JEFF GATES ASKS: ANTI-SEMITISM - WHAT IS IT?
coaste...@yahoo.com
Anti-Semitism – What is it?
March 15, 2010 by Jeff Gates · 1 Comment
Several of us among the incurably curious asked ourselves a simple
question: what is anti-Semitism? That it must be written with a
capital “S” says a lot.
Then we realized it also morphs. To that feature I can attest. In
November 2002, I met a “John Doe” in London who proposed a research
challenge. While meeting that challenge, I encountered various
versions of anti-Semitism.
A colleague advised against this challenge. First he fretted at the
criminal nature of what the research has since confirmed. Then he
inquired about my safety. That said a lot.
The colleague was M.I.T. Professor Noam Chomsky. For his criticism of
Israeli policy, he was attacked as a self-hating Jew. Were he not
Jewish, doubtless he would have been an anti-Semite. For critics of
Israel, those are the only two options. He cautioned me:
You’ll get the same thing: anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier, want to
kill all the Jews, etc. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Bear in
mind that you are dealing with intellectuals, that is, what we call
‘commissars’ and ‘apparatchiks’ in enemy states.
Is anti-Semitism a geopolitical strategy? If so, for what purpose?
Character assassination?
Ten months ago, I met with Professor William Robinson on the
University of California Santa Barbara campus. We met soon after he
was attacked by the Anti-Defamation League and its network.
Robinson had read Guilt By Association, the first release based on
this research. His question mirrored Prof. Chomsky’s concern: “Are
they going to kill me?” he asked. Who are They? Those who attack
anyone critical of Israeli policy.
Anti-Semitism—A License to Kill?
For his class on globalization, Robinson provided an email link to a
photo essay critical of Israeli policy. The essay had been circulating
online for weeks. When two students complained to the ADL, its attack
troops insisted on Robinson’s removal while its national network urged
alumni to threaten the withholding of gifts and bequests to the
university.
Word quickly spread among academics nationwide. That time-critical ADL
strategy silenced on-campus criticism of the Israeli assault on Gaza.
Is it anti-Semitic to suggest that’s how anti-Semitism works?
When the Anti-Defamation League intimidates on a national scale, does
anti-Semitism morph into something even more sinister? The Gaza
assault killed 1,400, including 400 Palestinian children. That
slaughter was scheduled during America’s political and media “down
time”—between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 inaugural of Barack
Obama.
Is it anti-Semitic to suggest a strategic motive behind the timing of
Israel’s latest savagery?
Then there’s the motive for 911. Is it anti-Semitic to raise that
taboo subject? Ask those members of the 911 Commission who objected—
successfully—when the chair and vice-chair proposed hearings on the
motivation for that high-profile provocation.
Instead, Americans were left to cope with the results of an
overwrought reaction to an unexplained mass murder too quickly blamed
on “Islamo” fascism. Only now can we see the full costs in blood and
treasure of a war waged on fixed intelligence and false pretenses.
The fiscal tab alone is projected to total $3 Trillion. That includes
the future costs of military pensions, disabilities, record-level post-
traumatic stress, suicides and so forth.
All that money is borrowed, a first for an American war. The interest
cost could reach $700 billion. Is it anti-Semitic to mention here that
debt is always the prize?
At the end of WWII, the victorious U.S. was home to 50% of the world’s
productive power. Our bonds were gilt-edged and remained so for two
generations. Now we are widely hated, our credibility is shot, our
credit rating is slipping and our economy teeters on a meltdown.
Is it anti-Semitic to ask, “What happened?”
Is it anti-Semitic to report that the so-called “mastermind” behind
911 cited as his motive the U.S.-Israeli relationship?
Would it be anti-Semitic to ask for an accounting of the “but for”
costs of this relationship?
But for this “special relationship” what would be the current
condition of the U.S.—financially, militarily, diplomatically,
geopolitically? Would the computation of those costs be an exercise in
anti-Semitism? How about future costs?
Is it Anti-Semitic to call for a New 911 Commission?
America was misled to wage war in Iraq. Who had a relationship with us
privileged enough to succeed with such duplicity in plain sight?
Who had the means, motive, opportunity and—importantly—the stable
nation state intelligence to deceive us from inside our own
government? Is that question anti-Semitic?
We were betrayed. Does that betrayal trace to those who befriended us?
We were defrauded. Does that treason trace to those we were induced to
trust?
As counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (1980-87), I crafted
federal tax law governing funds under management. Those funds surged
from $800 billion in 1980 to more than $17,000 billion by the spring
of 2007.
Those tax policies created a vast pool of “money-on-autopilot.”
Today’s consensus belief can be simply put: money should be allowed to
pursue more of itself—freely.
The unspoken assumption is that money is smarter than people. That’s
the generally accepted truth behind the finance-fixated obsession we
now know as “economics.”
Legions of consensus-touting consultants insist that this One True
Faith guide lawmaking worldwide. By law, financial freedom became a
proxy for personal freedom. Tribunals under the World Trade
Organization may yet enforce that worldview globally.
How did such a narrow perspective become a widely agreed-to mindset?
How were we induced to set America’s course by those values peculiar
to money?
Rather than the civil rights refrain, “Let my people go,” the
consensus refrain is “Let my money go.” Were we induced by a
subculture within a subculture…within a subculture to freely embrace
the very money myopic mindset that now endangers our freedom?
This mindset first surfaced as the “Chicago model” before morphing
over decades into the “Washington” consensus.
How were we as a nation induced to brand democracy with a point of
view that, by law, displaces those values not denominated in money? Is
that an anti-Semitic question?
Shutting Down Debate
Early on in this challenge, I included the noun “Jew” in a Google
search. I received in return an automated response from the Anti-
Defamation League implying I was an anti-Semite.
Why?
More importantly, how did a Google response appear in my email inbox—
automatically—from the Anti-Defamation League?
The ADL network conducts trainings for law enforcement under recently
enacted federal hate crimes legislation. By my use of a common noun in
an online search, am I now identified in a database as wanting to kill
all the Jews?
Mark Yudoff, president of the University of California, could have
intervened in the on-campus events that caused Professor Robinson to
fear for his life. He declined. Richard Blum, chair of the state’s
Board of Regents, could have intervened. He too declined.
Judith Yudoff is the immediate past international president of the
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues.
Blum’s wife, U. S. Senator Diane Feinstein, chairs the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence. Is it anti-Semitic to report these facts?
My apologies. Clearly I don’t yet grasp what anti-Semitism is. Thus I
throw the challenge to you the reader: what is it? Together perhaps we
can sort this out.
mirjam
Anti Semitism is what you do , spending your time posting all kinds
of materials that you think might show Jews in a bad light .
mirjam
Count 1
"mirjam" <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote in message
news:8bbbf740-8351-4523...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
What he does is far more than that. He regularly uses the anti-semitic
canard of Jews manipulating government policy and public opinion for their
own ends, even to the point of fighting wars for them. He actually thinks
Afghanistan and Iraq are being fought for Israel.
I often wonder why Kuwait escapes this 'analysis'. Iraq was far more of a
threat to that nation then it ever even pretended to be towards Israel.
He's bought into the lie that 9-11 was 'about Israel', even though he's been
shown time and again that OBL only had a passing concern about Israel and
Palestinians at the time.
And he's so stupid he can't even see his anti-semitism. He'd fail a test
with the only question being 'How many noses do you have?'
drahcir
DoD
LOL......
Alexander
Mirjam is a lying Jew cunt and you are just a lying cunt.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Get out of the West Bank, Ms. Mirjam. Quit ethnically cleansing East
Jerusalem. Quit refusing to cooperate with your only ally. Do justice
to the Palestinian people----or swear off your addiction to American
support. Take your pick.
Joe Bruno
wrote:
In my opinion, every anti-Semite knows that he is one.
Moreover, anyone who discusses Jews or Israel with him will know it
very quickly.
There really is no point in wading through all these definitions.
coaste...@yahoo.com
But this leaves the definition of anti-Semitism to Jews. We don't
accept that because of how the concept has been misused to inhibit
debate on the national interest.
Therefore, you can't get away with defining it unilaterally. We just
won't permit it.
Joe Bruno
wrote:
I said no such thing.
We don't
> accept that because of how the concept has been misused to inhibit
> debate on the national interest.
Free speech means I can say anything I like about it and I don't care
if you accept it or not.
Your acceptance of my views is NOT required.
>
> Therefore, you can't get away with defining it unilaterally. We just
> won't permit it.- Hide quoted text -
\\
I didn't define it at all. I said each anti-Semite knows if he is one
and anyone talking to him will realize it very quickly.
Nobody has to justify their feelings to you.
NefeshBarYochai
I agree with you Mirjam. I read Iconoclast is a very devious and anti-
Semitic dog. He needs to be pounded on by any Jew on Eretz Israel
that can trap him, but how do we send him up there. We know he’s a
skunk and an unrounded punk. I bet if her were to go to Israel and
confront any Jew in any bar even the elderly ladies would pound the
hell out of him. He is a bery bery bad goy.
NefeshBarYochai
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alex I say you are a coward and a fart sniffer.
NefeshBarYochai
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
And the "we" is you and the hand you use to jack-off with. Go to your
room bad goy!
fla...@verizon.net
Couldn't agree more ---
> > > Moreover, anyone who discusses Jews or Israel with him will know it
> > > very quickly.
-- & the same, here.
> > > There really is no point in wading through all these definitions.
> >
> > But this leaves the definition of anti-Semitism to Jews.
>
> I said no such thing.
You don't have to - it *is* up to Jews to define it.
It's only Jew-haters who think otherwise.
You would never tell a woman what is offensive to
women, right? And a woman should never tell men
what should offend men. Same principle here.
> > We don't
> > accept that because of how the concept has been misused to inhibit
> > debate on the national interest.
>
And here's a clue *right* here that we have an anti-semite.
He's lying about his Jew-hatred to try to escape the label.
> Free speech means I can say anything I like about it and I don't care
> if you accept it or not.
> Your acceptance of my views is NOT required.
He would agree about that - he will just lie about why
you're saying what you're saying, as he does, above.
> > Therefore, you can't get away with defining it unilaterally. We just
> > won't permit it.
Impotent tantrum.
> I didn't define it at all. I said each anti-Semite knows if he is one
> and anyone talking to him will realize it very quickly.
>
> Nobody has to justify their feelings to you.
And no one is going to validate his.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 21-Mar-2010, NefeshBarYochai <lbit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 11:13�pm, Alexander <Alexan...@thegreat.org> wrote:
>
> > >> He's bought into the lie that 9-11 was 'about Israel', even though
> > >> he's been
> > >> shown time and again that OBL only had a passing concern about Israel
> > >> and
> > >> Palestinians at the time.
> >
[snip]
> >
> > Mirjam is a lying Jew cunt and you are just a lying cunt.-
My, such intellectual refutations.
And not at all indicative of moral & intellectual bakruptcy - oh, no!
> Alex I say you are a coward and a fart sniffer.
At best.
Susan
Joe Bruno
YOu should take your cue from Hugo Black, who used to sit on the US
Supreme Court.
Someone asked him to define "obscenity". He said:"I know it when I see
it'"
NefeshBarYochai
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL
drahcir
wrote:
> On Mar 20, 12:23 pm, mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
>
> > Mr Iconoclast ,
> > Anti Semitism is what you do , spending your time posting all kinds
> > of materials that you think might show Jews in a bad light .
> > mirjam
>
> Get out of the West Bank, Ms. Mirjam.
From yet another post from which you fled:
"Regarding your "get
out of the west bank" bullshit, it's very simple: the acquisition of
the west bank was the result of one of many arab instigated wars.
Israel would have been happy as hell to exist within post-1948
boundaries at peace with its neighbors, but arabs wouldn't hear of it.
You pays your money, you takes your chances. When arabs decide they
want a country bad enough to propose conditions that will be
acceptable to israel, israel will be out of whatever portion of the wb
is agreed upon. H, arabs attacked israel for no reason - there must be
a price. The territory of the US, on the other hand, was not acquired
because native americans attacked the british or mexico attacked the
us. It was simply stolen. So in terms of right and wrong, there is
certainly more justification for israel to annex whatever part of the
wb they see fit than for the US to keep all of the land it stole from
na's and from mexico. As zev said, after we give back texas, let's
talk about the wb. "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/e0cd595fd87e44ad
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 21, 2:05 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 20, 12:23 pm, mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
>
> > > Mr Iconoclast ,
> > > Anti Semitism is what you do , spending your time posting all kinds
> > > of materials that you think might show Jews in a bad light .
> > > mirjam
>
> > Get out of the West Bank, Ms. Mirjam.
>
> From yet another post from which you fled:
>
> "Regarding your "get
> out of the west bank" bullshit, it's very simple: the acquisition of
> the west bank was the result of one of many arab instigated wars.
Will you never tell the truth? Far from fleeing from this
misrepresentation of history, I've repeatedly pointed out that the
1948 invasion of Palestine was a response to the ethnic cleansing by
the Ben-Gurion regime which began in 1947, five or six months earlier,
and drove 750,000 helpless Palestinians from their homes by the end of
1948. It was an obviously just war by the Arab states. The invasion of
Palestine was an effort to stop and reverse a crime against humanity.
Instigated by the Arabs, indeed. Tell the truth, Ratner!
> Israel would have been happy as hell to exist within post-1948
> boundaries at peace with its neighbors, but arabs wouldn't hear of it.
Pure lying malice. You know better. Everyone here does. Ben-Gurion
was determined to take as much of Palestine as he could, preferably
all of it. His admittedly phony "acceptance" of the partition of 1947
was in itself a lie as his behavior in the immediate aftermath proves
beyond reasonable doubt.
> You pays your money, you takes your chances.
Indeed, that was precisely Ben-Gurion's approach. He was a gambler, a
war criminal, but not a statesman. He was a Zionist. What would you
expect from such a person armed with an ideology which was designed to
justify the theft of another people's country.
When arabs decide they
> want a country bad enough to propose conditions that will be
> acceptable to israel, israel will be out of whatever portion of the wb
> is agreed upon.
"Take it or leave it. We've got 78% and will take however much more we
please. To hell with betraying the U.S. They are in our pocket whether
they like it or not. They're goyim and we owe them nothing. To hell
with European opinion. They're guilty of the Holocaust to the last
man. To hell with anyone but us. The rules of so-called civilized
behavior to not apply in our case!"
H, arabs attacked israel for no reason
That's never been done in all of human history. You are a know-nothing
when it comes to the human condition. If you're going to make such an
argument a much better candidate for it would be your attack on Gaza
last year. But the "no reason" rationale is still a fallacy.
- there must be
> a price.
And soon you will have to pay it unless you give up this insanely self-
centered presumption that you can get away with anything now that
you've subdued the United States. You're blind. You can't even see
that its changing, you've lost the vast reservoir of sympathy you had
after the Holocaust. You've squandered it out of hubris.
The territory of the US, on the other hand, was not acquired
> because native americans attacked the british or mexico attacked the
> us. It was simply stolen.
Ha. So YOU used that term and now claim that it doesn't apply to
Israel. Hypocrite!
So in terms of right and wrong, there is
> certainly more justification for israel to annex whatever part of the
> wb they see fit than for the US to keep all of the land it stole from
> na's and from mexico.
Phony argument. Over and done. The precedent doesn't apply to the 20th
and 21st Centuries. The law has changed. Sensibilities have changed,
but most important is the fact that you would have had to settle long
ago but for coerced American support. We've now fought three wars
largely for you in the Middle East, and killed hundreds of thousands
of Arabs, over thirteen hundred thousand in Iraq alone, to protect
YOUR strategic position in the region so that you didn't have to
expend your own substance, blood or moral accountability. Go ahead,
Ratner, tell us why we should have done that. Meet the challenge.
As zev said, after we give back texas, let's
> talk about the wb. "
I like Zev but he's almost as blind as you. He'd have never gotten
into the mess you have blundered into here...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/e0cd595fd87e44ad
>
> Quit ethnically cleansing East
> > Jerusalem. Quit refusing to cooperate with your only ally. Do justice
> > to the Palestinian people----or swear off your addiction to American
> > support. Take your pick.
I'm surprised you didn't clip this. You can't face the idea of
swearing off your addiction. Can't even admit it exists. You have to
pretend it's just a force of nature for which you are not responsible,
a G-d sent entitlement for the chosen people. You know America has no
duty to support you in your crimes, much less an interest in doing so.
One can't even imagine a criminal interest in doing so! Support of
Israeli colonialism and aggression is an absolutely losing proposition
for us. We must shake it off and the process has begun. America is
going to redeem herself.
You're too slow to even benefit by your whippings. It's self-defeating
to claim I "fled" such an opportunity as this. Of course I didn't, you
just lied about it. How did you blunder into presenting it to me a
second time? You're incompetent when it comes to substance and you
have no moral sense to protect you.
tdny
drahcir
wrote:
> On Mar 22, 9:45 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 2:05 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 20, 12:23 pm, mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
>
> > > > Mr Iconoclast ,
> > > > Anti Semitism is what you do , spending your time posting all kinds
> > > > of materials that you think might show Jews in a bad light .
> > > > mirjam
>
> > > Get out of the West Bank, Ms. Mirjam.
>
> > From yet another post from which you fled:
>
> > "Regarding your "get
> > out of the west bank" bullshit, it's very simple: the acquisition of
> > the west bank was the result of one of many arab instigated wars.
>
> Will you never tell the truth?
H, get a grip. I have never lied on this board. I don't need to.
Far from fleeing from this
> misrepresentation of history, I've repeatedly pointed out that the
> 1948 invasion of Palestine was a response to the ethnic cleansing by
> the Ben-Gurion regime which began in 1947, five or six months earlier,
> and drove 750,000 helpless Palestinians from their homes by the end of
> 1948. It was an obviously just war by the Arab states. The invasion of
> Palestine was an effort to stop and reverse a crime against humanity.
> Instigated by the Arabs, indeed. Tell the truth, Ratner!
When you read a decent history, you'll understand the truth. Until
then, you'll sometimes wittingly and sometimes unwittingly keep
spewing lies.
>
> > Israel would have been happy as hell to exist within post-1948
> > boundaries at peace with its neighbors, but arabs wouldn't hear of it.
>
> Pure lying malice. You know better. Everyone here does. Ben-Gurion
> was determined to take as much of Palestine as he could, preferably
> all of it. His admittedly phony "acceptance" of the partition of 1947
> was in itself a lie as his behavior in the immediate aftermath proves
> beyond reasonable doubt.
Poor idiot spews the crap from a panned book and then acts all self-
righteous. One thing is certain, H. YOU FLED THE THREAD FROM WHICH
THIS POST CAME. It's too late now to try to make up for that. I'm not
interested in this bullshit reply, sorry.
Oh, really? So when is the cutoff, asshole? What is the reason for the
cutoff, asshole?
The law has changed.
Specify.
Sensibilities have changed,
> but most important is the fact that you would have had to settle long
> ago but for coerced American support. We've now fought three wars
> largely for you in the Middle East, and killed hundreds of thousands
> of Arabs, over thirteen hundred thousand in Iraq alone,
Let's make sure that we get that - you are suggesting that 1 million 3
hundred thousand arabs have been killed by the US in iraq. Everyone
get that?
Man, enough - what a waste of time you are.
drahcir
> "drahcir"
>
> http://wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2009/paccharts_32-37.pdf
Friggin bigoted, neurotic loser.
dsharavi
> March 15, 2010 by Jeff Gates
Evidently, Jeff Gates is too stupid to look up the definition.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
That's certainly true in theory, but tell it to the vast majority of
our members of Congress whose professions are put at risk by failing
to submit to AIPAC's demands of them. Lobbying by AIPAC is not limited
to efforts at persuasion. It involves intimidation.
>
> > Therefore, you can't get away with defining it unilaterally. We just
> > won't permit it.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> I didn't define it at all. I said each anti-Semite knows if he is one
> and anyone talking to him will realize it very quickly.
>
> Nobody has to justify their feelings to you.
But AIPAC's collective bullying of Congressmen is unjustified and must
be put at an end. That the demands of a foreign country should trump
the careers of democratically elected legislators is obviously wrong.
So is the idea that 98% of us haven't summoned up the strength to end
it.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Not responsive. Your standard dodge.
> > > Israel would have been happy as hell to exist within post-1948
> > > boundaries at peace with its neighbors, but arabs wouldn't hear of it.
>
> > Pure lying malice. You know better. Everyone here does. Ben-Gurion
> > was determined to take as much of Palestine as he could, preferably
> > all of it. His admittedly phony "acceptance" of the partition of 1947
> > was in itself a lie as his behavior in the immediate aftermath proves
> > beyond reasonable doubt.
>
> Poor idiot spews the crap from a panned book and then acts all self-
> righteous. One thing is certain, H. YOU FLED THE THREAD FROM WHICH
> THIS POST CAME. It's too late now to try to make up for that. I'm not
> interested in this bullshit reply, sorry.
Not responsive. Your typical dodge.
> > > You pays your money, you takes your chances.
> > Indeed, that was precisely Ben-Gurion's approach. He was a gambler, a
> > war criminal, but not a statesman. He was a Zionist. What would you
> > expect from such a person armed with an ideology which was designed to
> > justify the theft of another people's country.
No response at all. Another typical dodge.
> > When arabs decide they
> > > want a country bad enough to propose conditions that will be
> > > acceptable to israel, israel will be out of whatever portion of the wb
> > > is agreed upon.
>
> > "Take it or leave it. We've got 78% and will take however much more we
> > please. To hell with betraying the U.S. They are in our pocket whether
> > they like it or not. They're goyim and we owe them nothing. To hell
> > with European opinion. They're guilty of the Holocaust to the last
> > man. To hell with anyone but us. The rules of so-called civilized
> > behavior to not apply in our case!"
>
> > H, arabs attacked israel for no reason
Not responsive and also thoughtless nonsense.
> > That's never been done in all of human history. You are a know-nothing
> > when it comes to the human condition. If you're going to make such an
> > argument a much better candidate for it would be your attack on Gaza
> > last year. But the "no reason" rationale is still a fallacy.
>
> > - there must be
>
> > > a price.
>
> > And soon you will have to pay it unless you give up this insanely self-
> > centered presumption that you can get away with anything now that
> > you've subdued the United States. You're blind. You can't even see
> > that its changing, you've lost the vast reservoir of sympathy you had
> > after the Holocaust. You've squandered it out of hubris.
>
> > The territory of the US, on the other hand, was not acquired
> > > because native americans attacked the british or mexico attacked the
> > > us. It was simply stolen.
> > Ha. So YOU used that term and now claim that it doesn't apply to
> > Israel. Hypocrite!
>
> > So in terms of right and wrong, there is
> > > certainly more justification for israel to annex whatever part of the
> > > wb they see fit than for the US to keep all of the land it stole from
> > > na's and from mexico.
>
> > Phony argument. Over and done. The precedent doesn't apply to the 20th
> > and 21st Centuries.
>
> Oh, really? So when is the cutoff, asshole? What is the reason for the
> cutoff, asshole?
Probably in the early 20th Century with the Hague Conventions, but
there's no reason to find a cut off. The process has been gradual with
a big spurt right after WWII.
>
> The law has changed.
>
> Specify.
Been there done that. No errands. Look up the Hague Conventions and
the UN Charter
> Sensibilities have changed,
> > but most important is the fact that you would have had to settle long
> > ago but for coerced American support. We've now fought three wars
> > largely for you in the Middle East, and killed hundreds of thousands
> > of Arabs, over thirteen hundred thousand in Iraq alone,
>
> Let's make sure that we get that - you are suggesting that 1 million 3
> hundred thousand arabs have been killed by the US in iraq. Everyone
> get that?
>
> Man, enough - what a waste of time you are.
It's one million three hundred and sixty-six thousand actually:
---------------------------------------------
Home » Iraq Deaths
Iraq Deaths
The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater
than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a
scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led
invasion of March 2003.
Remind visitors to your site of the awful human costs of continued war
by posting the Iraqi Death Estimator on your website. You can use the
code in the box below.
Embed:
Sign the petition telling Congress that about a million Iraqis have
likely been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Help us expose
to Congress the true costs of war.
A study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet,
estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the
invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since
then. The death counter provides a rough daily update of this number
based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. (See the
complete explanation.)
The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent
confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September
2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have
been killed violently since the US-led invasion.
This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses
the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little
wonder they do not publicly cite it. You can use the simple HTML code
above to post the counter to your website to help spread the word.
Add your name to the petition telling Congress that about a million
Iraqis have likely been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
Help us continue this important work with a tax-deductible
contribution.
See the list of some folks we know have posted the counter.
Alternate Languages:
Deutsch
Français
Português
-----------------------------------
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 22, 3:17 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
Here's the url, Ratner.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Those were numbers, Ratner, not opinions. You again owe tdny an
apology, an abject apology.
coaste...@yahoo.com
There is no definition that binds the people who use it as a weapon.
Zev
wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:00 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 3:17 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mar 22, 9:45 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 21, 2:05 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 20, 12:23 pm, mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> > Sensibilities have changed,
> > > but most important is the fact that you would have had to settle long
> > > ago but for coerced American support. We've now fought three wars
> > > largely for you in the Middle East, and killed hundreds of thousands
> > > of Arabs, over thirteen hundred thousand in Iraq alone,
>
> > Let's make sure that we get that - you are suggesting that 1 million 3
> > hundred thousand arabs have been killed by the US in iraq. Everyone
> > get that?
>
> > Man, enough - what a waste of time you are.
>
> It's one million three hundred and sixty-six thousand actually:
That's several thousand times the number
of Palestinian civilians killed in "Cast Lead".
Why does the world pay so much less attention to it?
Rt. Hon. Denis Stuart-Fox
"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a302ce55-2d6c-49ad...@c20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>Deborah
Anti-Semitism is the label the Jews hang on everyone they hate.
Does that help you?
Rt. Hon. Denis Stuart-Fox
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f527f4f7-24ab-4c89...@u5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I watched a significant amount of the AIPAC convention last night and was,
quite frankly, disturbed by the fawning the elected representatives of the
American people engaged in to appease the Jews. Hillary Clinton, in
particular, was pathetic to watch.
It is very, very disturbing to see the USA, once a powerful and respected
country, being brought to her knees by these Jews. It is not too far down
the track (perhaps only one more generation) when the US will be majority
Hispanic and the days of the white European American are numbered. The Jews
really want this situation to take place so they can get their claws even
deeper into America's wealth.
Why Israel and the Jews have to be part of the American body politic is
beyond my ken.
alittlesanity
"Ben Cramer", posting as Rt. Hon. Denis
Stuart-Fox <rt...@nowhere.com> wrote:
[...]
Are you a Nazi? You sure sound like one:
"When I was very much younger, a band I was in played the
Horst Wessel lied at the Concordia club in Mt. Isa" --Posted
by "Ben Cramer", Message-ID: <e8nsmm$me9$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>
("Horst Wessel Lied" was the anthem of the Nazi Party).
"Had Hitler won the war, the world would be a much better
place." --Posted by "Ben Cramer", Source: Message-ID
<ILudnfQdX6UCtfva...@giganews.com>.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Answer that yourself. I'm not defensive about it.
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I've read the transcript. The fawning was there, certainly, but then,
about halfway down, she got to the merits of the issues. I think
perhaps you didn't read or listen carefully enough. Phil Weiss says
the head of AIPAC looked shaken when it was over, and I thought it was
a good performance by Clinton. She hit all the relevant buttons. We've
at least gotten to the point where the fawning is ritual.
Zev
You seem to be.
The disparity between the ratios of
world attention to civilian casualties in both cases
virtually demands explanation.
Put together with the fact that even America's friends
have trouble explaining the invasion of Iraq,
while Israel's enemies can't deny
the bellicose language coming from Gaza
coupled with its criminal use of
an ever improving arsenal of weapons,
and you have a situation which leaves
thinking people wondering.
Your inability/unwillingness to rise to the occasion
is typical Hunter.
drahcir
I only respond to utter nonsense when I gain some advantage.
>
>
>> > When arabs decide they
>
>> > > want a country bad enough to propose conditions that will be
>> > > acceptable to israel, israel will be out of whatever portion of the wb
>> > > is agreed upon.
>>
>> > "Take it or leave it. We've got 78% and will take however much more we
>> > please. To hell with betraying the U.S. They are in our pocket whether
>> > they like it or not. They're goyim and we owe them nothing. To hell
>> > with European opinion. They're guilty of the Holocaust to the last
>> > man. To hell with anyone but us. The rules of so-called civilized
>> > behavior to not apply in our case!"
>>
>> > H, arabs attacked israel for no reason
>
>Not responsive and also thoughtless nonsense.
Idiocy doesn't deserve more.
Oh, I see, "probably". Uh-huh....
> in the early 20th Century with the Hague Conventions, but
>there's no reason to find a cut off. The process has been gradual with
>a big spurt right after WWII.
Gosh, how convenient! What you REALLY meant was "right BEFORE 1948".
Sorry, H, your cutoffs are bullshit. That's the reason you fled the
original thread. The acquisition of territory by simply stealing it
happened in the history of our country, but not in that of Israel.
Israel would have been happy with partition, would have been happy
with 1948 borders. Arabs gambled with aggressive war and they lost.
That's a far cry from stealing, which, I repeat, is what we did. You
now want to squirm with cutoffs and "sensibilities" because you have
no answer. You have no answer because you are in the wrong. Simple.
>>
>> The law has changed.
>>
>> Specify.
>
>Been there done that. No errands. Look up the Hague Conventions and
>the UN Charter
LOL! The typical HHW non-reply. The truth is that the law is
irrelevant. There has always been right and wrong, although I will
admit that the scope of each has drifted over time. In any case, when
viewed as an issue of right and wrong, the US stealing of territory is
clearly, inalterably wrong. In this day of "changed sensibilities", I
don't see anyone saying "wait, what we did is wrong - let's give it
back". Do you? Thus your "changed sensibilities" argument is bogus.
The facts about Israel (you know, those things you haen't a clue
about) suggest that its territorial acuqisitions are COMPLETELY
justified from contemporary ideas of right and wrong.
Here are the facts as I understand them. There is NO LAW that
prohibits the occupation of territory as a result of defensive war.
NONE.
You know, the cool thing about The Lancet is that all of their
articles are online. Isn't that nice? It's telling that you don't
wonder why a link isn't provided to this article. Nevermind. I went to
thelancet.com. I searched for [iraq invation 600,000]. I got one
result, but when I searched within the pdf for 600,000, i came up
empty.
I am on record in this newsgroup as having been against the Iraq war.
but I don't trust this petition or these numbers. Not only is there no
link to "the study", there is no author's name mentioned. All of the
articles in the Lancet have authors, insofar as I can tell. I've just
sent an email to justforeignpolicy as follows:
Hi,
I've just been to your petition page. Before I sign it, I'd like to
ask a question. You base your dead estimate largely on a study in The
Lancet. I went to thelancet.com, and it appears that all of their
articles are online and accessible for free. Could you please provide
a url of the study you refer to?
Thanks.
Richard Ratner
I'll let you know when and if I receive a reply.
Richard
wrote:
Nice try, H, but I found it myself. See my other reply.
Richard
wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:01 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 5:17 pm, "tdny" <t...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > "drahcir"
>
> > >http://wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2009/paccharts_32-37.pdf
>
> > Friggin bigoted, neurotic loser.
>
> Those were numbers, Ratner, not opinions. You again owe tdny an
> apology, an abject apology.
Patience, patience. See my other reply. We'll have an answer soon, if
everyone is being honest.
drahcir
Oh, and before you get yourself into a tizzy, I have no clue why
Google has lately begun sometimes posting me as "Richard".
dsharavi
> > wrote:
> > > Anti-Semitism – What is it?
> > > March 15, 2010 by Jeff Gates
> > Evidently, Jeff Gates is too stupid to look up the definition.
> > Deborah
On Mar 23, 2:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> There is no definition that binds the people who use it as a weapon.
Typical sleazy sidedodge from these NGs' resident definition of
antisemite.
Deborah
dsharavi
Not enough Jews involved to blame all Jews.
Deborah
dsharavi
Typical sidedodging Watsonian defence.
Deborah
drahcir
Hi Mr. Ratner,
The study can be found here:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2806%2969491-9/abstract.
The link is to the abstract, and there are links in a box on the right
hand side of the page for the full text and a PDF. You'll have to
sign in to access the full text, etc.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Regards,
Megan Iorio
Just Foreign Policy
Hi Ms. Iorio,
Thanks very much for providing that. One wonders why such a link is
not provided on the petition page. Armed with the names of the
authors, I quickly found this on Google:
http://www.mediahell.org/lancet_unspeak.htm
and this:
Please understand that I was staunchly against the invasion of Iraq,
but my pursuit of truth is a greater motivator than my opposition to
the invasion. The 600,000 figure stunned me, since it is so much
larger than other estimates I have read. What is the stance of your
organization as to the accuracy of the Lancet paper and of the
criticisms of it, most notably of AAPOR?
Best,
Richard Ratner
drahcir
11:57 this morning, a scant 29 minutes later. However, my second email
to her, sent at 1:51PM this afternoon, after having investigated the
Lancet paper and having uncovered some disturbing criticism of it,
remains unanswered. Not necessarily indicative of anything, we'll see
what happens tomorrow.
coaste...@yahoo.com
You're wrong. You simply want me to be seen as defensive about it. I
believe the chips should fall where they may.
> The disparity between the ratios of
> world attention to civilian casualties in both cases
> virtually demands explanation.
By me? How about you? Your people have contributed to it.
> Put together with the fact that even America's friends
> have trouble explaining the invasion of Iraq,
Come on, Zev, Bush and Cheney put all those conflict of interest guys
in the White House and at Defense and State. It's too bad we can't put
Sharon on a polygraph.
> while Israel's enemies can't deny
> the bellicose language coming from Gaza
What else have they? We should require you to summon up the courage
to ignore it or to quit whining about it at least.
> coupled with its criminal use of
> an ever improving arsenal of weapons,
Hypocritical as to the weapons, Zev. BTW, how much longer do you
expect us to continue delivering them? It's obvious that the
Memorandum of Intent on arms aid was drafted by the US. It's
meaningless except as a political tool.
> and you have a situation which leaves
> thinking people wondering.
Sure, thinking people are wondering just what stake the American
people have in the continual savaging of the Palestinian people with
our weapons. General Petraeus had something to say about it before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee a week or two ago. Did you get the
message?
> Your inability/unwillingness to rise to the occasion
> is typical Hunter.
But I'm doing it right here. I always do it. You've never had grounds
to say I've been shy about answering you. Surely not.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Yes, stunning. And certainly indicative of something. Apparently you
haven't been watching. The lowest estimate I've seen is about 100,000.
That's stunning too. So you're going to have a range of 100,000 to
1,366,000, stunning along its entire range. What then will you do? My
instinct is that Lancet is conservative.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:36:43 -0700 (PDT), "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
>
> >> > > You pays your money, you takes your chances.
>
> >> > Indeed, that was precisely Ben-Gurion's approach. He was a gambler, a
> >> > war criminal, but not a statesman. He was a Zionist. What would you
> >> > expect from such a person armed with an ideology which was designed to
> >> > justify the theft of another people's country.
>
> >No response at all. Another typical dodge.
>
> I only respond to utter nonsense when I gain some advantage.
It's the truth about Ben-Gurion and THAT'S why you can gain no
advantage.
>
>
>
> >> > When arabs decide they
>
> >> > > want a country bad enough to propose conditions that will be
> >> > > acceptable to israel, israel will be out of whatever portion of the wb
> >> > > is agreed upon.
>
> >> > "Take it or leave it. We've got 78% and will take however much more we
> >> > please. To hell with betraying the U.S. They are in our pocket whether
> >> > they like it or not. They're goyim and we owe them nothing. To hell
> >> > with European opinion. They're guilty of the Holocaust to the last
> >> > man. To hell with anyone but us. The rules of so-called civilized
> >> > behavior to not apply in our case!"
>
> >> H, arabs attacked israel for no reason
>
> > in the early 20th Century with the Hague Conventions, but
> >there's no reason to find a cut off. The process has been gradual with
> >a big spurt right after WWII.
>
> Gosh, how convenient! What you REALLY meant was "right BEFORE 1948".
I don't have to answer for historical chronology, Ratner. Draw your
own conclusions.
> Sorry, H, your cutoffs are bullshit.
I didn't give you "cutoffs". I offered a tentative opinion as to the
beginning of the present era in international law. Find a scholar if
you want something more.
That's the reason you fled the
> original thread.
Stop lying. I did not flee it.
The acquisition of territory by simply stealing it
> happened in the history of our country, but not in that of Israel.
False. I've explained it ad infinitum. You're a rejectionist. Nothing
can be done about that.
> Israel would have been happy with partition, would have been happy
> with 1948 borders. Arabs gambled with aggressive war and they lost.
> That's a far cry from stealing, which, I repeat, is what we did. You
> now want to squirm with cutoffs and "sensibilities" because you have
> no answer. You have no answer because you are in the wrong. Simple.
>
>
>
> >> The law has changed.
>
> >> Specify.
>
> >Been there done that. No errands. Look up the Hague Conventions and
> >the UN Charter
>
> LOL! The typical HHW non-reply.
Prove your own case. I don't work for you, Ratner.
The truth is that the law is
> irrelevant. There has always been right and wrong, although I will
> admit that the scope of each has drifted over time. In any case, when
> viewed as an issue of right and wrong, the US stealing of territory is
> clearly, inalterably wrong. In this day of "changed sensibilities", I
> don't see anyone saying "wait, what we did is wrong - let's give it
> back". Do you?
Sure, lots of Mexicans.
Thus your "changed sensibilities" argument is bogus.
> The facts about Israel (you know, those things you haen't a clue
> about) suggest that its territorial acuqisitions are COMPLETELY
> justified from contemporary ideas of right and wrong.
Contemporary ideas of right and wrong, eh? Self-evident Zionist ideas.
The law be damned.
>
> Here are the facts as I understand them. There is NO LAW that
> prohibits the occupation of territory as a result of defensive war.
> NONE.
First it certainly wasn't defensive so far as the Palestinians were
concerned. They weren't even belligerents. I've pointed this out
before and you ignored it. In addition, no occupation can result in
change in sovereignty. There are also other limitations on the conduct
of an occupation, all of which I've explained to you over and over and
your still pretend that you've never heard about it.
I'm aware of the Lancet study but did not cite it. The 1,366,000
figure comes from another.
> You know, the cool thing about The Lancet is that all of their
> articles are online. Isn't that nice? It's telling that you don't
> wonder why a link isn't provided to this article.
How can something you think I wondered be telling?
Nevermind. I went to
> thelancet.com. I searched for [iraq invation 600,000]. I got one
> result, but when I searched within the pdf for 600,000, i came up
> empty.
I didn't use the 600,000 figure, idiot. You're chasing yourself.
> I am on record in this newsgroup as having been against the Iraq war.
So was I. Big deal.
> but I don't trust this petition or these numbers.
So what. I posted it because you accused me of lying.
Not only is there no
> link to "the study", there is no author's name mentioned. All of the
> articles in the Lancet have authors, insofar as I can tell. I've just
> sent an email to justforeignpolicy as follows:
Fine, Lancet is one of three studies I know of.
dsharavi
> > Your inability/unwillingness to rise to the occasion
> > is typical Hunter.
>
wrote:
> But I'm doing it right here. I always do it.
Yep, Hunter admits it: he ALWAYS fails to rise to the occasion.
>You've never had grounds
> to say I've been shy about answering you. Surely not.
Nope, just shy about rejecting the usual bopkess in favour of facts.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Far from fleeing from this
> > >> > misrepresentation of history,
Far from fleeing any misrepresentation of history - a foreign subject
to H - he actively contributes to it. Case in point:
>> > > > I've repeatedly pointed out that the
> > >> > 1948 invasion of Palestine was a response to the ethnic cleansing by
> > >> > the Ben-Gurion regime
And it's been garbage every time H has repeated it.
> > >>> which began in 1947, five or six months earlier,
Five or six months earlier...than what?
> > >> > and drove 750,000 helpless Palestinians from their homes by the end of
> > >> > 1948.
Not even the UN's estimates were that high in 1948. In fact, the UN
estimates of Arab refugees didn't reach the 700,000 mark until the
early 1950s, when they were receiving funding for refugees from the US
and the UK. Back then, at least, they were careful to emphasize that
the refugee numbers included tens of thousands who were NOT refugees
from former Palestine -- not that it mattered, of course. The more
refugees, the more $$$millions.
> > >> > It was an obviously just war by the Arab states.
But of course. It was an OBVIOUSLY "just war" to the Arab states, and
the Palestine Arabs in particular, when they sided with Nazi Germany
and Fascist Italy against Imperialistic Britain and her ally,
America.
> > > > >The invasion of
> > >> > Palestine was an effort to stop and reverse a crime against humanity.
So was the Khedive's invasion of Syria (i.e., Palestine).
> > >> > Instigated by the Arabs, indeed. Tell the truth, Ratner!
The truth: Arabs started the 1948 war against Israel, and said so. But
perhaps the Arabs lied about having started it?
> > >On Mar 22, 5:00 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> When you read a decent history, you'll understand the truth. Until
> > >> then, you'll sometimes wittingly and sometimes unwittingly keep
> > >> spewing lies.
>
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:36:43 -0700 (PDT), "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> > <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Not responsive. Your standard dodge.
lol
Another of H's standard dodges.
> > >> > > Israel would have been happy as hell to exist within post-1948
> > >> > > boundaries at peace with its neighbors, but arabs wouldn't hear of it.
> > >> > Pure lying malice.
Pure fact.
> > > > > You know better. Everyone here does.
Of course he knows better. And the truth is that Israel would have
been happy to exist at peace with her neighbours in 1948, but Arabs
wouldn't hear of it.
> > > > > Ben-Gurion
> > >> > was determined to take as much of Palestine as he could, preferably
> > >> > all of it.
Horseshi'ite.
> > > > >His admittedly phony "acceptance" of the partition of 1947
> > >> > was in itself a lie as his behavior in the immediate aftermath proves
> > >> > beyond reasonable doubt.
Like H can describe B-Gs behaviour in the "immediate aftermath" of the
partition vote. (Hint: H's reference to B-G's "acceptance" of it is an
indicator of the depths of H's knowledge.)
> > >> Poor idiot spews the crap from a panned book and then acts all self-
> > >> righteous.
Correction: H spews crap from REVIEWS of panned books.
> > >> One thing is certain, H. YOU FLED THE THREAD FROM WHICH
> > >> THIS POST CAME. It's too late now to try to make up for that. I'm not
> > >> interested in this bullshit reply, sorry.
>
> > >Not responsive. Your typical dodge. Also untrue.
Probably true, since H has proven himself a coward time and again.
> > >> > > You pays your money, you takes your chances.
>
> > >> > Indeed, that was precisely Ben-Gurion's approach. He was a gambler, a
> > >> > war criminal, but not a statesman. He was a Zionist.
B-G was a statesman as well as a ZIonist. The crap about being a war
criminal belongs more appropriately to Amin al Husayni, who actually
was a convicted war criminal.
> > > >> What would you
> > >> > expect from such a person armed with an ideology which was designed to
> > >> > justify the theft of another people's country.
What country was that?
> > >No response at all. Another typical dodge.
>
> > I only respond to utter nonsense when I gain some advantage.
>
> It's the truth about Ben-Gurion
> and THAT'S why you can gain no
> advantage.
It's bullshit. H thinks that by repeating often enough it will somehow
make it REAL.
> > >>> > When arabs decide they
> > >> > > want a country bad enough to propose conditions that will be
> > >> > > acceptable to israel, israel will be out of whatever portion of the wb
> > >> > > is agreed upon.
>
> > >> > "Take it or leave it. We've got 78% and will take however much more we
> > >> > please.
Israel hasn't got 78% of former Palestine, and never had 78% of former
Palestine. The Jordanians have most of it.
> > > > >To hell with betraying the U.S. They are in our pocket whether
> > >> > they like it or not. They're goyim and we owe them nothing. To hell
> > >> > with European opinion. They're guilty of the Holocaust to the last
> > >> > man. To hell with anyone but us. The rules of so-called civilized
> > >> > behavior to not apply in our case!"
Spoken like the typical antisemite H is.
> > >> H, arabs attacked israel for no reason
>
> > >> > That's never been done in all of human history.
True. Arabs attacked Jews in 1948 to "finish Hitler's work" and again
over the years to destroy Israel. They can't stand the thought of
being outshone by their former dhimmis.
> > > > > You are a know-nothing
> > >> > when it comes to the human condition.
lol
That must make H, wrt to ME history, a know-nothing with his head
permanently lodged in his backside.
[snip H's usual monomania]
> I don't have to answer for historical chronology, Ratner. Draw your
> own conclusions.
Or for historical fact, obviously.
> > Sorry, H, your cutoffs are bullshit.
>
> I didn't give you "cutoffs". I offered a tentative opinion as to the
> beginning of the present era in international law. Find a scholar if
> you want something more.
Better to just find a lawyer who knows what he's talking about --
which excludes those are are (retired) sole practitioners from a tiny
burg with fewer citizens in it than students in a metropolitan high
school.
>>The acquisition of territory by simply stealing it
> > happened in the history of our country, but not in that of Israel.
>
> False. I've explained it ad infinitum.
Translation: H has squalled hysterically about it ad infinitum. A
falsis principiis proficisci, too, and ad nauseam, of course.
>You're a rejectionist. Nothing
> can be done about that.
And H, obviously, is an idiot. And nothing can be done about that,
since he's so blissful in is ignorance.
>
> > Israel would have been happy with partition, would have been happy
> > with 1948 borders. Arabs gambled with aggressive war and they lost.
> > That's a far cry from stealing, which, I repeat, is what we did. You
> > now want to squirm with cutoffs and "sensibilities" because you have
> > no answer. You have no answer because you are in the wrong. Simple.
>
> > >> The law has changed.
>
> > >> Specify.
>
> > >Been there done that. No errands. Look up the Hague Conventions and
> > >the UN Charter
>
> > LOL! The typical HHW non-reply.
>
> Prove your own case. I don't work for you, Ratner.
Another standard H sidedodge.
> > Here are the facts as I understand them. There is NO LAW that
> > prohibits the occupation of territory as a result of defensive war.
> > NONE.
>
> First it certainly wasn't defensive so far as the Palestinians were
> concerned. They weren't even belligerents.
So far as the "Palestinains" were concerned, they were all Allied
supporters. Presumably, their support of Nazi Germany, and
establishling and fighting in three Waffen-SS legions, don't count.
>I've pointed this out before and you ignored it.
H has pointed out a lot of things. Mostly of them dollops of bopkess.
Like his Iraqi figures.
> > >Sign the petition telling Congress that about a million Iraqis have
> > >likely been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Help us expose
> > >to Congress the true costs of war.
> > >A study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet,
>
> I'm aware of the Lancet study but did not cite it. The 1,366,000
> figure comes from another.
Of course it does: Youtube, The Muhahid Blog, BibleBelievers.org -
sites like that which H is too coy to mention.
Deborah
drahcir
No, it's not.
and THAT'S why you can gain no
> advantage.
You have no clue about the truth because you have refused to educate
yourself, stooping to actually lying to a bunch of strangers about
having read an objective history of israel. Your approach to israel is
one ass-backwards, masturbatory circle - you start with a conclusion,
and you read only from sources that confirm that conclusion. A
MAJORITY of reviews of ALL your sources are NEGATIVE - that is
predictable. You are and will remain clueless about even the
fundamentals of Israeli history - who can forget this gem:
"Israel had a chance to abide by the terms of the 1947 partition and
chose not to. "
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/41bde6302581cb46
Yes, folks, HHW, aka iconoclast, aka Cazador actually said that. Not
only was he apparently unaware that Jews had (reluctantly) accepted
the partition plan, but is so incredibly ignorant that he was unaware
that there was no Israel in 1947. Is there any doubt at all that this
oaf is a dilettante, pretending to understand the intricacies of the
unique history of Israel, but actually completely ignorant of even the
basics?
Um, yeah you did. You said it was "probably in the early 20th
century". You then said there was a "big spurt right after WW II". Of
course, the reason you said that was obvious.
I offered a tentative opinion as to the
> beginning of the present era in international law. Find a scholar if
> you want something more.
>
> That's the reason you fled the
>
> > original thread.
>
> Stop lying. I did not flee it.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the definition of "flee". It means
to drop out of a thread because you are in a corner and cannot answer.
This is precisely what you did. It can be verified by anyone visiting
the original thread. You want to drag me down into the gutter with you
by saying "stop lying", but it's an empty request.
> The acquisition of territory by simply stealing it
>
> > happened in the history of our country, but not in that of Israel.
>
> False. I've explained it ad infinitum.
As proven above with your ridiculous quote, you are in no position to
"explain" anything with regard to Israel, except perhaps to enlighten
people about sources to avoid if truth is what they're after.
You're a rejectionist. Nothing
> can be done about that.
>
True. I reject your falsehoods.
Very true. Sorry, I was unclear. The arabs were attacking unprovoked
and the Israelis were defending. I thought everyone would have
understood that, but of course, I forgot whom I was addressing.
They weren't even belligerents. I've pointed this out
> before and you ignored it.
You've "pointed it out" like you point everything out - pure bullshit.
Arab bands from within palestine had been attacking jews for years
prior to 1948. Those attacks escalated up until 1948. Somehow you
manufacture the idiocy that when the formal attack came from 4 arab
armies, suddenly all of these militias dropped their rifles and bombs
and started wringing their hands worrying for the safety of the jews.
In addition, no occupation can result in
> change in sovereignty.
Have you noticed any change of sovereignty?
There are also other limitations on the conduct
> of an occupation, all of which I've explained to you over and over and
> your still pretend that you've never heard about it.
I'd ask you to provide a link, but we know how that will end....
Learn to read english.
>
> Nevermind. I went to
>
> > thelancet.com. I searched for [iraq invation 600,000]. I got one
> > result, but when I searched within the pdf for 600,000, i
>
> ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
wrote:
LOL! Your instinct is even less reliable than your, how shall I say,
"intellect"... No one gives a shit what you are stunned by. My mission
here is to determine the accuracy of the number you posted. You know,
H, "accuracy" - determining by objective investigation whether
something is true. Kind of the opposite of what you do, which is
setting yourself on a conclusion because it satisfies your
antisemitism, then investigating, spending hours per day dredging up
laughable crap to support that conclusion.
Still no reply from Ms. Iorio.
Zev
d1a33e...@l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
My people have contributed to the disparity
between the ratios of world attention
to civilian casualties in both cases???
Are you mad?
>> Put together with the fact that even America's friends
>> have trouble explaining the invasion of Iraq,
>
> Come on, Zev, Bush and Cheney put all those conflict of interest guys
> in the White House and at Defense and State. It's too bad we can't put
> Sharon on a polygraph.
Can you name anyone has no trouble
explaining the invasion of Iraq?
>> while Israel's enemies can't deny
>> the bellicose language coming from Gaza
>
> What else have they? We should require you to summon up the courage
> to ignore it or to quit whining about it at least.
It's the coupling which can't be ignored.
Read till the end of the sentence,
you'll have fewer comprehension problems.
>> coupled with its criminal use of
>> an ever improving arsenal of weapons,
>
> Hypocritical as to the weapons, Zev. BTW, how much longer do you
> expect us to continue delivering them? It's obvious that the
> Memorandum of Intent on arms aid was drafted by the US. It's
> meaningless except as a political tool.
>
>> and you have a situation which leaves
>> thinking people wondering.
>
> Sure, thinking people are wondering just what stake the American
> people have in the continual savaging of the Palestinian people with
> our weapons. General Petraeus had something to say about it before the
> Senate Foreign Relations Committee a week or two ago. Did you get the
> message?
Sure.
Blame the Jew.
Old-age homes get bombed by American planes,
hundreds of thousands of civilians killed
wherever the American Army goes,
and General Petraeus says Arabs/Muslims hate Americans
because of Israeli building permits in East Jerusalem.
You can't figure it out but you think
you're rising to the occasion "right here".
>> Your inability/unwillingness to rise to the occasion
>> is typical Hunter.
>
> But I'm doing it right here. I always do it. You've never had grounds
> to say I've been shy about answering you. Surely not.
BS.
You've dropped out of discussions with me
too many times for me to remember.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c78a247c-c362-432c-bc31-
> d1a33e7be...@l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 24, 4:16 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 24/03/2010 05:21, iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > On Mar 23, 4:14 pm, Zev<zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mar 23, 11:36 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"<coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> On Mar 22, 5:00 pm, drahcir<justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> On Mar 22, 3:17 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"<coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Mar 22, 9:45 am, drahcir<justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Mar 21, 2:05 am,
> >> >>>>>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com"<coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 12:23 pm, mirjam<mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> >> >>>> Sensibilities have changed, but most important is the fact that you would have had to settle
> >> >>>>> long ago but for coerced American support. We've now fought three wars largely for you in the Middle East, and killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs, over thirteen hundred thousand in Iraq alone,
>
> >> >>>> Let's make sure that we get that - you are suggesting that 1 million 3 hundred thousand arabs have been killed by the US in iraq. Everyone get that?
Has everyone gotten the fact that I supported my assertion?
> >> >>>> Man, enough - what a waste of time you are.
> >> >>> It's one million three hundred and sixty-six thousand actually:
> >> >> That's several thousand times the number of Palestinian civilians killed in "Cast Lead". Why does the world pay so much less attention to it?
> >> > Answer that yourself. I'm not defensive about it.
>
> >> You seem to be.
> > You're wrong. You simply want me to be seen as defensive about it. I
> > believe the chips should fall where they may.
> >> The disparity between the ratios of
> >> world attention to civilian casualties in both cases
> >> virtually demands explanation.
>
> > By me? How about you? Your people have contributed to it.
> My people have contributed to the disparity
> between the ratios of world attention
> to civilian casualties in both cases???
> Are you mad?
Hardly, you've been beating-up on Palestinians for over half a
century. It's been on the front page of the New York Times every day.
What do you expect?
> >> Put together with the fact that even America's friends
> >> have trouble explaining the invasion of Iraq,
Why should they? We American's don't have any difficulty at all.
> > Come on, Zev, Bush and Cheney put all those conflict of interest guys
> > in the White House and at Defense and State. It's too bad we can't put
> > Sharon on a polygraph.
>
> Can you name anyone has no trouble
> explaining the invasion of Iraq?
I don't. I see little sign of it in the blogosphere and the non-ethnic
media. Most goy intellectuals who's information doesn't come from the
oh so sympathetic biographer of Jonathan Pollard at CNN seem to have a
handle on it. Mearsheimer and Walt have no trouble. It's not that
complex. The investigatory works been pretty much done. You're trying
to mystify it.
> >> while Israel's enemies can't deny
> >> the bellicose language coming from Gaza
>
> > What else have they? We should require you to summon up the courage
> > to ignore it or to quit whining about it at least.
>
> It's the coupling which can't be ignored.
Everything's coupled to some extent. Explain what you mean. You're
relapsing.
> Read till the end of the sentence,
> you'll have fewer comprehension problems.
If you'd say what you mean instead of confusing your readership in an
effort to get me "to hang myself," you might make some progress
yourself.
> >> coupled with its criminal use of
> >> an ever improving arsenal of weapons,
>
> > Hypocritical as to the weapons, Zev. BTW, how much longer do you
> > expect us to continue delivering them? It's obvious that the
> > Memorandum of Intent on arms aid was drafted by the US. It's
> > meaningless except as a political tool.
>
> >> and you have a situation which leaves
> >> thinking people wondering.
>
> > Sure, thinking people are wondering just what stake the American
> > people have in the continual savaging of the Palestinian people with
> > our weapons. General Petraeus had something to say about it before the
> > Senate Foreign Relations Committee a week or two ago. Did you get the
> > message?
>
> Sure.
> Blame the Jew.
He didn't blame either side. He simply lamented the failure to arrive
at a settlement. I'm the one you can blame for pointing the finger at
Israeli intransigence. One has to be candid and honest.
> Old-age homes get bombed by American planes,
> hundreds of thousands of civilians killed
> wherever the American Army goes,
> and General Petraeus says Arabs/Muslims hate Americans
> because of Israeli building permits in East Jerusalem.
He didn't say any such thing. You're making it up. Not to put too fine
a point on it, you're whining from a position of immense relative
power. Trust me. It's not manly.
> You can't figure it out but you think
> you're rising to the occasion "right here".
I've long since figured it out. I know what to do. I just don't have
the power.
> >> Your inability/unwillingness to rise to the occasion
> >> is typical Hunter.
>
> > But I'm doing it right here. I always do it. You've never had grounds
> > to say I've been shy about answering you. Surely not.
>
> BS.
> You've dropped out of discussions with me
> too many times for me to remember.
I don't believe it. I look forward to dealing with you! On the
obfuscatiometer you're at about 15% where several of your colleagues
are above 95. Give me cites to any substantive post you lack an answer
to. You'll get one.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Okay, and I have no idea why it occasionally sends me back to
"Cazador" either.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Now that is typical. You can fling it but not take it.
>
> Deborah
drahcir
Take your instinct and shove it. Ms Iorio has apparently decided not
to reply any further. One need not wonder why.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Poor thing, it didn't work out for you.
Ms Iorio has apparently decided not
> to reply any further. One need not wonder why.
Haha. Is someone other than yourself to blame for that?
dsharavi
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Anti-Semitism – What is it?
> > > > > March 15, 2010 by Jeff Gates
> > > > Evidently, Jeff Gates is too stupid to look up the definition.
> > > > Deborah
>
> > On Mar 23, 2:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > There is no definition that binds the people who use it as a weapon.
>
> On Mar 24, 10:31 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > Typical sleazy sidedodge from these NGs' resident definition of
> > antisemite.
>
On Mar 25, 2:37 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Now that is typical.
Quite typical of the resident antisemite of these NGs.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>> >We've now fought three wars largely for you in the Middle East, and killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs, over thirteen hundred thousand in Iraq alone,
>
> > >> >>>> Let's make sure that we get that - you are suggesting that 1 million 3 hundred thousand arabs have been killed by the US in iraq. Everyone get that?
On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Has everyone gotten the fact that I supported my assertion?
Not as well as Von Daniken supported HIS assertion, but somewhere in
that general area. Like the following:
> > >> >> "iconocl...@yahoo.com"<coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>> It's one million three hundred and sixty-six thousand actually:
> > > On Mar 24, 4:16 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> That's several thousand times the number of Palestinian civilians killed in "Cast Lead". Why does the world pay so much less attention to it?
> > >> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> > Answer that yourself. I'm not defensive about it.
> > > Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> You seem to be.
> > "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > You're wrong. You simply want me to be seen as defensive about it. I
> > > believe the chips should fall where they may.
> > >> The disparity between the ratios of
> > >> world attention to civilian casualties in both cases
> > >> virtually demands explanation.
> > "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > By me? How about you? Your people have contributed to it.
> On Mar 25, 12:18 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > My people have contributed to the disparity
> > between the ratios of world attention
> > to civilian casualties in both cases???
> > Are you mad?
> Hardly, you've been beating-up on Palestinians for over half a
> century. It's been on the front page of the New York Times every
> day.
H must mean the front page of the NYT like this one, from May 10,
1943. The headlines read:
WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING AN OVER-REACTION
European Leaders Blame Jews for Disproportionate Response
Jewish Resistance Shatters All Hope For A Peaceful Final Solution
How could both sides have blundered so badly?
Jewish Over-Reaction May Cause Grave Humanitarian Crisis
Poll: Public Opinion Shifts Towards Gestapo
Peace Vigil Calls for A Cease-Fire
League of Nations anti-bias panel accuse Jews of racism
Jews caught on tape while racially targeting Nazis
Zionists Have No Exit Strategy in Europe
GOEBBELS: Zionists Must Be Held Accountable for War Crimes
Many believe that charismatic spokesman for the popular
National Socialist Workers Party speaks for all Europeans
CULTURE SHOCK: American knee-jerk support of Jewish rebels irritates
cultured Europeans
http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/S/i/nytimes_1943_sm.jpg
Apart from that, here are links to the NYT's front pages over the last
week:
3-20
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2010/03/20/pageone/scan/index.html
3-21
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2010/03/21/pageone/scan/index.html
3-22
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2010/03/22/pageone/scan/index.html
3-23
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2010/03/23/pageone/scan/index.html
3-24
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2010/03/24/pageone/scan/index.html
3-25
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2010/03/25/pageone/scan/index.html
3-26
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2010/03/26/pageone/scan/index.html
I don't see anything to support H's assertion on any of them.
> > Can you name anyone has no trouble
> > explaining the invasion of Iraq?
>
> I don't. I see little sign of it in the blogosphere and the non-ethnic
> media. Most goy intellectuals who's information doesn't come from the
> oh so sympathetic biographer of Jonathan Pollard at CNN seem to have a
> handle on it. Mearsheimer and Walt have no trouble. It's not that
> complex.
Of course it's not, for antisemitic assholes like Malt, Beersheimer,
and Hunter Watson.
>The investigatory works been pretty much done.
What investigatory work? All they do is blame the Jews. It's not that
complex.
> > Old-age homes get bombed by American planes,
> > hundreds of thousands of civilians killed
> > wherever the American Army goes,
> > and General Petraeus says Arabs/Muslims hate Americans
> > because of Israeli building permits in East Jerusalem.
>
> He didn't say any such thing. You're making it up. Not to put too fine
> a point on it, you're whining from a position of immense relative
> power. Trust me. It's not manly.
>
"Manly" - lol. As if Hunter Watson is some sort of expert on
testosterone production (or the lack thereof).
> > You can't figure it out but you think
> > you're rising to the occasion "right here".
>
> I've long since figured it out. I know what to do.
Yes, indeedy: blame the Jews.
> > >> Your inability/unwillingness to rise to the occasion
> > >> is typical Hunter.
>
> > > But I'm doing it right here. I always do it.
Hunter does indeed.
> > You've dropped out of discussions with me
> > too many times for me to remember.
>
> I don't believe it.
Hunter has always had trouble believing facts.
Deborah
Zev
Not clear if you mean there's no disparity,
or that NYT front pages, over the last half-century,
explain why there is one.
Either way, you obviously have no idea what my statement means.
Do you understand what "ratio of attention to casualties" means?
Do you understand the concept of "disparity between ratios"?
>> >> Put together with the fact that even America's friends
>> >> have trouble explaining the invasion of Iraq,
>
> Why should they? We American's don't have any difficulty at all.
>
>> > Come on, Zev, Bush and Cheney put all those conflict of interest guys
>> > in the White House and at Defense and State. It's too bad we can't put
>> > Sharon on a polygraph.
>>
>> Can you name anyone has no trouble
>> explaining the invasion of Iraq?
>
> I don't. I see little sign of it in the blogosphere and the non-ethnic
> media. Most goy intellectuals who's information doesn't come from the
> oh so sympathetic biographer of Jonathan Pollard at CNN seem to have a
> handle on it. Mearsheimer and Walt have no trouble. It's not that
> complex. The investigatory works been pretty much done. You're trying
> to mystify it.
Not at all.
I'm talking about an explanation of the invasion which makes
the disparity easier to understand, not more difficult.
The disparity continues to demand explanation.
>> >> while Israel's enemies can't deny
>> >> the bellicose language coming from Gaza
>>
>> > What else have they? We should require you to summon up the courage
>> > to ignore it or to quit whining about it at least.
>>
>> It's the coupling which can't be ignored.
>
> Everything's coupled to some extent. Explain what you mean. You're
> relapsing.
If you say you want to harm me, but do nothing,
I'll probably ignore you.
If you raise your hand in my proximity,
I'll very likely ignore that too.
But if you do both, don't blame me for assuming the worst.
Do you really need an explanation for this?
Your post of 18/03/2010:
"Petraeus Warns Israel Is Jeopardizing US Security Interests".
True, he's not quoted as saying that.
Others, quoted in the post, mentioned it several times,
and that's the big issue today,
that's what confused me.
But "Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
is jeopardizing US standing in the region.",
isn't that different an argument.
The point remains.
Abu Mazen plays hard to get,
and General Petraeus puts the blame squarely on ...
the other side.
drahcir
Of course. My correspondence with her is posted for all to read. The
reason she replied in 20 minutes to my first request and then dropped
out after my second should be clear to all.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:
No, of course there is disparity in the numbers and I presume the
ratios of attention to them.
> or that NYT front pages, over the last half-century,
> explain why there is one.
I use the NYT as a symbol of the media front pages and television
screens all around the world. What I mean is you have been engaged in
blatant criminal behavior associated with what Ratner now calls theft
or stealing of another country's land for well over a half century,
sixty years actually. The whole world has been sickened by watching
the ideologically driven callousness with which you've done it. You've
lost both sympathy and credibility and are no longer given slack by
world public opinion. That opinion is not especially analytical or
well informed, and you've been well above average in manipulating it
in the West, but you've lost ground steadily and created a global knee-
jerk reaction against yourselves. All I can do for you is to suggest
reform. Change the policies and rebuild your reputation. You can
neither achieve peace by denying the Palestinian people a homeland nor
survive as an apartheid state. There has to be a two state solution.
You must get out of the West Bank.
The American situation is not analogous to Israel's for many reasons.
We got out of the business of stealing other people's lands over a
century ago and have been leaders in the international law reform
movement since then.. So, there is divergence in the numbers per se
and the ratios of attention, but simply saying it proves nothing. You
have to go far deeper in your analysis than that if you wish to
understand. I'm not inclined to do it for you but I'll certainly
comment on your efforts.
> Either way, you obviously have no idea what my statement means.
> Do you understand what "ratio of attention to casualties" means?
> Do you understand the concept of "disparity between ratios"?
You need to see that superficial comparison of those ratios doesn't
help you understand your situation.
> >> >> Put together with the fact that even America's friends
> >> >> have trouble explaining the invasion of Iraq,
> > Why should they? We American's don't have any difficulty at all.
>
> >> > Come on, Zev, Bush and Cheney put all those conflict of interest guys
> >> > in the White House and at Defense and State. It's too bad we can't put
> >> > Sharon on a polygraph.
>
> >> Can you name anyone has no trouble
> >> explaining the invasion of Iraq?
>
> > I don't. I see little sign of it in the blogosphere and the non-ethnic
> > media. Most goy intellectuals who's information doesn't come from the
> > oh so sympathetic biographer of Jonathan Pollard at CNN seem to have a
> > handle on it. Mearsheimer and Walt have no trouble. It's not that
> > complex. The investigatory work has pretty much been done. You're trying
> > to mystify it.
>
> Not at all.
> I'm talking about an explanation of the invasion which makes
> the disparity easier to understand, not more difficult.
> The disparity continues to demand explanation.
You don't want to get into Israel's role in the American attack on
Iraq. It won't help her reputation and that's what you need to repair.
> >> >> while Israel's enemies can't deny
> >> >> the bellicose language coming from Gaza
>
> >> > What else have they? We should require you to summon up the courage
> >> > to ignore it or to quit whining about it at least.
>
> >> It's the coupling which can't be ignored.
>
> > Everything's coupled to some extent. Explain what you mean. You're
> > relapsing.
>
> If you say you want to harm me, but do nothing,
> I'll probably ignore you.
> If you raise your hand in my proximity,
> I'll very likely ignore that too.
> But if you do both, don't blame me for assuming the worst.
> Do you really need an explanation for this?
I didn't think it would be this simplistic. Let me put what you say
here into other language:
"I assume the worst and am therefore paralyzed." Or, "I tell my ally
that I must assume the worst in order to be secure and therefore can
not give up the West Bank." Neither is credible or a basis for
continuing the current self-destructive policies.
> >> Read till the end of the sentence,
> >> you'll have fewer comprehension problems.
>
> > If you'd say what you mean instead of confusing your readership in an
> > effort to get me "to hang myself," you might make some progress
> > yourself.
>
> >> >> coupled with its criminal use of
> >> >> an ever improving arsenal of weapons,
>
> >> > Hypocritical as to the weapons, Zev. BTW, how much longer do you
> >> > expect us to continue delivering them to you? It's obvious that the
Of course, and justly so. You made the "facts on the ground".
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:11:15 -0700 (PDT), "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 25, 4:38 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 25, 1:00 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 24, 7:21 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > UPDATE: Interestingly, Ms. Iorio replied to my request from 11:28 at
> >> > > 11:57 this morning, a scant 29 minutes later. However, my second email
> >> > > to her, sent at 1:51PM this afternoon, after having investigated the
> >> > > Lancet paper and having uncovered some disturbing criticism of it,
> >> > > remains unanswered. Not necessarily indicative of anything, we'll see
> >> > > what happens tomorrow.
>
> >> > Yes, stunning. And certainly indicative of something. Apparently you
> >> > haven't been watching. The lowest estimate I've seen is about 100,000.
> >> > That's stunning too. So you're going to have a range of 100,000 to
> >> > 1,366,000, stunning along its entire range. What then will you do? My
> >> > instinct is that Lancet is conservative.
>
> >> Take your instinct and shove it.
>
> >Poor thing, it didn't work out for you.
>
> > Ms Iorio has apparently decided not
> >> to reply any further. One need not wonder why.
>
> >Haha. Is someone other than yourself to blame for that?
>
> Of course. My correspondence with her is posted for all to read. The
> reason she replied in 20 minutes to my first request and then dropped
> out after my second should be clear to all.
Of course, she's anti-Semitic.
drahcir
whatsimatta, H? Feeling a bit blue about having to flee a few threads
this week?
Bolt Upright
dislikes you.
drahcir
Of course that's a silly lie. Were you hoping I wouldn't read this, H?
Whatsimatta, don't have the balls to try it to my face? Sheesh, what a
vile, lying, cowardly creature you are.
drahcir
> blatant criminal behavior associated with what Ratner now calls theft
> or stealing of another country's land for well over a half century,
Here's what I said, from this very thread:
"The acquisition of territory by simply stealing it
happened in the history of our country, but not in that of Israel.
Israel would have been happy with partition, would have been happy
with 1948 borders. Arabs gambled with aggressive war and they lost.
That's a far cry from stealing, which, I repeat, is what we did."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/5f90663fc7bd0090
Not only did this creature lie about me in the most brazen way, he did
it like a coward, hoping I would not read the post.
If there is a soul here who still has a milligram of respect for HHW,
aka iconoclast, aka Cazador, I'd really like to understand why.
Zev
acca30...@h35g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Israel is more guilty than America
because Israel is always more guilty.
Is that it?
> The American situation is not analogous to Israel's for many reasons.
> We got out of the business of stealing other people's lands over a
> century ago and have been leaders in the international law reform
> movement since then.. So, there is divergence in the numbers per se
> and the ratios of attention, but simply saying it proves nothing. You
> have to go far deeper in your analysis than that if you wish to
> understand. I'm not inclined to do it for you but I'll certainly
> comment on your efforts.
It's a statement, not a proof of anything.
I have a simple explanation.
All you have is: "you are no longer given slack".
(what a statement for an American lawyer to make...)
>> Either way, you obviously have no idea what my statement means.
>> Do you understand what "ratio of attention to casualties" means?
>> Do you understand the concept of "disparity between ratios"?
>
> You need to see that superficial comparison of those ratios doesn't
> help you understand your situation.
It's simple enough and demands explanation.
You refuse to accept that so you call it a "superficial comparison".
That, as you say, "doesn't help you...".
>> >> >> Put together with the fact that even America's friends
>> >> >> have trouble explaining the invasion of Iraq,
>
>> > Why should they? We American's don't have any difficulty at all.
>>
>> >> > Come on, Zev, Bush and Cheney put all those conflict of interest
>> >> > guys
>> >> > in the White House and at Defense and State. It's too bad we can't
>> >> > put
>> >> > Sharon on a polygraph.
>>
>> >> Can you name anyone has no trouble
>> >> explaining the invasion of Iraq?
>>
>> > I don't. I see little sign of it in the blogosphere and the non-ethnic
>> > media. Most goy intellectuals who's information doesn't come from the
>> > oh so sympathetic biographer of Jonathan Pollard at CNN seem to have a
>> > handle on it. Mearsheimer and Walt have no trouble. It's not that
>> > complex. The investigatory work has pretty much been done. You're
>> > trying
>> > to mystify it.
>>
>> Not at all.
>> I'm talking about an explanation of the invasion which makes
>> the disparity easier to understand, not more difficult.
>> The disparity continues to demand explanation.
>
> You don't want to get into Israel's role in the American attack on
> Iraq. It won't help her reputation and that's what you need to repair.
Don't blame Israel for Bush's I.Q.
Israel would have picked Iran.
Apparently someone else suggested Iraq.
>> >> >> while Israel's enemies can't deny
>> >> >> the bellicose language coming from Gaza
>>
>> >> > What else have they? We should require you to summon up the courage
>> >> > to ignore it or to quit whining about it at least.
>>
>> >> It's the coupling which can't be ignored.
>>
>> > Everything's coupled to some extent. Explain what you mean. You're
>> > relapsing.
>>
>> If you say you want to harm me, but do nothing,
>> I'll probably ignore you.
>> If you raise your hand in my proximity,
>> I'll very likely ignore that too.
>> But if you do both, don't blame me for assuming the worst.
>> Do you really need an explanation for this?
>
> I didn't think it would be this simplistic. Let me put what you say
> here into other language:
>
> "I assume the worst and am therefore paralyzed." Or, "I tell my ally
> that I must assume the worst in order to be secure and therefore can
> not give up the West Bank." Neither is credible or a basis for
> continuing the current self-destructive policies.
What does this have to do with "Cast Lead"???
You mean that General Petraeus is right in believing
that Abu Mazen is right in playing hard to get?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> > > > > On Mar 20, 11:07 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Anti-Semitism – What is it?
> > > > > > March 15, 2010 by Jeff Gates
> > > > > Evidently, Jeff Gates is too stupid to look up the definition.
> > > > > Deborah
>
> > > On Mar 23, 2:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > There is no definition that binds the people who use it as a weapon.
>
> > On Mar 24, 10:31 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Typical sleazy sidedodge from these NGs' resident definition of
> > > antisemite.
Did my conclusion on about day three that you are a deceitful swine
and cannibal qualify me as an antisemite? We need rules here Deborah.
>
> On Mar 25, 2:37 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Now that is typical.
>
> Quite typical of the resident antisemite of these NGs.
Repetitive, Deborah, a sign of intellectual weakness and confusion.
Where's your definition of antisemitism? I challenge you to define it
and then attempt to apply it to me. I am a liberal American humanist,
an anti-imperialist and supporter of an independent Palestinian State
alongside an equally independent Israelf. It's going to be two states
for two nations, Deb. I also support the American national interest in
this dispute with your Israeli mouse that roars. You, sharavi, are a
throw back to a black era when most "goy" intellectuals were silenced
and could not criticize our Israel policy no matter how self-
destructive and crack-brained it was. Guess what, that era's over and
it's never coming back. There's going to be an acceptable settlement
and quite soon or Netanyahu's coalition is going to fall. This
President is going to force this settlement and he's going to do it in
spite of the Israeli right wing and its lobby. You already know the
CIA predicts that Israel will be a memory in twenty years if there is
no settlement. Some think it could happen sooner. What Obama is doing
is providing Israel her best chance to survive and to prosper in
peace.
drahcir
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/c10cee18c6ee1f05
Zev
a83a-9f1...@k24g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Wise or not, a policy which is intended to be in the
American national interest is legitimate, per se.
Politicians and principal characters in the conflict
won't always be totally honest.
But there's no excuse for thinking people like you
to become "useful idiots" of the side which, over so many decades,
by rejecting all options which might lead to peace,
passes this conflict to future generations.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 27, 1:08 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
Here Ratner barges into my conversation with Zev after clipping
evidence of his presence out of the post. I was explaining to Zev
his clients ("you" in shorthand)
> >.......... have been engaged in
> > blatant criminal behavior associated with what Ratner now calls theft
> > or stealing of another country's land for well over a half century,
Ratner continued:
>
> Here's what I said, from this very thread:
>
> "The acquisition of territory by simply stealing it
> happened in the history of our country, but not in that of Israel.
> Israel would have been happy with partition, would have been happy
> with 1948 borders. Arabs gambled with aggressive war and they lost.
> That's a far cry from stealing, which, I repeat, is what we did."
Yes, you did say that and I answered it, but you do not supply my
answer and thereby distort the context here. Perhaps that's because
you have confused yourself by conflating a conversation I had with Zev
with one I had with you. I suggest that you write a coherent paragraph
laying out your claim that I somehow lied about you "in the most
brazen way." Haha. That's a good one, Ratner. You should tell it to
your cousin Emily when you get together for the annual Seder dinner in
Cleveland.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/5f90663fc7bd0090
>
> Not only did this creature lie about me in the most brazen way, he did
> it like a coward, hoping I would not read the post.
Sociopathic.
> If there is a soul here who still has a milligram of respect for HHW,
> aka iconoclast, aka Cazador, I'd really like to understand why.
A pathetic plea for a verdict not sustained by the evidence.
In the last seven days I've been read roughly 1,150 times and during
that period the readers have seen nothing from you but ad hominem
attacks and filthy floundering. I realize you have trouble coping, but
your decomposing dreck has been juxtaposed with reasonably cool and
rational argument. It was your decision to abandon knowledge and
reason for filth. You made it very early. It reflects on your morality
and judgment. From the perspective of debate outcomes, what's for me
not to like? You represent my opponents, the increasingly neofascist
Jewish State and the Israel Lobby. Indirectly you cover them with
filth by association so to speak. I, on the other hand, represent
truth, beauty, justice and the American national interest. All I have
to do is keep my temper and focus on the very occasional sign of an
idea you emit. So keep it up if you think it's in your clients'
interests. I'm hear for the duration--and I've told you precisely the
occasion on which that indefinite term will end.
Now, don't forget to put your current faux grievance against me into a
coherent paragraph. Surely you desire a response?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:75414896-b9bf-45be-
> a83a-9f15f0ec9...@k24g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 1:39 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 25, 2:37 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> Quite typical of the resident antisemite of these NGs.
>
> > Repetitive, Deborah, a sign of intellectual weakness and confusion.
> > Where's your definition of antisemitism? I challenge you to define it
> > and then attempt to apply it to me. I am a liberal American humanist,
> > an anti-imperialist and supporter of an independent Palestinian State
> > for two nations, Deb. I also support the American national interest in
> > this dispute with your Israeli mouse that roars. You, sharavi, are a
> > throw back to a black era when most "goy" intellectuals were silenced
> > and could not criticize our Israel policy no matter how self-
> > destructive and crack-brained it was. Guess what, that era's over and
> > it's never coming back. There's going to be an acceptable settlement
> > and quite soon or Netanyahu's coalition is going to fall. This
> > President is going to force this settlement and he's going to do it in
> > spite of the Israeli right wing and its lobby. You already know the
> > CIA predicts that Israel will be a memory in twenty years if there is
> > no settlement. Some think it could happen sooner. What Obama is doing
> > is providing Israel her best chance to survive and to prosper in
> > peace.
>
> Wise or not, a policy which is intended to be in the
> American national interest is legitimate, per se.
Let's put it another way. It is legitimate so long as it meets legal
and moral standards and represents the best efforts of which our
statesmen are capable. The future is always obscure yet this life
requires well informed leaps into the dark.
> Politicians and principal characters in the conflict
> won't always be totally honest.
It's the human condition. Some may be SOBs, but domestically they'll
at least be our SOBs and on a level playing system we have a chance to
keep them sorted out. The others we have to deal with like hedgehogs
make love, very carefully. Remaining free requires constant effort and
it's often unrewarding. I think that Israel's central problem, one
which is certainly understandable, is that she dreams of complete
security. It doesn't exist. It can't be factored into policy because
the search for leads always to aggression and more violence.
> But there's no excuse for thinking people like you
> to become "useful idiots" of the side which, over so many decades,
> by rejecting all options which might lead to peace,
> passes this conflict to future generations.
See the SOB paragraph. Does Israel really have an alternative to
peace? None of the scenarios consistent with continuing her present
policies can end well for her. Even Olmert told you that. You saw my
five element scenario. Only one makes sense. If she can just see that
and run the inevitable but pretty marginal risk of making peace the
prospects are pretty good. Everyone is sick of the conflict. The Arabs
have clearly signaled what they will accept. That includes Hamas. It's
a great deal for Israel. She get's 78% of the country and 1948 is
written off as a bad debt. You must know that the American people
will not abandon her. We'll put it in writing. But she must start
treating us as if we are genuine friends and not a giant shoplifting
target with a non-functional police force. What's she's done with the
lobby and espionage against us is getting pretty close to the
terminally unforgivable.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> did you "overlook" this, H?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/c10cee18c6ee1f05
I don't know, what is it?
drahcir
wrote:
> On Mar 27, 11:19 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 1:08 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Here Ratner barges into my conversation with Zev after clipping
> evidence of his presence out of the post.
I "barged in" as a result of you lying about me. The "clipping" is
completely irrelevant. You misquoted me - I caught it and proved it a
misquote. Simple. Flail away, senor el cazado.
I was explaining to Zev
> his clients ("you" in shorthand)
HHW, aka iconoclast, aka Cazador just doesn't seem to get that he's
not clever enough to now obfuscate his blatant lie about me. It is not
necessary for me even to read the below flailing because the fact of
his lie is so obvious. I'll recap. HHW said:
> > >.......... have been engaged in
> > > blatant criminal behavior associated with what Ratner now calls theft
> > > or stealing of another country's land for well over a half century,
Anyone is free to verify the below here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/5f90663fc7bd0090
>
> > Here's what I said, from this very thread:
>
> > "The acquisition of territory by simply stealing it
> > happened in the history of our country, but not in that of Israel.
> > Israel would have been happy with partition, would have been happy
> > with 1948 borders. Arabs gambled with aggressive war and they lost.
> > That's a far cry from stealing, which, I repeat, is what we did."
>
> Yes, you did say that and I answered it, but you do not supply my
> answer and thereby distort the context here.
LOL! I "did not supply his answer"! Here's a newsflash for you, H.
Your lie was about what *I* said, not what YOU said. Whatever it is
that YOU said in reply does not in any way affect what *I* said - it
is IRRELEVANT. I tell you what, H. Why don't you supply this all-
important "answer" and show precisely how it affects in any way your
statement that I "now call" Israel's territorial acquisitions "theft"?
You'll finally win one! H, it's really so simple. I say you lied about
me. I provided evidence from this very thread that proves my assertion
that you lied. That evidence was a direct quote with link. If you can
provide a direct quote with link that supports your assertion about
me, do so. If not, you are lost, and more flailing HHWBabble, as is no
doubt the below, will not help you. Get it? QUOTE ME WITH CITE OR YOU
ARE LOST.
Perhaps that's because
> you have confused yourself by conflating a conversation I had with Zev
> with one I had with you. I suggest that you write a coherent paragraph
> laying out your claim that I somehow lied about you "in the most
> brazen way."
Don't need to. The evidence is crystal clear for all to see. The ONLY
way you can contravene it is to supply a direct quote of me WITH CITE
proving your assertion about me. Nothing short of that can save you.
(I just love it when our poor H, in complete panic, tries to appear
cool, calm, and collected. When he starts pretentiously and
incorrectly using "conflate" when he means "confuse", it's a sure sign
he's about to lose it.)
Zev
> On Mar 29, 2:28 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:75414896-b9bf-45be-
>> a83a-9f15f0ec9...@k24g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Mar 26, 1:39 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Politicians and principal characters in the conflict
>> won't always be totally honest.
>
> It's the human condition. Some may be SOBs, but domestically they'll
> at least be our SOBs and on a level playing system we have a chance to
> keep them sorted out. The others we have to deal with like hedgehogs
> make love, very carefully. Remaining free requires constant effort and
> it's often unrewarding. I think that Israel's central problem, one
> which is certainly understandable, is that she dreams of complete
> security. It doesn't exist. It can't be factored into policy because
> the search for leads always to aggression and more violence.
Jewish fears rest on a solid historical foundation
but there may be some paranoia here.
Peace makers will take it into consideration, or fail.
>> But there's no excuse for thinking people like you
>> to become "useful idiots" of the side which, over so many decades,
>> by rejecting all options which might lead to peace,
>> passes this conflict to future generations.
>
> See the SOB paragraph. Does Israel really have an alternative to
> peace? None of the scenarios consistent with continuing her present
> policies can end well for her. Even Olmert told you that. You saw my
> five element scenario. Only one makes sense. If she can just see that
> and run the inevitable but pretty marginal risk of making peace the
> prospects are pretty good. Everyone is sick of the conflict. The Arabs
> have clearly signaled what they will accept. That includes Hamas. It's
> a great deal for Israel. She get's 78% of the country and 1948 is
> written off as a bad debt. You must know that the American people
> will not abandon her. We'll put it in writing. But she must start
> treating us as if we are genuine friends and not a giant shoplifting
> target with a non-functional police force. What's she's done with the
> lobby and espionage against us is getting pretty close to the
> terminally unforgivable.
Your 78% is meaningless.
The greater part of 1922 Palestine is accepted by the world is Arab.
The greater part of the remainder is accepted
by most of the world as Israel.
The argument turns on the future of the few percent that's left.
The Arabs want all of it, Israel offers most, plus swaps.
It looks like about the best deal they can get,
but Abu Mazin, like Arafat, never misses
an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Peace is in Israel's interest, that's why David Ben-Gurion
accepted the Partition Plan of 1948.
That's why the Arabs rejected it.
When the Palestinians value peace also,
no problem will be too difficult to solve.
dsha...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Mar 26, 1:39 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:07 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Anti-Semitism – What is it?
> > > > > > > March 15, 2010 by Jeff Gates
> > > > > > Evidently, Jeff Gates is too stupid to look up the definition.
> > > > > > Deborah
>
> > > > On Mar 23, 2:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > There is no definition that binds the people who use it as a weapon.
>
> > > On Mar 24, 10:31 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Typical sleazy sidedodge from these NGs' resident definition of
> > > > antisemite.
>
> Did my conclusion on about day three that you are a deceitful swine
> and cannibal qualify me as an antisemite? We need rules here Deborah.
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2:37 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Now that is typical.
>
> > Quite typical of the resident antisemite of these NGs.
>
> Repetitive, Deborah, a sign of intellectual weakness and confusion.
On that basis, you own yourself a pillar of weakness and confusion:
two of the chief components of your posts.
> Where's your definition of antisemitism? I challenge you to define it
> and then attempt to apply it to me.
I've posted it so many times it doesn't bear repeating. If you're
incapable of retaining it, that's your problem.
>I am a liberal American humanist,
Extreme self-deception is another of your problems. You're a terrorist-
supporter, and an anti-American propagandist for Communists.
[flush drivel]
Deborah
drahcir
wrote:
It's proof that you lied again.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b1f0ed4d-0083-4d4d...@s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2:28 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:75414896-b9bf-45be-
> >> a83a-9f15f0ec9...@k24g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Mar 26, 1:39 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Politicians and principal characters in the conflict
> >> won't always be totally honest.
>
> > It's the human condition. Some may be SOBs, but domestically they'll
> > at least be our SOBs and on a level playing system we have a chance to
> > keep them sorted out. The others we have to deal with like hedgehogs
> > make love, very carefully. Remaining free requires constant effort and
> > it's often unrewarding. I think that Israel's central problem, one
> > which is certainly understandable, is that she dreams of complete
> > security. It doesn't exist. It can't be factored into policy because
> > the search for leads always to aggression and more violence.
>
> Jewish fears rest on a solid historical foundation
> but there may be some paranoia here.
> Peace makers will take it into consideration, or fail.
>
I would put it realistically. Jewish fears rest on a solid historical
foundation. There may be some paranoia there. Israel will struggle
against it or fail.
>
>
>
> >> But there's no excuse for thinking people like you
> >> to become "useful idiots" of the side which, over so many decades,
> >> by rejecting all options which might lead to peace,
> >> passes this conflict to future generations.
>
> > See the SOB paragraph. Does Israel really have an alternative to
> > peace? None of the scenarios consistent with continuing her present
> > policies can end well for her. Even Olmert told you that. You saw my
> > five element scenario. Only one makes sense. If she can just see that
> > and run the inevitable but pretty marginal risk of making peace the
> > prospects are pretty good. Everyone is sick of the conflict. The Arabs
> > have clearly signaled what they will accept. That includes Hamas. It's
> > a great deal for Israel. She get's 78% of the country and 1948 is
> > written off as a bad debt. You must know that the American people
> > will not abandon her. We'll put it in writing. But she must start
> > treating us as if we are genuine friends and not a giant shoplifting
> > target with a non-functional police force. What's she's done with the
> > lobby and espionage against us is getting pretty close to the
> > terminally unforgivable.
>
> Your 78% is meaningless.
Not it isn't. There is only one map of Palestine relevant to this
conflict.
> The greater part of 1922 Palestine is accepted by the world is Arab.
Irrelevant. Forget it. No one is speaking of Transjordan or Jordan.
> The greater part of the remainder is accepted
> by most of the world as Israel.
Yes, 78% of the remainder. But Israel takes more, piecemeal and as a
result it is not settled. We're sick of it.
> The argument turns on the future of the few percent that's left.
22%
> The Arabs want all of it,
Of course they do. It's only 22% of their original homeland.
Israel offers most, plus swaps.
The offer must be 22% with small swaps. And it must include East
Jerusalem. Nothing else will work She already has 78% which she can
have confirmed by international convention even though it was gained
criminally. Both sides can probably have blanket amnesties though the
Israelis will need it far more..
> It looks like about the best deal they can get,
> but Abu Mazin, like Arafat, never misses
> an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
You, the English gentleman, have to bash, every single time.
> Peace is in Israel's interest, that's why David Ben-Gurion
> accepted the Partition Plan of 1948.
Not true. Ben-Gurion accepted the partition in principle with the
fixed intention of immediately violating it by continuing the ethnic
cleansing of Palestine unabated. He looked to more war, not peace.
> That's why the Arabs rejected it.
No, they rejected it because they rejected partition of their homeland
and did not accept the UN's authority to do such a thing on behalf of
European invaders.
> When the Palestinians value peace also,
> no problem will be too difficult to solve.
Upside down. The Palestinians will accept 22% with East Jerusalem and
minor swaps. The Israelis will not. Therefore it is the Israelis who
don't want peace.
I had missed this one. Am I now caught up?
Zev
> On Mar 30, 4:15 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:b1f0ed4d-0083-4d4d...@s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Mar 29, 2:28 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:75414896-b9bf-45be-
>> >> a83a-9f15f0ec9...@k24g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> Jewish fears rest on a solid historical foundation
You're making assumptions which you should put on the table.
>> The greater part of 1922 Palestine is accepted by the world is Arab.
>
> Irrelevant. Forget it. No one is speaking of Transjordan or Jordan.
Why not? It's part of the 100%!
>> The greater part of the remainder is accepted
>> by most of the world as Israel.
>
> Yes, 78% of the remainder. But Israel takes more, piecemeal and as a
> result it is not settled. We're sick of it.
Families grow, children marry...
Abu Mazen isn't worried, he thinks he has
all the time in the world, because *you're* sick of it.
You're teaching them the wrong lesson,
and they're fast learners.
>> The argument turns on the future of the few percent that's left.
>
> 22%
>
>> The Arabs want all of it,
>
> Of course they do. It's only 22% of their original homeland.
>
> Israel offers most, plus swaps.
>
> The offer must be 22% with small swaps. And it must include East
> Jerusalem. Nothing else will work She already has 78% which she can
> have confirmed by international convention even though it was gained
> criminally. Both sides can probably have blanket amnesties though the
> Israelis will need it far more..
>
>
>> It looks like about the best deal they can get,
>> but Abu Mazin, like Arafat, never misses
>> an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
>
> You, the English gentleman, have to bash, every single time.
>
>> Peace is in Israel's interest, that's why David Ben-Gurion
>> accepted the Partition Plan of 1948.
>
> Not true. Ben-Gurion accepted the partition in principle with the
> fixed intention of immediately violating it by continuing the ethnic
> cleansing of Palestine unabated. He looked to more war, not peace.
Fact.
The Jews accepted, the Arabs rejected.
Live with it.
>> That's why the Arabs rejected it.
>
> No, they rejected it because they rejected partition of their homeland
> and did not accept the UN's authority to do such a thing on behalf of
> European invaders.
>
>> When the Palestinians value peace also,
>> no problem will be too difficult to solve.
>
> Upside down. The Palestinians will accept 22% with East Jerusalem and
> minor swaps. The Israelis will not. Therefore it is the Israelis who
> don't want peace.
Or how about this:
The Palestinians will accept a Jewish "center of learning"
with 50,000 Jewish scholars in Palestine.
The Israelis will not.
Therefore it is the Israelis who don't want peace.
> I had missed this one. Am I now caught up?
There's more.
coaste...@yahoo.com
There simply are no operative assumptions that the negotiations will
be about partitioning Jordan. The decision of the mandatory power to
divide the area is irreversible and you have no right whatever to use
that history as a prop for further dispossession of the Palestinians.
It's rhetoric, nonsense, not on the table.
> >> The greater part of 1922 Palestine is accepted by the world is Arab.
>
> > Irrelevant. Forget it. No one is speaking of Transjordan or Jordan.
>
> Why not? It's part of the 100%
You get nothing from this doubletalk. You had no legitimate claim to
any of it in the first place. You're Europeans. The Palestinians and
other Arabs had lived there for Centuries The reason you have a chance
to keep the 78% is that
>
> >> The greater part of the remainder is accepted
> >> by most of the world as Israel.
>
> > Yes, 78% of the remainder. But Israel takes more, piecemeal and as a
> > result it is not settled. We're sick of it.
>
> Families grow, children marry...
> Abu Mazen isn't worried, he thinks he has
> all the time in the world, because *you're* sick of it.
> You're teaching them the wrong lesson,
> and they're fast learners.
We're not your agents over there. That era is over. We're not your
lawyers in negotiations any more. We'll teach them what we please. And
under this administration we're going to tell them the truth.
> >> The argument turns on the future of the few percent that's left.
>
> > 22%
>
> >> The Arabs want all of it,
>
> > Of course they do. It's only 22% of their original homeland.
>
> > Israel offers most, plus swaps.
>
> > The offer must be 22% with small swaps. And it must include East
> > Jerusalem. Nothing else will work She already has 78% which she can
> > have confirmed by international convention even though it was gained
> > criminally. Both sides can probably have blanket amnesties though the
> > Israelis will need it far more..
>
> >> It looks like about the best deal they can get,
> >> but Abu Mazin, like Arafat, never misses
> >> an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
>
> > You, the English gentleman, have to bash, every single time.
>
> >> Peace is in Israel's interest, that's why David Ben-Gurion
> >> accepted the Partition Plan of 1948.
>
> > Not true. Ben-Gurion accepted the partition in principle with the
> > fixed intention of immediately violating it by continuing the ethnic
> > cleansing of Palestine unabated. He looked to more war, not peace.
>
> Fact.
> The Jews accepted, the Arabs rejected.
> Live with it.
I live with what happened. The Partition Resolution was by the General
Assembly. It was in essence a recommendation to the Security Council.
Accepting it was legally meaningless. It was simply a misleading
indication of Israel's intentions. Only an actual Partition of
Palestine by the Security Council would have had legal effect. That
never happened. You will say that it didn't happen because the Arabs
"rejected". I say you must look deeper. It was primarily because the
Israeli ethnic cleansing made the plan impossible to implement. I'll
be right.
> >> That's why the Arabs rejected it.
>
> > No, they rejected it because they rejected partition of their homeland
> > and did not accept the UN's authority to do such a thing on behalf of
> > European invaders.
>
> >> When the Palestinians value peace also,
> >> no problem will be too difficult to solve.
>
> > Upside down. The Palestinians will accept 22% with East Jerusalem and
> > minor swaps. The Israelis will not. Therefore it is the Israelis who
> > don't want peace.
>
> Or how about this:
> The Palestinians will accept a Jewish "center of learning"
> with 50,000 Jewish scholars in Palestine.
> The Israelis will not.
> Therefore it is the Israelis who don't want peace.
This paragraph sounds like fantasy to me. Do you wish the explain it?
>
> > I had missed this one. Am I now caught up?
>
> There's more.
Where?
Zev
a805-95a...@w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 10, 1:28 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:cf90d124-7ed6-40d0...@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Mar 30, 4:15 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:b1f0ed4d-0083-4d4d...@s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > On Mar 29, 2:28 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Your 78% is meaningless.
>>
>> > Not it isn't. There is only one map of Palestine relevant to this
>> > conflict.
>>
>> You're making assumptions which you should put on the table.
>
> There simply are no operative assumptions that the negotiations will
> be about partitioning Jordan. The decision of the mandatory power to
> divide the area is irreversible and you have no right whatever to use
> that history as a prop for further dispossession of the Palestinians.
> It's rhetoric, nonsense, not on the table.
You take Palestine, break it into a big part and a small part.
You then take the small part, break it again,
look at the smaller part, and say
"This part is so small, I deserve all of it".
The ploy may work, but it has nothing to do with justice,
or who deserves what.
My way of seeing this, as explained here previously,
is more honest.
>> >> The greater part of 1922 Palestine is accepted by the world is Arab.
>>
>> > Irrelevant. Forget it. No one is speaking of Transjordan or Jordan.
>>
>> Why not? It's part of the 100%
>
> You get nothing from this doubletalk. You had no legitimate claim to
> any of it in the first place. You're Europeans. The Palestinians and
> other Arabs had lived there for Centuries The reason you have a chance
> to keep the 78% is that
>>
>> >> The greater part of the remainder is accepted
>> >> by most of the world as Israel.
>>
>> > Yes, 78% of the remainder. But Israel takes more, piecemeal and as a
>> > result it is not settled. We're sick of it.
>>
>> Families grow, children marry...
>> Abu Mazen isn't worried, he thinks he has
>> all the time in the world, because *you're* sick of it.
>> You're teaching them the wrong lesson,
>> and they're fast learners.
>
> We're not your agents over there. That era is over. We're not your
> lawyers in negotiations any more. We'll teach them what we please. And
> under this administration we're going to tell them the truth.
That doesn't seem to be the case, although it should be.
Why obfuscate simple facts?
>> >> That's why the Arabs rejected it.
>>
>> > No, they rejected it because they rejected partition of their homeland
>> > and did not accept the UN's authority to do such a thing on behalf of
>> > European invaders.
>>
>> >> When the Palestinians value peace also,
>> >> no problem will be too difficult to solve.
>>
>> > Upside down. The Palestinians will accept 22% with East Jerusalem and
>> > minor swaps. The Israelis will not. Therefore it is the Israelis who
>> > don't want peace.
>>
>> Or how about this:
>> The Palestinians will accept a Jewish "center of learning"
>> with 50,000 Jewish scholars in Palestine.
>> The Israelis will not.
>> Therefore it is the Israelis who don't want peace.
>
> This paragraph sounds like fantasy to me. Do you wish the explain it?
The idea is older than I am
but a Palestinian offer like this would be met with contempt,
as was the 1949 Syrian demand to put Haifa on the bargaining table.
Get the point?
>> > I had missed this one. Am I now caught up?
>>
>> There's more.
>
> Where?
Just look for my posts which are responses to yours.
See if you responded.
Any NG browser can make this easy.
If yours can't, change it, you're suffering for no reason.
Google Groups can also help on this.
Their search function is unreliable,
but you can look at the tree of each thread
you posted in, one by one.
Except for threads with hundreds of messages,
it takes a few seconds each.
If you post so many messages that
you really can't keep track of them all,
and so have no hope of responding to all replies,
I've already told you my opinion of people who do that.
dsharavi
[massive snip of facts by Sayyid Watson]
>>>On Mar 29, 2:28 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>Politicians and principal characters in the conflict
>>>>won't always be totally honest.
>>"iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote
>>>It's the human condition. Some may be SOBs, but domestically they'll
>>>at least be our SOBs and on a level playing system we have a chance to
>>>keep them sorted out. The others we have to deal with like hedgehogs
>>>make love, very carefully. Remaining free requires constant effort and
>>>it's often unrewarding. I think that Israel's central problem, one
>>>which is certainly understandable, is that she dreams of complete
>>>security. It doesn't exist. It can't be factored into policy because
>>>the search for leads always to aggression and more violence.
>On Mar 30, 4:15 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>Jewish fears rest on a solid historical foundation
>>but there may be some paranoia here.
>>Peace makers will take it into consideration, or fail.
On Apr 9, 9:43 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>I would put it realistically. Jewish fears rest on a solid historical
>foundation. There may be some paranoia there. Israel will struggle
>against it or fail.
Realistically is that PEACE MAKERS will take it into consideration.
Herr Watson doesn't want it taken into consideration, because he wants
Israel to fail, and massively, so that the "Palestinians" can start
building the gas chambers they were so eager to build when they
thought their Nazi allies would come out on top.
>>>>But there's no excuse for thinking people like you
>>>>to become "useful idiots" of the side which, over so many decades,
>>>>by rejecting all options which might lead to peace,
>>>>passes this conflict to future generations.
Operative phase in the foregoing: "thinking people". H recites
propaganda, chiefly of the Communist persuasion.
>>>See the SOB paragraph. Does Israel really have an alternative to
>>>peace? None of the scenarios consistent with continuing her present
>>>policies can end well for her. Even Olmert told you that. You saw my
>>>five element scenario. Only one makes sense. If she can just see that
>>>and run the inevitable but pretty marginal risk of making peace the
>>>prospects are pretty good. Everyone is sick of the conflict. The Arabs
>>>have clearly signaled what they will accept. That includes Hamas. It's
>>>a great deal for Israel. She get's 78% of the country and 1948 is
>>>written off as a bad debt. You must know that the American people
>>>will not abandon her. We'll put it in writing. But she must start
>>>treating us as if we are genuine friends and not a giant shoplifting
>>>target with a non-functional police force. What's she's done with the
>>>lobby and espionage against us is getting pretty close to the
>>>terminally unforgivable.
>>Your 78% is meaningless.
>Not it isn't. There is only one map of Palestine relevant to this
>conflict.
The Arab Higher Committee's map, of course. Ergo, H's 78% is
meaningless.
>>The greater part of 1922 Palestine is accepted by the world is Arab.
>Irrelevant. Forget it. No one is speaking of Transjordan or Jordan.
Utterly relevant, no forgetting. Of course H hastens to divert
attention from the fact that appx 78% of Palestine was already handed
over to the Arabs. They are not going to get the remainder, no matter
how long they whinge about it.
>>The greater part of the remainder is accepted
>>by most of the world as Israel.
>Yes, 78% of the remainder.
H now proves that his parroted 78% is utterly meaningless.
>But Israel takes more, piecemeal and as a
>result it is not settled. We're sick of it.
Who's "we"?
>>The argument turns on the future of the few percent that's left.
>22%
>>The Arabs want all of it,
>Of course they do. It's only 22% of their original homeland.
The Arabs' "original homeland" is Arabia. They're free to take as much
of it as they want. As for H's math, such as it may be, it's still
utterly meaningless.
> Israel offers most, plus swaps.
>The offer must be 22% with small swaps. And it must include East
>Jerusalem. Nothing else will work
H is being coy about the identity of the person or entities he's now
parroting.
>She already has 78% which she can
>have confirmed by international convention even though it was gained
>criminally.
Who's "she"? Jordan? Jordan is the state which now "has" appx 78% of
the former mandated territory. They gained it dubiously, and in
defiance of the League of Nations' Mandate, and later in violation of
the UN partition resolution, but hardly "criminally".
> Both sides can probably have blanket amnesties though the
>Israelis will need it far more..
Spoken like the true Judehasser H truly is.
>>It looks like about the best deal they can get,
>>but Abu Mazin, like Arafat, never misses
>>an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
>You, the English gentleman, have to bash, every single time.
What's to bash? The Egyptian terrorist did, in fact rarely, if ever,
miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and who's the "English
gentleman" here?
>>Peace is in Israel's interest, that's why David Ben-Gurion
>>accepted the Partition Plan of 1948.
>Not true.
True.
>Ben-Gurion accepted the partition in principle
Ben-Gurion was in no position to accept or reject partition, in
principle or in fact. The fact is that he accepted it. The fact is the
Arabs rejected it, and immediately launched a war to prevent its
implementation.
>with the
>fixed intention of immediately violating it by continuing the ethnic
>cleansing of Palestine unabated. He looked to more war, not peace.
H recites this periodically. He has never offered a shred of proof in
support of his recitation. All he does is pooh-pooh all facts to the
contrary.
>>That's why the Arabs rejected it.
>No, they rejected it because they rejected partition of their homeland
Palestine was never the homeland of the Arab states which rejected it.
It wasn't the homeland of the Arabs who immediately launched the war
to prevent its implementation either. Of the ranking members of the
Arab Higher Committee, none were of families with any long history in
Palestine.
>and did not accept the UN's authority to do such a thing on behalf of
>European invaders.
"European invaders" is one of thoser amusing recitations amongst the
ignorant, like H. The fact is that Europeans had been
"invading" (i.e., settling) the eastern Med for several millennia
before any Arabs showed up.
>>When the Palestinians value peace also,
>>no problem will be too difficult to solve.
>Upside down. The Palestinians will accept 22% with East Jerusalem and
>minor swaps. The Israelis will not. Therefore it is the Israelis who
>don't want peace.
Translation: The "Palestinians" will accept the 22% of Palestine which
is not Jordan and a Judenrein "Palestine" run by the "Palestinian"
thuggocracy. The Israelis will not. Therefore it's the Israelis who
don't want peace.
>I had missed this one.
H missed more than this one, that's certain.
>Am I now caught up?
H gets at least a B-plus as another useful idiot for the side which,
over so many decades, has rejected all options which might have led
to peace.
Deborah
dsharavi
>>>but there may be some paranoia here.
>>>Peace makers will take it into consideration, or fail.
>"iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote
>>I would put it realistically. Jewish fears rest on a solid historical
>>foundation. There may be some paranoia there. Israel will struggle
>>against it or fail.
>>>>On Mar 29, 2:28 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>>But there's no excuse for thinking people like you
>>>>>to become "useful idiots" of the side which, over so many decades,
>>>>>by rejecting all options which might lead to peace,
>>>>>passes this conflict to future generations.
>>>"iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote
>>>>See the SOB paragraph. Does Israel really have an alternative to
>>>>peace? None of the scenarios consistent with continuing her present
>>>>policies can end well for her. Even Olmert told you that. You saw my
>>>>five element scenario. Only one makes sense. If she can just see that
>>>>and run the inevitable but pretty marginal risk of making peace the
>>>>prospects are pretty good. Everyone is sick of the conflict. The Arabs
>>>>have clearly signaled what they will accept. That includes Hamas. It's
>>>>a great deal for Israel. She get's 78% of the country and 1948 is
>>>>written off as a bad debt. You must know that the American people
>>>>will not abandon her. We'll put it in writing. But she must start
>>>>treating us as if we are genuine friends and not a giant shoplifting
>>>>target with a non-functional police force. What's she's done with the
>>>>lobby and espionage against us is getting pretty close to the
>>>>terminally unforgivable.
>>>Your 78% is meaningless.
>>Not it isn't. There is only one map of Palestine relevant to this
>>conflict.
On Apr 10, 11:28 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>22%
>There's more.
Of course there is. And of course, H will ignore it, as he ignores all
facts which contradict the propaganda he continually spouts.
Deborah
'
=============================================
>>>>On 4/7/2010 7:39 PM, drahcir wrote:
>>>>>Name a democracy
>
>>>On Apr 8, 2:54 am, Bolt Upright <Nobo...@home.com>wrote:
>>>>Turkey, Lebanon, *maybe* Iran.
>
>>On Apr 8, 2:03 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>In Turkey, the army "defends" democracy.
>>>In Lebanon, members of the Lebanese Parliament travel
>>>in rented cars under assumed names,
>>>for fear of assassination.
>>>In Iran, candidates must pass an Islamic committee,
>>>one who is judged to be "not God-fearing enough"
>>>cannot run for office.
>>>HTH
>On Apr 9, 9:20 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>Your logic, sir:
>>P. 1, Since WW II the world has witnessed the establishment of a brand
>>spanking new neo-fascist, colonial European state in the Middle-East,
>>a state which uses unlimited criminal violence to expand without
>>declared objectives, limits or borders and does so based on an
>>obviously racist ideology.
>>P. 2. This brand spanking new neo-fascist, colonial European state in
>>the Middle-East founded itself on one of the 20th Century's great
>>crimes against humanity, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine wherein
>>initially 750,000 native Palestinians were driven from their homes at
>>gunpoint amidst massacres and systematic terror commanded by the neo-
>>fascist state's much beloved founder and chief executive, Ben-Gurion.
>>P. 3. Since WWII Turkey, Lebanon, Iran and other Muslim states in the
>>region have been afflicted with violent turmoil associated directly
>>and indirectly with resistance to this neo-fascist, colonial European
>>state and the world has witnessed the parallel rise of Islamic
>>Radicalism affecting the entire region.
>>P. 4. Zev, the only learned agent in these fora for the neo-fascist,
>>colonial European state, says that the above-described reactions to
>>the said state's invasion and conquests in the region are the result
>>of the local peoples' inherently aggressive, violent, obscurantist and
>>racially inferior nature when compared with the superior, peace loving
>>neo-fascist colonials from Europe.
>>THEREFORE, the brand spanking new neo-fascist, colonial, European
>>state in the Middle-East must BY ACCLAMATION not only be allowed but
>>assisted in its continuing efforts to fulfill its undisclosed plans
>>for the region---and that any resistance to those undislosed plans is
>>anti-fascistic, the latter being an ideological and social cup of
>>hemlock.
On Apr 10, 2:45 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Your comments, if they are addressed to me, are off topic.
H's comments are also off in left field. WAY off in left field. No
surprise there.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
> >>>>>On Mar 26, 1:39 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> [massive snip of facts by Sayyid Watson]
You can call me Binyamin Watson too if you like but I will wear
neither their fez nor your beanie. I have my own personal aesthetic.
> >>>On Mar 29, 2:28 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> >>>>Politicians and principal characters in the conflict
> >>>>won't always be totally honest.
> >>"iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote
> >>>It's the human condition. Some may be SOBs, but domestically they'll
> >>>at least be our SOBs and on a level playing system we have a chance to
> >>>keep them sorted out. The others we have to deal with like hedgehogs
> >>>make love, very carefully. Remaining free requires constant effort and
> >>>it's often unrewarding. I think that Israel's central problem, one
> >>>which is certainly understandable, is that she dreams of complete
> >>>security. It doesn't exist. It can't be factored into policy because
> >>>the search for it leads always to aggression and more violence.
> >On Mar 30, 4:15 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> >>Jewish fears rest on a solid historical foundation
> >>but there may be some paranoia here.
> >>Peace makers will take it into consideration, or fail.
>
> On Apr 9, 9:43 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >I would put it realistically. Jewish fears rest on a solid historical
> >foundation. There may be some paranoia there. Israel will struggle
> >against it or fail.
>
> Realistically is that PEACE MAKERS will take it into consideration.
But you presume that reality resides in the minds of the Israeli right
wing. Might you be conflating reality with Zionist territorial goals?
That it will be good for Israel to ethnically cleanse and annex the
West Bank is not a view held anywhere outside Zionist circles. The
long term dangers it represents for Israel and for the rest of us too
are palpable.
Just look at Netanyahu gearing up for Armageddon with Israel's only
ally! He has bitten the bullet and escalated Israel's ethnic cleansing
project. In the very midst of the lead up to negotiations, he rolls
out the new IDF "infiltration" rules which would appear to be the long
awaited Plan E for the final ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. Likud
and the settler community are very stubborn but that doesn't mean they
understand their country's future anywhere near as well as outside
observers. see their right wing as both blind and arrogant.
> Herr Watson doesn't want it taken into consideration, because he wants
> Israel to fail, and massively, so that the "Palestinians" can start
> building the gas chambers they were so eager to build when they
> thought their Nazi allies would come out on top.
You still haven't finished that driver's training course, Deb. You've
not mastered the clutch and know only one gear in the old stick shift.
It hurts you to be stuck in that single ad hominem gear. You can never
accomplish an objective exchange. And surely you must have many things
to say. I presume you do anyway. I'd like to hear them.
It wouldn't even be practical to want Israel to fail, much less
humane. That's the last thing I want. Everyone would be a loser. In
the long run it would be terrible for the Middle East to have suffered
so much and not to be able to reap any benefits. Israel has the
capacity to become a catalyst for very positive changes there. If that
isn't obvious to you then I'm here to help. Why keep filling the
reservoir of hatred? Imagine an alternative. Imagine, for example, an
eventual MEU with Israel as one of its natural leaders. It's self
destructive not to be able to transcend the post-Holocaust mind set
upon which the country was founded.
What I call for is the end of an era, not the end of Israel. She is
gradually killing *herself* at present, a fact which should be obvious
to you--and probably is though you put siege mentality spin on it.
> >>>>But there's no excuse for thinking people like you
> >>>>to become "useful idiots" of the side which, over so many decades,
> >>>>by rejecting all options which might lead to peace,
> >>>>passes this conflict to future generations.
Zev is afflicted by it too. It seems that for him the only option is
for Israel to "win" the argument *on the ground*. Only with victory
defined as the achievement of ideological goals, comes peace.
Compromise is to be feared. It doesn't fit the ideology.
> Operative phase in the foregoing: "thinking people". H recites
> propaganda, chiefly of the Communist persuasion.
I am an anti-authoritarian, anti-communist, anti-totalitarian with a
long record as such in my personal life and here on
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky. That's an open record on usenet. I
think of myself as an old fashioned "State Department Liberal." I'm a
civil libertarian and a humanist who also likes balanced budgets and a
stable dollar. I also care about the international reputation of my
country. That you affect to label me a Communist is a testament to
your lack of intellectual discipline. First you accept reality. Then
you make arguments consistent with it. It's not so hard to do.
Credible arguments for Israel can be made. But to miss that
opportunity in the impulse simply to cover your opponents with filth
strikes me as terribly counter-productive. It's a no-win strategy for
you, one which grossly underestimates what you call the goyim. I don't
think you have any idea where you are headed with this. You make more
enemies for Israel but no friends. Forgive me by you make me think of
the lunacy of the last few weeks in the Fuhrer's bunker in Berlin.
> >>>See the SOB paragraph. Does Israel really have an alternative to
> >>>peace? None of the scenarios consistent with continuing her present
> >>>policies can end well for her. Even Olmert told you that. You saw my
> >>>five element scenario. Only one makes sense. If she can just see that
> >>>and run the inevitable but pretty marginal risk of making peace the
> >>>prospects are pretty good. Everyone is sick of the conflict. The Arabs
> >>>have clearly signaled what they will accept. That includes Hamas. It's
> >>>a great deal for Israel. She get's 78% of the country and 1948 is
> >>>written off as a bad debt. You must know that the American people
> >>>will not abandon her. We'll put it in writing. But she must start
> >>>treating us as if we are genuine friends and not a giant shoplifting
> >>>target with a non-functional police force. What's she's done with the
> >>>lobby and espionage against us is getting pretty close to the
> >>>terminally unforgivable.
> >>Your 78% is meaningless.
> >No it isn't. There is only one map of Palestine relevant to this
> >conflict.
>
> The Arab Higher Committee's map, of course. Ergo, H's 78% is
> meaningless.
It's the Mandatory's Map. You know that.
>
> >>The greater part of 1922 Palestine is accepted by the world is Arab.
> >Irrelevant. Forget it. No one is speaking of Transjordan or Jordan.
>
> Utterly relevant, no forgetting.
You endow what you desire with an imaginary plausibility. But Israel
can no longer gain from this Zionist romanticism. The rest of the
world does't share it and for you the power relationships even in the
short term are ominous. You can't make patently absurd arguments in
hopes of gaining credibility for Israel. Nor can you protect Israel in
advance from the very dangerous effects of another round of ethnic
cleansing. That's going to be absolutely intolerable. The whole world
will mobilize against it. It's almost as if you and Lieberman and
Netanyahu will actually prefer to go down gloriously in flames if you
can't have everything you believe due to Israelis as the result of the
Holocaust.
Of course H hastens to divert
> attention from the fact that appx 78% of Palestine was already handed
> over to the Arabs. They are not going to get the remainder, no matter
> how long they whinge about it.
This argument is so absurd, so made of straw as to be ludicrous. At no
level was it ever credible for an European colonialist group to lay
such a claim. It was the product of the imaginations of early Zionists
playing with maps of the Middle East and its poorly understood
history. It was never anything but propaganda and wishful thinking.
And it's totally overtaken by events in the region. You can't dress it
up as a claim to territory in the Middle East no matter how hard you
try. And remember, foreign policy is made by educated people,
intellectuals, not by Joe Sixpack and not by Tea Party types. They
will be forever on the periphery. You shouldn't be angering the global
intelligentsia by making mindless arguments in the midst of a crisis.
>
> >>The greater part of the remainder is accepted
> >>by most of the world as Israel.
> >Yes, 78% of the remainder.
>
> H now proves that his parroted 78% is utterly meaningless.
Don't be obscure as the result of fear of me, Deb. Make your argument
in the open. I'm in a pretty forgiving mood.
> >But Israel takes more, piecemeal, and as a
> >result it is not settled. We're sick of it.
>
> Who's "we"?
All intelligent beings, apparently world-wide, outside of Zionists and
their witless partners, the fundamentalist Bible bangers. The Israelis
are getting no good press anywhere except from other Jewish Zionists
and from this lunatic crowd living mostly in our hookworm belt.
America has protected her for a long time but can't protect her
against herself. Absent a change of heart in Israel, it appears that
she is like the guest who has become grasping and has outworn her
welcome.
> >>The argument turns on the future of the few percent that's left.
> >22%
> >>The Arabs want all of it,
> >Of course they do. It's only 22% of their original homeland.
> The Arabs' "original homeland" is Arabia. They're free to take as much
> of it as they want. As for H's math, such as it may be, it's still
> utterly meaningless.
We haven't forgotten. You can't make us forget. This "land without a
people for a people without a land" simply isn't true. How did you
come to think it to be true? Please give us some scholarly citations
for that idea. Palestine has been occupied for thousands of years. The
Phoenicians were Palestinians. For our purposes it has never been a
land without a people. You know that. Can't you bring yourself to make
legitimate arguments for Israel?
> > Israel offers most, plus swaps.
> >The offer must be 22% with small swaps. And it must include East
> >Jerusalem. Nothing else will work
> H is being coy about the identity of the person or entities he's now
> parroting.
I "parrot" the American government here. It's been the core of
American policy since 1967.
> >She already has 78% which she can
> >have confirmed by international convention even though it was gained
> >criminally.
>
> Who's "she"? Jordan? Jordan is the state which now "has" appx 78% of
> the former mandated territory. They gained it dubiously, and in
> defiance of the League of Nations' Mandate, and later in violation of
> the UN partition resolution, but hardly "criminally".
Doesn't matter. It's native people live there along with huge numbers
of guests courtesy of you folks.
> > Both sides can probably have blanket amnesties though the
> >Israelis will need it far more..
>
> Spoken like the true Judehasser H truly is.
Sure, sure, anyone who points out the huge discrepancy in violent acts
between the Palestinian Resistance and the Jewish Zionist State is a
Jew Hater. QED. Good old Hasbara logic. When the truth fails to
conform to to YOUR reality you reflexively opt for it every time. The
problem is that your fantasy world is false and thinking people now
know it. All that's left for you is what is presently failing
spectacularly, consolidation of influence in the decrepit old mainline
media a generation too late, and the corruption and intimidation of
legislatures and administrations all over the West. Come on, Deb! You
can't maintain that indefinitely. You can't do these things
indefinitely in free societies. By doing so you create the push back
yourselves and it doesn't help you to label it as simply Jew hatred.
You do things like this and people resent it, even hate it. In
response you demonize them for resenting or hating it, all the time
denying that there is anything to resent or hate. Don't you recognize
what you do here as a part of that pattern?
> >>It looks like about the best deal they can get,
> >>but Abu Mazin, like Arafat, never misses
> >>an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
> >You, the English gentleman, have to bash, every single time.
>
> What's to bash? The Egyptian terrorist did, in fact rarely, if ever,
> miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and who's the "English
> gentleman" here?
Zev.
> >>Peace is in Israel's interest, that's why David Ben-Gurion
> >>accepted the Partition Plan of 1948.
> >Not true.
>
> True.
>
> >Ben-Gurion accepted the partition in principle with the
> >fixed intention of immediately violating it by continuing the ethnic
> >cleansing of Palestine unabated. He looked to more war, not peace.
>
> Ben-Gurion was in no position to accept or reject partition, in
> principle or in fact. The fact is that he accepted it. The fact is the
> Arabs rejected it, and immediately launched a war to prevent its
> implementation.
Your logic, Madame, combined with mine:
P. 1: Ben-Gurion was in no position to accept or reject partition;
P. 2: This was because he had already begun the long planned ethnic
cleansing of Palestine and refused to relinquish that goal.
THEREFORE, Ben-Gurion accepted partition and should be honored forever
after for that noble act.
> H recites this periodically. He has never offered a shred of proof in
> support of his recitation. All he does is pooh-pooh all facts to the
> contrary.
The de-Arabization and ghettoization of Haifa were especially
harrowing. Would you like to hear about that?
> >>That's why the Arabs rejected it.
> >No, they rejected it because they rejected partition of their homeland
>
> Palestine was never the homeland of the Arab states which rejected it.
Don't manipulate definitions, Deb. Tell us, did not the Palestinian
leadership such as it was reject partition?
> It wasn't the homeland of the Arabs who immediately launched the war
> to prevent its implementation either.
Agreed, it was a the Palestinian homeland.
Of the ranking members of the
> Arab Higher Committee, none were of families with any long history in
> Palestine.
>
> >and did not accept the UN's authority to do such a thing on behalf of
> >European invaders.
>
> "European invaders" is one of thoser amusing recitations amongst the
> ignorant, like H. The fact is that Europeans had been
> "invading" (i.e., settling) the eastern Med for several millennia
> before any Arabs showed up.
Yes, but among all these invaders were the Zionists. They're still
around. That's why we have to take them into account.
>
> >>When the Palestinians value peace also,
> >>no problem will be too difficult to solve.
> >Upside down. The Palestinians will accept 22% with East Jerusalem and
> >minor swaps. The Israelis will not. Therefore it is the Israelis who
> >don't want peace.
>
> Translation: The "Palestinians" will accept the 22% of Palestine which
> is not Jordan and a Judenrein "Palestine" run by the "Palestinian"
> thuggocracy. The Israelis will not. Therefore it's the Israelis who
> don't want peace.
But you sneak in here an assumed right for Israelis to live in
Palestine while rejecting the same right for Palestinians. Why do you
expect us to accept that? Come on, make the argument. Is it because
your men are good looking and your women are strong? Or is it just
racism.
> >I had missed this one.
>
> H missed more than this one, that's certain.
Perhaps, but neither you nor Zev really want me to answer them.
> >Am I now caught up?
>
> H gets at least a B-plus as another useful idiot for the side which,
> over so many decades, has rejected all options which might have led
> to peace.
Is the acceptance of the Zionist demand for all of Palestine one of
those options? You speak of options in the plural. What were they?
What would have stopped your inexorable ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
>
> Deborah
dsharavi
On Apr 12, 6:14 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>[massive snip of facts by Sayyid Watson]
On Apr 13, 3:44 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>You can call me Binyamin Watson too if you like but I will wear
>neither their fez nor your beanie. I have my own personal aesthetic.
In that case: [massive snip of facts by Herr Watson]
> >>>>On Mar 29, 2:28 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>>>Politicians and principal characters in the conflict
>>>>>>won't always be totally honest.
>>>>"iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote
>>>>>It's the human condition. Some may be SOBs, but domestically they'll
>>>>>at least be our SOBs and on a level playing system we have a chance to
>>>>>keep them sorted out. The others we have to deal with like hedgehogs
>>>>>make love, very carefully. Remaining free requires constant effort and
>>>>>it's often unrewarding. I think that Israel's central problem, one
>>>>>which is certainly understandable, is that she dreams of complete
>>>>>security. It doesn't exist. It can't be factored into policy because
>>>>>the search for it leads always to aggression and more violence.
>>>On Mar 30, 4:15 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>Jewish fears rest on a solid historical foundation
>>>>but there may be some paranoia here.
>>>>Peace makers will take it into consideration, or fail.
>>On Apr 9, 9:43 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
>><coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>I would put it realistically. Jewish fears rest on a solid historical
>>>foundation. There may be some paranoia there. Israel will struggle
>>>against it or fail.
>>Realistically is that PEACE MAKERS will take it into consideration.
>But you presume that reality resides in the minds of the Israeli right
>wing. Might you be conflating reality with Zionist territorial goals?
Might Herr Watson be, again, inflating his personal belief that he can
read minds and peer godlike into the souls of others?
[snip Herr Watson's trot on his usual hobbyhorse]
>>Herr Watson doesn't want it taken into consideration, because he wants
>>Israel to fail, and massively, so that the "Palestinians" can start
>>building the gas chambers they were so eager to build when they
>>thought their Nazi allies would come out on top.
>You still haven't finished that driver's training course, Deb. You've
>not mastered the clutch and know only one gear in the old stick shift.
>It hurts you to be stuck in that single ad hominem gear. You can never
>accomplish an objective exchange. And surely you must have many things
>to say. I presume you do anyway. I'd like to hear them.
>It wouldn't even be practical to want Israel to fail, much less
>humane. That's the last thing I want. Everyone would be a loser. In
>the long run it would be terrible for the Middle East to have suffered
>so much and not to be able to reap any benefits. Israel has the
>capacity to become a catalyst for very positive changes there. If that
>isn't obvious to you then I'm here to help. Why keep filling the
>reservoir of hatred? Imagine an alternative. Imagine, for example, an
>eventual MEU with Israel as one of its natural leaders. It's self
>destructive not to be able to transcend the post-Holocaust mind set
>upon which the country was founded.
>What I call for is the end of an era, not the end of Israel. She is
>gradually killing *herself* at present, a fact which should be obvious
>to you--and probably is though you put siege mentality spin on it.
<yaaaawwwnnnn.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............>
>>>>>>But there's no excuse for thinking people like you
>>>>>>to become "useful idiots" of the side which, over so many decades,
>>>>>>by rejecting all options which might lead to peace,
>>>>>>passes this conflict to future generations.
>
>Zev is afflicted by it too. It seems that for him the only option is
>for Israel to "win" the argument *on the ground*.
Once again, Herr Watson presumes to read minds and (mis)interpret his
imaginary findings therein.
>Only with victory
>defined as the achievement of ideological goals, comes peace.
>Compromise is to be feared. It doesn't fit the ideology.
>>Operative phase in the foregoing: "thinking people". H recites
>>propaganda, chiefly of the Communist persuasion.
>I am an anti-authoritarian, anti-communist, anti-totalitarian with a
>long record as such in my personal life and here on
>alt.politics.socialism.trotsky. That's an open record on usenet.
There is, indeed. And that record shows Herr Watson's repetitious
recitals of Communist propaganda.
>I
>think of myself as an old fashioned "State Department Liberal." I'm a
>civil libertarian and a humanist who also likes balanced budgets and a
>stable dollar.
Operative phrase: "I think". Obviously, Herr Watson has proven he does
not.
>I also care about the international reputation of my
>country. That you affect to label me a Communist is a testament to
>your lack of intellectual discipline. First you accept reality. Then
>you make arguments consistent with it. It's not so hard to do.
>Credible arguments for Israel can be made.
Herr Watson makes none of them. He doesn't make credible arguments to
the contrary, either.
>But to miss that
>opportunity in the impulse simply to cover your opponents with filth
>strikes me as terribly counter-productive. It's a no-win strategy for
>you, one which grossly underestimates what you call the goyim. I don't
>think you have any idea where you are headed with this. You make more
>enemies for Israel but no friends. Forgive me by you make me think of
>the lunacy of the last few weeks in the Fuhrer's bunker in Berlin.
Ayuh?
>>>>>See the SOB paragraph. Does Israel really have an alternative to
>>>>>peace? None of the scenarios consistent with continuing her present
>>>>>policies can end well for her. Even Olmert told you that. You saw my
>>>>>five element scenario. Only one makes sense. If she can just see that
>>>>>and run the inevitable but pretty marginal risk of making peace the
>>>>>prospects are pretty good. Everyone is sick of the conflict. The Arabs
>>>>>have clearly signaled what they will accept. That includes Hamas. It's
>>>>>a great deal for Israel. She get's 78% of the country and 1948 is
>>>>>written off as a bad debt. You must know that the American people
>>>>>will not abandon her. We'll put it in writing. But she must start
>>>>>treating us as if we are genuine friends and not a giant shoplifting
>>>>>target with a non-functional police force. What's she's done with the
>>>>>lobby and espionage against us is getting pretty close to the
>>>>>terminally unforgivable.
>>>>Your 78% is meaningless.
>>>No it isn't. There is only one map of Palestine relevant to this
>>>conflict.
>>The Arab Higher Committee's map, of course. Ergo, H's 78% is
>>meaningless.
>It's the Mandatory's Map. You know that.
Once again, Herr Watson presumes to read minds by way of sidedodging
the fact that his 78% is meaningless.
>>>>The greater part of 1922 Palestine is accepted by the world is Arab.
>>>Irrelevant. Forget it. No one is speaking of Transjordan or Jordan.
>>Utterly relevant, no forgetting.
>You endow what you desire with an imaginary plausibility.
<yawn>Snip more imaginary mind-readings. Along with the usual
Watsonian ad homs.
>>Of course H hastens to divert
>>attention from the fact that appx 78% of Palestine was already handed
>>over to the Arabs. They are not going to get the remainder, no matter
>>how long they whinge about it.
>This argument is so absurd, so made of straw as to be ludicrous. At no
>level was it ever credible for an European colonialist group to lay
>such a claim. It was the product of the imaginations of early Zionists
>playing with maps of the Middle East and its poorly understood
>history. It was never anything but propaganda and wishful thinking.
"More than 76% of the British Mandate of Palestine was east of the
Jordan river and was known as "Transjordan"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan#History
"In August 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the
League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all
the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was
approved by the League on 12 August. From that point onwards, Britain
administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part
east of the Jordan as Transjordan. Technically they remained one
mandate, but most official documents referred to them as if they were
two separate mandates."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan
"On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of
Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah."
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_transjordan.html
Some "wishful thinking", that.
>And it's totally overtaken by events in the region. You can't dress it
>up as a claim to territory in the Middle East no matter how hard you
>try. And remember, foreign policy is made by educated people,
>intellectuals, not by Joe Sixpack and not by Tea Party types. They
>will be forever on the periphery. You shouldn't be angering the global
>intelligentsia by making mindless arguments in the midst of a crisis.
It's obvious where the "mindless arguments" are coming from.
>>>>The greater part of the remainder is accepted
>>>>by most of the world as Israel.
>>>Yes, 78% of the remainder.
>>H now proves that his parroted 78% is utterly meaningless.
>Don't be obscure as the result of fear of me, Deb. Make your argument
>in the open. I'm in a pretty forgiving mood.
Twaddle. Your head is up your arse, as usual.
>>>But Israel takes more, piecemeal, and as a
>>>result it is not settled. We're sick of it.
>>Who's "we"?
>All intelligent beings, apparently world-wide, outside of Zionists and
>their witless partners, the fundamentalist Bible bangers.
That excludes H right there, on several counts.
>>>>The argument turns on the future of the few percent that's left.
>> >22%
>> >>The Arabs want all of it,
>> >Of course they do. It's only 22% of their original homeland.
>>The Arabs' "original homeland" is Arabia. They're free to take as much
>>of it as they want. As for H's math, such as it may be, it's still
>>utterly meaningless.
>We haven't forgotten. You can't make us forget. This "land without a
>people for a people without a land" simply isn't true.
You can't forget what you've never learned. And the "land without a
people" etc refrain your sort love to sing referred to British East
Africa, not what became British Palestine.
>How did you come to think it to be true? Please give us some scholarly citations
>for that idea. Palestine has been occupied for thousands of years. The
>Phoenicians were Palestinians.
roftlol
>For our purposes it has never been a
>land without a people. You know that. Can't you bring yourself to make
>legitimate arguments for Israel?
Can't you bring yourself to extract your head from your arse?
>>>Israel offers most, plus swaps.
>>>The offer must be 22% with small swaps. And it must include East
>>>Jerusalem. Nothing else will work
>>H is being coy about the identity of the person or entities he's now
>>parroting.
>I "parrot" the American government here. It's been the core of
>American policy since 1967.
Rubbish, on both counts.
> >>She already has 78% which she can
>>>have confirmed by international convention even though it was gained
>>>criminally.
>>Who's "she"? Jordan? Jordan is the state which now "has" appx 78% of
>>the former mandated territory. They gained it dubiously, and in
>>defiance of the League of Nations' Mandate, and later in violation of
>>the UN partition resolution, but hardly "criminally".
>Doesn't matter. It's native people live there along with huge numbers
>of guests courtesy of you folks.
Ah. It only matters so long as Jews are involved. Thanks for the
parameters, you ignorant antisemite.
>>>Both sides can probably have blanket amnesties though the
>>>Israelis will need it far more..
>>Spoken like the true Judehasser H truly is.
>Sure, sure, anyone who points out the huge discrepancy in violent acts
>between the Palestinian Resistance and the Jewish Zionist State is a
>Jew Hater. QED. Good old Hasbara logic. When the truth fails to
>conform to to YOUR reality you reflexively opt for it every time.
<yawn>snip standard Herr Watson trot on his fave hobbyhorse, in a
typical sidedodge of facts.
>>>>Peace is in Israel's interest, that's why David Ben-Gurion
>>>>accepted the Partition Plan of 1948.
>>>Not true.
>>True.
Herr Watson can't dispute that fact.
>>>Ben-Gurion accepted the partition in principle with the
>>>fixed intention of immediately violating it by continuing the ethnic
>>>cleansing of Palestine unabated. He looked to more war, not peace.
>>Ben-Gurion was in no position to accept or reject partition, in
>>principle or in fact. The fact is that he accepted it. The fact is the
>>Arabs rejected it, and immediately launched a war to prevent its
>>implementation.
>Your logic, Madame, combined with mine:
>P. 1:
You have no logic, and your typical sidedodge into your childish P-P-P
game won't cover your lack of it, along with your pronounced allergy
to facts.
>>H recites this periodically. He has never offered a shred of proof in
>>support of his recitation. All he does is pooh-pooh all facts to the
>>contrary.
>The de-Arabization and ghettoization of Haifa were especially
>harrowing. Would you like to hear about that?
Not from you. I prefer facts.
>>>>That's why the Arabs rejected it.
>>>No, they rejected it because they rejected partition of their homeland
>>Palestine was never the homeland of the Arab states which rejected it.
>Don't manipulate definitions, Deb.
I leave that to you, old man.
>>It wasn't the homeland of the Arabs who immediately launched the war
>>to prevent its implementation either.
>Agreed, it was a the Palestinian homeland.
Idiot.
>>Of the ranking members of the
>>Arab Higher Committee, none were of families with any long history in
>>Palestine.
H can't even begin to attempt to dispute this fact with his usual
horseshi'ite.
>>>and did not accept the UN's authority to do such a thing on behalf of
>>>European invaders.
>>"European invaders" is one of thoser amusing recitations amongst the
>>ignorant, like H. The fact is that Europeans had been
>>"invading" (i.e., settling) the eastern Med for several millennia
>>before any Arabs showed up.
>Yes, but among all these invaders were the Zionists. They're still
>around. That's why we have to take them into account.
ROTFLOL!!! What a maroon.
Deborah
fla...@verizon.net
On 22-Mar-2010, drahcir <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2:05 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 12:23 pm, mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> >
> > > Mr Iconoclast ,
> > > Anti Semitism is what you do , spending your time posting all kinds
> > > of materials that you think might show Jews in a bad light .
> > > mirjam
> >
> > Get out of the West Bank, Ms. Mirjam.
Wow - not just a pathetic dodge, but a bigoted one!
Nice of him to *show* everyone what antinomianism
is by perfect example.
> From yet another post from which you fled:
>
> "Regarding your "get
> out of the west bank" bullshit, it's very simple: the acquisition of
> the west bank was the result of one of many arab instigated wars.
> Israel would have been happy as hell to exist within post-1948
> boundaries at peace with its neighbors, but arabs wouldn't hear of it.
> You pays your money, you takes your chances. When arabs decide they
> want a country bad enough to propose conditions that will be
> acceptable to israel, israel will be out of whatever portion of the wb
> is agreed upon. H, arabs attacked israel for no reason - there must be
> a price. The territory of the US, on the other hand, was not acquired
> because native americans attacked the british or mexico attacked the
> us. It was simply stolen. So in terms of right and wrong, there is
> certainly more justification for israel to annex whatever part of the
> wb they see fit than for the US to keep all of the land it stole from
> na's and from mexico. As zev said, after we give back texas, let's
> talk about the wb. "
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/e0cd595fd87e44ad
>
Watch him run again.
>
>
> > Quit ethnically cleansing East
> > Jerusalem.
But at least he continues to give sterling example of antisemitism.
> > Quit refusing to cooperate with your only ally.
And again...
> >Do justice
> > to the Palestinian people
And again
> >----or swear off your addiction to American
> > support.
Well, this is more stupidity than Jew-hatred.
Then again, it's very hard to differntiate the two.
> > Take your pick.
Poor little impotent loser!
Susan