i can not say this in a more emphatic way, but NO.
that would be an endorsement of the israeli government's policies. i would hope that a band that has shown to have a social conscience would understand that.
That makes no sense. Is PJ endorsing the policies of the US government every time it plays in the States? Obviously not. Nor are they doing so w/r/t the policies of the governments in any of the other countries in which they play. So why would Israel be any different?
um, they are FROM the US. And I don't believe they play in any other country/region where the governing body has been accused of what Israel is accused of currently.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i can not say this in a more emphatic way, but NO.
that would be an endorsement of the israeli government's policies. i would hope that a band that has shown to have a social conscience would understand that.
That makes no sense. Is PJ endorsing the policies of the US government every time it plays in the States? Obviously not. Nor are they doing so w/r/t the policies of the governments in any of the other countries in which they play. So why would Israel be any different?
it makes perfect sense. pearl jam is playing to it's home country when it plays america. it has seemingly avoided red states for years. it can play to fans in places where the band wants to play, and people that really want to see them travel to see them.
if 98% of the rest of the world's governments agree that the occupation and land snatching is illegal, that is all the justification that they need to avoid playing in israel. the israeli people voted for the regime that continues the occupation and settlement expansion, thereby endorsing those policies. netanyahu may not be an overwhelmingly popular person, but he and the likud is in charge, as such, those policies are not going to change. the only recourse entertainers have if they view this as a human rights crisis is to not play there.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
My opinion is that some opinions are indeed more right than others, and that there very often are different opinions, and that my opinion is always right.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Uh Oh, Hef is endorsing the policies of the Israeli government. Naked ladies are endorsing Israel by appearing in Israeli playboy? Quick, everyone boycott naked ladies!
Playboy Bunnies in the Holy Land
By Abra Cohen
TEL AVIV, Israel -- This city has long been a bohemian oasis in an otherwise religiously conservative nation, but scantily clad Israeli women will no longer be contained to Tel Aviv beaches. Instead, sandwiched between in-depth articles on social and political issues, beautiful women will now grace the pages of Playboy Israel, which is printed solely in Hebrew and hit newsstands around the Holy Land in March.
In a trendy area of Tel Aviv, I sat down with the magazine's founder, Daniel Pomerantz, to find out what motivated the new immigrant -- he's an American-born Chicago attorney -- to launch his new magazine in a place known more for Sabbath rituals than centerfolds. Soft-spoken and dressed in jeans and a blue button-down, the 36 year-old is more like a nice Jewish boy than Hugh Hefner. Pomerantz talked about his aspirations for the men's magazine and what inspired him to take what some people say is a risky move at a time when print looks to be going out of style.
On the wall in the lobby of the classic Brown Hotel in central Tel Aviv, where we sit in plush leather chairs, is an oversized Playboy cover poster from 1970 reads, "The Girls of Israel."
Pomerantz promises to deliver a high-caliber men's periodical with articles and photos that are specifically targeted at a local audience. It includes pieces from Israeli writers and stunning sabras, the name for native-born Israelis.
So far the two issues have featured interviews with Avi Dichter, former head of the Shin Bet (one division of Israel's intelligence branch), Jordi Cruyff, general manager of the Maccabi Tel Aviv football league, and local talent like Nataly Dadon, an Israeli model who graced the first issue, April cover girl Nella Goldberg, and dancer Marin Teremets. With Playboy's history of landing high-profile interviews with people like Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, and Salman Rushdie, Pomerantz has to offer a good read and great centerfolds if Israelis are going to shell out 30 shekels (about $8) when the minimum wage is a mere 24 shekels.
Pomerantz says that not only does the magazine fit into the national fabric (there's even a specific word in Hebrew for "Playboy bunny" -- shfanfana), he says the reaction he has received so far is, "It's about time." He says he believes Playboy is part of a rich and varied culture and is one of the ways that the world can relate to Israel as a modern society.
While that may be the case, there are aspects of Israel that are still quite different from other modern nations. Tel Aviv is a secular mecca, with an abundance of nightclubs, theater, and bikini-wearing libertines. But Jerusalem sits a mere 40 miles and a world away. Dressed in black suits, payot (long curls), and black hats, the religious right are engaged in constant battles with secular Israelis over issues like modesty and the standards of prayer at the Western Wall.
Published in over 30 countries, Playboy has a loyal following across borders, but it hasn't always been accepted with open arms. Closing its doors after a nasty debate over modesty, the Indonesian Playboy, for example, printed only 10 issues. Although extremely conservative and featuring photos without nudity, the magazine caused protests and quickly closed down in the predominantly Muslim country.
Pomerantz has endured some criticisms from some who say he is bringing porn to the last place on earth that needs it. Israel is a holy place to Jews, Arabs, Bahais and Christians -- bringing in nearly naked women is not seen as pious. Meanwhile, voices from the other side say that if you want naked women, you simply can search for them on the Internet without paying anything. The U.S.-based Playboy Enterprises has itself been struggling with its business model in recent years -- the company's shares are down about $1 billion from its late-90s peak.
However, the Israeli magazine sits alongside Blazer, a well-established Israeli men's magazine, which features under-clothed women and conjures up a smile when you ask local men about it.
With a quick page-through, Playboy Israel seems to be far from porn. Hearkening back to a more elegant Marilyn Monroe aesthetic, the magazine is fairly modest and offers a classic appeal with a local flavor.
When you live in a country that is always on the brink of war, what's a little entertainment to take your mind off of things? Maybe it's a sign to the rest of the world that there are many different ways of living life in a complicated land.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
This is what I love so much about your contributions. You just can't seem to ever be able to decide whether your objections are to the occupation, or just to Israel in general. And that is why I, for one, have trouble taking you at your word when you claim that your only objection is to the occupation alone.
So if a Neo-Nazi band decided to play a concert within the geographic area of the Warsaw ghetto, you wouldn't object?
I mean, you clearly think it perfectly appropriate for supporters of the IDF, and vocal supporters of the Gaza massacre of 2008-2009, to play a concert on an area that was ethnically cleansed of Palestinians in 1948.
That comparison is so far off the wall...that's like saying that it's objectionable for the US army to parade in Manhattan because it was an area ethnically cleansed of native americans.
I can understand why it would be difficult, if not impossible, for you to empathize with the Palestinians point of view. Oh, and there are many Palestinians alive today who experienced the ethnic cleansing of 1948, so your attempted analogy with the East Coast native Americans is just lame. Though it doesn't surprise me.
maybe some of you forgot the reason they still do this.......MONEY !
politics and rock n roll.... :nono: these guy's are in a band not the white house,not the pagen god's you've made them out to be, let them play for the fans where ever they are..isreal or America they have a great talent to share and I'm sure people in Israel would like to see a PJ show as much as the rest of us.
"check your political opinion in at the door and enjoy the show"
Godfather.
then perhaps the people of Israel might choose to apply pressure to their oppressive govt so that everyone who lives within the so called borders of 'israel' can equally enjoy a concert by a western rock band. having said that pearl jam are their own people and they can choose to play wherever they choose to do so.. however that doesn't mean that i as a pearl jam fan have to support their decision.. sure play israel but don't expect me to be at you next australian concert... and THAT is my choice.
See, you just betrayed how little you understand about this topic. I don't mean to sound condescending, I really don't, it's just that you've just said something that shows me that you have crucially misunderstood something about this issue. Everyone within Israel is free to travel around the country as they wish. The same is not (unfortunately) true of the West Bank, but the West Bank is not Israel.
This objection that people keep making, that Palestinians in the West Bank wouldn't necessarily be able to go see PJ if they played in Israel is perhaps true, but is also kind of entirely beside the point. If the best case scenario were to come to pass tomorrow, and the occupation was ended and the West Bank were instantly transformed into a Palestinian state and Palestinians in the West Bank were free to travel as they wish, they still wouldn't necessarily be able to go see PJ in Israel BECAUSE IT'S ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT THEY AREN'T CITIZENS OF. It really sucks that Palestinians in the West Bank live under the occupation, but at the end of the day they aren't citizens of Israel, and they don't live in Israel so they aren't residents of Israel either, so they just don't have a god-given right to enter another country to see a rock concert.
I misunderstand nothing. my position has always been in support of ONE state. the west bank and gaza should be a part of Israel not segregated.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The ICJ decision is purely an advisory opinion, without binding legal effect. Moreover, I happen to have read the opinion, and as someone who actually studies law professionally I can tell you that it's shoddy.
The applicable legal standard, widely accepted in international law and used both in Europe and in Israel, is proportionality. The ICJ opinion deviated from this standard, which would have required it to seriously consider the security reasons for the barrier motivating Israel's actions. Israel saw the appeal to the court as a blatantly political stunt and refused to cooperate with the proceedings. The result was that the court was almost entirely lacking any facts supporting Israel's actions. This was perhaps a mistake on Israel's part, but it remains the case, as pointed out forcefully by the dissenting ICJ judge, that the court simply didn't have the requisite facts to support the decision that it rendered.
The Israeli Supreme Court, in hundreds of subsequent cases dealing with the barrier, where they had all the facts and rigorously applied the proportionality standard, gives one a far better, and far less politicized idea of the barrier's legality. Dealing with the barrier in specific places as it effects specific people rather than as an undifferentiated whole, as the ICJ did (and remember, courts are supposed to deal with specific harms to specific plaintiffs) the Israeli Supreme Court has found the barrier's route illegal in many instances, and required that it be rerouted, and in others has found that the barrier justifiably served security concerns and did not do disproportionate harm.
This is just typical. Not only do you proclaim to oppose the occupation, while at the same time defending it at every turn and placing the blame for it on the Palestinians, but you now dismiss the findings of the ICJ in relation to the Separation wall.
Let's see what Norman Finkelstein had to say about this in his book 'Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism And The Abuse of History':
P. 228: 'Contrary to the HCJ's claim, the factual basis upon which it and the ICJ rendered their respective opinions is fundamentally the same. The HCJ was only able to sustain the legality of the wall by blindingly deferring to the State's military authority, peremptorily dismissing challenges to it, and sanctioning flagrant violations of international law, as interpreted by the ICJ as well as other international bodies.'
P. 229: 'Although the HCJ's opinions on the wall fit into a long-established pattern of lending a cloak of legality to illegal practices, it would be difficult to exaggerate the pernicious consequences of these particular opinions. Apart from the humanitarian crisis it has wrought, the wall, once completed, will nearly bisect the West Bank, cut off the West Bank from it's hub in Arab Jerusalem, and deprive the West bank of some of it's most productive land and water resources. In other words, it will preempt any possibility of a two-state settlement, condemning Palestine and Israel to endless bloodshed.'
P. 238: The Court points to [...] Palestinians terror attacks as "the background behind the decision to construct the separation fence...in the Judea and Samaria area, which would make it difficult for terrorists to strike at Israelis and ease the security forces' struggles against the terrorists".
The Court's account of the second Intifada omits mention that Palestinians did not resort to terrorist attacks until after Israel had used massive, lethal, and indiscriminate firepower to quell largely nonviolent demonstrations; that fully three times as many Palestinians as Israelis were killed during the second Intifada; and that, apart from the casualties on both sides, all the victims of the manifold human rights violations documented by human rights organizations - house demolitions, torture, political liquidations, arbitrary detentions, prolonged curfews, denial of medical care - were Palestinian.
P. 253: 'In it's opinion the ICJ repeatedly cited the cardinal principle of international law of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force while - in fulfillment of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination - designating the West bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza as "Occupied Palestinian Territory." It thereby explicitly affirmed that Israel has no legitimate title to any of these territories. In the Beit Sourik case, however, the High Court states only that it is not within the purview of the military commander to redraw Israel's borders: "The military commander cannot order the construction of the separation fence if his reasons are...motivated by a desire to 'annex' territories to the state of Israel" (HCJ 1, para.27). Unlike the ICJ, it fails to establish that Israel has no legitimate claim on this territory, the sovereignty of which has been definitively resolved. This crucial difference tinctures every aspect of their respective judgements. Whereas the ICJ uniformly refers to the West Bank as Occupied Palestinian Territory, the High Court rather refers to "Judea and Samaria" or, treating it as terra nullius, "the area." A wall the route of which deeply encroaches on another people's sovereign territory plainly casts a different shadow than a wall the route of which merely traverses a no-man's-land or even one's own.'
P.256: 'Beyond the ICJ's allegedly inadequate data on military necessity, the High Court cites factual inaccuracies in some date relied upon by the ICJ when assessing the damage wrought by the wall. The High Court claims that "the difference between the factual bases upon which the courts relied is of decisive significance," for slight differences in the weight of the evidence can determine on which side the scale tips when applying the proportionality test: "According to international law, the legality of the wall/fence route depends upon an appropriate balancing between security needs on the one hand and the impingement upoin the rights of the local residents on the other...Delicate and sensitive balancing between the two sides of the scale...brings about the appropriate solution."
...The High Court also faults the data relied upon by the ICJ for it's indiscriminateness. Thr information supplied to the ICJ didn't distinguish between the greater and lesser impacts of the wall along it's route, compelling the ICJ to render judgement on the totality of the wall, whereas a differentiated approach, and using a proportionality test, would have shown that some segments of the wall pass legal muster while others do not.
...The thrust of this argument is that if the ICJ had at it's disposal the accurate and discriminate factual data presented to the High Court, it wouldn't have pronounced the wall (or every section of it) illegal. On multiple levels, however, this inference is problematic. It's not clear that the factual errors in the ICJ dossiers mattered much. Thus, in the example on which it honed in, the High Court itself acknowledged that even if the allegedly erroneous ICJ data on Qalqiliya were corrected, "the remainder is sufficient to indicate a severe impingement of [Palestinian residents'] rights." Moreover, the ICJ didn't reach it's conclusion after the relative quantitative weighing of evidence in a proportionality test, but rather after reaching the absolute qualitative finding that the wall couldn't be justified on grounds of military necessity and violated fundamental provisions of international law. None of the alleged errors in the ICJ data affect it's absolute qualitative findings. Yet, even if the proportionality test were applied, and on a segment-by-segment basis, it is still highly doubtful whether the wall, or parts of it, would pass legal muster.
P.259: 'Israeli reserve officers in the Council for Peace and Security, although supporting a wall to prevent terrorism, sharply disputed rationales for deviating from the Green Line such as topographical advantage, arguing that to route the wall on these grounds was not only superfluous but would in fact undermine Israeli security (HCJ 1 para. 18). The Court peremptorily dismissed the Council's battery of arguments, however, in it's absolute deference to the State (HCJ 1, para 47). The Court also never explains the odd coincidence that, apart from a few kilometers of the wall located inside Israel, all the topographical advantages just happen to be on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, through which more than 80 percent of the wall runs.'
P. 268: B'Tselem concluded that the "underlying reason" of the wall's route is "to establish facts on the ground that would perpetuate the existence of settlements and facilitate their future annexation into Israel." Likewise, Human Rights Watch concluded that "the existing and planned route of the barrier appears to be designed chiefly to incorporate and make contiguous with Israel illegal civilian settlements." Likewise, Amnesty International concluded that Israel was building the wall to "consolidate it's control over land which is being used for illegal Israeli settlements," and that "the very expensive and sophisticated structure of the fence/wall indicates that it is likely intended as a permanent structure." Nonetheless, Israel's High Court averred that the "fence is inherently temporary" because the State said so. Soon after the Court rendered it's [..] judgement, however, the State publicly acknowledged that it had been disingenuous. The wall will serve as "the future border of the State of Israel," then Justice Minister [...] Tzipi Livni stated (on 1st December 2005), and the High Court, in it's rulings on the wall, "is drawing the country's borders."
Seriously, reading Perry Farrell's views yesterday, the above wouldn't surprise me.
And I used to like Jane's Addiction - saw them in 1988, 1990, and 1992. But now I wouldn't see them if you paid me. Fuck him.
Seriously, reading Perry Farrell's views yesterday, the above wouldn't surprise me.
And I used to like Jane's Addiction - saw them in 1988, 1990, and 1992. But now I wouldn't see them if you paid me. Fuck him.
perry farrell sucks. dave navarro sucks. i wouldn't see them either.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Seriously, reading Perry Farrell's views yesterday, the above wouldn't surprise me.
And I used to like Jane's Addiction - saw them in 1988, 1990, and 1992. But now I wouldn't see them if you paid me. Fuck him.
perry farrell sucks. dave navarro sucks. i wouldn't see them either.
I like to look at navarro.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Seriously, reading Perry Farrell's views yesterday, the above wouldn't surprise me.
And I used to like Jane's Addiction - saw them in 1988, 1990, and 1992. But now I wouldn't see them if you paid me. Fuck him.
Yah. I read what you posted. Kind of shitty to say the least. Really tarnishes a decent legacy of music.
This objection that people keep making, that Palestinians in the West Bank wouldn't necessarily be able to go see PJ if they played in Israel is perhaps true, but is also kind of entirely beside the point. If the best case scenario were to come to pass tomorrow, and the occupation was ended and the West Bank were instantly transformed into a Palestinian state and Palestinians in the West Bank were free to travel as they wish, they still wouldn't necessarily be able to go see PJ in Israel BECAUSE IT'S ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT THEY AREN'T CITIZENS OF. It really sucks that Palestinians in the West Bank live under the occupation, but at the end of the day they aren't citizens of Israel, and they don't live in Israel so they aren't residents of Israel either, so they just don't have a god-given right to enter another country to see a rock concert.
And what about the illegal Israeli settlers living in the West Bank? Do they have a God-given right to live in the West Bank and travel to another country to see a rock concert?
The ICJ decision is purely an advisory opinion, without binding legal effect. Moreover, I happen to have read the opinion, and as someone who actually studies law professionally I can tell you that it's shoddy.
The applicable legal standard, widely accepted in international law and used both in Europe and in Israel, is proportionality. The ICJ opinion deviated from this standard, which would have required it to seriously consider the security reasons for the barrier motivating Israel's actions. Israel saw the appeal to the court as a blatantly political stunt and refused to cooperate with the proceedings. The result was that the court was almost entirely lacking any facts supporting Israel's actions. This was perhaps a mistake on Israel's part, but it remains the case, as pointed out forcefully by the dissenting ICJ judge, that the court simply didn't have the requisite facts to support the decision that it rendered.
The Israeli Supreme Court, in hundreds of subsequent cases dealing with the barrier, where they had all the facts and rigorously applied the proportionality standard, gives one a far better, and far less politicized idea of the barrier's legality. Dealing with the barrier in specific places as it effects specific people rather than as an undifferentiated whole, as the ICJ did (and remember, courts are supposed to deal with specific harms to specific plaintiffs) the Israeli Supreme Court has found the barrier's route illegal in many instances, and required that it be rerouted, and in others has found that the barrier justifiably served security concerns and did not do disproportionate harm.
This is just typical. Not only do you proclaim to oppose the occupation, while at the same time defending it at every turn and placing the blame for it on the Palestinians, but you now dismiss the findings of the ICJ in relation to the Separation wall.
I have no intention of defending the occupation. What I will do is respond to comments that misrepresent the situation. I in no way place blame on the Palestinians for the occupation, though I am perfectly willing to blame them when blame is deserved (which you apparantly seem to think is categorically never, which in itself should tell any serious person that you aren't to be taken seriously). In the case of the seperation barrier the facts are pretty clear. The Israeli government was for a long time extremely resistant to building the barrier because it was afraid that the barrier would be understood as establishing borders that didn't line up with what the government hoped to get in an eventual peace deal. They eventually caved and decided to build the barrier because of unrelenting terrorist attacks throughout Israel proper. So I don't think that it's at all unfair to put some blame for the barrier on Palestinian terrorism. As for the ICJ opinion, I've already said my piece. Finkelstein is not a legal scholar, so I think I can confidently say that at least in this regard I know a bit more about the subject than he does.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
um, they are FROM the US. And I don't believe they play in any other country/region where the governing body has been accused of what Israel is accused of currently.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
This statement makes you look like a hypocrite considering the fact that you choose to live and work in a racist apartheid state yourself. :roll:
if 98% of the rest of the world's governments agree that the occupation and land snatching is illegal, that is all the justification that they need to avoid playing in israel. the israeli people voted for the regime that continues the occupation and settlement expansion, thereby endorsing those policies. netanyahu may not be an overwhelmingly popular person, but he and the likud is in charge, as such, those policies are not going to change. the only recourse entertainers have if they view this as a human rights crisis is to not play there.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
This really made me laugh.
Best response I've seen on this board to date!
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Thankfully for me, you and I have different opinions.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Playboy Bunnies in the Holy Land
By Abra Cohen
TEL AVIV, Israel -- This city has long been a bohemian oasis in an otherwise religiously conservative nation, but scantily clad Israeli women will no longer be contained to Tel Aviv beaches. Instead, sandwiched between in-depth articles on social and political issues, beautiful women will now grace the pages of Playboy Israel, which is printed solely in Hebrew and hit newsstands around the Holy Land in March.
In a trendy area of Tel Aviv, I sat down with the magazine's founder, Daniel Pomerantz, to find out what motivated the new immigrant -- he's an American-born Chicago attorney -- to launch his new magazine in a place known more for Sabbath rituals than centerfolds. Soft-spoken and dressed in jeans and a blue button-down, the 36 year-old is more like a nice Jewish boy than Hugh Hefner. Pomerantz talked about his aspirations for the men's magazine and what inspired him to take what some people say is a risky move at a time when print looks to be going out of style.
On the wall in the lobby of the classic Brown Hotel in central Tel Aviv, where we sit in plush leather chairs, is an oversized Playboy cover poster from 1970 reads, "The Girls of Israel."
Pomerantz promises to deliver a high-caliber men's periodical with articles and photos that are specifically targeted at a local audience. It includes pieces from Israeli writers and stunning sabras, the name for native-born Israelis.
So far the two issues have featured interviews with Avi Dichter, former head of the Shin Bet (one division of Israel's intelligence branch), Jordi Cruyff, general manager of the Maccabi Tel Aviv football league, and local talent like Nataly Dadon, an Israeli model who graced the first issue, April cover girl Nella Goldberg, and dancer Marin Teremets. With Playboy's history of landing high-profile interviews with people like Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, and Salman Rushdie, Pomerantz has to offer a good read and great centerfolds if Israelis are going to shell out 30 shekels (about $8) when the minimum wage is a mere 24 shekels.
Pomerantz says that not only does the magazine fit into the national fabric (there's even a specific word in Hebrew for "Playboy bunny" -- shfanfana), he says the reaction he has received so far is, "It's about time." He says he believes Playboy is part of a rich and varied culture and is one of the ways that the world can relate to Israel as a modern society.
While that may be the case, there are aspects of Israel that are still quite different from other modern nations. Tel Aviv is a secular mecca, with an abundance of nightclubs, theater, and bikini-wearing libertines. But Jerusalem sits a mere 40 miles and a world away. Dressed in black suits, payot (long curls), and black hats, the religious right are engaged in constant battles with secular Israelis over issues like modesty and the standards of prayer at the Western Wall.
Published in over 30 countries, Playboy has a loyal following across borders, but it hasn't always been accepted with open arms. Closing its doors after a nasty debate over modesty, the Indonesian Playboy, for example, printed only 10 issues. Although extremely conservative and featuring photos without nudity, the magazine caused protests and quickly closed down in the predominantly Muslim country.
Pomerantz has endured some criticisms from some who say he is bringing porn to the last place on earth that needs it. Israel is a holy place to Jews, Arabs, Bahais and Christians -- bringing in nearly naked women is not seen as pious. Meanwhile, voices from the other side say that if you want naked women, you simply can search for them on the Internet without paying anything. The U.S.-based Playboy Enterprises has itself been struggling with its business model in recent years -- the company's shares are down about $1 billion from its late-90s peak.
However, the Israeli magazine sits alongside Blazer, a well-established Israeli men's magazine, which features under-clothed women and conjures up a smile when you ask local men about it.
With a quick page-through, Playboy Israel seems to be far from porn. Hearkening back to a more elegant Marilyn Monroe aesthetic, the magazine is fairly modest and offers a classic appeal with a local flavor.
When you live in a country that is always on the brink of war, what's a little entertainment to take your mind off of things? Maybe it's a sign to the rest of the world that there are many different ways of living life in a complicated land.
(I'll also say that Israeli women are among some of the most beautiful I've seen)
....
I can understand why it would be difficult, if not impossible, for you to empathize with the Palestinians point of view. Oh, and there are many Palestinians alive today who experienced the ethnic cleansing of 1948, so your attempted analogy with the East Coast native Americans is just lame. Though it doesn't surprise me.
I misunderstand nothing. my position has always been in support of ONE state. the west bank and gaza should be a part of Israel not segregated.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
me thinks someone is looking for a reaction.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I read that post to the tune of janes addictions PETS.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
This is just typical. Not only do you proclaim to oppose the occupation, while at the same time defending it at every turn and placing the blame for it on the Palestinians, but you now dismiss the findings of the ICJ in relation to the Separation wall.
Let's see what Norman Finkelstein had to say about this in his book 'Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism And The Abuse of History':
P. 228: 'Contrary to the HCJ's claim, the factual basis upon which it and the ICJ rendered their respective opinions is fundamentally the same. The HCJ was only able to sustain the legality of the wall by blindingly deferring to the State's military authority, peremptorily dismissing challenges to it, and sanctioning flagrant violations of international law, as interpreted by the ICJ as well as other international bodies.'
P. 229: 'Although the HCJ's opinions on the wall fit into a long-established pattern of lending a cloak of legality to illegal practices, it would be difficult to exaggerate the pernicious consequences of these particular opinions. Apart from the humanitarian crisis it has wrought, the wall, once completed, will nearly bisect the West Bank, cut off the West Bank from it's hub in Arab Jerusalem, and deprive the West bank of some of it's most productive land and water resources. In other words, it will preempt any possibility of a two-state settlement, condemning Palestine and Israel to endless bloodshed.'
P. 238: The Court points to [...] Palestinians terror attacks as "the background behind the decision to construct the separation fence...in the Judea and Samaria area, which would make it difficult for terrorists to strike at Israelis and ease the security forces' struggles against the terrorists".
The Court's account of the second Intifada omits mention that Palestinians did not resort to terrorist attacks until after Israel had used massive, lethal, and indiscriminate firepower to quell largely nonviolent demonstrations; that fully three times as many Palestinians as Israelis were killed during the second Intifada; and that, apart from the casualties on both sides, all the victims of the manifold human rights violations documented by human rights organizations - house demolitions, torture, political liquidations, arbitrary detentions, prolonged curfews, denial of medical care - were Palestinian.
P. 253: 'In it's opinion the ICJ repeatedly cited the cardinal principle of international law of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force while - in fulfillment of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination - designating the West bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza as "Occupied Palestinian Territory." It thereby explicitly affirmed that Israel has no legitimate title to any of these territories. In the Beit Sourik case, however, the High Court states only that it is not within the purview of the military commander to redraw Israel's borders: "The military commander cannot order the construction of the separation fence if his reasons are...motivated by a desire to 'annex' territories to the state of Israel" (HCJ 1, para.27). Unlike the ICJ, it fails to establish that Israel has no legitimate claim on this territory, the sovereignty of which has been definitively resolved. This crucial difference tinctures every aspect of their respective judgements. Whereas the ICJ uniformly refers to the West Bank as Occupied Palestinian Territory, the High Court rather refers to "Judea and Samaria" or, treating it as terra nullius, "the area." A wall the route of which deeply encroaches on another people's sovereign territory plainly casts a different shadow than a wall the route of which merely traverses a no-man's-land or even one's own.'
P.256: 'Beyond the ICJ's allegedly inadequate data on military necessity, the High Court cites factual inaccuracies in some date relied upon by the ICJ when assessing the damage wrought by the wall. The High Court claims that "the difference between the factual bases upon which the courts relied is of decisive significance," for slight differences in the weight of the evidence can determine on which side the scale tips when applying the proportionality test: "According to international law, the legality of the wall/fence route depends upon an appropriate balancing between security needs on the one hand and the impingement upoin the rights of the local residents on the other...Delicate and sensitive balancing between the two sides of the scale...brings about the appropriate solution."
...The High Court also faults the data relied upon by the ICJ for it's indiscriminateness. Thr information supplied to the ICJ didn't distinguish between the greater and lesser impacts of the wall along it's route, compelling the ICJ to render judgement on the totality of the wall, whereas a differentiated approach, and using a proportionality test, would have shown that some segments of the wall pass legal muster while others do not.
...The thrust of this argument is that if the ICJ had at it's disposal the accurate and discriminate factual data presented to the High Court, it wouldn't have pronounced the wall (or every section of it) illegal. On multiple levels, however, this inference is problematic. It's not clear that the factual errors in the ICJ dossiers mattered much. Thus, in the example on which it honed in, the High Court itself acknowledged that even if the allegedly erroneous ICJ data on Qalqiliya were corrected, "the remainder is sufficient to indicate a severe impingement of [Palestinian residents'] rights." Moreover, the ICJ didn't reach it's conclusion after the relative quantitative weighing of evidence in a proportionality test, but rather after reaching the absolute qualitative finding that the wall couldn't be justified on grounds of military necessity and violated fundamental provisions of international law. None of the alleged errors in the ICJ data affect it's absolute qualitative findings. Yet, even if the proportionality test were applied, and on a segment-by-segment basis, it is still highly doubtful whether the wall, or parts of it, would pass legal muster.
P.259: 'Israeli reserve officers in the Council for Peace and Security, although supporting a wall to prevent terrorism, sharply disputed rationales for deviating from the Green Line such as topographical advantage, arguing that to route the wall on these grounds was not only superfluous but would in fact undermine Israeli security (HCJ 1 para. 18). The Court peremptorily dismissed the Council's battery of arguments, however, in it's absolute deference to the State (HCJ 1, para 47). The Court also never explains the odd coincidence that, apart from a few kilometers of the wall located inside Israel, all the topographical advantages just happen to be on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, through which more than 80 percent of the wall runs.'
P. 268: B'Tselem concluded that the "underlying reason" of the wall's route is "to establish facts on the ground that would perpetuate the existence of settlements and facilitate their future annexation into Israel." Likewise, Human Rights Watch concluded that "the existing and planned route of the barrier appears to be designed chiefly to incorporate and make contiguous with Israel illegal civilian settlements." Likewise, Amnesty International concluded that Israel was building the wall to "consolidate it's control over land which is being used for illegal Israeli settlements," and that "the very expensive and sophisticated structure of the fence/wall indicates that it is likely intended as a permanent structure." Nonetheless, Israel's High Court averred that the "fence is inherently temporary" because the State said so. Soon after the Court rendered it's [..] judgement, however, the State publicly acknowledged that it had been disingenuous. The wall will serve as "the future border of the State of Israel," then Justice Minister [...] Tzipi Livni stated (on 1st December 2005), and the High Court, in it's rulings on the wall, "is drawing the country's borders."
Porno for Pyros.
This wasn't lost on me!
Oops, I missed that one.
Seriously, reading Perry Farrell's views yesterday, the above wouldn't surprise me.
And I used to like Jane's Addiction - saw them in 1988, 1990, and 1992. But now I wouldn't see them if you paid me. Fuck him.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
thanks. porno, addiction, farrell.. its all the same to me.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I like to look at navarro.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yah. I read what you posted. Kind of shitty to say the least. Really tarnishes a decent legacy of music.
And how is China a racist Apartheid state?
And what about the illegal Israeli settlers living in the West Bank? Do they have a God-given right to live in the West Bank and travel to another country to see a rock concert?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cerej ... -apartheid