Why the whole world loves Israel
28 posts by 7 authors
 |
 |
IDF arresting mother and her 18-month baby 19.1.2013 Umm Al Arayes,
South Hebron hills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
South Hebron hills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Click here to Reply
|
On Jan 22, 9:35 am, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
wrote:
to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
What else is new?
wrote:
> IDF arresting mother and her 18-month baby 19.1.2013 Umm Al Arayes,
> South Hebron hillshttp://www.youtube.com/
A bunch of cameramen bring women and children> South Hebron hillshttp://www.youtube.com/
to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
What else is new?
|
- show quoted text -
depradations against the citizens of the Occupied Territories.
|
On Jan 22, 10:54 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- show quoted text -
not the illegal presence of occupying troops.
>
> What else is new?
Nothing new from you, sadly.
|
- show quoted text -
Do you actually believe this clip shows a group of people
walking down the street minding their own business,
when a group of armed men who happened to be passing by
pounce on them?
Mo, these clips are not from the ME:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
This is from Auckland U.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
I can give you dozens of links like these, but you get the point.
|
On Jan 22, 11:02 pm, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I didn't see an "illegal presence of occupying troops",
so I couldn't possibly see it as a provocation.
> > What else is new?
>
> Nothing new from you, sadly.
No news is good news...
wrote:
- show quoted text -
so I couldn't possibly see it as a provocation.
> > What else is new?
>
> Nothing new from you, sadly.
|
- show quoted text -
local, terrified citizens of the West Bank INVITED those goons into
their lives?
>
> > > What else is new?
>
> > Nothing new from you, sadly.
>
> No news is good news...
violent, armed illegal "settlers" and their IDF security service are
not being reported.
|
On Jan 23, 11:31 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 10:06 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 10:54 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 22, 9:35 am, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > IOF arresting mother and her 18-month baby 19.1.2013 Umm Al Arayes,
> > > > South Hebron hillshttp://www.youtube.com/
>
> > > A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
> > > to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
> > > What else is new?
>
> > What's new is that there are actually cameras to witness to the daily
> > depradations against the citizens of the Occupied Territories.
>
> There's nothing new about cameras, that was my point.
> Do you actually believe this clip shows a group of people
> walking down the street minding their own business,
> when a group of armed men who happened to be passing by
> pounce on them?
>
> Mo, these clips are not from the ME:http://www.youtube.com/> On Jan 22, 10:06 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 10:54 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 22, 9:35 am, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > IOF arresting mother and her 18-month baby 19.1.2013 Umm Al Arayes,
> > > > South Hebron hillshttp://www.youtube.com/
>
> > > A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
> > > to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
> > > What else is new?
>
> > What's new is that there are actually cameras to witness to the daily
> > depradations against the citizens of the Occupied Territories.
>
> There's nothing new about cameras, that was my point.
> Do you actually believe this clip shows a group of people
> walking down the street minding their own business,
> when a group of armed men who happened to be passing by
> pounce on them?
>
>
> This is from Auckland U.http://www.youtube.com/
>
> I can give you dozens of links like these, but you get the point.
I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think even you believe> I can give you dozens of links like these, but you get the point.
that even the most robust behaviour of the NZ police is in any way
comparable to the brutality of the IDF.
"Zev" wrote in message
news:9d5daca7-1c18-4531-bb63-
>A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
>to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
>>What else is new?
These soldiers wear uniforms. Even Al Capone's soldiers
didn't do that.
news:9d5daca7-1c18-4531-bb63-
>A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
>to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
>>What else is new?
didn't do that.
|
On Jan 23, 2:45 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:31 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 10:06 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 10:54 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 9:35 am, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > IOF arresting mother and her 18-month baby 19.1.2013 Umm Al Arayes,
> > > > > South Hebron hillshttp://www.youtube.com/
>
> > > > A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
> > > > to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
> > > > What else is new?
>
> > > What's new is that there are actually cameras to witness to the daily
> > > depradations against the citizens of the Occupied Territories.
>
> > There's nothing new about cameras, that was my point.
> > Do you actually believe this clip shows a group of people
> > walking down the street minding their own business,
> > when a group of armed men who happened to be passing by
> > pounce on them?
>
> > Mo, these clips are not from the ME:http://www.youtube.com/> On Jan 23, 11:31 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 10:06 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 10:54 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 9:35 am, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > IOF arresting mother and her 18-month baby 19.1.2013 Umm Al Arayes,
> > > > > South Hebron hillshttp://www.youtube.com/
>
> > > > A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
> > > > to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
> > > > What else is new?
>
> > > What's new is that there are actually cameras to witness to the daily
> > > depradations against the citizens of the Occupied Territories.
>
> > There's nothing new about cameras, that was my point.
> > Do you actually believe this clip shows a group of people
> > walking down the street minding their own business,
> > when a group of armed men who happened to be passing by
> > pounce on them?
>
>
> > This is from Auckland U.http://www.youtube.com/
>
> > I can give you dozens of links like these, but you get the point.
>
> I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think even you believe
> that even the most robust behaviour of the NZ police is in any way
> comparable to the brutality of the IDF.
Do you believe that the savagery of NZ students is comparable to that> > This is from Auckland U.http://www.youtube.com/
>
> > I can give you dozens of links like these, but you get the point.
>
> I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think even you believe
> that even the most robust behaviour of the NZ police is in any way
> comparable to the brutality of the IDF.
of the PalArabs? I think there is a video out there of them dragging
one
of their own behind a car.
|
On Jan 23, 10:45 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:31 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 10:06 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 10:54 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 9:35 am, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > IOF arresting mother and her 18-month baby 19.1.2013 Umm Al Arayes,
> > > > > South Hebron hillshttp://www.youtube.com/
>
> > > > A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
> > > > to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
> > > > What else is new?
>
> > > What's new is that there are actually cameras to witness to the daily
> > > depradations against the citizens of the Occupied Territories.
>
> > There's nothing new about cameras, that was my point.
> > Do you actually believe this clip shows a group of people
> > walking down the street minding their own business,
> > when a group of armed men who happened to be passing by
> > pounce on them?
>
> > Mo, these clips are not from the ME:http://www.youtube.com/> On Jan 23, 11:31 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 10:06 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 10:54 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 9:35 am, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > IOF arresting mother and her 18-month baby 19.1.2013 Umm Al Arayes,
> > > > > South Hebron hillshttp://www.youtube.com/
>
> > > > A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
> > > > to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
> > > > What else is new?
>
> > > What's new is that there are actually cameras to witness to the daily
> > > depradations against the citizens of the Occupied Territories.
>
> > There's nothing new about cameras, that was my point.
> > Do you actually believe this clip shows a group of people
> > walking down the street minding their own business,
> > when a group of armed men who happened to be passing by
> > pounce on them?
>
>
> > This is from Auckland U.http://www.youtube.com/
>
> > I can give you dozens of links like these, but you get the point.
>
> I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think even you believe
> that even the most robust behaviour of the NZ police is in any way
> comparable to the brutality of the IDF.
Soldiers vs. police.> > This is from Auckland U.http://www.youtube.com/
>
> > I can give you dozens of links like these, but you get the point.
>
> I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think even you believe
> that even the most robust behaviour of the NZ police is in any way
> comparable to the brutality of the IDF.
The training is different, the situation is different,
the emotions are different.
But a few months ago, I saw a youtube clip
of an anarchist demonstration in Copenhagen.
It was even worse than the police brutality of "Occupy Wall Street".
It happens all over the world,
but you don't care about it unless Jews are carrying the stick.
What does that make you, Mo?
|
On Jan 23, 10:43 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:36 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 11:02 pm, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 10:54 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 9:35 am, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > IOF arresting mother and her 18-month baby 19.1.2013 Umm Al Arayes,
> > > > > South Hebron hillshttp://www.youtube.com/
>
> > > > A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
> > > > to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
> > > How revealing that you see the civilian victims as a provocation, and
> > > not the illegal presence of occupying troops.
>
> > I didn't see an "illegal presence of occupying troops",
> > so I couldn't possibly see it as a provocation.
>
> You didn't see an illegal presence of occupying troops? You think the
> local, terrified citizens of the West Bank INVITED those goons into
> their lives?
Look up "illegal".> On Jan 23, 11:36 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 11:02 pm, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 10:54 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 9:35 am, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > IOF arresting mother and her 18-month baby 19.1.2013 Umm Al Arayes,
> > > > > South Hebron hillshttp://www.youtube.com/
>
> > > > A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
> > > > to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
> > > How revealing that you see the civilian victims as a provocation, and
> > > not the illegal presence of occupying troops.
>
> > I didn't see an "illegal presence of occupying troops",
> > so I couldn't possibly see it as a provocation.
>
> You didn't see an illegal presence of occupying troops? You think the
> local, terrified citizens of the West Bank INVITED those goons into
> their lives?
> > > > What else is new?
>
> > > Nothing new from you, sadly.
>
> > No news is good news...
>
> No news means only that the daily depredations carried out by the
> violent, armed illegal "settlers" and their IDF security service are
> not being reported.
|
- show quoted text -
assumption, perhaps? Are you trying to suggest that those armed
settlers are legally on Palestinian territory, and that the IDF does
not act as their tax-payer funded security service?
|
On Jan 24, 10:00 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 8:23 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 10:43 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 23, 11:36 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 11:02 pm, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 8:23 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 10:43 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 23, 11:36 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 11:02 pm, empedocles economopolis <empedocles...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > No news means only that the daily depredations carried out by the
> > > violent, armed illegal "settlers" and their IDF security service are
> > > not being reported.
>
> > I won't bother telling you which logical fallacy you're making here.
>
> What logical fallacy might that be? Did I make an erroneous
> assumption, perhaps? Are you trying to suggest that those armed
> settlers are legally on Palestinian territory, and that the IDF does
> not act as their tax-payer funded security service?
You assume that it's illegal for Israelis to live and defend> > > violent, armed illegal "settlers" and their IDF security service are
> > > not being reported.
>
> > I won't bother telling you which logical fallacy you're making here.
>
> What logical fallacy might that be? Did I make an erroneous
> assumption, perhaps? Are you trying to suggest that those armed
> settlers are legally on Palestinian territory, and that the IDF does
> not act as their tax-payer funded security service?
themselves
in Judea and Samaria.
|
- show quoted text -
your ideological zeal to abolish the reality, and the people, of the
West Bank and Gaza.
One of these days the law will be enforced, and the United States will
cease to extend diplomatic support to the morally insupportable---just
like it did a generation ago in the case of another, albeit more
benevolent, apartheid regime.
- show quoted text -
need to support my statement that the sun has just come up in
Auckland. And I did not "make another claim", I addressed your
fantastic, doctrinally driven obliteration of the people of the
Occupied Territories, i.e. the West Bank.
>
> even more difficult to support.
is asserting fantastical and illegal visions of extermination.
>
> Is this behavior common in New Zealand?
wing government that continually indulges in cynical semantic game-
playing.
|
- show quoted text -
living and defending themselves in Judea and Samaria.
2) Support your claim that Israel is an apartheid regime.
> I am not the one that
> is asserting fantastical and illegal visions of extermination.
> > Is this behavior common in New Zealand?
>
> Your behaviour is very common here, unfortunately. We have a right
> wing government that continually indulges in cynical semantic game-
> playing.
my guess is that this is a complaint of the mentally challenged.
|
- show quoted text -
every other country bar one regime in the middle east and possibly a
few South Pacific island states, says Israel is illegally occupying
the West Bank. While you're in the process of demanding confirmation
of the incontrovertible, yes, I can confirm that there is a huge (and
illegal) annexation wall snaking through Palestinian territory, that
your crazy prime minister has indeed held onto power, and that San
Francisco will be one of the teams in this year's Super Bowl. Do you
need me to confirm any other incontestable facts for you?
>
> 2) Support your claim that Israel is an apartheid regime.
they're being very kind to Israel. Most honest commentators recognize
that Israel is far harsher and more repressive than the Boers ever
were.
>
> > I am not the one that
> > is asserting fantastical and illegal visions of extermination.
>
> Nice, but otoh, you think some places should by Judenrein.
untruthful language, you will somehow trick people into believing that
human rights protestors are Nazis? Chutzpah, thy name is Zev.
>
> > > Is this behavior common in New Zealand?
>
> > Your behaviour is very common here, unfortunately. We have a right
> > wing government that continually indulges in cynical semantic game-
> > playing.
>
> Not knowing much about NZ issues or politics,
> my guess is that this is a complaint of the mentally challenged.
You can do better, Zev. Much better. For a start, I suggest you throw
away your Hasbara handbook, and engage in honest debate. Slinging
round ridiculous terms like "Judenrein" only makes you look pathetic,
as well as ruthless.
|
On Jan 27, 9:20 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:24 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 7:59 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 25, 7:23 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 24, 11:49 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 25, 10:15 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jan 24, 10:00 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:24 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 7:59 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 25, 7:23 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 24, 11:49 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 25, 10:15 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jan 24, 10:00 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > I do not need to "support" an incontrovertible fact, any more than I
> > > need to support my statement that the sun has just come up in
> > > Auckland. And I did not "make another claim", I addressed your
> > > fantastic, doctrinally driven obliteration of the people of the
> > > Occupied Territories, i.e. the West Bank.
>
> > > > even more difficult to support.
>
> > > What have I said that is "difficult to support"?
>
> > 1) Support your claim of the illegality of Israelis
> > living and defending themselves in Judea and Samaria.
>
> International law, which is endorsed by the United States as well as
> every other country bar one regime in the middle east and possibly a
> few South Pacific island states, says Israel is illegally occupying
> the West Bank. While you're in the process of demanding confirmation
> of the incontrovertible, yes, I can confirm that there is a huge (and
> illegal) annexation wall snaking through Palestinian territory, that
> your crazy prime minister has indeed held onto power, and that San
> Francisco will be one of the teams in this year's Super Bowl. Do you
> need me to confirm any other incontestable facts for you?
"Illegality" is itself no more than a claim> > > need to support my statement that the sun has just come up in
> > > Auckland. And I did not "make another claim", I addressed your
> > > fantastic, doctrinally driven obliteration of the people of the
> > > Occupied Territories, i.e. the West Bank.
>
> > > > even more difficult to support.
>
> > > What have I said that is "difficult to support"?
>
> > 1) Support your claim of the illegality of Israelis
> > living and defending themselves in Judea and Samaria.
>
> International law, which is endorsed by the United States as well as
> every other country bar one regime in the middle east and possibly a
> few South Pacific island states, says Israel is illegally occupying
> the West Bank. While you're in the process of demanding confirmation
> of the incontrovertible, yes, I can confirm that there is a huge (and
> illegal) annexation wall snaking through Palestinian territory, that
> your crazy prime minister has indeed held onto power, and that San
> Francisco will be one of the teams in this year's Super Bowl. Do you
> need me to confirm any other incontestable facts for you?
that international law prohibits it.
Your "support" here is not helpful, and contrary to your claim,
the U.S. calls the settlements provocative, not illegal.
Palestinian terror built that wall, so it's just as legal
as a wall around a fortress in enemy territory.
If you disagree, please explain why.
Don't bother telling me that some people say it's illegal.
I know that.
> > 2) Support your claim that Israel is an apartheid regime.
>
> Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu have repeatedly said exactly that, but
> they're being very kind to Israel. Most honest commentators recognize
> that Israel is far harsher and more repressive than the Boers ever
> were.
Justice Richard Goldstone knows a lot about both.
The following is an excerpt from an article in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/
quote:
I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s
abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings
characterized as black had no rights to vote,
hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites,
live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.”
Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death
if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital.
“White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.
In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies,
which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity,
it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel,
where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain
under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.
In Israel, there is no apartheid.
Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid
under the 1998 Rome Statute...
end quote
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 1, 2011,
on page A27 of the New York edition with
the headline: Israel and the Apartheid Slander.
> > > I am not the one that
> > > is asserting fantastical and illegal visions of extermination.
>
> > Nice, but otoh, you think some places should by Judenrein.
>
> How cynical can you get? Do you think by using such inflammatory and
> untruthful language, you will somehow trick people into believing that
> human rights protestors are Nazis? Chutzpah, thy name is Zev.
"doctrinally driven obliteration" and extermination
and you charge me with chutzpah?
Do you think I have to "trick" people into believing that
"human rights protestors" who take no interest in human rights
offenses,
unless Jews/Israel can somehow be blamed for them, are anti-Semitic?
> > > > Is this behavior common in New Zealand?
>
> > > Your behaviour is very common here, unfortunately. We have a right
> > > wing government that continually indulges in cynical semantic game-
> > > playing.
>
> > Not knowing much about NZ issues or politics,
> > my guess is that this is a complaint of the mentally challenged.
>
> That's not as charged as the "judenrein" slur; it's just lame.
> You can do better, Zev. Much better. For a start, I suggest you throw
> away your Hasbara handbook, and engage in honest debate. Slinging
> round ridiculous terms like "Judenrein" only makes you look pathetic,
> as well as ruthless.
But it's not me.
It's your demonizing, delegitimizing, and double standard which
makes you look like an anti-Semite,
that attracts the response you get from me.
Put your arguments on the table, fill them out with facts,
I'll follow suit.
|
- show quoted text -
fact.
>
> Your "support" here is not helpful, and contrary to your claim,
> the U.S. calls the settlements provocative, not illegal.
of U.S. politicians with the actual U.S. position on the illegal
settlements, which is the same as the rest of the world, i.e., that
they are illegal and must be dismantled.
>
> Palestinian terror built that wall,
>
> so it's just as legal
> as a wall around a fortress in enemy territory.
territory" analogy would be funny if I thought you were not being
absolutely serious.
>
> If you disagree, please explain why.
> Don't bother telling me that some people say it's illegal.
except one, recognizes it is illegal.
>
> I know that.
>
> > > 2) Support your claim that Israel is an apartheid regime.
>
> > Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu have repeatedly said exactly that, but
> > they're being very kind to Israel. Most honest commentators recognize
> > that Israel is far harsher and more repressive than the Boers ever
> > were.
>
> Two people who know a lot about apartheid but little about Israel.
would have criticized it far more accurately and rigorously than
comparing it to a significantly more benevolent regime.
>
> Justice Richard Goldstone knows a lot about both.
BEFORE he was threatened, bullied, and browbeaten into recanting.
>
> The following is an excerpt from an article in the New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/
- show quoted text -
legal authorities, that holds Israel's occupation of the West Bank and
its blockade of Gaza to be illegal. And by the way, I don't "throw
around" words like "extermination"; you need to listen to what your
mainstream politicians in Israel are saying.
>
> Do you think I have to "trick" people into believing that
> "human rights protestors" who take no interest in human rights
> offenses,
> unless Jews/Israel can somehow be blamed for them, are anti-Semitic?
Israel is a nonsense. Your claim that the world is picking on your
beleaguered state is not a new phenomenon; American newspaper columns
in the 1960s were full of angry diatribes by white southerners,
railing against the eastern liberals who were picking on the South. In
the 1970s and 80s, the same special pleading came from defenders of
the South African apartheid state.
>
|
On Jan 28, 9:42 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 1:16 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
You are a brown shirt, just a left wing type. Good job, chump.> On Jan 28, 1:16 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
|
On Jan 29, 6:32 pm, poor old DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> attempted,
unwisely, to be clever:
would still be a sad and dishonest effort.
unwisely, to be clever:
> On Jan 28, 9:42 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 1:16 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You are a brown shirt, just a left wing type. Good job, chump.
Even if you had the ability to craft an intelligent riposte, that>
> > On Jan 28, 1:16 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You are a brown shirt, just a left wing type. Good job, chump.
would still be a sad and dishonest effort.
|
On Jan 29, 5:42 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 1:16 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 9:20 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 11:24 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 25, 7:59 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 25, 7:23 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jan 24, 11:49 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jan 25, 10:15 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 10:00 pm, Morrissey Breen
> > > > > > > > <morrisseybr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > I do not need to "support" an incontrovertible fact, any more than
> > > > > I
> > > > > need to support my statement that the sun has just come up in
> > > > > Auckland. And I did not "make another claim", I addressed your
> > > > > fantastic, doctrinally driven obliteration of the people of the
> > > > > Occupied Territories, i.e. the West Bank.
>
> > > > > > even more difficult to support.
>
> > > > > What have I said that is "difficult to support"?
>
> > > > 1) Support your claim of the illegality of Israelis
> > > > living and defending themselves in Judea and Samaria.
>
> > > International law, which is endorsed by the United States as well as
> > > every other country bar one regime in the middle east and possibly a
> > > few South Pacific island states, says Israel is illegally occupying
> > > the West Bank. While you're in the process of demanding confirmation
> > > of the incontrovertible, yes, I can confirm that there is a huge (and
> > > illegal) annexation wall snaking through Palestinian territory, that
> > > your crazy prime minister has indeed held onto power, and that San
> > > Francisco will be one of the teams in this year's Super Bowl. Do you
> > > need me to confirm any other incontestable facts for you?
>
> > "Illegality" is itself no more than a claim
> > that international law prohibits it.
>
> The illegality of the Israeli occupation is not a "claim", it is a
> fact.
UNSCR 242 doesn't require Israel to return *all* or *the* territories.
Do you think the part which Israel eventually returns, like Gaza,
is retroactively defined as illegally occupied and the other part not?
Can you make sense out of this?
> > Your "support" here is not helpful, and contrary to your claim,
> > the U.S. calls the settlements provocative, not illegal.
>
> You have, perhaps unwittingly, confused the mealy-mouthed statements
> of U.S. politicians with the actual U.S. position on the illegal
> settlements, which is the same as the rest of the world, i.e., that
> they are illegal and must be dismantled.
Facts are against you.
> > Palestinian terror built that wall,
>
> Palestinian workers built that wall, to their shame and mortification.
You'd rather see terrorists entering freely and killing Israelis,
and Israel killing Palestinians in the inevitable IDF responses.
That's about as shameful and mortifying as gets.
> > so it's just as legal
> > as a wall around a fortress in enemy territory.
>
> It is illegal, and that is the ruling of the World Court. Your "enemy
> territory" analogy would be funny if I thought you were not being
> absolutely serious.
Please explain the fallacy.
> > If you disagree, please explain why.
> > Don't bother telling me that some people say it's illegal.
>
> "Some people"? The World Court, and every government in the world,
> except one, recognizes it is illegal.
That court opinion mentions Jerusalem and the west bank separately,
recognizing the difference, but ignoring it.
But do you actually claim to have knowledge of
official government statements on this issue
from every government in the world?
> > I know that.
>
> > > > 2) Support your claim that Israel is an apartheid regime.
>
> > > Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu have repeatedly said exactly that, but
> > > they're being very kind to Israel. Most honest commentators recognize
> > > that Israel is far harsher and more repressive than the Boers ever
> > > were.
>
> > Two people who know a lot about apartheid but little about Israel.
>
> Yes, you're correct in that. If they knew more about Israel, they
> would have criticized it far more accurately and rigorously than
> comparing it to a significantly more benevolent regime.
>
>
>
> > Justice Richard Goldstone knows a lot about both.
>
> Yes he does. That's why it's worth reading his the report he wrote
> BEFORE he was threatened, bullied, and browbeaten into recanting.
Do you believe his comparison between South African & Israeli society
in this article is reasonably correct?
That he was threatened, bullied, and browbeaten into writing this
article?
If not, can you describe the errors?
> > The following is an excerpt from an article in the New York
> > Times.http://www.nytimes.com/
> > quote:
> > I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s
> > abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings
> > characterized as black had no rights to vote,
> > hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites,
> > live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.”
> > Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death
> > if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital.
> > “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.
>
> > In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies,
> > which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity,
> > it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel,
> > where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain
> > under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.
>
> > In Israel, there is no apartheid.
> > Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid
> > under the 1998 Rome Statute...
> > end quote
> > A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 1, 2011,
> > on page A27 of the New York edition with
> > the headline: Israel and the Apartheid Slander.
>
> > > > > I am not the one that
> > > > > is asserting fantastical and illegal visions of extermination.
>
> > > > Nice, but otoh, you think some places should by Judenrein.
>
> > > How cynical can you get? Do you think by using such inflammatory and
> > > untruthful language, you will somehow trick people into believing that
> > > human rights protestors are Nazis? Chutzpah, thy name is Zev.
>
> > You throw around words like illegal, apartheid,
> > "doctrinally driven obliteration" and extermination
> > and you charge me with chutzpah?
>
> It is not me, but the international community, and the very highest
> legal authorities, that holds Israel's occupation of the West Bank and
> its blockade of Gaza to be illegal. And by the way, I don't "throw
> around" words like "extermination"; you need to listen to what your
> mainstream politicians in Israel are saying.
Actually the "international community"
says the embargo is legal, officially.
(not that it would make a difference, embargos *are* legal)
And your "mainstream politicians" bit is BS.
Mo, you don't have to excuse your use of cheap, inflammatory language.
But if you like it, don't complain about it.
> > Do you think I have to "trick" people into believing that
> > "human rights protestors" who take no interest in human rights
> > offenses,
> > unless Jews/Israel can somehow be blamed for them, are anti-Semitic?
>
> Your allegation that human rights protestors concentrate only on
> Israel is a nonsense. Your claim that the world is picking on your
> beleaguered state is not a new phenomenon; American newspaper columns
> in the 1960s were full of angry diatribes by white southerners,
> railing against the eastern liberals who were picking on the South. In
> the 1970s and 80s, the same special pleading came from defenders of
> the South African apartheid state.
Your response is as usual, disappointing but not surprising.
I practically implored you to put your arguments on the table
and flesh them out with facts.
You respond with nothing.
> On Jan 28, 1:16 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 9:20 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 11:24 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 25, 7:59 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 25, 7:23 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jan 24, 11:49 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jan 25, 10:15 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 10:00 pm, Morrissey Breen
> > > > > > > > <morrisseybr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > I do not need to "support" an incontrovertible fact, any more than
> > > > > I
> > > > > need to support my statement that the sun has just come up in
> > > > > Auckland. And I did not "make another claim", I addressed your
> > > > > fantastic, doctrinally driven obliteration of the people of the
> > > > > Occupied Territories, i.e. the West Bank.
>
> > > > > > even more difficult to support.
>
> > > > > What have I said that is "difficult to support"?
>
> > > > 1) Support your claim of the illegality of Israelis
> > > > living and defending themselves in Judea and Samaria.
>
> > > International law, which is endorsed by the United States as well as
> > > every other country bar one regime in the middle east and possibly a
> > > few South Pacific island states, says Israel is illegally occupying
> > > the West Bank. While you're in the process of demanding confirmation
> > > of the incontrovertible, yes, I can confirm that there is a huge (and
> > > illegal) annexation wall snaking through Palestinian territory, that
> > > your crazy prime minister has indeed held onto power, and that San
> > > Francisco will be one of the teams in this year's Super Bowl. Do you
> > > need me to confirm any other incontestable facts for you?
>
> > "Illegality" is itself no more than a claim
> > that international law prohibits it.
>
> The illegality of the Israeli occupation is not a "claim", it is a
> fact.
UNSCR 242 doesn't require Israel to return *all* or *the* territories.
Do you think the part which Israel eventually returns, like Gaza,
is retroactively defined as illegally occupied and the other part not?
Can you make sense out of this?
> > Your "support" here is not helpful, and contrary to your claim,
> > the U.S. calls the settlements provocative, not illegal.
>
> You have, perhaps unwittingly, confused the mealy-mouthed statements
> of U.S. politicians with the actual U.S. position on the illegal
> settlements, which is the same as the rest of the world, i.e., that
> they are illegal and must be dismantled.
Facts are against you.
> > Palestinian terror built that wall,
>
> Palestinian workers built that wall, to their shame and mortification.
You'd rather see terrorists entering freely and killing Israelis,
and Israel killing Palestinians in the inevitable IDF responses.
That's about as shameful and mortifying as gets.
> > so it's just as legal
> > as a wall around a fortress in enemy territory.
>
> It is illegal, and that is the ruling of the World Court. Your "enemy
> territory" analogy would be funny if I thought you were not being
> absolutely serious.
Please explain the fallacy.
> > If you disagree, please explain why.
> > Don't bother telling me that some people say it's illegal.
>
> "Some people"? The World Court, and every government in the world,
> except one, recognizes it is illegal.
That court opinion mentions Jerusalem and the west bank separately,
recognizing the difference, but ignoring it.
But do you actually claim to have knowledge of
official government statements on this issue
from every government in the world?
> > I know that.
>
> > > > 2) Support your claim that Israel is an apartheid regime.
>
> > > Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu have repeatedly said exactly that, but
> > > they're being very kind to Israel. Most honest commentators recognize
> > > that Israel is far harsher and more repressive than the Boers ever
> > > were.
>
> > Two people who know a lot about apartheid but little about Israel.
>
> Yes, you're correct in that. If they knew more about Israel, they
> would have criticized it far more accurately and rigorously than
> comparing it to a significantly more benevolent regime.
>
>
>
> > Justice Richard Goldstone knows a lot about both.
>
> Yes he does. That's why it's worth reading his the report he wrote
> BEFORE he was threatened, bullied, and browbeaten into recanting.
Do you believe his comparison between South African & Israeli society
in this article is reasonably correct?
That he was threatened, bullied, and browbeaten into writing this
article?
If not, can you describe the errors?
> > The following is an excerpt from an article in the New York
> > Times.http://www.nytimes.com/
> > quote:
> > I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s
> > abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings
> > characterized as black had no rights to vote,
> > hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites,
> > live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.”
> > Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death
> > if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital.
> > “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.
>
> > In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies,
> > which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity,
> > it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel,
> > where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain
> > under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.
>
> > In Israel, there is no apartheid.
> > Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid
> > under the 1998 Rome Statute...
> > end quote
> > A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 1, 2011,
> > on page A27 of the New York edition with
> > the headline: Israel and the Apartheid Slander.
>
> > > > > I am not the one that
> > > > > is asserting fantastical and illegal visions of extermination.
>
> > > > Nice, but otoh, you think some places should by Judenrein.
>
> > > How cynical can you get? Do you think by using such inflammatory and
> > > untruthful language, you will somehow trick people into believing that
> > > human rights protestors are Nazis? Chutzpah, thy name is Zev.
>
> > You throw around words like illegal, apartheid,
> > "doctrinally driven obliteration" and extermination
> > and you charge me with chutzpah?
>
> It is not me, but the international community, and the very highest
> legal authorities, that holds Israel's occupation of the West Bank and
> its blockade of Gaza to be illegal. And by the way, I don't "throw
> around" words like "extermination"; you need to listen to what your
> mainstream politicians in Israel are saying.
Actually the "international community"
says the embargo is legal, officially.
(not that it would make a difference, embargos *are* legal)
And your "mainstream politicians" bit is BS.
Mo, you don't have to excuse your use of cheap, inflammatory language.
But if you like it, don't complain about it.
> > Do you think I have to "trick" people into believing that
> > "human rights protestors" who take no interest in human rights
> > offenses,
> > unless Jews/Israel can somehow be blamed for them, are anti-Semitic?
>
> Your allegation that human rights protestors concentrate only on
> Israel is a nonsense. Your claim that the world is picking on your
> beleaguered state is not a new phenomenon; American newspaper columns
> in the 1960s were full of angry diatribes by white southerners,
> railing against the eastern liberals who were picking on the South. In
> the 1970s and 80s, the same special pleading came from defenders of
> the South African apartheid state.
Your response is as usual, disappointing but not surprising.
I practically implored you to put your arguments on the table
and flesh them out with facts.
You respond with nothing.
|
On Jan 24, 4:34 am, "Walt Hampton" <walt.hamp...@att.net> wrote:
> "Zev" wrote in message
>
> news:9d5daca7-1c18-4531-bb63-
>
> >A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
> >to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
> >>What else is new?
>
> These soldiers wear uniforms. Even Al Capone's soldiers
> didn't do that.
My goodness, before you know it, they'll be cursing
those poor women and children in Arabic.
And after that, who knows what?
> "Zev" wrote in message
>
> news:9d5daca7-1c18-4531-bb63-
>
> >A bunch of cameramen bring women and children
> >to a demonstration to provoke soldiers.
>
> >>What else is new?
>
> These soldiers wear uniforms. Even Al Capone's soldiers
> didn't do that.
My goodness, before you know it, they'll be cursing
those poor women and children in Arabic.
And after that, who knows what?
|
On Jan 29, 3:45 am, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 6:32 pm, poor old DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> attempted,
> unwisely, to be clever:
>
> Even if you had the ability to craft an intelligent riposte, that
> would still be a sad and dishonest effort.
That was. You are just too much of a typical left-wing brown shirt to
notice. Of
course you don't hate Jews, you just hate Zionists :::rolls eyes::::
Typical liberal
racist.
> On Jan 29, 6:32 pm, poor old DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> attempted,
> unwisely, to be clever:
>
> > On Jan 28, 9:42 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 1:16 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You are a brown shirt, just a left wing type. Good job, chump.> > On Jan 28, 9:42 pm, Morrissey Breen <morrisseybr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 28, 1:16 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Even if you had the ability to craft an intelligent riposte, that
> would still be a sad and dishonest effort.
That was. You are just too much of a typical left-wing brown shirt to
notice. Of
course you don't hate Jews, you just hate Zionists :::rolls eyes::::
Typical liberal
racist.
No comments:
Post a Comment