Non-Jews should not be allowed to live in Israel - Israel's Chief Rabbi

"When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing. You can’t defend yourself when you’re militarily occupying someone else’s land. That’s not defense. Call it what you like, it’s not defense.”

-Chomsky

 

To comply with the Geneva Conventions is suddenly "bending over", while ethnic cleansing is "defense".
The irrationality of zionists.... lol

 

Sorry, Chomsky's no authority to me. And Israel does not occupy "territories", it administer them. And these "territories" were never Palestinian - Judea and Samaria belongs to Israel. Jordan stole them from Israel, the same as Egypt stole Gaza from Israel.

There

- - - Updated - - -

To make war on Israel seven times was also in compliance with Geneva Conventions?

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing losers, always want something from Israel "in compliance with Geneva Conventions"...

 

Oh, you got me... that indeed justified ethnic cleansing people and thieving around and never mind the GC.
/facepalm

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing thieving war criminals. Always demand they are excused of what they did.

 

No need to lose your calm, it's unbecoming.

And making war on Israel seven times, losing all seven wars and still having a nerve to demand this n that... well, good luck

 

oh let me check... nope
It is still no excuse to go ethnic cleanse people and thieve their properties.

 

Not looking for excuses, don't need any... Just having fun this fine Holiday Monday.

You?

 

Poland had the highest number of Righteous Among the Nations who risked their lives against a Nazi death penalty to save Holocaust Jews.

Poland also warned the World about the Holocaust, with Jan Karski, and Witold Pilecki.

 

Ah, thats why you keep on mentioning the excuse.

 

Chomsky who wrote an article about

and explained about

I'm sorry, that guy's credability is not even zero, it is negative.

 

What an idiot

Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 192 is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, logician, social critic, and political activist. Sometimes described as "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy, and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He has spent more than half a century at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is Institute Professor Emeritus, and is the author of over 100 books on topics such as linguistics, war, politics, and mass media. Ideologically, he aligns with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism.

From 1951 to 1955 he was appointed to Harvard University's Society of Fellows, where he developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he was awarded his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, in 1957 emerging as a significant figure in the field of linguistics for his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which laid the basis for the scientific study of language, while from 1958 to 1959 he was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He is credited as the creator or co-creator of the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of behaviorism, being particularly critical of the work of B. F. Skinner.

Chomsky's work has influenced a wide array of academic fields, with Chomsky himself being one of the single most cited scholars in human history. He is widely recognized as a paradigm shifter who helped spark a major revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind.

Academic achievements, awards, and honors

In 1970, Chomsky was named one of the "makers of the twentieth century" by The London Times.[150] In early 1969, he delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford University; in January 1971, the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at the University of Cambridge, titled "Problems of Knowledge and Freedom"; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi;[257] in 1975, the Whidden Lectures at McMaster University, titled "Reflections on Language";[100] in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden, titled "Intellectuals and the State"; in 1978, the Woodbridge Lectures at Columbia University; in 1979, the Kant Lectures at Stanford University;[257] in 1988, the Massey Lectures at the University of Toronto, titled "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies"; in 1997, The Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom in Cape Town;[258] in 2011, the Rickman Godlee Lecture at University College, London;[259] and many others.[257]

In the United States, he is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, the Linguistic Society of America, the American Philosophical Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[150] Abroad, he is a member of the Utrecht Society of Arts and Sciences, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy, an honorary member of the British Psychological Society,[150] and a foreign member of the Department of Social Sciences of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.[263] In addition, he is a recipient of a 1971 Guggenheim Fellowship, the 1984 American Psychological Association Award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology, 1988 the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences,[150] the 1996 Helmholtz Medal, the 1999 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award.[257] He is also a two-time winner of the Gustavus Myers Center Award, receiving the honor in both 1986 and 1988, and the NCTE George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language, receiving the honor in both 1987 and 1989.[150] He has also received the Rabindranath Tagore Centenary Award from The Asiatic Society.[264]

In 2004 Chomsky received the Carl-von-Ossietzky Prize from the city of Oldenburg, Germany to acknowledge his body of work as a political analyst and media critic.[265] In 2005, Chomsky received an honorary fellowship from the Literary and Historical Society.[266] In February 2008, he received the President's Medal from the Literary and Debating Society of the National University of Ireland, Galway.[267] Since 2009, he has been an honorary member of International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (IAPTI).[268]

In 2010, Chomsky received the Erich Fromm Prize in Stuttgart, Germany.[269] In April 2010, Chomsky became the third scholar to receive the University of Wisconsin's A.E. Havens Center's Award for Lifetime Contribution to Critical Scholarship.[270]


Chomsky was voted the world's leading public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll jointly conducted by American magazine Foreign Policy and British magazine Prospect.[272] In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted seventh in the list of "Heroes of our time."[273]

Actor Viggo Mortensen and avant-garde guitarist Buckethead dedicated their 2003 album Pandemoniumfromamerica to Chomsky.[274] On January 22, 2010, a special honorary concert for Chomsky was given at Kresge Auditorium at MIT. The concert, attended by Chomsky and dozens of his family and friends, featured music composed by Edward Manukyan and speeches by Chomsky's colleagues, including David Pesetsky of MIT and Gennaro Chierchia, head of the linguistics department at Harvard University.[275]

In June 2011, Chomsky was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize, which cited his "unfailing courage, critical analysis of power and promotion of human rights."[276] Also in 2011, Chomsky was inducted into IEEE Intelligent Systems' AI's Hall of Fame for "significant contributions to the field of AI and intelligent systems."[277]

-----------------------

You claiming that Chomsky has no credibility makes you lack any credibility.

But that's typical of a zionist ad hominem

 

It says judging ********s is just fine, screw your "cause", you deserve Bibi and Liberman, when you evolve your brain from one to two tracks - we'll talk.

 

The excuse the Arabs had to ethnic cleanse Jews in the 1920's - 1947 was'nt something either, our's is simple - we had no other choice once they refused to negotiate, like you. its amazing you think you will change something walking in the same path.

 

It doesn't have an effect on said values. The Chief Rabbinate has no legal power over non-Jews.

 

Or on Jews.....

 

The Chief Rabbinate actually does have some jurisdiction over Jews, specifically in the areas of marriage, divorce, burial, yeshivas, etc.

 

Your making this up.

This isn't true either. The British archives make it very clear that the arabs were prepared to negotiate but that the Jews were determined to go for something which was more than they could find acceptable. The suggestion of a two state solution giving 55% to Jews a minority of the population was rejected by the Arab Leaders - indeed I think all Muslim countries present - though the UN was small then. That fact that the Zionists try to make out that a suggestion, and one which only got a majority after the proceedings were halted while behind the scenes shenanigans went on, was actually the granting of a state to them, is also false.

 

I don't think that is the point. The point would be does he have an effect on the people - now this may not be so because I was hearing that the Chief Rabbi in Britain does not have the following of most British Jews - however Israel is different. If him saying that was to have a strong effect on public opinion, public opinion which then could go with laws being changed, then clearly what he says is important. The reality that religious people have been making such statements for some time without strong condemnation illustrates that Israel acts in a way very different to most places. Such talk by a religious leader against anyone else would not be accepted here.

 

Not for statements such as this, marriage, divorce, burial etc' are a collective practices the Jews around the world were using and the state decided to unite them, statements of political nature, "goals" , the spiritual place of Judaism in the world etc' are sobjective, for one most of the Israeli society is secular and for those who live religous lives get to chose a Rabbi they wish even if his "method" collides with other Rabbis, I dont deny some will follow it but it has no LEGAL jurisdiction over Jews in general. religon here is not as compelling as in a theocracy.

 

The Chief Rabbinate only really holds influence over the religious. This is further diluted by the fact that the Chief Rabbinate Council is composed of five members, and the one mentioned in the OP is the Sephardi Chief Rabbi. The Sephardim are a smaller group compared to the Askhenazi (the Askhenazi are about twice as numerous in Israel). So in reality, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi only really has influence over Sephardi religious Jews, who hold seven out of the 120 seats available in the Knesset.

Basically my point is that he has no serious influence on public opinion.

 

Do you have any reason to belive it is accepted in Israel ? did'nt the article in the OP state it was a very controversial statement ?

 

Most Israeli Jews are Hilonim, I'm aware. The problem is that there's no civil marriage whatsoever, so the Chief Rabbinate has influence over Hilonim anyway.

Unless they go to Cyprus and get married, as is tradition.

 

No its recorded history, you just have an excuse for those ethnic cleanse attempts but you condemn the backfire in 1947.

Any evidance for what you suggest ? you claim the Arabs didnt refuse a Jewish state just argued on its size ?

 

That and on who is considered a Jew, some Jewish immigrants need to go throu some process of conversion, also according to the Chief Rabbinate, but not statements such as this that a single Rabbi is uttering.

 

I was speaking about the influence on public opinion and people holding his weight do have an influence or can have an influence unless this is rebuffed. There has been talk that Netanyahu has allowed such to come out with outrageous statements without saying it is unacceptable. Opinion makers work by letting an opinion out, a few take it up then gradually it spreads which is why when we find an opinion totally unacceptable made by someone of influence or authority then all hell is let loose until they retract and they are likely to loose their influence. If this is not happening in Israel it suggests a certain acceptance of what he says. His views in any case are not far from those found in recent polls by the Israeli Democracy Institute which found that a majority of Israeli Jews believe that arab citizens should be 'encouraged' to leave and do not believe they should have equal rights. Although the religious believed this more strongly than the secular it was a majority view of Israel as a whole. I think that the Rabbi is saying such things is more an indication of the situation in Israel today than him having particularly extreme views even if as I said earlier he puts them in a more abrasive way.