BILINGUES ? POSTS IN ENGLISH

"Algeria threw out a million Frenchman !"
C'mon ! and you call that a philosopher. He'd better go through his History lessons !

wolf,

what is your story ? the french in Algeria are still there ? la valise ou le cerceuil ? c'est du pipo ?

read the article one more time, I do not think you got it !

Lison

Lison, you kiddin' me ?!! The guy's comparing Arab refugees to French occupants in Algeria !
Yes, ok, the article is about how different is the perception of Israël compared to other countries. But the Algerian argument has just nothing to do with that !
You brought much better articles to Dafina Lison ! Keep it up !

C'est vrai,Lison,les Français étaient des "rapatriés",pas des réfugiés.
Mais suppose qu'ils n'aient pas eu de patrie ou de pays d'origine,comme nous les Juifs en avons été privés depuis 2000 ans,les algériens,peuple doux et pacifique,les auraient tout simplement exterminés.150000 d'entre eux qui n'avaient pas pu embarquer ont d'ailleurs purement et simplement disparu.
Et la miséricorde d'Allah ne les a pas inspirés vis-à-vis de leur propres frères qui avaient fait le choix du camp français.58000 ont été égorgés avec leur famille.
Si nous perdions une seule guerre,celà signifierait non seulement notre disparition physique dans un massacre plus sanguinaire que celui du 20 ème siècle,mais celle d'une grande partie du monde civilisé,y compris des musulmans.

oh my!! Ein guedi tu ne vas pas de main morte.

ton analyse aurait été possible,

Lison

L'analyse sans queue ni tête,ce n'est pas de l'analyse mais du verbillage !

The kike filth are trying to steal this election from us. But this is our time. The kike live in fear of peace. They fear happiness. The thought of people living happily in peace without killing each other frightens the horde of kike that runs our government. But when pieces of kike use their kike manipulation tactics to stop Barack, it is time to strike back. There is nothing a kike army can do when faced with progressive people who are determined to achieve peace. We will achieve lasting peace.


Les partisans d'Obama n'hésitent pas à étaler leur anti-judaisme sur le site qui les recueille sans les censurer.Tout le monde sait que Kike est un terme méprisant désignant les juifs,couramment utilisé par Jackson,Farrakhan et tant d'autre soutiens d'Obama

pour Ein Guedi, il fallait mettre le premier paragraphe entre guillemets, et bien préciser que ça ne venait pas de toi. J'ai été horrifiée; bref, heureusement que j'ai compris.

quelle ignorance ces pauvres cons,(ils ont leur intégristes aussi) certains sont devenus black muslims) faut pas confondre.
les juifs étaient devant à toutes leur 'freedom marches" pour leur montrer comment se battre contre le racisme, la ségrégation, et certains sont même morts pour leur liberté.

Martin Luther king était un héro. faut pas tout confondre.

Lison

I didn't know that kike was a kind of a bad word to name jewish people. But if that is true, what a shame for barack campaign.
Hope he'll go through these elections even if i really don't believe that such a thing is possible !

Il suffit de voir les vidéos de Farrakhan,le plus virulent,mais aussi des autres "Pasteurs" pour se convaincre que depuis la nomination d'Obama l'immense majorité des Noirs et pas seulement aux States s'identifie aux thèses du "pouvoir Noir".Et que la réconciliation pacifique rêvée de King
n'a rien de commun avec le racisme anti-tout-blanc-tout-juif des masses populaires noires.
Et tout le monde connait les liens entre Khaddafi et Saoud avec les convertis,achetés à coups de millions de dollars.Et tout le monde sait que les néophytes ,pour faire leurs preuves,sont plus extrémistes que leurs maîtres.

The word kike was born on Ellis Island when Jewish immigrants since 1900 who could not use Roman-English letters, when asked to sign the entry-forms with the customary 'X,' refused, because they associated an X with the cross of Christianity, and instead made a circle. The Yiddish word for 'circle' is kikel . Before long the immigration inspectors were calling anyone who signed with an 'O' instead of an 'X' succinctly, kike.

Ein guedi,
that is what I call of lesson of history, thank you for the information which I ignored completely. We are visiting Ellis Island this summer, part of our East Coast vacation, i'll. I'll tell my grandaughter and children about the origine of the word kike.
thanks.

Lison

Dear Lison
You are welcome ,I suggest you visit New Port (Rhode Island) first synagogue dedicated in the United States
December 2, 1763 as members of the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island, witnessed the dedication of the Touro Synagogue, the first synagogue in the American colonies. The synagogue was named for Isaac Touro, its first officiating rabbi.
Organized Jewish community life in Newport dates to 1658, when 15 families arrived from overseas to establish a congregation in the growing seaport. For more than 100 years, the community relied on correspondence with rabbis in Europe to sustain their religious traditions in the New World. In 1790, the Hebrew congregation of Newport welcomed George Washington to their city.

I'll look your suggestions up, thank you. Lison

more recent news and opinions -


read this Jew shield Arabs from ultraorthodox Jerusalem lynch mob

Lison



The recent spate of terror attacks in Jerusalem has sparked calls to "do something" from all quarters. Everyone offers a 'solution' that suits their ideological convictions and political needs. Following the latest depraved bulldozer attack, there were again demands to destroy the houses of suicide terrorists.

The problem with the suggestion of destroying homes of terrorists is that other than letting off steam, it seems to serve no purpose. An IDF study had earlier indicated that the policy did not deter terrorists, which is why it was discontinued. It makes sense, If a person is willing to blow himself to bits or face certain death, they are unlikely to worry about having their house destroyed. A man who abandons his family and gives up his life to kill Jews is probably not really concerned about whether or not his family will have a place to live while he is enjoying his 72 perpetual virgins in paradise.

On the other hand, dovish Israelis suggest that acts of terror originating with Jerusalem Arabs should be a motivation for giving up Arab parts of the city. There are perhaps good reasons for compromising on Jerusalem and turning over Arab areas to Palestinian rule. Jabel Mukaber and Shuafat were never Jewish national or religious symbols. That is a matter for political consideration. But responding to terror by making concessions is a really bad idea. When I lived in Jerusalem, in the area that had been part of Israel since 1949, a Katyousha rocket landed a block from my apartment, on Kaf Tet November Street. Should Israel have given up Kaf Tet November street in order to avoid terror attacks? In the fifties, terrorists infiltrated and attacked just south of Rehovot. Should we have given up Rehovot to avoid terror attacks?

Continued at What to do about terror attacks in Jerusalem




• Email to a friend • Related • •




Hamas planting mines under cover of truce

Diskin says Hamas using truce to plant mines in Gaza

Shin Bet chief tells Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Palestinian group has missiles which can reach Kiryat Gat, Ashdod

Amnon Meranda
Published: 07.22.08, 12:34 / Israel News

Hamas has been taking advantage of the truce in order to plant mines in wide areas in the Gaza Strip, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin warned the Knesset's Foreign Affairs on Tuesday.

"This is one of the reasons I objected to the ceasefire," he said. "I'm not saying how we should do thing, but in order to fight terror we have no choice but to be present in the area."

The Shin Bet chief went on to say that "Hamas today has missiles which can reach Kiryat Gat, and maybe even Ashdod."

Diskin said the Palestinian group was interested in maintaining the truce in order to stabilize its power and rule. Israeli officials recently expressed their concern over Hamas' armament during the ceasefire.

The Shin Bet chief added that "the truce is enabling Hamas to get stronger. They have not abandoned their long-term plans. They were not required to stop the smuggling and return (kidnapped soldier) Gilad Shalit in return, and they have achieved their main goals."


According to Diskin, there is no other way but to control the area. "Ever since Operation Defense Shield, there has been a dramatic drop in the number of terror attacks originating in the West Bank due to the IDF's presence in the area and due to the (separation) fence."




• Email to a friend • Related • •




Jew shield Arabs from ultraorthodox Jerusalem lynch mob

There should not be lynch mobs in an civilized society, but at least we can be comforted that a greater tragedy was averted because of the courage and decency of a few Israelis. They have redeemed our honor with their blood, as at least one of the defenders was stabbed by a rampaging fanatic.

The Yeshiva students who stabbed the Jew trying to protect the Arabs from the violence, should have their martial prowess redirected into service in the IDF.

Ami Isseroff

2 Arabs narrowly escape lynching in Jerusalem

Dozens of ultra-Orthodox Jews assault two Palestinians in Jerusalem Tuesday evening; 'people in yeshiva were yelling: murder the Jews who protect Arabs,' says Jewish man who saved lynch victims' lives

Roi Mandel
Published: 07.22.08, 23:08 / Israel News

Hatred in Jerusalem: Two Palestinians narrowly escaped a lynching attempt in Jerusalem Tuesday evening after they were assaulted by dozens of ultra-Orthodox Jews. The two Arabs were wounded, while a Jewish resident who protected them with his body was stabbed.

"Blood was boiling, and these crazy people almost killed me," the Jewish man told Ynet. The police are looking into the incident and searching for the attackers.

According to eyewitness testimonies, an angry mob stormed the backyard of a home located near a Jerusalem yeshiva. The family at the home was sitting shiva at the time after a relative died.

"Suddenly, while we were sitting shiva because my father-in-law passed away, two Palestinians stormed into the house bleeding and bruised, following by an angry mob," the Jewish man, who asked that his name not be published, told Ynet. "Dozens of ultra-Orthodox from the nearby yeshiva entered the backyard and severely beat up the two Palestinians, while we, still shocked, were trying to break it up and protect the Palestinians."


'Murder the Jews who protect Arabs'
The man and his relatives stopped the mob with their bodies and pushed them out of their backyard, while keeping the two Arabs at home until the anger subsided.


"Two ultra-Orthodox guys from the yeshiva's balcony yelled: 'Murder the Jews who protect Arabs,'" the man said. "The two Arabs told us that they had a dispute with the Orthodox owner of a nearby store. After they argued, the masses arrived and started beating them up. We waited a few minutes for things to relax, and then my son and I took them out to a nearby alley, so they can go home."


However, a mob then again came out of the yeshiva and started chasing the two Palestinians.

"They caught them and beat them up terribly," the Jewish man said. "My son and I were quick to protect them with our bodies…then, two Orthodox men arrived and one told us: 'You're saving Arabs?' they pulled out knives. I managed to grab the arm of one of them, yet the second one cut my stomach."

The man said that at this point the mob began dispersing in panic. Large police forces were meanwhile called to the scene.

"It was a mad scuffle…crazy people who are calling themselves 'religious' almost killed the two Palestinians and me. I was unwilling to see anyone being killed – I was educated against violence and to protect any person. Fortunately I'm a strong man, but had I been stabbed one centimeter higher or lower, this would have ended in murder."


'Instead of helping us, he helped them'

A student in a nearby yeshiva told Ynet: "We saw the incident and some of the people chanted against the Jewish guy, who instead of helping the Jews being beaten up helped the Arabs, and even beat up Jews…instead of helping us, he helped them."

"As far as we know, one of the Arabs had a dispute with the store owner and started beating up people," the yeshiva student said. "When people who arrived at the site stared fighting him, more Arabs joined in and assaulted Jews."

Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri, who leads the nearby yeshiva, said the Jewish attackers did not come from his institute, "because there are no young guys here, only older people. It is possible that some of the attackers entered our yeshiva compound during the riot, because it is open to anyone."

The rabbi also proceeded to harshly condemn the Jewish attackers.

"This is a very grave incident. No man must hurt innocents, either Arabs or Jews," he said. "This is against Jewish law. I really hope that they find those who took part in the brawl and bring the attackers to justice."


Efrat Weiss contributed to the story

I appreciate the gringo spirit in you lison !
something efficient and pragmatic. Keep your eyes wide opened

gringo you said ?

i died laughing here

Sujet : Shrek chante ' Dour Biha Chibani Dour Biha', a ne pas manquer...

[www.dailymotion.com]

Religious conversions
The moment of truth

Jul 24th 2008
From The Economist print edition
In many parts of the world, the right to change one's beliefs is under threat




AS AN intellectually gifted Jewish New Yorker who had reached manhood in the mid-1950s, Marc Schleifer was relentless in his pursuit of new cultural and spiritual experiences. He dallied with Anglo-Catholicism, intrigued by the ritual but not quite able to believe the doctrine, and went through a phase of admiration for Latin American socialism. Experimenting with lifestyles as well as creeds, he tried respectability as an advertising executive, and a more bohemian life in the raffish expatriate scene of North Africa.

Returning from Morocco to his home city, he was shocked by the harsh anonymity of life in the urban West. And one day, riding the New York subway, he opened the Koran at a passage which spoke of the mystery of God: beyond human understanding, but as close as a jugular vein. Suddenly, everything fell into place. It was only a matter of time before he embraced Islam by pronouncing before witnesses that “there is no God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.”

Some 40 years on from that life-changing moment—not untypical of the turning points that many individuals experience—Abdallah Schleifer has won distinction as a Muslim intellectual. Last year he was one of 138 Muslim thinkers who signed an open letter to Christian leaders calling for a deeper theological dialogue. The list of signatories included (along with the muftis from Cairo, Damascus and Jakarta) several other people who had made surprising journeys. One grew up as an English nonconformist; another as a Catholic farm boy from Oregon; another in the more refined Catholic world of bourgeois Italy.

Sometimes conversion is gradual, but quite commonly things come to a head in a single instant, which can be triggered by a text, an image, a ceremony or some private realisation. A religious person would call such a moment a summons from God; a psychologist might speak of an instant when the walls between the conscious and unconscious break down, perhaps because an external stimulus—words, a picture, a rite—connects with something very deep inside. For people of an artistic bent, the catalyst is often a religious image which serves as a window into a new reality. One recurring theme in conversion stories is that cultural forms which are, on the face of it, foreign to the convert somehow feel familiar, like a homecoming. That, the convert feels, “is what I have always believed without being fully aware of it.”

Take Jennie Baker, an ethnic Chinese nurse who moved from Malaysia to England. She was an evangelical, practising but not quite satisfied with a Christianity that eschews aids to worship such as pictures, incense or elaborate rites. When she first walked into an Orthodox church, and took in the icons that occupied every inch of wall-space, everything in this “new” world made sense to her, and some teachings, like the idea that every home should have a corner for icons and prayer, resonated with her Asian heritage. Soon she and her English husband helped establish a Greek Orthodox parish in Lancashire.
Following the heart

In the West it is generally taken for granted that people have a perfect, indeed sacred, right to follow their own religious path, and indeed to invite—though never compel—other people to join them. The liberal understanding of religion lays great emphasis on the right to change belief. Earlier this year, a poll found that one in four Americans moves on from the faith of their upbringing.

America’s foundation as a refuge for Europe’s Christian dissidents has endowed it with a deep sense of the right to follow and propagate any form of religion, with no impediment, or help, from the state. In the 1980s America saw some lively debates over whether new-fangled “cults” should be distinguished from conventional forms of religion, and curbed; but in the end a purely libertarian view prevailed. The promotion of religious liberty is an axiom of American foreign policy, not just in places where freedom is obviously under threat, but even in Germany, which gets gentle scoldings for its treatment of Scientology.

But America’s religious free-for-all is very much the exception, not the rule, in human history—and increasingly rare, some would say, in the world today. In most human societies, conversion has been seen as an act whose consequences are as much social and political as spiritual; and it has been assumed that the wider community, in the form of the family, the village or the state, has every right to take an interest in the matter. The biggest reason why conversion is becoming a hot international topic is the Muslim belief that leaving Islam is at best a grave sin, at worst a crime that merits execution (see article). Another factor in a growing global controversy is the belief in some Christian circles that Christianity must retain the right to seek and receive converts, even in parts of the world where this may be viewed as a form of cultural or spiritual aggression.
A fighting matter

The idea that religion constitutes a community (where the loss or gain of even one member is a matter of deep, legitimate concern to all other members) is as old as religion itself. Christianity teaches that the recovery of a “lost sheep” causes rejoicing in heaven; for a Muslim, there is no human category more important than the umma, the worldwide community of believers.

But in most human societies the reasons why conversion causes controversy have little do with religious dogma, and much to do with power structures (within the family or the state) and politics. Conversion will never be seen as a purely individual matter when one religiously-defined community is at war or armed standoff with another. During Northern Ireland’s Troubles a move across the Catholic-Protestant divide could be life-threatening, at least in working-class Belfast—and not merely because people felt strongly about papal infallibility.

And in any situation where religion and authority (whether political, economic or personal) are bound up, changes of spiritual allegiance cause shock-waves. In the Ottoman empire, the status of Christians and Jews was at once underpinned and circumscribed by a regime that saw religion as an all-important distinction. Non-Muslims were exempt from the army, but barred from many of the highest offices, and obliged to pay extra taxes. When a village in, say, Crete or Bosnia converted en masse from Christianity to Islam, this was seen as betrayal by those who stayed Christian, in part because it reduced the population from which the Ottomans expected a given amount of tax.

In the days of British rule over the south of Ireland, it was hard for Catholics to hold land, although they were the overwhelming majority. An opportunistic conversion to the rulers’ religion was seen as “letting the side down” by those who kept the faith. Similar inter-communal tensions arose in many European countries where Jews converted to Christianity in order to enter university or public service.

In most modern societies, the elaborate discrimination which made religious allegiance into a public matter is felt to be a thing of the past. But is this so? In almost every post-Ottoman country, traces exist of the mentality that treats religion as a civic category, where entry and exit is a matter of public negotiation, not just private belief. Perhaps Lebanon, where political power is allocated along confessional lines (and boat-rocking changes of religious affiliation are virtually impossible) is the most perfectly post-Ottoman state. But there are other holdovers. In “secular” Turkey, the Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Jewish minorities have certain poorly observed rights that no other religious minority enjoys; isolated Christians, or dissident Muslims, face great social pressure to conform to standard Sunni Islam. In Greece, it is unconstitutional to proselytise; that makes life hard for Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons. In Egypt, the fact that building a Christian church requires leave from the head of state is a direct legacy of a (liberalising) Ottoman decree of 1856.
Tactical manoeuvres

But the Ottoman empire is by no means the only semi-theocratic realm whose influence is still palpable in the governance of religious affairs, including conversion. In an odd way, the Soviet Union continued the legacy of the tsars by dividing citizens into groups (including Jews or some Muslim ethnicities) where membership had big consequences but was not a matter of individual choice. In post-Soviet Russia, the prevailing Orthodox church rejects the notion of a free market in ideas. It seeks (and often gets) state preference for “traditional” faiths, defined as Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. This implies that other forms of Christianity are “poaching” if they seek to recruit Russians.

But issues of conversion are also painful in some former territories of the British empire, which allowed its subjects to follow their own communal laws. Take India, which once aspired to be a secular state, and whose constitution calls for a uniform civil code for all citizens. That prospect is now remote, and the fact that different religious groups live by different family laws, and are treated unequally by the state and society, has created incentives for “expedient” conversion. A colourful body of jurisprudence, dating from the British Raj, concerns people who changed faith to solve a personal dilemma—like men who switched from Hinduism to Islam so as to annul their marriage and wed somebody else. In 1995, the Supreme Court tried to stop this by saying people could not dodge social obligations, or avoid bigamy charges, by changing faith. What India’s case law shows, says Marco Ventura, a religious-law professor, is the contrast between conversion in rich, liberal societies and traditional ones, where discrimination tempts people to make tactical moves.

And in many ways religious freedom is receding, not advancing, in India. Half a dozen Indian states have introduced laws that make it hard for people to leave Hinduism. These states are mostly ruled by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But last year Himachal Pradesh became the first state led by the more secular Congress party to bring in such legislation: such is the power of Hindu sentiment that even non-religious parties pander to it.

The state’s new law is billed as a “freedom of religion” measure, but it has the opposite effect: anyone wishing to switch faiths must tell the district magistrate 30 days before or risk a fine. If a person converts another “by the use of force or by inducement or by any other fraudulent means”, they can be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both. Local pastors say “inducement” could be taken to mean anything, including giving alms to the poor.

Supporters of such laws say proselytisers, or alleluia wallahs, are converting poor Hindus by force. It is true that Christian evangelism is in full swing in parts of India, especially in its eastern tribal belt, and that it enjoys some success. Officially, fewer than 3% of India’s 1.1 billion people are Christian. But some Christians say the real total may be double that. Christian converts, most of whom are born as dalits at the bottom of the Hindu caste system, often hide their new faith for fear of losing their rights to state jobs and university places kept for the lower castes.

But it is unlikely that many Hindu-to-Christian switches are forced. In states with anti-conversion laws, credible allegations of conversion under duress have very rarely been made.

Anyway, India’s arguments have more to do with politics than theology. Hindutva, the teaching that India is a Hindu nation and that Christians and Muslims are outsiders, has been a vote-winner for the BJP. Even in Himachal Pradesh, voters were unmoved by the Congress party’s attempt to ride the religious bandwagon; the BJP still won the latest elections.

The contest between theocratic politics and a notionally secular state looks even more unequal in another ex-British land, Malaysia, where freedom of choice in religion is enshrined in the federal constitution, but Islamic law is imposed with growing strictness on the Muslim majority.

Until the mid-1990s, say Malaysian civil-rights advocates like Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the federal authorities enforced religious freedom; the National Registration Department, a federal agency, would comply when anybody asked to record a change of religion. More recently, both that agency and Malaysia’s top judges have deferred to the sharia courts, which enjoy increasing power in all 13 states of the Malaysian federation; and those courts rarely let a registered Muslim quit the fold. A recent exception was an ethnic Chinese woman who was briefly married to an Iranian; a sharia court let her re-embrace Buddhism, but only on the ground that she was never fully Muslim, so the idea of “Once a Muslim, always a Muslim” remained intact.

A more telling sign of the times was the verdict in the case of Lina Joy, a Malay convert from Islam to Christianity who asked a federal court to register the change on her ID card. By two to one the judges rejected her bid, arguing that one “cannot, at one’s whims or fancies, renounce or embrace a religion”. Too bad, then, for any Malaysians who have a moment of truth on the subway, especially if the faith to which they are called happens not to be Islam.

[www.economist.com]

Thank you Wolfy, for this very interesting article. It puts things in their right perspective.

(Didn't know you read The Economist!)

Have it for free at school
But I get this article from a press review focused on Morocco that I receive regularly on my mailbox !

FoX a écrit:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Charia says ... ... I will never condamn a muslim
> brother"
> Just shut the f**** up !!

c'est Victor Hugo qui doit etre content avec le language utilise ..lol

i don t agree with these fanatic but at the same time i do not lose my cool either...
Yes i do vote Mc.Cain..i can wait....

AIH.