REP. PATRICK KENNEDY (D-R.I.) 'BARRED FROM COMMUNION'

Providence Journal's John E. Mulligan: 'Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy to receive the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights, the Rhode Island Democrat said Friday. 'The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion,' Kennedy said in a telephone interview. Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him 'that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I've taken as a public official,' particularly on abortion. He declined to say when or how Bishop Tobin told him not to take the sacrament. And he declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop's injunction. Bishop Tobin, through a spokesman, declined to address the question of whether he had told Kennedy not to receive Communion. ... This latest exchange between Bishop Tobin and Kennedy, the only remaining public official in the nation's most prominent Catholic family, escalates their heated public debate over how the eight-term congressman's work for abortion rights bears on his standing in the church.'

How Racist Hate Groups Join Up with Abortion Terrorists

The revelation that Scott Roeder, the alleged murderer of Dr. George Tiller, belonged to an anti-government, white separatist group called the Montana Freemen might seem like an unlikely twist. After all, such groups are generally thought of as either indifferent to the issue of abortion or actively enthusiastic about its potential for reducing the nonwhite population. As it turns out, however, the journey from radical racialist to anti-abortionist isn't as unusual as you might think.
The Montana Freemen were a Christian Patriot movement based outside the town of Jordan, Montana. The members of the group referred to their land as "Justus Township" and had declared themselves no longer under the authority of any outside government. They became the center of public attention in 1996 when they engaged in a prolonged armed standoff with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The Montana Freemen espoused belief in the doctrine of individual sovereignty and rejected the authority of the federal government of the United States. They conceived their own system of government in "Justus Township", including their own versions of common-law court de jure, banking, and credit.
Roeder's connections to the right-wing fringe began well over a decade ago, according to the Kansas City Star. His ex-wife, Lindsey, said that after a few years of marriage, Roeder became increasingly involved with the Freemen and its anti-government ideology. "The anti-tax stuff came first, and then it grew and grew. He became very anti-abortion…That's all he cared about is anti-abortion. 'The church is this. God is this.' Yadda yadda." Noting that she vehemently disagreed with her ex-husband's views, Lindsey Roeder told the Star that he moved out in 1994. "I thought he was over the edge with that stuff," she said. "He started falling apart. I had to protect myself and my son."

In 1996, Roeder was arrested in Topeka after sheriff deputies stopped his car because it had no license plate. Instead, the Star reported, "it bore a tag declaring him a 'sovereign' and immune from state law. In the trunk, deputies found materials that could be assembled into a bomb." Roeder was convicted, sentenced to two years probation, and told to stay away from far-right groups. A state appeals court subsequently overturned the conviction.

Roeder and the Freemen belonged to a little-recognized nativist political movement that began in the early 20th century, flared up periodically, and then ripped through the American heartland during the farm depression of the mid-1980s. This movement was often called "the posse," after a core group named the Posse Comitatus. Like any political movement, it consisted of a myriad of shifting entities that appeared and disappeared. But even though the names of the groups often changed, they all held tightly to the notion that the true white sovereigns, who had rightfully been given this land by God, were being threatened by race traitors "inferior races" creeping across the borders from Mexico and lands farther south. A favorite posse image was a drawing of a man hanging by the neck from a tree on a hill. Below in the distance stands a group of armed men. A sign is scrawled on the drawing. It says "The posse."

Over the years, this movement has encompassed various remnants of the Ku Klux Klan, what was left of Lincoln Rockwell's Nazis, the national socialists of William Pierce, and skinheads. Sometimes, adherents of the Posse ideology operated underground. Sometimes, they attempted to win support via electoral politics, like the white supremacist David Duke, who ran numerous times for statewide and national office. Terry Nichols, who along with Timothy McVeigh carried out the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, dabbled with the concept of sovereign citizenship. The militia movement, too, was an outgrowth of the posse movement. Daniel Levitas, author of a book about the phenomenon, has described Roeder's group, the Montana Freemen, as "the direct ideological descendants of the Posse Comitatus."

The Freemen aimed to rid the nation of "14th Amendment citizens" -- anyone who wasn't a white Anglo Saxon directly descended from God. Nonwhites, or "mud people," weren't really people at all, but God's failed attempts to create Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. A bad Xerox copy, they used to say. These beliefs derived from a school of thought known as Christian Identity, which holds that Jews, blacks, and other minorities aren't actually people and therefore don't deserve constitutional rights. Instead, those rights are reserved for so-called "white Sovereigns," who aim to take over government and run it through grand juries of the people, with laws enforced by old-time posses.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Muslim Nations Hate America

Iranian Supreme Leader Demands 'Real' Change from US
Speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i to a gathering at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, on the occasion of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year -- live
Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Document Type: OSC Translated Text

[Khamenei:] . . . Regarding the foreign affairs of our country, I would like to mention one point, and that is the issue between us and the United States. One of the main challenges for the Revolution, right from the beginning, was the same issue. Right from the first day of the Revolution's victory, a phase was opened for the Iranian nation, as a major test in its relations and interactions with the government of the United States of America. This major and important test continued for the past 30 years. The US Government faced this Revolution with an angry and frowning face, and opposed us from the beginning. Of course, they had the right to do so, considering their own calculations.

Before the Revolution, Iran was in the hands of the United States, its vital resources were in the hands of the United States, its political decision-making centers were in the hands of the United States, decisions to appoint and depose its vital centers were in the hands of the United States, and it (Iran) was like a field for the United States, the US military, and others on which to graze. Well, this was taken away from them. They could have expressed their opposition in not such an aggressive manner. But from the beginning of the Revolution, both their Republican presidents, and the Democrats, did not behave well toward the Islamic Republic. This is not secret from anyone.

(People chant: "Death to America")

Pay attention, the first measure taken by the United States was to provoke the scattered opposition groups of the Islamic Republic, and to support terrorism and disintegration in the country. They started this right from the beginning. In any parts of the country, where there were grounds for disintegration, the United States had a hand, we noticed their money, and at times their agents. This cost our people much. Unfortunately, this continues. The bandits in the Iran-Pakistan border areas, we know that some of them -- as we have their voices (as received) -- are in touch with Americans.

They have wireless communications, and take orders from them. Bandits, terrorists, murderers, are in touch with US officers in a neighboring country. Unfortunately, this still goes on. This was the beginning of what they started. Then it was the confiscation of property and goods belonging to Iran. The former regime gave a large amount of money to the United States to buy airplanes, helicopters, and weapons from them. Some of them over there were prepared, and when the Revolution took place, they did not deliver them. They did not give back the money, which amounted to millions of dollars. And the strange point is that they kept these goods in a store, and considered storage charges for it, which they claimed from the Algeria Agreement. To take away some goods from a nation, confiscate them, and fail to deliver them, and then claim storage charges for it! This is the kind of behavior started then, which continues. Our possessions are still there. They belong to the Iranian nation. They are in the United States and also some European countries. We referred to them over the past years, and asked them to give us what belongs to us and what we paid for. They said that since they are under the license of the United States, the United States does not allow them to do so; they cannot return them to us, and they are still there.

They showed Saddam (late Iraqi president) a green light. This was another plan by the US Government to attack Iran. If Saddam did not have the green light from the United States, he would have not attacked our borders. They imposed eight years of war on our country. About 300,000 of our young people, our people, were martyred in this eight-year war. In these eight years (Iran-Iraq war), particularly in the last few years of it, the United States constantly supported Saddam and helped him financially, with ammunition, and political advice. They provided him with satellite information. They had information facilities. They recorded the movements of our forces by satellite, and transferred this information the very same day to Saddam's HQ to use against our young people and forces.

They (the United States) closed their eyes to Saddam's crimes. The Halabcheh (southern Iranian town bordering Iraq) incident took place, hitting various towns of our country with missiles. They destroyed houses, they used chemical bombs on the frontlines, they still closed their eyes. They did not object at all. They helped Saddam. This was another one of the acts of this government over the years toward our country and our nation.

(People chant)

Then, please pay attention; there is a lot of time for chanting. Toward the end of the war, a US officer hit our airplane on the Persian Gulf with a missile from a warship. Some 290, about 300, passengers were in this plane, and they were all killed. And then, instead of punishing that officer, the US President of that time awarded that officer and gave him a medal. Now, should our nation forget this? Can it forget? They supported criminal terrorists who killed men, women, people, great scholars, even little children in our country. They (the United States) allowed them (terrorists) to be active in their country. They constantly released aggressive propaganda against our country. Constantly!

In the past years, US Presidents, particularly during the eight years of the former president (referring to President George W. Bush), whenever he said something against the Iranian nation, against our country, against our officials, against the Islamic Republic system, he said something absurd and nonsensical. He did not respect the Iranian nation. It was always like this over the years. They disturbed the security and peace in our region, security in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They brought massive quantities of weapons to the regional countries, in order to stand against the Islamic Republic, in fact to fill the pockets of armaments factories.

They unconditionally supported Israel, the cruel Zionist regime. You witnessed one example of its (Israel's) cruelty in Gaza in the past two, three months. What a disaster they created. How many children they killed, how many men and women they killed. In 22 days they killed 5,000 people in Gaza with bombardments, missiles, and direct shootings. In the meanwhile they supported it. The US Government supported it until the very last moment. Whenever the Security Council wanted to issue a resolution against the Zionist regime, the United States stepped forward and defended (Israel), and did not let it happen. It (the United States) threatened our country on any occasion. It constantly said that it will attack us. They said that they had a military plan ready on the desk, they will do this, and they will do that.

They constantly talked against our country and threatened our nation. Of course, these threats did not affect our nation, but they showed their enmity by doing so. They insulted the Iranian nation, the Iranian government, and the Iranian president, over and over again. Some years ago, an American said that the Iranian nation must be eradicated. In the past few years, a US official said that a nice and moderate Iranian is one that was killed, who is dead. They insulted this great and honorable nation, the nation whose only fault is to defend its identity and independence in such ways.

They imposed sanctions on our country for 30 years. Of course, these sanctions were in our benefit. With this regard, we must thank the United States.

If they had not imposed sanctions on us, we would have not reached this level of science and progress. Sanctions constantly made us aware, made us think about ourselves, and be innovative. But they did not mean to serve us like this. They wanted to be antagonist. This is how they treated the Iranian nation for 30 years, and now the new US Government says that they would like to negotiate with Iran, that we should forget the past. They say that they extended their arm towards Iran. What kind of a hand? If it is an iron hand covered with a velvet glove, then it will not make any good sense. They congratulate the Iranian nation on the occasion of the New Year (Iranian New Year started 20 March 2009), but in the same message call the Iranian nation supporters of terrorism, who seek nuclear weapons, and accuse it of such things.

I would like to say that I do not know who makes decisions for the United States, the President, the Congress, elements behind the scenes? But I would like to say that we have logic. Since the beginning, the Iranian nation moved with logic. Regarding our vital issues, we are not sentimental. We do not make decisions based on emotion. We make decisions through calculation. They tell us to negotiate, to start relations. They have the slogan of change.

Where is the change? What has changed? Clarify this to us. What changed? Has your enmity toward the Iranian nation changed? What signs are there to support this? Have you released the possessions of the Iranian nation? Have you removed the cruel sanctions? Have you stopped the insults, accusations, and negative propaganda against this great nation and its officials? Have you stopped your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? What has changed? They talk of change, but there are no changes in actions. We have not seen any changes. Even the literature has not changed. The new US President, from the very moment of his official appointment as President, made a speech, and insulted Iran and the Islamic government. Why? If you tell the truth, and there are changes, where are these changes? Why can we see nothing? I would like to say this to everyone. US officials should also know that the Iranian nation cannot be fooled, or scared.

(People chant)

First of all... (Interrupted by chanting)

Changes in words are not adequate; although we have not seen much of a change there either. Change must be real. I would like to say this to US officials, that this change that you talk about is a real necessity; you have no other choice, you must change. If you do not change, then divine traditions will change you, the world will change you. You must change, but this change cannot be in words only. It should not come with unhealthy intentions. You may say that you want to change policies, but not your aims, that you will change tactics. This is not change. This is deceit.

There can be true change, which should be seen in action. I advise US officials, whoever is the decision-maker in the United States, whether the President, Congress, or others, that the US Government has not worked to the benefit of the American people. Today, you are hated in the world. You should know this, if you do not already. Nations set fire to your flag. Muslim nations across the world chant "Death to America."

(People chant: "Death to America")

What is the reason behind this hatred? Have you ever studied this? Analyzed it? Have you learnt from it? The reason is, that you treat the world like a pupil, you talk snobbishly, you want to impose your own will on the world, you interfere in the affairs of other countries, and you implement double-sided criteria. When a young Palestinian is forced to perform some act of martyrdom, because of the pressure he is under, you bombard him with a mass of propaganda, and on the other hand you ignore the crimes of the Zionist regime, while it creates such a disaster in Gaza for 22 days. You call that young man a terrorist, and you say that you are committed towards the security of such a terrorist regime. These are the reasons that they hate you around the world.

This is advice to you. For your own benefit, for your own good, for the future of your country, restrain from your snobbish attitude, hegemony, and your lecturing attitude. Do not interfere in the affairs of other nations. Be happy with your own rights. Do not define benefits for yourself in various parts of the world. You will see that the United States will gradually lose its hated image in the world. These deed have made you hated.

Listen to these words. This is my advice to US officials, the President, and others. Listen well to these words, and have them translated for you. Of course, do not give it to the Zionists to translate for you. Consult healthy people, and seek their opinions.

If the US Government continues its same behavior, method, course, policies against us, as in the past 30 years, we are the same people, the same nation that we were for the past 30 years.

(People chant)

Please pay attention. If you go on with the slogan of discussion and pressure, saying that you will negotiate with Iran, and at the same time impose pressure, threats, and changes, then our nation will not like such words. We do not have any experience with the new US President and Government. We shall see and judge. You change, and we shall change as well. If you do not change, our people became more and more experienced, stronger, and more patient in the past 30 years.

End/ (Not Continued)

He Supported Women's Dignity

By Lynn M. Paltrow Huffington Post
Posted: June 2, 2009 10:54 AM

On May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller was murdered. When I think of Dr. Tiller and his clinic I think of compassion. What Dr. Tiller and his staff did each and every day was to give women their dignity.

Barely two weeks ago, when President Obama gave the commencement address at Notre Dame he said, "As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"

Upon Dr. Tiller's death, Randall Terry, the founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who led protests against Tiller's clinic in 1991, issued a statement saying in part, "I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions." This rhetoric includes describing Dr. Tiller as "a mass-murderer" and abortion as a kind of "slaughter." It also includes describing Dr. Tiller, as Bill O'Reilly has, as "guilty of Nazi stuff."

This rhetoric of "mass murder" and "slaughter," killing and genocide, all commonly used by a variety of religious and political organizations that oppose abortion, is language that is demonizing and dangerous. Is this really how we think of women who have abortions, some lucky enough to do so with the support of caring doctors? Do we really believe that pregnant women who end their pregnancies and the health care providers who help them are no different from Hitler or Pol Pot? Do we really think that the individual decisions of pregnant women are the same as, or as claimed by some groups, worse than, government-sponsored genocide?

This rhetoric, largely unchecked over the last 30 years, distracts attention from key facts about the women who have abortions. Sixty-one percent of women who have abortions are already mothers. By the age of 44, 84 percent of all women have become pregnant and given birth. American women, many of whom have had or will have abortions, do 80 percent of the child care and two-thirds of the housework. They do this work without any form of formal compensation, without any guaranteed pensions, and without any form of insurance or healthcare should they need it.

One of the amazing things about Dr. Tiller, in addition to his determination and his extraordinary courage, was the fact that he knew and appreciated who his patients were. He knew them as loving women, daughters, and mothers who are the backbone of their families and, to a large extent, our country.

Many of the women who traveled to Dr. Tiller's clinic were not women who wanted to have abortions, or who even support the right to choose to have an abortion. Many were women with wanted pregnancies who learned that their baby had no brain, or kidneys growing on the outside of their bodies or things their doctors described to them as "severe fetal cardiac malformations." They were women who could not face two or three more months of pregnancy with people patting their bellies and saying, "Oh honey you must be excited. When are you due?" Some women deal with such crises by continuing to term even knowing the baby cannot survive. Others find that their dignity depends on being able to end the pregnancy.

Some women who went to his clinic were extremely young. Some who went struggled with health problems and disabilities that they felt would be exacerbated by a pregnancy they did not recognize until late. All together they represented women with the least desired and rarest abortions -- ones late in pregnancy.

Dr. Tiller was extraordinary. When I met him he talked about why women have abortions and how they understand them in terms of their religious faith and spirituality. He described his efforts to serve them with respect, making possible rituals that would allow them to say goodbye to fetal life that they in fact valued.

Some women who returned from his clinic actually felt that they had been treated better through an abortion they wished they had not needed, than through a birth that they had anticipated with joy.

Today and the days that follow there will be some who will explicitly or subtly endorse Dr. Tiller's murder as a matter of necessity, justified to stop what they will claim is worse killing.

I am tired of a public debate that treats seriously the claim that pregnant women, mothers, and the people who support them are killers. I am tired of a debate that trivializes genocide by saying that what women do to deal with their reproductive lives is worse.

What I want instead is to honor George Tiller, a man who honored women. And I want instead to honor those who value fetal life, but who do not lose sight of the women who give that life, and who would never dream of murdering a doctor who was among the few to give those women the services, respect, and dignity they deserved.

ADL Applauds Law Enforcement for Arrests of Homegrown Terrorists in Plot to Blow Up New York City Synagogues

“I didn’t think that they will let me pray in here,” Dinar Puspita, a 17-year-old Muslim, said of a local rabbi’s offer to let her worship in his synagogue in Riverdale.

New York, NY, May 21, 2009 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today applauded local and federal law enforcement for thwarting a plot to bomb two synagogues in New York City. Four men, all from upstate New York, were taken into custody after planting what they believed to be bombs in cars outside two synagogues in the Riverdale section of the Bronx.

Kenneth Jacobson, Acting Director of ADL's New York Regional Office, issued the following statement:

We applaud the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York Police Department for their painstaking yearlong investigation to thwart a plot to attack Jewish and military targets in New York, including two synagogues in the Bronx.

The arrests illustrate how law enforcement continues to play a critical role in ensuring the safety and security of the Jewish community and in protecting all of its citizens from terrorism. We have long known that Jews remain a prime target for would-be terrorists, and we must always remain vigilant in the face of this threat.

The bombing plot uncovered by law enforcement is another reminder of the extreme lengths violent anti-Semites will go to act on their hatred. According to the police complaint, the suspects in the attempted Riverdale bombings were motivated by a deep-seated hatred of Jews, and were so determined to attack synagogues that they allegedly engaged in surveillance of the potential targets, and sought for nearly a year to obtain the weapons and bombs to bring the attack to fruition.

With its similarities to other recent plots by American-born Muslim extremists, this one serves as a troubling reminder of the broader problem of the increased radicalization of a small subset of the domestic Muslim population. It has many similarities to the 2007 Fort Dix terror plot, the 2006 bomb plot in Rockford, Illinois and the 2005 Los Angeles terror plot. In addition, there was a 2002 bomb plot in southern Florida against Jewish-owned businesses, the Israeli Consulate in Miami and Jewish community centers.

ADL's Center on Extremism monitors and reports on extremism in America and abroad, and the League is a leading provider of security training materials for Jewish community institutions.
Dinar Puspita at the Riverdale synagogue.
For more information on past plots involving radicalized Muslim extremists, see the following articles on the League's Web site:

• 2007 Fort Dix Terror Plot
• 2006 Bomb Plot in Rockford, Illinois
• 2005 Los Angeles Terror Plot

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Jon Steward's responds on the anti-gay marriage rally

Via Sommer Mathis of DCIST, the, ahem, crackdown on former Washington Mayor Marion Barry for his loudmouthed disapproval of gay marriage continues:
Last night on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart did a little segment on the D.C. Council's recent vote to approve legislation that would allow the District to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Naturally, the show picked up Ward 8 D.C. Council member Marion Barry's quote from last week's anti-gay marriage rally, the infamous "I am a politician who is moral" speech.
Stewart's response is priceless:
thedailyshow.com


.

Om the National Day of Prayer: keep church and state separated

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Boycotting Geneva is unwise

Jewish students shout during the speech of Iranian president Ahmadinejad at the UN anti-racism conference.

Published: 20 April 2009
It is a pity that the Dutch government would rather boycott the UN anti-racism conference than engage in a debate about Zionism.
By Roel Schrijvers

Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen said the UN anti-racism conference is "too important to be hijacked for political purposes" - and promptly withdrew from the conference. It was nicely put: the government comes off sounding so reasonable that you almost don't notice that it is being entirely unreasonable.
A bit of history is required. The closing resolution of the 2001 Durban conference was also widely criticised for being anti-Semitic. I have gone through its 63 pages in detail and there is nothing there that wasn't already established by the UN at some point: the Palestinians live in occupied territory and they have a right to self-determination. And all countries, including Israel, have a right to security.
What's more, the 2001 closing resolution was welcomed by Israel at the time. Shimon Peres, then president of Israel, called the statement "a very important achievement, an accomplishment of the first order for Israel and Israeli democracy".
The statements in the resolution were all correct. But even if they weren't: they form the basis of every two-state solution that has ever been proposed. In short: there was no reason not to sign it in 2001, and there is no reason not do so now.
As with every major anti-racism conference there are parties wanting to define Zionism as racism. It is often forgotten that the UN has already done this. A "Zionism is racism"-resolution was adopted by the UN general assembly in 1975. It was revoked in 1991 under pressure from the US, in part because the Madrid peace conference at the time brought hope of a lasting peace.
But there can be no question that Zionism is discriminating. In a nutshell, Zionists want a country with a Jewish identity that would be safe for Jews. There is nothing wrong with that except that implementing it is fraught with problems.
The facts go back some time, but they are important because they form the very basis of the organisation of the state of Israel.
In 1950 the development authority law was adopted, giving the Jewish National Fund property rights over 92 percent of the land - most of which was taken from its Palestinian owners - and making it the inalienable property of Jewish people worldwide. The final result of this law - combined with later laws - was that non-Jews are not allowed to buy, lease or work the land.
In 1952, Israel adopted the Jewish nationality law, offering Israeli citizenship and the Jewish nationality to all Jews (and only Jews) from the minute they set foot on Israeli soil. This distinction between citizenship and nationality is unique in the world. It is the legal basis for the institutionalised discrimination that gives Jews with the Jewish nationality access to privileges and services provided by the state of Israel.
That same year saw the creation of the Jewish Agency. Its task is to develop the country. Because of the nationality law thousands of Israeli citizens without the Jewish nationality were not eligible for a number of nationality-based privileges: they could not work on 'national' land, take part in 'national' housing schemes or apply for educational or agricultural grants.
On December 25, 1989, the Israeli supreme court ruled that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer considered a Jew and is therefore excluded from the Jewish benefits that come with citizenship and nationality. The verdict was important because it underscored the legal basis for discrimination by equating nationality with religious persuasion.
Eleven days later, one of the supreme court judges confirmed that in Israeli society Zionism is preferred over other, universal values such as non-discrimination. "The essence of a Jewish state is to give pre-eminence to Jews as Jews. Anyone who asks, in the name of democracy, for equality to all its citizens - Jews and Arabs - must be rejected as one who negates the existence of the Israeli state as the state of the Jewish people," the judge declared on January 5, 1990. (From the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, cited in News from Within, April 3, 1991.)
Zionism comes down to the expropriation and marginalisation of non-Jews in general and Palestinian Arabs in particular. The state of Israel is a fact, but it is clear that Zionism and democracy are ultimately irreconcilable in the event that Jews should become a minority within the state of Israel. The logic of Zionism implies apartheid and discrimination and this is confirmed in practise.
That our government should refuse to engage in a debate about this is regrettable. Minister Verhagen is absolutely right when he says an anti-racism conference is too important to be hijacked for political purposes. He would do well to take a look in the mirror.

Roel Schrijvers is a lawyer specialised in international and European law at IUS-consult.