicable. What about fanatic Islamists today and their desecration of Arabic Christian holy places? Selective outrage does not become

[LeftishBrit]

11. Ugh.