Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria
coaste...@yahoo.com
guardian.co.uk home
Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria
During the second world war the future South African prime minister
John Vorster was interned as a Nazi sympathiser. Three decades later
he was being feted in Jerusalem. In the second part of his remarkable
special report, Chris McGreal investigates the clandestine alliance
between Israel and the apartheid regime, cemented with the ultimate
gift of friendship - A-bomb technology
* Chris McGreal
* The Guardian, Tuesday 7 February 2006
South Africa's prime minister John Vorster (second from right) is
feted by Israel's prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (right) and Menachem
Begin (left) and Moshe Dayan during his 1976 visit to Jerusalem.
Photograph: Sa'ar Ya'acov
South Africa's prime minister John Vorster (second from right) is
feted by Israel's prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (right) and Menachem
Begin (left) and Moshe Dayan during his 1976 visit to Jerusalem.
Photograph: Sa'ar Ya'acov
Read the first part of Chris McGreal's report
Several years ago in Johannesburg I met a Jewish woman whose mother
and sister were murdered in Auschwitz. After their deaths, she was
forced into a gas chamber, but by some miracle that bout of killing
was called off. Vera Reitzer survived the extermination camp, married
soon after the war and moved to South Africa.
Reitzer joined the apartheid Nationalist party (NP) in the early
1950s, at about the time that the new prime minister, DF Malan, was
introducing legislation reminiscent of Hitler's Nuremberg laws against
Jews: the population registration act that classified South Africans
according to race, legislation that forbade sex and marriage across
the colour line and laws barring black people from many jobs.
Reitzer saw no contradiction in surviving the Holocaust only to sign
up for a system that was disturbingly reminiscent in its underpinning
philosophy, if not in the scale of its crimes, as the one she had
outlived. She vigorously defended apartheid as a necessary bulwark
against black domination and the communism that engulfed her native
Yugoslavia. Reitzer let slip that she thought Africans inferior to
other human beings and not entitled to be treated as equals. I asked
if Hitler hadn't said the same thing about her as a Jew. She called a
halt to the conversation.
Reitzer was unusual among Jewish South Africans in her open enthusiasm
for apartheid and for her membership of the NP. But she was an
accepted member of the Jewish community in Johannesburg, working for
the Holocaust survivors association, while Jews who fought the system
were frequently ostracised by their own community.
Many Israelis recoil at suggestions that their country, risen from the
ashes of genocide and built on Jewish ideals, could be compared to a
racist regime. Yet for years the bulk of South Africa's Jews not only
failed to challenge the apartheid system but benefited and thrived
under its protection, even if some of their number figured prominently
in the liberation movements. In time, Israeli governments too set
aside objections to a regime whose leaders had once been admirers of
Adolf Hitler. Within three decades of its birth, Israel's self-
proclaimed "purity of arms" - what it describes as the moral
superiority of its soldiers - was secretly sacrificed as the fate of
the Jewish state became so intertwined with South Africa that the
Israeli security establishment came to believe the relationship saved
the Jewish state.
Afrikaner anti-semitism
Apartheid sought to segregate every aspect of life from the workplace
to the bedroom, even though whites in practice were dependent on black
people as a workforce and servants. Segregation evolved into "separate
development" and the bantustans - the five nominally "independent"
homelands where millions of black people were dumped under the rule of
despots beholden to Pretoria.
When the Nationalist party government first gained power in Pretoria
in 1948, the Jews of South Africa - the bulk of them descendants of
refugees from 19th-century pogroms in Lithuania and Latvia - had
reason to be wary. A decade before Malan became the first apartheid-
era prime minister, he was leading opposition to Jewish refugees from
Nazi Germany entering South Africa. In promoting legislation to block
immigration, Malan told parliament in 1937: "I have been reproached
that I am now discriminating against the Jews as Jews. Now let me say
frankly that I admit that it is so."
South African anti-semitism had grown with the rise of Jews to
prominence in the 1860s, during the Kimberly diamond rush. At the turn
of the century, the Manchester Guardian's correspondent, JA Hobson,
reflected a view that the Boer war was being fought in the interests
of a "small group of international financiers, chiefly German in
origin and Jewish in race". Fifty years later, Malan's cabinet saw
similar conspiracies. Hendrik Verwoerd, editor of the virulently anti-
semitic newspaper, Die Transvaler, and future author of "grand
apartheid", accused Jews of controlling the economy. Before the second
world war, the secret Afrikaner society, the Broederbond - which
included Malan and Verwoerd as members - developed ties to the Nazis.
Another Broederbond member and future prime minister, John Vorster,
was interned in a prison camp by Jan Smuts's government during the war
for his Nazi sympathies and ties to the Grey Shirt fascist militia.
Don Krausz, chairman of Johannesburg's Holocaust survivors
association, arrived in South Africa a year after the war, having
survived Hitler's camps at Ravensbrück and Sachsenhausen when much of
his extended family did not. "The Nationalists had a strongly anti-
semitic platform before 1948. The Afrikaans press was viciously anti-
Jewish, much like Der Stürmer in Germany under Hitler. The Jew felt
himself very much threatened by the Afrikaner. The Afrikaner supported
Hitler," he says. "My wife comes from Potchefstroom [in what was then
the Transvaal]. Every Jewish shop in that town was blown up by the
Grey Shirts. In the communities that were predominantly Afrikaans, the
Jews were absolutely victimised. Now the same crowd comes to power in
1948. The Jew was a very frightened person. There were cabinet
ministers who openly supported the Nazis."
Helen Suzman, a secular Jew, was for many years the only anti-
apartheid voice in parliament. "They didn't fear there would be a
Holocaust but they did fear there might be Nuremberg-style laws, the
kind that prevented people practising their professions. The incoming
government had made it clear that race differentiation was going to be
intensified, and the Jews didn't know where they were going to fit
into that," she says.
Many South African Jews were soon reassured that, while there would be
Nuremberg-style laws, they would not be the victims. The apartheid
regime had a demographic problem and it could not afford the luxury of
isolating a section of the white population, even if it was Jewish.
Within a few years many South African Jews not only came to feel
secure under the new order but comfortable with it. Some found echoes
of Israel's struggle in the revival of Afrikaner nationalism.
Many Afrikaners saw the Nationalist party's election victory as
liberation from bitterly hated British rule. British concentration
camps in South Africa may not have matched the scale or intent of
Hitler's war against the Jews, but the deaths of 25,000 women and
children from disease and starvation were deeply rooted in Afrikaner
nationalism, in the way the memory of the Holocaust is now central to
Israel's perception of itself. The white regime said that the lesson
was for Afrikaners to protect their interests or face destruction.
"What the Nats were trying to do was protect the Afrikaner," says
Krausz. "Especially after what was done to them in the Boer war, where
the Afrikaner was reduced almost to a beggar on returning after the
war, whether it was from the battlefield or some sort of concentration
camp. They did it to protect the Afrikaner, his predominance after
1948, his culture."
There was also God. The Dutch Reformed Church, prising justifications
for apartheid out of the Old Testament and Afrikaner history, seized
on the victory over the Zulus at the battle of Blood River as
confirming that the Almighty sided with the white man.
"Israelis claim that they are the chosen people, the elect of God, and
find a biblical justification for their racism and Zionist
exclusivity," says Ronnie Kasrils, South Africa's intelligence
minister and Jewish co-author of a petition that was circulated
amongst South African Jewry protesting at the Israeli occupation of
Palestinian territory.
"This is just like the Afrikaners of apartheid South Africa, who also
had the biblical notion that the land was their God-given right. Like
the Zionists who claimed that Palestine in the 1940s was 'a land
without people for a people without land', so the Afrikaner settlers
spread the myth that there were no black people in South Africa when
they first settled in the 17th century. They conquered by force of
arms and terror and the provocation of a series of bloody colonial
wars of conquest."
Anti-semitism lingered, but within a few years of the Nationalists
assuming power in 1948, many Jewish South Africans found common
purpose with the rest of the white community. "We were white and even
though the Afrikaner was no friend of ours, he was still white," says
Krausz. "The Jew in South Africa sided with the Afrikaners, not so
much out of sympathy, but out of fear sided against the blacks. I came
to this country in 1946 and all you could hear from Jews was 'the
blacks this and the blacks that'. And I said to them, 'You know, I've
heard exactly the same from the Nazis about you.' The laws were
reminiscent of the Nuremberg laws. Separate entrances; 'Reserved for
whites' here; 'Not for Jews' there."
For decades, the Zionist Federation and Jewish Board of Deputies in
South Africa honoured men such as Percy Yutar, who prosecuted Nelson
Mandela for sabotage and conspiracy against the state in 1963 and sent
him to jail for life (in the event, he served 27 years). Yutar went on
to become attorney general of the Orange Free State and then of the
Transvaal. He was elected president of Johannesburg's largest orthodox
synagogue. Some Jewish leaders hailed him as a "credit to the
community" and a symbol of the Jews' contribution to South Africa.
"The image of the Jews was that they were following Helen Suzman,"
says Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to Pretoria. "I think the
majority didn't like what apartheid was doing to the blacks but
enjoyed the fruits of the system and thought that maybe that's the
only way to run a country like South Africa."
The Jewish establishment shied away from confrontation with the
government. The declared policy of the Board of Deputies was
"neutrality" so as not to "endanger" the Jewish population. Those Jews
who saw silence as collaboration with racial oppression, and did
something about it outside of the mainstream political system, were
shunned.
"They were mostly disapproved of very strongly because it was felt
they were putting the community in danger," says Suzman. "The Board of
Deputies always said that every Jew can exercise his freedom to choose
his political party but bear in mind what it is doing to the
community. By and large, Jews were part of the privileged white
community and that led many Jews to say, 'We will not rock the boat.'"
Common aims
Israel was openly critical of apartheid through the 1950s and 60s as
it built alliances with post-colonial African governments. But most
African states broke ties after the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the
government in Jerusalem began to take a more benign view of the
isolated regime in Pretoria. The relationship changed so profoundly
that, in 1976, Israel invited the South African prime minister, John
Vorster - a former Nazi sympathiser and a commander of the fascist
Ossewabrandwag that sided with Hitler - to make a state visit.
Leaving unmentioned Vorster's wartime internment for supporting
Germany, Israel's prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, hailed the South
African premier as a force for freedom and made no mention of
Vorster's past as he toured the Jerusalem memorial to the six million
Jews murdered by the Nazis. At a state banquet, Rabin toasted "the
ideals shared by Israel and South Africa: the hopes for justice and
peaceful coexistence". Both countries, he said, faced "foreign-
inspired instability and recklessness".
Vorster, whose army was then overrunning Angola, told his hosts that
South Africa and Israel were victims of the enemies of western
civilisation. A few months later, the South African government's
yearbook characterised the two countries as confronting a single
problem: "Israel and South Africa have one thing above all else in
common: they are both situated in a predominantly hostile world
inhabited by dark peoples."
Vorster's visit laid the ground for a collaboration that transformed
the Israel-South Africa axis into a leading weapons developer and a
force in the international arms trade. Liel, who headed the Israeli
foreign ministry's South Africa desk in the 80s, says that the Israeli
security establishment came to believe that the Jewish state may not
have survived without the relationship with the Afrikaners.
"We created the South African arms industry," says Liel. "They
assisted us to develop all kinds of technology because they had a lot
of money. When we were developing things together we usually gave the
know-how and they gave the money. After 1976, there was a love affair
between the security establishments of the two countries and their
armies.
"We were involved in Angola as consultants to the [South African]
army. You had Israeli officers there cooperating with the army. The
link was very intimate."
Alongside the state-owned factories turning out materiel for South
Africa was Kibbutz Beit Alfa, which developed a profitable industry
selling anti-riot vehicles for use against protesters in the black
townships.
Going nuclear
The biggest secret of all was the nuclear one. Israel provided
expertise and technology that was central to South Africa's
development of its nuclear bombs. Israel was embarrassed enough about
its close association with a political movement rooted in racial
ideology to keep the military collaboration hidden.
"All that I'm telling you was completely secret," says Liel. "The
knowledge of it was extremely limited to a small number of people
outside the security establishment. But it so happened that many of
our prime ministers were part of it, so if you take people such as
[Shimon] Peres or Rabin, certainly they knew about it because they
were part of the security establishment.
"At the UN we kept saying: we are against apartheid, as Jewish people
who suffered from the Holocaust this is intolerable. But our security
establishment kept cooperating."
So did many politicians. Israeli cities found twins in South Africa,
and Israel was alone among western nations in allowing the black
homeland of Bophuthatswana to open an "embassy".
By the 1980s, Israel and South Africa echoed each other in justifying
the domination of other peoples. Both said that their own peoples
faced annihilation from external forces - in South Africa by black
African governments and communism; in Israel, by Arab states and
Islam. But each eventually faced popular uprisings - Soweto in 1976,
the Palestinian intifada in 1987 - that were internal, spontaneous and
radically altered the nature of the conflicts.
"There are things we South Africans recognise in the Palestinian
struggle for national self-determination and human rights," says
Kasrils. "The repressed are demonised as terrorists to justify ever-
greater violations of their rights. We have the absurdity that the
victims are blamed for the violence meted out against them. Both
apartheid and Israel are prime examples of terrorist states blaming
the victims."
There are important differences. Israel faced three wars of survival,
and the armed struggle in South Africa never evolved to the murderous
tactics or scale of killing adopted by Palestinian groups over recent
years. But, from the 1980s, the overwhelming superiority of Israeli
military power, the diminishing threat from its neighbours and the
shift of the conflict to Palestinian streets eroded the sympathy that
Israel once commanded abroad.
White South Africa and Israel painted themselves as enclaves of
democratic civilisation on the front line in defending western values,
yet both governments often demanded to be judged by the standards of
the neighbours they claimed to be protecting the free world from.
"The whites [in South Africa] always saw their fate in a way related
to the fate of the Israelis because the Israelis were a white minority
surrounded by 200 million fanatic Muslims assisted by communism," says
Liel. "Also, there was this analysis that said Israel is a civilised
western island in the midst of these 200 million barbaric Arabs and
it's the same as the Afrikaners; five million Afrikaners surrounded by
hundreds of millions of blacks who are also assisted by communism."
When Israel finally began to back away from the apartheid regime as
international pressure on the Afrikaner government grew, Liel says
Israel's security establishment balked. "When we came to the
crossroads in '86-'87, in which the foreign ministry said we have to
switch from white to black, the security establishment said, 'You're
crazy, it's suicidal.' They were saying we wouldn't have military and
aviation industries unless we had had South Africa as our main client
from the mid-1970s; they saved Israel. By the way, it's probably
true," he says.
Forgetting the past
Shimon Peres was defence minister at the time of Vorster's visit to
Jerusalem and twice served as prime minister during the 1980s when
Israel drew closest to the apartheid government. He shies away from
questions about the morality of ties to the white regime. "I never
think back. Since I cannot change the past, why should I deal with
it?" he says.
Pressed about whether he ever had doubts about backing a government
that was the antithesis of what Israel said it stood for, Peres says
his country was struggling for survival. "Every decision is not
between two perfect situations. Every choice is between two imperfect
alternatives. At that time the movement of black South Africa was with
Arafat against us. Actually, we didn't have much of a choice. But we
never stopped denouncing apartheid. We never agreed with it."
And a man like Vorster? "I wouldn't put him on the list of the
greatest leaders of our time," says Peres.
The deputy director general of Israel's foreign ministry, Gideon Meir,
says that while he had no detailed knowledge of Israel's relationship
with the apartheid government, it was driven by a sole consideration.
"Our main problem is security. There is no other country in the world
whose very existence is being threatened. This is since the inception
of the state of Israel to this very day. Everything is an outcome of
the geopolitics of Israel."
When apartheid collapsed, the South African Jewish establishment that
once honoured Percy Yutar - the prosecutor who jailed Mandela - now
rushed to embrace Jews who were at the forefront of the anti-apartheid
struggle, such as Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils and Ruth First.
"I received these awards from international Zionist organisations
claiming that it was my Judaic roots that had driven me," says Suzman.
"When I said I didn't have a Jewish upbringing and that I went to a
convent which didn't influence me either, they said it was not
actively but instinctively."
For Kasrils, the embrace was short-lived. "They spent years denouncing
me for 'endangering the Jews' and then suddenly they pretend they've
been at my side all through the struggle. It didn't last long. As soon
as I started criticising what Israel is doing in Palestine they
dropped me again," he said.
Nowadays, the language of the anti-apartheid struggle has found favour
with the Jewish establishment as a means of defending Israel. South
Africa's chief rabbi, Warren Goldstein, has called Zionism the
"national liberation movement of the Jewish people" and invoked the
terminology of Pretoria's policies to uplift "previously
disadvantaged" black people. "Israel is an affirmative-action state
set up to protect Jews from genocide. We are previously disadvantaged
and we can't rely on the goodwill of the world," he said. Rabbi
Goldstein declined several requests for an interview.
In 2004, Ronnie Kasrils visited the Palestinian territories to assess
the effect of Israel's assault on the West Bank two years earlier in
response to a wave of suicide bombings that killed hundreds of people.
"This is much worse than apartheid," he said. "The Israeli measures,
the brutality, make apartheid look like a picnic. We never had jets
attacking our townships. We never had sieges that lasted month after
month. We never had tanks destroying houses. We had armoured vehicles
and police using small arms to shoot people but not on this scale."
Petition of conscience
More than 200 South African Jews signed a petition that Kasrils co-
authored with another Jewish veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle,
Max Ozinsky, denouncing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and
drawing a parallel with apartheid. The document, called A Declaration
of Conscience, prompted a furious debate within the community. Arthur
Goldreich - one of Mandela's early comrades-in-arms who also fought
for Israel's independence - was among those who signed but he attached
an addendum recognising the impact of the suicide bombings on how
Israelis view the Palestinians.
Kasrils acknowledges the effect of the bombers but says that Israel's
"apartheid strategy" was under way long before the suicide attacks
began. He notes the resemblance of the occupied territories to South
Africa's patchwork of homelands - the bantustans - that were intended
to divest the country of much of its black population while keeping
the best of their land.
Today, about six million Israelis live on 85% of the area that was
Palestine under the British mandate. Nearly 3.5 million Palestinians
are confined to the remaining 15%, with their towns and cities penned
between Israel's ever-expanding settlement blocks and behind a network
of segregated roads, security barriers and military installations.
You might say that Israel and the old South Africa were caught out by
history. The world of 1948 into which the Jewish state was born and
the Afrikaners came to power cared little about the "dark peoples" who
stood in the way of grand visions. Neither government was doing very
much that others - including British colonists - had not done before
them.
And if Israel was fighting for its life and forcing Arabs out of their
homes at the same time, who in the west was going to judge the Jews
after what they had endured?
But colonialism crumbled in Africa and Israel grew strong, and the
world became less accepting of the justifications in Pretoria and
Jerusalem. South Africa's white leadership eventually accepted another
way. Israel now stands at a critical moment in its history.
With Ariel Sharon in a coma, it is unlikely that we will ever know how
far he intended to carry his "unilateral disengagement" strategy after
the withdrawal from Gaza and a part of the West Bank. Like FW de
Klerk, who initiated the dismantling of apartheid, Sharon might have
found he had set in motion forces he could not contain - forces that
would have led to a deal acceptable to the Palestinians.
But to the Palestinians, Sharon appeared intent on carrying through a
modified version of his longstanding plan to rid Israel of
responsibility for as many Arabs as possible while keeping as much of
their land as he could.
While Tony Blair was praising the Israeli prime minister for his
political "courage" in leaving Gaza in August last year, Sharon was
expropriating more land in the West Bank than Israel surrendered in
Gaza, building thousands of new homes in Jewish settlements, and
accelerating construction of the 400-plus miles of concrete and barbed
wire barrier that few doubt is intended as a border.
Palestinians said that whatever emasculated "state" emerged - granted
only "aspects of sovereignty" with limited control over its borders,
finances and foreign policy - would be disturbingly reminiscent of
South Africa's defunct bantustans.
Take the roads. Israel is rapidly constructing a parallel network of
roads in the West Bank for Palestinians who are barred from using many
existing routes. B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, describes
the system as bearing "clear similarities to the racist apartheid
regime that existed in South Africa".
The army, which describes roads from which Palestinians are forbidden
as "sterile", says the policy is driven solely by security
considerations. But it is evident that the West Bank road system is a
tool, along with the 400-plus miles of barrier, in entrenching the
settlement blocks and carving up territory. "The road regime is not by
legislation," said Goldreich. "It's by political decision and military
orders. When I look at all of those maps and I look at the roads, it's
like Alice in Wonderland. There are roads that Israelis can go on and
roads Palestinians can go on, and roads Israelis and Palestinians can
go on." The roads, the checkpoints, the fence - all "by edict. I look
at it and ask, what is the thinking behind this?"
Three years ago, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported the former
Italian prime minister, Massimo D'Alema, as telling dinner guests at a
Jerusalem hotel that, on a visit to Rome a few years earlier, Sharon
had told him that the bantustan model was the most appropriate
solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. When one of the guests
suggested to D'Alema that he was interpreting, not repeating, Sharon's
words, the former prime minister said not. "No, sir, that is not
interpretation. That is a precise quotation of your prime minister,"
he said. With Sharon out of politics, his successor Ehud Olmert has
pledged himself to carrying through the vision of carving out Israel's
final borders deep inside the West Bank and retaining all of Jerusalem
for the Jewish state.
So is it apartheid?
Stepping into modern Israel, anyone who experienced the old South
Africa would see few immediately visible comparisons. There are no
signs segregating Jews and non-Jews. Yet, as in white South Africa
then and now, there is a world of discrimination and oppression that
most Israelis choose not to see.
Israeli soldiers routinely humiliate and harass Palestinians at
checkpoints and settlers paint hate-filled slogans on the walls of
Arab houses in Hebron. The police stop citizens who appear to be Arabs
on West Jerusalem streets to demand their identity cards as a matter
of routine.
Some Jewish communities refuse to allow Arabs in their midst on the
grounds of cultural differences. One Jewish settlement mayor tried to
require Arabs who entered to wear a tag that identified them as
Palestinians. In the 1990s, rightwingers menaced shopkeepers into
sacking Arab workers. Those who complied were given signs declaring
their shops Arab-free. Sometimes the hatred is explained away as
religious discrimination, but the chants at the football matches go
"Death to Arabs" not "Death to Muslims".
The Israeli press largely ignores the routine of occupation despite
the fearless reporting of some journalists on the disturbing number of
children who die under Israeli guns (more than 650 since the second
intifada broke out in September 2000, of which a quarter were younger
than 12 years old); the abuse of Palestinians by settlers, and the
humiliations meted out at the checkpoints.
The eight-metre-high wall driven through Jerusalem is almost invisible
to residents of the Jewish west of the city. Because of the geography,
most of the city's Jews do not see the concrete mammoth dividing
streets and families, and the demolished homes - just as most of South
Africa's whites steered clear of the townships and were blind to what
was being done in their name.
Shortly after arriving in Jerusalem, I was invited for dinner at the
home of a liberal Israeli family. The guests included an American
magazine publisher, a prominent historian and political activists. The
conversation turned to the Palestinians and degenerated into a
discussion of how they do not "deserve" a state. The intifada and
suicide bombings were seen to justify 37 years of occupation and
offset whatever crimes Israel may have committed against the Arabs
under its rule.
It was all very reminiscent of conversations in South Africa, and
indeed the popular Israeli view of Palestinians is not so far from how
many white South Africans thought about black people. Opinion polls
show that large numbers of Israelis regard Arabs as "dirty",
"primitive", as not valuing human life and as violent.
Sharon recruited into his government men who openly called for
wholesale ethnic cleansing that would more than match apartheid's
forced removals. Among them was the tourism minister, Rehavam Ze'evi,
who advocated the "transfer" of Arabs out of Israel and the occupied
territories. Even the Israeli press called him a racist. Ze'evi was
shot dead in 2001 by Palestinians who said his policies made him a
legitimate target.
But Ze'evi's views did not die with him. An influential member of the
Likud central committee, Uzi Cohen, said Israel and its western allies
should demand that a part of Jordan be carved off as a Palestinian
state and that Arabs in the occupied territories should be given 20
years to "leave voluntarily". "In case they don't leave, plans would
have to be drawn up to expel them by force," Cohen told Israel radio.
"Many people support the idea but few are willing to speak about it
publicly." Cohen is among 70 Israeli MPs who have backed a bill to
establish a national memorial day for Ze'evi and an institute to
perpetuate his ideas.
In 2001, Sharon appointed Uzi Landau as his security minister, a
position from which he openly advocated that Palestinians should be
forced to move to Jordan because they were in the way of Israeli
expansion in the West Bank. "For many of us, it's as though they [the
Palestinians] are encroaching on our very right to be there [in the
occupied territories]," he said.
Sharon rarely objected to the expression of such views, and when he
did it was not because they were racist or immoral. The prime minister
told Likud party members who pressed him to expel Palestinians that he
could not do so because the "international situation wouldn't be
conducive".
"We've always had the fanatics talking of greater Israel," says
Krausz, the Holocaust survivor in Johannesburg. "There are blokes who
say it says in the Bible this land is ours, God gave it to us. It's
fascism."
Colonial dispossession
Yossi Sarid, a leftwing Israeli MP, said of a cabinet minister who
agitated for the forced removal of Arabs: "His remarks are reminiscent
of other people and other lands which ultimately led to the
annihilation of millions of Jews." They are also reminiscent of
comments by PW Botha, who went on to become South Africa's president.
Speaking to parliament in 1964 as minister for coloured affairs, he
said: "I am one of those who believe that there is no permanent home
for even a section of the Bantu in the white area of South Africa and
the destiny of South Africa depends on this essential point. If the
principle of permanent residence for the black man in the area of the
white is accepted then it is the beginning of the end of civilisation
as we know it in this country."
There was a time when large numbers of Israelis agreed with Ze'evi and
Cohen, but over the past decade they have come to support the creation
of a Palestinian state as a means of ridding themselves of
responsibility from the bulk of Arabs. Separation. Apartheid.
But South African apartheid was more than just separation. "Apartheid
was all about land," says John Dugard, the South African lawyer and UN
human rights monitor. "Apartheid was about keeping the best parts of
the country for the whites and sending the blacks to the least
habitable, least desirable parts of the country. And one sees that all
the time here [in the occupied territories], particularly with the
wall, now, which is really a land grab. One sees Palestinians
dispossessed of their homes by bulldozers. One can draw certain
parallels with respect to South Africa that, during the heyday of
apartheid, population relocation did result in destruction of
property, but not on the same scale as the devastation in Gaza in
particular, [or in] the West Bank."
Arthur Goldreich resists the temptation to use the comparison. "It is
a viable, even attractive, analogy. I have in the past been very
reluctant, and still am, to make the analogy because I think it's too
convenient. I think there are striking similarities in all forms of
racist discrimination," he says.
"I think to describe, let us say, the bantustanism which we see
through a policy of occupation and separation: they all have their own
words and their own implications and it is not necessary to go outside
to find them."
Kasrils agrees. "Yes, there are enormous parallels with apartheid, but
the problem with making comparisons is it actually distracts from the
Palestinian context," he says. "We have to look for another
definition. What struck me is dispossession, colonial dispossession.
Most colonial dispossession took place over centuries through settlers
and forced removals. In South Africa, that was a 300-year process.
Here, it's taken place in 50 years; 1948, 1967 and the present in
terms of the heightened nature of militarism in the West Bank and Gaza
leading to the wall, which I don't see as a wall of security but a
wall of dispossession."
Hirsh Goodman emigrated to Israel three decades ago after his national
service in the South African army. His son moved to South Africa after
completing his conscription in the Israeli military. "The army sent
him to the occupied territories and he said he would never forgive
this country for what it made him do," says Goodman, a security
analyst at Tel Aviv university. He says Israel has a lot to answer for
but to call it apartheid goes too far. "If Israel retains the
[occupied] territories it ceases to be a democracy, and in that sense
it is apartheid because it differentiates between two classes of
people and separates and creates two sets of laws which is what
apartheid did. It creates two standards of education, health, of
dispensing funds. But you can't call Israel an apartheid state when
76% of the people want an agreement with the Palestinians. Yes,
there's discrimination against the Arabs, the Ethiopians and others,
but it's not a racist society. There's colonialism, but there's not
apartheid. I feel very strongly about apartheid. I hate the term being
abused."
Daniel Seidemann, the Israeli lawyer who is fighting Jerusalem's
residency and planning laws, says that he used to reject the apartheid
parallel out of hand but finds it harder to do so nowadays. "My gut
reaction: 'Oh, no! Our side? My goodness, no!' I think there's a good
deal to be said for that reaction to the extent that apartheid was
rooted in a racial ideology which clearly fed social realities, fed
the political system, fed the system of economic subjugation. As a
Jew, to concede the predominance of a racial world view of subjugating
Palestinians is difficult to accept," he says. "But, unfortunately,
the fact of the absence of a racial ideology is not sufficient because
the realities that have emerged in some ways are clearly reminiscent
of some of the important trappings of an apartheid regime."
So perhaps the better question is how Israel came to a point where
comparisons with apartheid could even be contemplated. Is it a victim
of circumstances, forced into oppression by its need to survive? Or
was the hunger for land so central to the Zionist project that
domination was the inevitable result?
Krausz worked in Israel for several years soon after the birth of the
state. "I recognised the conflict in trying to take land that the
Palestinians had lived on for centuries. I realise the 1948 war of
independence wasn't a right-and-wrong situation: a lot of Arabs not
only fled voluntarily but were also encouraged to do so. What they
would have done if there hadn't been a war, I don't know," he says.
"I know that where I drilled for oil was the site of an Arab village.
Being South African, I used to go and visit family and friends on a
kibbutz that was started by South Africans, including my cousin. I
used to go roaming about the countryside there and I went through one
abandoned and blown up Arab village after another."
States of fear
In Israel, at least until the late 1970s, the threat from its Arab
neighbours was all too real. But fear also played a role among white
South Africans, who watched with growing horror, and then terror, the
tide of empire receding and black rule sweeping Africa. The accounts
of white women raped in newly independent Congo and, years later, the
scenes of whites fleeing Angola, Mozambique and Rhodesia, were used by
South Africa to terrify its white citizens into accepting increasingly
oppressive measures against black people. Nevertheless, the fear among
whites was real. They, like Israelis, saw themselves as in a struggle
for their very existence.
Israel's critics say that as the threats to the Jewish state receded
it came more and more to resemble the apartheid model - particularly
in its use of land and residency laws - until the similarities
outweighed the differences. Liel says that was never the intent.
"The existential problems of Israel were real," he says. "Of the
injustice we did, we're always ashamed. We always tried to behave
democratically. Of course, on the private level there was a lot of
discrimination - a lot, a lot. By the government also. But it was not
a philosophy that was built on racism. A lot of it was security-
oriented."
Goldreich disagrees. "It's a gross distortion. I'm surprised at Liel.
In 1967, in the six day war, in this climate of euphoria - by intent,
not by will of God or accident - the Israeli government occupied the
territories of the West Bank and Gaza with a captive Palestinian
population obviously in order to extend the area of Israel and to push
the borders more distant from where they were," he says.
"I and others like me, active after the six day war on public
platforms, tried desperately to convince audiences throughout this
country that peace agreements between Israel and Palestine [offer]
greater security than occupation of territory and settlements. But the
government wanted territory more than it wanted security.
"I am certain that it was in the minds of many in the leadership of
this country that what we needed to do was make this place Arab-free.
Mandela said to me once at Rivonia, 'You know, they want to make us
unpeople, not seen.'"
But, as ordinary Israelis discovered, such a system cannot survive
unchallenged. Apartheid collapsed in part because South African
society was exhausted by its demands and the myth of victimhood among
whites fell away. Israel has not got there yet. Many Israelis still
think they are the primary victims of the occupation.
For Seidemann, the crucial issue is not how the apartheid system
worked but how it began to disintegrate. "It unravelled because it
couldn't be done. Apartheid drained so much energy from South African
society that this was one of the compelling reasons beyond the
economic sanctions and pressures that convinced De Klerk that this was
not sustainable. This is what is coming to Israel."
Or perhaps the conflict will evolve into something worse; something
that will produce parallels even more shocking than that with
apartheid.
Arnon Soffer has spent years advising the government on the
"demographic threat" posed by the Arabs. The Haifa university
geographer paints a bleak vision of how he sees the Gaza strip a
generation after Israel's withdrawal.
"When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it's going to be a
human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than
they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The
pressure at the border will be awful. It's going to be a terrible war.
So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and
kill. All day, every day," he told the Jerusalem Post.
"If we don't kill, we will cease to exist. The only thing that
concerns me is how to ensure that the boys and men who are going to
have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families
and be normal human beings."
Honest truth
> Reitzer was unusual among Jewish South Africans in her open enthusiasm
> for apartheid
I wish that could be said of non-Jewish whites most who supported apartheid
--
嚙踝蕭Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man嚙踝蕭s nature, there is
not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. 嚙皺 If the Jews are rich [these
fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of
ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take
advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it
is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells
in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to
his own land, he is prevented from doing so.嚙踝蕭
Lloyd George
Fish Supper
"Honest truth" <Honest...@Wisdom.net> wrote in message
news:7curjvah7rmy.1r...@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:39:07 -0800 (PST),
>
>> Reitzer was unusual among Jewish South Africans in her open enthusiasm
>> for apartheid
>
>
> I wish that could be said of non-Jewish whites most who supported
> apartheid
> --
You have, of course, no comment to makes about the article itself, which
shows Israel to be a much more evil and vicious regime than Apartheid SA
ever was. The reason you have no comment to make is that you are morally
bankrupt, like the philosophy you support.
Stewart
"Fish Supper" <li...@sea.com> wrote in message
news:x6OdnTiUDreKaKDW...@bt.com...
The reason for no comment on the "article" is because of it's dubious
author.
Fish Supper
"Stewart" <gort...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhl41n$a9r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Zioinism 101. Chapter 3.
Insinuation and Groundless Defamation
Chris McGreal: Journalist with The BBC, The Guardian and The Independent.
Chris McGreal: National Print Journalist of the Year award from Amnesty
International in 1995
Pray tell, zionist lickspittle, what is dubious about someone who has worked
with some of the finest news organisations in the world and won an award
from Amnesty International?
Ahhh, there's the rub. Zionists don't like Amnesty International, do they?
Now, why would that be, do you think?
Stewart
Bias, you silly twit. Bias in reporting.
Fish Supper
I've noticed this about you zionists. In response to any question that you
find difficult to answer, you make some nonsensical, non sequitur and deem
that adequate.
Now, since it's the season of goodwill, I'll give you the chance to redeem
yourself to appear less of a twat. Explain how and when Mr McGreal has been
demonstrably biased in his reporting - and we'll have none of your poisonous
zionist disinformation, insinuation or lies. Cite where he has been
demonstrably untruthful.
Bolt Upright
ever happening.
Stewart
I've noticed one thing about goyim, you habitually post any whimsical
bullshit you can find to support your demented ideals no matter the
source.
>
> Now, since it's the season of goodwill, I'll give you the chance to
> redeem yourself to appear less of a twat. Explain how and when Mr
> McGreal has been demonstrably biased in his reporting - and we'll
> have none of your poisonous zionist disinformation, insinuation or
> lies. Cite where he has been demonstrably untruthful.
>
The British press in general is biased and uses sensationalism in
their coverage....as per a previous article by your current
savior...which is actually quite subdued and raises no depth of the
issues for for some inexplicable reason. Why is this?
Not what one would expect from a prize winning "journalist" (and I use
the term loosely").
Rising UK anti-Semitism blamed on mediaBuzz up!
Digg it
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem The Guardian, Tuesday 25 January 2005 07.14
GMT
Britain suffered the sharpest rise in anti-semitic attacks of any
country last year, and British press coverage of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a leading cause, according to an
Israeli government report.
Natan Sharansky, the cabinet minister responsible for the diaspora,
said the report found that violent attacks on Jews in Britain rose by
almost half.
The government's global forum against anti-semitism, which wrote the
report, said France again topped the list of anti-semitic violence
with 96 attacks, but the number in Britain rose sharply to 77.
The total number of incidents in Britain rose to 304 from 163 a year
earlier when verbal assaults, damage to property and swastikas daubing
were taken into account. The report has been relased as Israel focuses
on anti-semitism to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz.
Mr Sharansky attributed the British figures to "years of hostile
reporting and commentary about Israel in the British press now
spilling into the streets".
His officials singled out the Guardian and the BBC, accusing them of
"likening Israel to a Nazi state". The Independent was also
criticised.
David Weinberg, coordinator of the forum and an adviser to Mr
Sharansky, said the report found that most acts of anti-semitism in
Britain were carried out by Arabs or Muslims, but press coverage of
Israel, and the actions of some politicians created a climate that
encouraged such attacks.
"Among west European countries there is a red flag flying over Britain
and it's particularly disturbing because Britain is a country friendly
to Israel and the British government takes anti-semitism seriously."
He added: "Sharansky believes you have to look at the intellectual
environment that has developed toward Israel in Britain and the effect
that has on the broader public."
He singled out the coverage of the Israeli army assault on Jenin
refugee camp in 2002, in which 58 Palestinians were killed, mostly
armed men.
The attack was characterised as a "massacre" by some of the media. He
said this was demonisation of Israel and anti-semitism.
Tehila Nahalon, an adviser to Mr Sharansky on anti-semitism, said:
"You can't brainwash people for four years that Israel is an
illegitimate country and that Israelis are like the Nazis and that
Israelis are monsters and expect that nothing will happen to Jews."
The Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is publishing its own
statistics next month, supported the report's conclusions. Its
spokesman, Jason Pearlman, accused the BBC of "unrelenting anti-Israel
bias".
"The British media has portrayed Israel in a very unfair light," he
said. "It's what's not said as much as what's said: the fact that most
Palestinian attacks on Israel are not reported in the British press,
and the fact that almost all the attacks on the Palestinians are
reported."
---------
Stewart
"Bolt Upright" <HughGR...@merde.com> wrote in message
news:d0c1d$4b3ebb47$d8fe9c65$15...@PRIMUS.CA...
Your ignorant shilling is another baseless goyim ploy to avoid any
issue.
Bolt Upright
diversion noted, Stewie.
>
Stewart
You got what you asked for, and it is no diversion but rather, an
observation. Your complete evasion of the subject and any possible
subsequent discussion is duly noted.
>>
>
>
Bolt Upright
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Honest truth" <Honest_tr...@Wisdom.net> wrote in message
And he flees the thread.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d0c1d$4b3ebb47$d8fe9c65$15...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >news:AZednfUcdM1gNKPW...@bt.com...
>
> >> "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:hhm53d$v9k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:cKCdnQn-7Leg6qPW...@bt.com...
>
> >>>> "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:hhl41n$a9r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>>> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:x6OdnTiUDreKaKDW...@bt.com...
>
> >>>>>> "Honest truth" <Honest_tr...@Wisdom.net> wrote in message
You've raised no issue here. All you've done is defame a reputable
journalist with no basis whatever. That's it, nada mas. One thing I do
rather like seeing though is your open hostility to the "goyim". We
all know it is there. It's comforting to see you admit it.
DoD
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote in message
>
> news:138bc$4b3f688d$d8fe9deb$14...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hhnle6$j6f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote in message
> >>news:d0c1d$4b3ebb47$d8fe9c65$15...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> >>> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:AZednfUcdM1gNKPW...@bt.com...
>
> >>>> "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:hhm53d$v9k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>>> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:cKCdnQn-7Leg6qPW...@bt.com...
>
> >>>>>> "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:hhl41n$a9r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>>>>> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:x6OdnTiUDreKaKDW...@bt.com...
>
> >>>>>>>> "Honest truth" <Honest_tr...@Wisdom.net> wrote in message
The ball's been in your court since you were provided with the
information about McGreal's very respectable career. You've done
nothing whatever by defame this journalist.
Bolt Upright
"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90e51801-5ccd-41b2...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>What a doofus....
Thus blathers our resident village idiot.
DoD
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Like clockwork......LOL!!!
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cKCdnQn-7Leg6qPW...@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hhl41n$a9r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>news:x6OdnTiUDreKaKDW...@bt.com...
>
> >>> "Honest truth" <Honest_tr...@Wisdom.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:7curjvah7rmy.1r...@40tude.net...
> >>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:39:07 -0800 (PST),
>
> >>>>> Reitzer was unusual among Jewish South Africans in her open
> >>>>> enthusiasm
> >>>>> for apartheid
>
> >>>> I wish that could be said of non-Jewish whites most who supported
> >>>> apartheid
> >>>> --
>
> >>> You have, of course, no comment to makes about the article itself,
> >>> which shows Israel to be a much more evil and vicious regime than
> >>> Apartheid SA ever was. The reason you have no comment to make is
> >>> that you are morally bankrupt, like the philosophy you support.
>
> >> The reason for no comment on the "article" is because of it's
> >> dubious author.
>
> > Zioinism 101. Chapter 3.
> > Insinuation and Groundless Defamation
>
> > Chris McGreal: Journalist with The BBC, The Guardian and The
> > Independent.
> > Chris McGreal: National Print Journalist of the Year award from
> > Amnesty International in 1995
>
> > Pray tell, zionist lickspittle, what is dubious about someone who
> > has worked with some of the finest news organisations in the world
> > and won an award from Amnesty International?
>
> Bias, you silly twit. Bias in reporting.
You have the damned article in front of you. What bias, sleazebag? I'm
beginning to understand why you people need permanent institutions
like the ADL working 24/7 to stanch the criticism of your conduct. You
earn that criticism. This pretense that so called anti-semitism is a
completely gratuitous assault on Jews was always counter-intuitive and
is simply false. You Zionist Jews anyway tend to display serious
behavior problems. They're real. Your behavior in this thread is an
example of why many of you have trouble getting along with people who
have higher standards of personal morality. Your behavior in this
thread is disgusting.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Looking forward to Sunday dinner after mass with your dear Mommy,
David? Is that where you keep your doll collection, the ones with the
big blue eyes that you used to proudly display on the web?
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Typo corrected.
>
> The ball's been in your court since you were provided with the
> information about McGreal's very respectable career. You've done
> nothing whatever but defame this journalist.
Fish Supper
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ef098c4-183b-4f7e...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
**
tch. Whoda thunk it?
Fish Supper
No, see, you got that wrong there, Stewpot. I didn't say "cut and paste an
article by McGreal that shows him to be an independent minded journalist".
Didn't say that, Stewy; Didn't say that at all.
What I did say was "Explain how and when Mr McGreal has been demonstrably
biased in his reporting". See, what you've done Stewy, is you've provided
evidence that supports my contention about McGreal and kinda blows your own
position up in your face. But it's the season of goodwill, so I'll give you
another crack at it.
So, here goes. Ready? Ok. "Explain how and when Mr McGreal has been
demonstrably biased in his reporting"
It's not a difficult question, Stewy, honest to G*d it's not. Now read it
carefully, think about it some and then try again.
Fish Supper
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason for no comment on the "article" is because of it's dubious
>>>>> author.
>>>>
>>>> Zioinism 101. Chapter 3.
>>>> Insinuation and Groundless Defamation
>>>>
>>>> Chris McGreal: Journalist with The BBC, The Guardian and The
>>>> Independent.
>>>> Chris McGreal: National Print Journalist of the Year award from Amnesty
>>>> International in 1995
>>>>
>>>> Pray tell, zionist lickspittle, what is dubious about someone who has
>>>> worked with some of the finest news organisations in the world and won
>>>> an award from Amnesty International?
>>>
>>> Bias, you silly twit. Bias in reporting.
>>
>> I've noticed this about you zionists. In response to any question that
>> you find difficult to answer, you make some nonsensical, non sequitur and
>> deem that adequate.
>
> I've noticed one thing about goyim, you habitually post any whimsical
> bullshit you can find to support your demented ideals no matter the
> source.
Of course, what else would we expect from a zionist, but lies, deviation and
deflection. In your case, you throw in an extra spice of stupidity.
I asked you to provide an instance where McGreal had written anything which
was demonstrably false. In response you post an article of his where he
describes a rising tide of anti-semtism. Not only do you not provide an
instance of falshoods by Mr Mcgreal, you do provide an article which shows
his impartiality towards Jews.
You achieve the remarkable feat of both failing to back up your own
argument, whilst at the same time strengthening mine. You really haven't
thought things through, have you, Stewy?
As for your comment about the British media being biased against Israel,
well, that's as ignorant and foolish as the rest of the dross you post.
Now, back to the topic in hand; provide us with an example of biased
reporting by McGreal.
In your own time.
DoD
Yeah, that was what iconoass calls evidence. Much like the rest of his
crapppy
posts. If I did have dolls, I would hide them from your lustful stares
and wants, you
spineless perv.
Bolt Upright
This isn't the shock that you might think, Doodoo.
I am sure that you do indeed own an inflatable doll (or several) as it is
difficult to fathom how you could find any other source of sexual relief
beyond than your own palm.
DoD
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
More clockwork. The troll brigade to the defense of iconoass..!!!
coaste...@yahoo.com
Still don't have a girlfriend, David? How come?
DoD
We already went over that watson has no proof whatsoever of any of
his
assertions. You are one hell of a crappy lawyer even more so than you
are
a crappy human being, and that says a lot. The only thing you are good
at is
making an ass out of yourself in the later years of your life.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
He really does have a doll collection.
DoD
You really diddle kiddies...
Stewart
So, if subject doesn't concern you, WTF are you whining about?
> Your evasion of it is.
The response to your request was spot on. Your failure at a rebuttal
is the evasion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Stewart
I brought up a point about his failure to supply any investigative
support to his story when it is not in line with his personal beliefs,
which makes him biased in his reporting. The proverbial "ball" was in
your court at that point, but once again you have dribbled out of
bounds.
Stewart
Unfortunately, you have failed to realize that he shows his bias
through omission. Omission of any further investigative support. Not
exactly what one would expect from someone that is supposed to be one
of the best in his field.
>
> So, here goes. Ready? Ok. "Explain how and when Mr McGreal has been
> demonstrably biased in his reporting"
>
See above.
> It's not a difficult question, Stewy, honest to G*d it's not. Now
> read it carefully, think about it some and then try again.
See above. All you have to do is think...a stretch for you, but it's
not that difficult.
>
Stewart
I have raised the point to his omission when it suits him. As far as
defame him, I doubt it. Maybe 10 people will read it, at most, many
of which didn't even know he existed.
You have delusions of grandeur....
> That's it, nada mas. One thing I do
> rather like seeing though is your open hostility to the "goyim". We
> all know it is there. It's comforting to see you admit it.
It isn't hostility. Limited toleration of the inferior would be a
better description.
Stewart
See previous posting.
> You achieve the remarkable feat of both failing to back up your own
> argument, whilst at the same time strengthening mine. You really
> haven't thought things through, have you, Stewy?
see previous posting.
>
> As for your comment about the British media being biased against
> Israel, well, that's as ignorant and foolish as the rest of the
> dross you post.
>
See previous posting.
> Now, back to the topic in hand; provide us with an example of biased
> reporting by McGreal.
>
> In your own time.
See previous posting.
>
>
>
Stewart
The article could have been written by a cub reporter. Now either
comment on the subject matter, or bail out (I predict the latter, with
all the bells and whistles of the standard goy retorts that have
nothing to do with the subject matter).
Stewart
There is no fleeing of the thread. It may come to the point where you
no longer hold any entertainment value.......
Stewart
"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90e51801-5ccd-41b2...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
That is putting it mildly.
Bolt Upright
His personality.
Bolt Upright
Typical Doodoo response noted. Lots of ad homs and bullshit, and not a shred
of honest response to Hunter's question. Kind of sad, when you think about
it.
Bolt Upright
that's no surprise.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Fish Supper
>> an article by McGreal that shows him to be an independent minded
>> journalist".
>> Didn't say that, Stewy; Didn't say that at all.
>>
>> What I did say was "Explain how and when Mr McGreal has been demonstrably
>> biased in his reporting". See, what you've done Stewy, is you've provided
>> evidence that supports my contention about McGreal and kinda blows your
>> own position up in your face. But it's the season of goodwill, so I'll
>> give you another crack at it.
>
> Unfortunately, you have failed to realize that he shows his bias through
> omission. Omission of any further investigative support. Not exactly
> what one would expect from someone that is supposed to be one of the best
> in his field.
What, in the name of Christ, are you talking about now?
"Omission of any further investigative support"? What exactly is that
supposed to mean. Is it supposed to mean anything? - or is it the usual
zionist maneouver when backed into a corner: say something, anything - it
doesn't matter what, call it 'proof' then run away.
McGreal does an article bemoaning the rise of anti-semitism, he interviews
an Israeli cabinet minister, two Israeli government officials and the Deputy
of the Board of British Jews and you call him 'biased' because he omitted
any "further investigative support"?
From whom should he have ascertained this "further investigate support"?
What kind of "further support" would he have to provide to avoid accusations
of bias? Who, more than three Israeli government officials and a British
Jewish leader, would better put their case? If McGreal is open to
accusations of bias it would be from those groups who maintain that the rise
is anti-semitism is in fact a rise in falsely targeted anti-zionism, and
that Jews are being targetted as a result of the almost universal silence of
the Jewish 'establishment' on the war crimes and crimes against humanity
carried out by Israel. None of the spokespeople for these groups were
included in McGreal's article.
Tell me; are you hoping that by posting confused and self-contradictory
drivel that you will somehow persaude readers that you aren't a complete
fool?
It's not working, Stewy - really its not.
coaste...@yahoo.com
And your data has long since been given to counsel. I update them once
in a while.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
This is journalism, not an academic study. That doesn't mean that it
is unsupported. It's just that the support for each assertion of fact
must be in his file, and the editors in top news organizations see to
that. They're the ones who double check "support" before allowing it
to be printed. Newspaper articles virtually never contain foot notes
to sources.
Okay, what, specifically, is it in his report which you feel is
unsupported. And if you can answer this, what makes you think it is
unsupported? Feel free to dodge this, but if you do you'll end up
labeling yourself as having dual loyalties and a Zionist, i.e.,
criminal, agenda for Palestine..
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h9OdnbGiXeaTSaLW...@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hhnqdc$s4e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote in message
> >>news:138bc$4b3f688d$d8fe9deb$14...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> >>> "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:hhnle6$j6f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>> "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:d0c1d$4b3ebb47$d8fe9c65$15...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> >>>>> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:AZednfUcdM1gNKPW...@bt.com...
>
> >>>>>> "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:hhm53d$v9k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>>>>> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:cKCdnQn-7Leg6qPW...@bt.com...
>
> >>>>>>>> "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:hhl41n$a9r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>>>>>>> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:x6OdnTiUDreKaKDW...@bt.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Honest truth" <Honest_tr...@Wisdom.net> wrote in message
You're stewed. Floundering. Exactly what needs "further investigative
support?" You can't know that. Surely you don't have access to the
files of McGreal and his editor. If I'm wrong please let us know.
Journalists don't publish their sources. Have you no experience of
journalism? Perhaps you've led a sheltered life. If so, tell us about
it. Maybe we can cut you some slack.
> > So, here goes. Ready? Ok. "Explain how and when Mr McGreal has been
> > demonstrably biased in his reporting"
>
> See above.
>
> > It's not a difficult question, Stewy, honest to G*d it's not. Now
> > read it carefully, think about it some and then try again.
>
> See above. All you have to do is think...a stretch for you, but it's
> not that difficult.
What a weakling.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Thinking about yourself as a defendant, eh? Do you actually have a
conscience. I didn't think so 'til now.
>
> > That's it, nada mas. One thing I do
> > rather like seeing though is your open hostility to the "goyim". We
> > all know it is there. It's comforting to see you admit it.
>
> It isn't hostility. Limited toleration of the inferior would be a
> better description.
Wonderful. I'm taking this to the bank--the bank vault that is.
But take it a little further. How does this reconcile with the fact
that you are systematically out-performed here by your "goy"
opponents? You have not come near achieving even a mere debate victory
much less a display of entry level probity. Like your shabbos goy
groveler, DoD, you're incompetent--unless, unless, what your
colleagues in this fight really value is exactly the devious nastiness
you represent. That sums you up. How about them? Does it sum them up
too? Think it over and, ad interim, tell those colleagues of yours to
get Israel the hell out of the West Bank.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h9OdnbeiXeaTSaLW...@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hhnlb4$inn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
Absolutely incompetent.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
McGreal and his editors in a prestigious journal have provided the
subject matter. You have leveled no specific criticism of it whatever,
but that hasn't kept you from defaming him. I don't see a thing wrong
with the article and you haven't even had the chutzpah to point out
anything specific in it for criticism. It's pretty obvious that that's
a combination of fear and malice. And I'm letting you off the hook by
adding incompetence.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h9OdnbaiXeaTSaLW...@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1ef098c4-183b-4f7e...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 1, 8:12 am, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
> >> "Honest truth" <Honest_tr...@Wisdom.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:7curjvah7rmy.1r...@40tude.net...
>
> >> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:39:07 -0800 (PST),
>
> >> >> Reitzer was unusual among Jewish South Africans in her open
> >> >> enthusiasm
> >> >> for apartheid
>
> >> > I wish that could be said of non-Jewish whites most who supported
> >> > apartheid
> >> > --
>
> >> You have, of course, no comment to makes about the article itself,
> >> which
> >> shows Israel to be a much more evil and vicious regime than
> >> Apartheid SA
> >> ever was. The reason you have no comment to make is that you are
> >> morally
> >> bankrupt, like the philosophy you support.
>
> > And he flees the thread.
>
> There is no fleeing of the thread. It may come to the point where you
> no longer hold any entertainment value.......
What a mess you are, absolutely paralyzed.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Don't miss my response to little David, the lickspittle, posted an
hour or two ago.
DoD
Whatever spineless jellyfish.... I have been waiting for you to grow
some nuts for a year now.
Everyone knows you don't want to get punked out in public. You are
satisfied to have it done on
usenet. Where your trolling brothers have your back. Get a life loser.
DoD
LOL!!!! Keep proving watson is a loser!!!!
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hhq7vl$itk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
The most interesting part of this thread is the juxtaposition of his
racist *attitude* toward everyone except other Jews and his complete
incompetence/ignorance. Until I stopped here I had never seen anything
like it outside of white supremacists and Nazis.
Stewart
Only if you can't comprehend what you read.
I guess
> that's no surprise.
Yes, it is no surprise that you can't comprehend what you read.
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Stewart
Go back and reread the original post about the article. It has
nothing to do with something being unsupported, rather it has
everything to do with a complete lack of investigation. The story
might as well have been written by a low end staff reporter.
> And if you can answer this, what makes you think it is
> unsupported? Feel free to dodge this, but if you do you'll end up
> labeling yourself as having dual loyalties and a Zionist, i.e.,
> criminal, agenda for Palestine..
Go back and read it and stop worrying about trying to one up on the
insults for once. Maybe you can lose the label of being a whining
ninny.
Stewart
>
> "Stewart" <gort...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hhq7vl$itk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Fish Supper" <li...@sea.com> wrote in message
>> news:h9OdnbGiXeaTSaLW...@bt.com...
>>> No, see, you got that wrong there, Stewpot. I didn't say "cut and
>>> paste an article by McGreal that shows him to be an independent
>>> minded journalist".
>>> Didn't say that, Stewy; Didn't say that at all.
>>>
>>> What I did say was "Explain how and when Mr McGreal has been
>>> demonstrably biased in his reporting". See, what you've done
>>> Stewy, is you've provided evidence that supports my contention
>>> about McGreal and kinda blows your own position up in your face.
>>> But it's the season of goodwill, so I'll give you another crack at
>>> it.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you have failed to realize that he shows his bias
>> through omission. Omission of any further investigative support.
>> Not exactly what one would expect from someone that is supposed to
>> be one of the best in his field.
>
>
> What, in the name of Christ, are you talking about now?
> "Omission of any further investigative support"?
The guy is a supposed to be a high end reporter, not a fresh out of
college newbie. Every story has an opportunity for exploration, and
being who he is, he should have. So why did he not
explore/investigate?
> What exactly is that supposed to mean. Is it supposed to mean
> anything? - or is it the usual zionist maneouver when backed into a
> corner: say something, anything - it doesn't matter what, call it
> 'proof' then run away.
>
> McGreal does an article bemoaning the rise of anti-semitism, he
> interviews an Israeli cabinet minister, two Israeli government
> officials and the Deputy of the Board of British Jews and you call
> him 'biased' because he omitted any "further investigative support"?
Yes. That is what he is supposed to supply, or else any staff
reporter from the associated press could have handled it.
>
> From whom should he have ascertained this "further investigate
> support"? What kind of "further support" would he have to provide to
> avoid accusations of bias? Who, more than three Israeli government
> officials and a British Jewish leader, would better put their case?
> If McGreal is open to accusations of bias it would be from those
> groups who maintain that the rise is anti-semitism is in fact a rise
> in falsely targeted anti-zionism, and that Jews are being targetted
> as a result of the almost universal silence of the Jewish
> 'establishment' on the war crimes and crimes against humanity
> carried out by Israel. None of the spokespeople for these groups
> were included in McGreal's article.
>
He could have dug into the facts to see if the opinions given were
substantiated or not. Maybe he did, but just didn't offer them in the
article because it did not support his own personal bias. Maybe he
didn't do anything, but then he wouldn't be the supposed reporter that
he is, would he?
> Tell me; are you hoping that by posting confused and
> self-contradictory drivel that you will somehow persaude readers
> that you aren't a complete fool?
> It's not working, Stewy - really its not.
Your simple response offers no depth of thought. This was expected.
Stewart
What a pussy.
Stewart
Who the fuck cares, you whining POS.
Stewart
What, by your account? By the account of other goy vermin? Who gives
a rat's ass what the lot of you whining pussies think?
> You have not come near achieving even a mere debate victory
> much less a display of entry level probity.
You don't look for or offer debate. You and your ilk only offer
ignorance in your posts and seek to inflame and defame.
> Like your shabbos goy
> groveler, DoD, you're incompetent--unless, unless, what your
> colleagues in this fight really value is exactly the devious
> nastiness
> you represent. That sums you up. How about them? Does it sum them up
> too? Think it over and, ad interim, tell those colleagues of yours
> to
> get Israel the hell out of the West Bank.
>
Why get out of the west bank? The PA have proven time and time again
that they cannot or will not offer up any type of security. They lost
their in a battle that they were the perpetrators of. If they want it
back, let them win it back, either through the strength of their own
self governance and ridding themselves of the terrorist scourge that
only uses them as fodder to help support their ultimate aims, or win
it back in armed conflict.
Until then, stop your incessant whining about it.
Stewart
Useless post, useless drivel.
Bolt Upright
"Stewart" <igno...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhquof$pkq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
from an OP you posted a line of gobbledygook. A we we all comprehend that
you have no evidence of McGreal being biased.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Stewart
Once again, a reporter of his supposed stature should be offering some
sort of investigation into the facts, else a staff reporter could have
written the article. It's like using a Lamborghini to win a race
against a Ford Escort.
> I don't see a thing wrong
> with the article
Of course not. You are not accustomed to having depth, your
preference is for the superficial.
> and you haven't even had the chutzpah to point out
> anything specific in it for criticism. It's pretty obvious that
> that's
> a combination of fear and malice. And I'm letting you off the hook
> by
> adding incompetence.
Fear of a goy? Never. As for incompetence, as a goy you are not
capable of making that judgment.
Stewart
What the fuck else are you here for? To let "the world" know your
views? Earth to asshole...your meanderings may be observed by about
20 or so people. You would be better standing on a soap box on some
non descript street corner in east bumble-fuck.
Stewart
You offer nothing to prove that he is not, nor do you offer any useful
rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Bolt Upright
"Stewie" <igno...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhr0ia$f7l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
what rebuttal, Stewie? It was you who were asked to document your own
dubious statement and instead replied with smoke and mirrors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
OBC
You're insane, boyo!
OBC
> On Jan 3, 2:51 am, DoD<danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 1:34 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"<coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 2, 5:23 pm, "Bolt Upright"<HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> "DoD"<danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
Killfile that DooDoo loser, he is insane!
Stewart
Who are your good friends and compatriots.
Stewart
I propose nothing, you only assume.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
coaste...@yahoo.com
On Jan 2, 9:31 am, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:x6OdnTiUDreKaKDW...@bt.com...
>
> >>>>> "Honest truth" <Honest_tr...@Wisdom.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:7curjvah7rmy.1r...@40tude.net...
> >>>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:39:07 -0800 (PST),
>
> >>>>>>> Reitzer was unusual among Jewish South Africans in her open
> >>>>>>> enthusiasm
> >>>>>>> for apartheid
>
> >>>>>> I wish that could be said of non-Jewish whites most who
> >>>>>> supported apartheid
> >>>>>> --
>
> >>>>> You have, of course, no comment to make about the article
> >>>>> itself, which shows Israel to be a much more evil and vicious
> >>>>> regime than Apartheid SA ever was. The reason you have no
> >>>>> comment to make is that you are morally bankrupt, like the
> >>>>> philosophy you support.
>
> >>>> The reason for no comment on the "article" is because of it's
> >>>> dubious author.
>
> >>> Zioinism 101. Chapter 3.
> >>> Insinuation and Groundless Defamation
>
> >>> Chris McGreal: Journalist with The BBC, The Guardian and The
> >>> Independent.
> >>> Chris McGreal: National Print Journalist of the Year award from
> >>> Amnesty International in 1995
>
> >>> Pray tell, zionist lickspittle, what is dubious about someone who
> >>> has worked with some of the finest news organisations in the world
> >>> and won an award from Amnesty International?
>
> >> Bias, you silly twit. Bias in reporting.
>
> > I've noticed this about you zionists. In response to any question
> > that you find difficult to answer, you make some nonsensical, non
> > sequitur and deem that adequate.
>
> I've noticed one thing about goyim, you habitually post any whimsical
> bullshit you can find to support your demented ideals no matter the
> source.
I criticize a political movement, Zionism, and its ideology and
criminal acts, and what do you do? You indulge racist slurs against
the entire world's population excluding only Jews.
And just what are the "demented ideals" and whimsy I've been
supporting? Come on now, point them out. I simply want Israelis to
get the hell out of the West Bank so that the U.S. can broker a deal
and free my own people from this unsavory and humiliating entanglement
with Israeli aggression in the Middle East. If President Obama suceeds
in imposing a settlement I'll be gone from here. Do you think I like
this environment? A lot of it is enough to make one's skin crawl.
>
> > Now, since it's the season of goodwill, I'll give you the chance to
> > redeem yourself to appear less of a twat. Explain how and when Mr
> > McGreal has been demonstrably biased in his reporting - and we'll
> > have none of your poisonous zionist disinformation, insinuation or
> > lies. Cite where he has been demonstrably untruthful.
>
> The British press in general is biased and uses sensationalism in
> their coverage....as per a previous article by your current
> savior...which is actually quite subdued and raises no depth of the
> issues for for some inexplicable reason. Why is this?
>
> Not what one would expect from a prize winning "journalist" (and I use
> the term loosely").
What you say about sensationalism in the British press "generally" is
false. The Times was sober without question when I was reading it
regularly. So are the Economist (and I read every issue) and the
Guardian (which I read most of the time on the net). There are many
other papers and journals which are not in the least sensationalist.
You are trying to convince the readers that the British people read
nothing but Fleet Street tabloids, she sort of rag which in America is
sold in supermarkets to working class housewives. As to "bias" this is
another way of playing your beloved anti-Semitism card. If there is
widespread bias in the British press it is much more likely to result
from Zionist ownership and intimidation. You could see that reflected
in the Channel Four documentary we discussed a few weeks ago. Not only
is the press intimidated but so is the British Parliament. I hope Fish
has something to say here.
> Rising UK anti-Semitism blamed on media!
Who is doing the blaming here? Could it possibly be British Zionists?
What's the basis for the rise if it exists? Could it be Israeli
conduct and Jewish influence in Parliament on critical matters of
state? Do you want it all, Stewie? Do you want complete impunity; do
you want Israel and her lobby to never be held accountable? Sorry but
you can't have that.
> Chris McGreal in Jerusalem The Guardian, Tuesday 25 January 2005 07.14
> GMT
>
> Britain suffered the sharpest rise in anti-semitic attacks of any
> country last year, and British press coverage of the
> Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a leading cause, according to an
> Israeli government report.
Very interesting. There was a rise in anti-German sentiment in Britain
during WWII also. That was perfectly natural now wasn't it? The enemy
were Jew-hating genocidal racists and had also killed hundreds of
thousands of British soldiers and civilians. It was the second time in
one generation. The Krauts were hated. It was not pleasant to be a
Kraut in Britain. Pray tell, do you think the Israelis are hated just
because they are Jews? If so you are a worse fool than you seem.
Successive Israeli governments have been committing crimes against
Muslims at least since the 1940s. They have truly earned the bias
against them among Muslims. It is legitimate bias. Though it may take
a couple of generations, you know how to end it.
>
> Natan Sharansky, the cabinet minister responsible for the diaspora,
> said the report found that violent attacks on Jews in Britain rose by
> almost half.
Surely you don't doubt that the same was true against Germans in the
UK during the war. What would one expect? You don't like it but you
can certainly understand it. And in the last forty years you've had
the key to controlling it in your own hands. Get the Hell out of the
West Bank and settle fairly with the Palestinians.
> The government's global forum against anti-semitism, which wrote the
> report, said France again topped the list of anti-semitic violence
> with 96 attacks, but the number in Britain rose sharply to 77.
As to France, how many of those attacks came from embittered, working-
class Muslim immigrants? I'd bet almost all of them. Israel is at war
against "terror" you know. Her shtick is that Muslims are terrorists
by nature. And she is also at war against the Palestinian people in
particular. That began in in all earnest in 1947. It's been going on
every since. Why do you think it strange that anger is rising when
your Israeli faction have just finished killing 1,400 Muslims in Gaza
and destroyed or damaged 10,000 homes and the entire Gazan
governmental infrastructure? Why do you think it strange that anger is
rising when your involuntary ally, the United States, has devastated
two Muslim countries, one of them twice with a continuous bombing
campaign lasting years in the interim, all in less than twenty years,
and you Zionists are beating the war drums again against a third
Muslim country, this one much larger in land mass, resources and
population. No, I have no difficulty understanding why Muslims are
angry at Israel and her Jewish supporters in the West. Terrorism is
criminal, of course, but that doesn't mean that it can't be a response
to gross injustice. In this case it obviously is.
>
> The total number of incidents in Britain rose to 304 from 163 a year
> earlier when verbal assaults, damage to property and swastikas daubing
> were taken into account. The report has been relased as Israel focuses
> on anti-semitism to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of
> Auschwitz.
Israel and her supporters discern a "new anti-Semitism" whenever they
come under new criticism due to Israel's crimes against the
Palestinian people, whenever Israel is on the defensive. It distracts
from the central issues at hand. Finkelstein has written quite
extensively on the pattern. He has studied it and reported the
results. Try "new anti-Semitism" on his web site.
> Mr Sharansky attributed the British figures to "years of hostile
> reporting and commentary about Israel in the British press now
> spilling into the streets".
Critical reporting, Natan. Justly critical reporting. It is Israel
which is expanding its territory through illegal occupation and ethnic
cleansing. Your problem, Natan, is that Israeli Zionists apparently
don't intimidate the *entire* UK press. You can't abide that.
> His officials singled out the Guardian and the BBC, accusing them of
> "likening Israel to a Nazi state". The Independent was also
> criticized.
As Dr. Finkelstein wrote in 2002, if the Israelis don't like being
equated with Nazis they should stop behaving like Nazis.
> David Weinberg, coordinator of the forum and an adviser to Mr
> Sharansky, said the report found that most acts of anti-semitism in
> Britain were carried out by Arabs or Muslims, but press coverage of
> Israel, and the actions of some politicians created a climate that
> encouraged such attacks.
Attacks by Muslims, of course, just as in France. An upsurge of anti-
Semitism, of course. What the hell do you expect? It's been created by
Israel and the United States and to a lesser degree the UK. These
attacks by Muslims are created by Israel's crimes against the
Palestinians and the devastation in the Middle East wrought by the US.
It would be profoundly stupid not to expect such things. Yet the
whining about it is deafening. And hypocritical.
> "Among west European countries there is a red flag flying over Britain
> and it's particularly disturbing because Britain is a country friendly
> to Israel and the British government takes anti-semitism seriously."
I'm disappointed in Sharansky, a very great Russian Jew who suffered
for many years but stood tall against the totalitarian Soviet regime
before being allowed to move to Israel. For decades now he's been one
of my most admired Russians.
> He added: "Sharansky believes you have to look at the intellectual
> environment that has developed toward Israel in Britain and the effect
> that has on the broader public."
I'm disappointed, for example, that he blames the British for the acts
of embittered Muslims. He does not take into account the origins of
that anger and accordingly he is spreading propaganda. I'm also
disappointed in what is obviously a call to the British to either
censor or otherwise intervene in the press on behalf of the Israeli
occupiers and ethnic cleansers in Palestine. That takes great
arrogance.
> He singled out the coverage of the Israeli army assault on Jenin
> refugee camp in 2002, in which 58 Palestinians were killed, mostly
> armed men.
More propaganda. But for the illegal occupation of the West Bank,
there would have been no fight in Jenin. What Sharansky does here is
pretend that the Palestinian Resistance is illegitimate. He pretends
that all they have to do to have "peace" (without their homeland) is
to capitulate to the Zionists
> The attack was characterised as a "massacre" by some of the media. He
> said this was demonisation of Israel and anti-semitism.
I've not read much about Jenin. I'll remember to look at it.
> Tehila Nahalon, an adviser to Mr Sharansky on anti-semitism, said:
> "You can't brainwash people for four years that Israel is an
> illegitimate country and that Israelis are like the Nazis and that
> Israelis are monsters and expect that nothing will happen to Jews."
"Shut up you Brits. Don't speak out. Who the hell do you think you
are?
> The Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is publishing its own
> statistics next month, supported the report's conclusions. Its
> spokesman, Jason Pearlman, accused the BBC of "unrelenting anti-Israel
> bias".
Out of the mouths of babes. Didn't Mr. Pearlman really mean anti-
Semitic bias? Surely he misspoke? Israel has without doubt committed
many, many crimes against the Palestinians. But criticism of Israel
has to be seen as motivated by anti-Semitism, right? You see,
criticism of criminals is legitimate everywhere. Yes, an error.
> "The British media has portrayed Israel in a very unfair light," he
> said. "It's what's not said as much as what's said: the fact that most
> Palestinian attacks on Israel are not reported in the British press,
> and the fact that almost all the attacks on the Palestinians are
> reported."
Nonsense, more whining. All Palestinian violence known to the press is
reported just as is all Israeli violence. It's just that they are not
equivalent and for obvious reasons.
You shouldn't be whining on behalf of the criminal Zionist regime
either. I base that on the presumption that you are an American and
that our present relationship with Israel is hurting our homeland
immensely.
cornholio
wrote:
> On Jan 2, 8:15 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 6:43 pm, "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote:
>
> > > "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On Jan 2, 4:49 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 2, 5:10 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 2, 4:09 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 2, 9:32 am, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > >news:d0c1d$4b3ebb47$d8fe9c65$15...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> > > > > > > >news:AZednfUcdM1gNKPW...@bt.com...
>
> > > > > > > >> "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >>news:hhm53d$v9k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > > > > > > >>>news:cKCdnQn-7Leg6qPW...@bt.com...
>
> > > > > > > >>>> "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >>>>news:hhl41n$a9r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > > > > > > >>>>> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >>>>>news:x6OdnTiUDreKaKDW...@bt.com...
>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> "Honest truth" <Honest_tr...@Wisdom.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >>>>>>news:7curjvah7rmy.1r...@40tude.net...
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:39:07 -0800 (PST),
>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Reitzer was unusual among Jewish South Africans in her open
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> enthusiasm
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> for apartheid
>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I wish that could be said of non-Jewish whites most who
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> supported apartheid
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> itself, which shows Israel to be a much more evil and vicious
> > > > > > > >>>>>> regime than Apartheid SA ever was. The reason you have no
> > > > > > > >>>>>> comment to make is that you are morally bankrupt, like the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> philosophy you support.
>
> > > > > > > >>>>> The reason for no comment on the "article" is because of it's
> > > > > > > >>>>> dubious author.
>
> > > > > > > >>>> Zioinism 101. Chapter 3.
> > > > > > > >>>> Insinuation and Groundless Defamation
>
> > > > > > > >>>> Chris McGreal: Journalist with The BBC, The Guardian and The
> > > > > > > >>>> Independent.
> > > > > > > >>>> Chris McGreal: National Print Journalist of the Year award from
> > > > > > > >>>> Amnesty International in 1995
>
> > > > > > > >>>> Pray tell, zionist lickspittle, what is dubious about someone
> > > > > > > >>>> who
> > > > > > > >>>> has worked with some of the finest news organisations in the
> > > > > > > >>>> world and won an award from Amnesty International?
>
> > > > > > > >>> Bias, you silly twit. Bias in reporting.
>
> > > > > > > >> I've noticed this about you zionists. In response to any question
> > > > > > > >> that you find difficult to answer, you make some nonsensical, non
> > > > > > > >> sequitur and deem that adequate.
>
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> redeem yourself to appear less of a twat. Explain how and when Mr
> > > > > > > >> McGreal has been demonstrably biased in his reporting - and we'll
> > > > > > > >> have none of your poisonous zionist disinformation, insinuation
> > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > >> lies. Cite where he has been demonstrably untruthful.
>
> > > > > > > > likelihood
> > > > > > > > of that ever happening.
>
> > > > > > > Your ignorant shilling is another baseless goyim ploy to avoid any
> > > > > > > issue.
>
> > > > > > journalist with no basis whatever. That's it, nada mas. One thing I do
> > > > > > rather like seeing though is your open hostility to the "goyim". We
> > > > > > all know it is there. It's comforting to see you admit it.
>
> > > > > What a doofus....
>
> > > > David? Is that where you keep your doll collection, the ones with the
> > > > big blue eyes that you used to proudly display on the web?-
> > > >Yeah, that was what iconoass calls evidence. Much like >the rest of his
> > > >crapppy
> > > >posts. If I did have dolls, I would hide them from your >lustful stares
> > > >and wants, you
> > > >spineless perv.
>
> > > This isn't the shock that you might think, Doodoo.
> > > I am sure that you do indeed own an inflatable doll (or several) as it is
> > > difficult to fathom how you could find any other source of sexual relief
> > > beyond than your own palm
>
> > More clockwork. The troll brigade to the defense of iconoass..!!!
>
> Still don't have a girlfriend, David? How come?
The only girlfriend you have you have to pay for, that is, if she's
not inflatable.
Stewart
Nah, you are just another Nazi fag that complains about the success of
Jews.
<rest of standard horseshit deleted for brevity and bandwidth savings>
Zev
??????:f7c522ae-3903-42fa-8a88-
a2129d...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 2, 9:31 am, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:x6OdnTiUDreKaKDW...@bt.com...
<snippped>
>> I've noticed one thing about goyim, you habitually post any whimsical
>> bullshit you can find to support your demented ideals no matter the
>> source.
>
> I criticize a political movement, Zionism, and its ideology and
> criminal acts, and what do you do? You indulge racist slurs against
> the entire world's population excluding only Jews.
>
> And just what are the "demented ideals" and whimsy I've been
> supporting? Come on now, point them out. I simply want Israelis to
> get the hell out of the West Bank so that the U.S. can broker a deal
> and free my own people from this unsavory and humiliating entanglement
> with Israeli aggression in the Middle East. If President Obama suceeds
> in imposing a settlement I'll be gone from here. Do you think I like
> this environment? A lot of it is enough to make one's skin crawl.
Israel has interests in the WB
Jews have lived in Hebron, Shchem/Nablus
and Jerusalem for centuries.
If you suggest that Israel "get the hell out",
so that your majestic country can "broker a deal",
I offer a counter-suggestion:
Get your country out of the M.E.
Out of Israel, out of Iraq, Afganistan, Yemen
and any other states you've been meddling in.
When you wake up, you'll come back, on worse terms.
Anti-semitism is the fault of the Jews themselves.
Sure.
Every anti-semite knows it...
>> Chris McGreal in Jerusalem The Guardian, Tuesday 25 January 2005 07.14
>> GMT
>>
>> Britain suffered the sharpest rise in anti-semitic attacks of any
>> country last year, and British press coverage of the
>> Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a leading cause, according to an
>> Israeli government report.
>
> Very interesting. There was a rise in anti-German sentiment in Britain
> during WWII also. That was perfectly natural now wasn't it? The enemy
> were Jew-hating genocidal racists and had also killed hundreds of
> thousands of British soldiers and civilians. It was the second time in
> one generation. The Krauts were hated. It was not pleasant to be a
> Kraut in Britain. Pray tell, do you think the Israelis are hated just
> because they are Jews? If so you are a worse fool than you seem.
> Successive Israeli governments have been committing crimes against
> Muslims at least since the 1940s. They have truly earned the bias
> against them among Muslims. It is legitimate bias. Though it may take
> a couple of generations, you know how to end it.
A Jew is beaten up on the streets of London,
it's "legitimate bias", because Israel fights back.
Got it.
>> Natan Sharansky, the cabinet minister responsible for the diaspora,
>> said the report found that violent attacks on Jews in Britain rose by
>> almost half.
>
> Surely you don't doubt that the same was true against Germans in the
> UK during the war. What would one expect? You don't like it but you
> can certainly understand it. And in the last forty years you've had
> the key to controlling it in your own hands. Get the Hell out of the
> West Bank and settle fairly with the Palestinians.
Are you claiming here that during WW2,
residents of a country which was at war
with their home country were mistreated by private citizens
while law enforcement officers looked away,
while politicians and journalists made excuses?
>> The government's global forum against anti-semitism, which wrote the
>> report, said France again topped the list of anti-semitic violence
>> with 96 attacks, but the number in Britain rose sharply to 77.
>
> As to France, how many of those attacks came from embittered, working-
> class Muslim immigrants? I'd bet almost all of them. Israel is at war
> against "terror" you know. Her shtick is that Muslims are terrorists
> by nature. And she is also at war against the Palestinian people in
> particular. That began in in all earnest in 1947. It's been going on
> every since. Why do you think it strange that anger is rising when
> your Israeli faction have just finished killing 1,400 Muslims in Gaza
> and destroyed or damaged 10,000 homes and the entire Gazan
> governmental infrastructure? Why do you think it strange that anger is
> rising when your involuntary ally, the United States, has devastated
> two Muslim countries, one of them twice with a continuous bombing
> campaign lasting years in the interim, all in less than twenty years,
> and you Zionists are beating the war drums again against a third
> Muslim country, this one much larger in land mass, resources and
> population. No, I have no difficulty understanding why Muslims are
> angry at Israel and her Jewish supporters in the West. Terrorism is
> criminal, of course, but that doesn't mean that it can't be a response
> to gross injustice. In this case it obviously is.
Saddam threatened to burn half of Israel,
but he attacked Kuwait.
Most of Iraq's neighbors were afraid of Saddam Hussein.
If you don't understand why, you certainly won't understand
why the US has a very vested interest in the issue.
But since you've brought this up,
the real tragedy of the war in Iraq
was the inability to send more than 1/5
of the manpower needed to do the job.
American pilots bomb an old-age home in Afghanistan,
"America's best" rapes and murders Arab girls,
and who's to blame?
War drum beating Zionists!!!
Ico, do you feel right typing this stuff out?
BTW, I have an interesting article about
how it "began in all earnest in 1947".
Want to see it?
Grievances.
Got it.
Good idea, but don't forget the Passover
"massacre" in Netanya which caused it.
>> Tehila Nahalon, an adviser to Mr Sharansky on anti-semitism, said:
>> "You can't brainwash people for four years that Israel is an
>> illegitimate country and that Israelis are like the Nazis and that
>> Israelis are monsters and expect that nothing will happen to Jews."
>
> "Shut up you Brits. Don't speak out. Who the hell do you think you
> are?
Translation:
Don't call our anti-semitism anti-semitism.
>> The Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is publishing its own
>> statistics next month, supported the report's conclusions. Its
>> spokesman, Jason Pearlman, accused the BBC of "unrelenting anti-Israel
>> bias".
>
> Out of the mouths of babes. Didn't Mr. Pearlman really mean anti-
> Semitic bias? Surely he misspoke? Israel has without doubt committed
> many, many crimes against the Palestinians. But criticism of Israel
> has to be seen as motivated by anti-Semitism, right? You see,
> criticism of criminals is legitimate everywhere. Yes, an error.
>
>> "The British media has portrayed Israel in a very unfair light," he
>> said. "It's what's not said as much as what's said: the fact that most
>> Palestinian attacks on Israel are not reported in the British press,
>> and the fact that almost all the attacks on the Palestinians are
>> reported."
>
> Nonsense, more whining. All Palestinian violence known to the press is
> reported just as is all Israeli violence. It's just that they are not
> equivalent and for obvious reasons.
>
> You shouldn't be whining on behalf of the criminal Zionist regime
> either. I base that on the presumption that you are an American and
> that our present relationship with Israel is hurting our homeland
> immensely.
Ico, you pay lip-service to justice by calling terrorism "criminal",
but your post is full of snide remarks revealing your true mind-set.
Can you give me another word for anti-semitism,
so I won't upset you?
coaste...@yahoo.com
The original post was the article. If you mean your original post,
that contained no analysis at all.
It has
> nothing to do with something being unsupported, rather it has
> everything to do with a complete lack of investigation. The story
> might as well have been written by a low end staff reporter.
Naked assertions are cheap. Have you an argument?
> > And if you can answer this, what makes you think it is
> > unsupported? Feel free to dodge this, but if you do you'll end up
> > labeling yourself as having dual loyalties and a Zionist, i.e.,
> > criminal, agenda for Palestine..
>
> Go back and read it and stop worrying about trying to one up on the
> insults for once. Maybe you can lose the label of being a whining
> ninny.
I've read it. You haven't supported the assertion either by reference
to the article or to anything else..
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gbidnQl77r4AUN3W...@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hhq7vl$itk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >>news:h9OdnbGiXeaTSaLW...@bt.com...
> >>> No, see, you got that wrong there, Stewpot. I didn't say "cut and
> >>> paste an article by McGreal that shows him to be an independent
> >>> minded journalist".
> >>> Didn't say that, Stewy; Didn't say that at all.
>
> >>> What I did say was "Explain how and when Mr McGreal has been
> >>> demonstrably biased in his reporting". See, what you've done
> >>> Stewy, is you've provided evidence that supports my contention
> >>> about McGreal and kinda blows your own position up in your face.
> >>> But it's the season of goodwill, so I'll give you another crack at
> >>> it.
>
> >> Unfortunately, you have failed to realize that he shows his bias
> >> through omission. Omission of any further investigative support.
> >> Not exactly what one would expect from someone that is supposed to
> >> be one of the best in his field.
>
> > What, in the name of Christ, are you talking about now?
> > "Omission of any further investigative support"?
>
> The guy is a supposed to be a high end reporter, not a fresh out of
> college newbie. Every story has an opportunity for exploration, and
> being who he is, he should have. So why did he not
> explore/investigate?
You have no basis for assuming he did not. Yet you ask WHY he did
not. Not candid, Stewart.
> > What exactly is that supposed to mean. Is it supposed to mean
> > anything? - or is it the usual zionist maneouver when backed into a
> > corner: say something, anything - it doesn't matter what, call it
> > 'proof' then run away.
>
> > McGreal does an article bemoaning the rise of anti-semitism, he
> > interviews an Israeli cabinet minister, two Israeli government
> > officials and the Deputy of the Board of British Jews and you call
> > him 'biased' because he omitted any "further investigative support"?
>
> Yes. That is what he is supposed to supply, or else any staff
> reporter from the associated press could have handled it.
You simply don't know he "omitted" anything. You're assuming it as if
it were an established fact so as blacken him. Really slimy, Stewart.
>
>
>
> > From whom should he have ascertained this "further investigate
> > support"? What kind of "further support" would he have to provide to
> > avoid accusations of bias? Who, more than three Israeli government
> > officials and a British Jewish leader, would better put their case?
> > If McGreal is open to accusations of bias it would be from those
> > groups who maintain that the rise is anti-semitism is in fact a rise
> > in falsely targeted anti-zionism, and that Jews are being targetted
> > as a result of the almost universal silence of the Jewish
> > 'establishment' on the war crimes and crimes against humanity
> > carried out by Israel. None of the spokespeople for these groups
> > were included in McGreal's article.
>
> He could have dug into the facts to see if the opinions given were
> substantiated or not.
He can't report opinions as opinions? He has to go behind opinions?
Factual narratives yes, of course, but opinions? This is nonsense.
Maybe he did, but just didn't offer them in the
> article because it did not support his own personal bias.
Just "maybe" eh? Let's just blacken the guy by guessing out loud as to
whether he has violated the Journalistic canons. We don't need any
basis for it now do we? Slimy, Stewart.
Maybe he
> didn't do anything, but then he wouldn't be the supposed reporter that
> he is, would he?
Bullshit. You have no idea what he did or didn't do. This speculation
is gratuitous innuendo. Very slimy, Stewart.
> > Tell me; are you hoping that by posting confused and
> > self-contradictory drivel that you will somehow persaude readers
> > that you aren't a complete fool?
> > It's not working, Stewy - really its not.
>
> Your simple response offers no depth of thought. This was expected.
If you've offered depth of thought in this thread, please point it
out.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Why, you should, of course. He's your Department of Defense.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Snip for focus
> Why get out of the west bank? The PA have proven time and time again
> that they cannot or will not offer up any type of security.
They owe you no security. You are attacking the Palestinian people and
have been since 1947.
They lost
> their in a battle that they were the perpetrators of.
I think you mean they lost their homeland in a battle that they were
perpetrators of. You're just a little screwed up here, Stewart. In
1947-48, beginning six months before your War of Independence, Jewish
ethnic cleansers (Haganah, etc.) and IDF troops spurred on by Gen-
Gurion, drove 750,000 Palestinians out of Palestine at gunpoint amidst
rapes and massacres. At the time the Palestinians had no government,
no military. Most of them were peasant farmers living in small
villages scattered all over the country.
In May of 1948, after the ethnic cleansing had been under way for six
months, various Arab states invaded Palestine to stop it and lost a
war against Israel. That was a conventional war and was operationally
separate from the ethnic cleansing campaign which had been planned for
years previously.
Then in 1967 there was a war between Israel and various Arab states
during which Israel occupied the rest of Mandatory Palestine and the
Golan. It lasted only six days. The Palestinians were not
belligerents, but a couple of hundred thousand more of them and tens
of thousands of Syrians too were driven from their remaining homes and
into Syria and Jordan.
The Palestinians were not perpetrators of any of these conflicts. They
were instead the victims of massive Israeli war crimes.
If they want it
> back, let them win it back, either through the strength of their own
> self governance and ridding themselves of the terrorist scourge that
> only uses them as fodder to help support their ultimate aims, or win
> it back in armed conflict.
You know the Palestinians, having been ground to dust for sixty years,
can not win a war against the regional superpower, Israel. They can't
even feed, house and provide medical care to their people. Your
cynicism shows all too clearly. But you should also know that American
tolerance of Israeli crimes is declining, that the American people
clearly support a two state solution more or less at the Green Line
with minor agreed adjustments and that we're also sick of fighting
your wars.
>
> Until then, stop your incessant whining about it.
Until recently few would speak up. It was a very bad career move in
the U.S. to voice criticism of Israel no matter how sound.
Retaliation, especially for opinion makers, was vicious. That has
changed a lot in a short time. Israel has made herself into a pariah
state and has dragged us down with her. Everyone knows it. American
critics of Israeli crimes are growing in numbers exponentially.
Americans have been liberated from these intimidations by the very
excesses of the Israelis, to say nothing of the excesses of her
domestic lobby which has corrupted our Congress and dominated
discussion of Middle East issues for decades. I'm satisfied that
things are at last moving in the right direction and accelerating.
It's no longer whether an American President will put an end to it but
when and on what terms. In the meantime you Jewish racists will
benefit by "making nice."
coaste...@yahoo.com
On Jan 3, 3:59 pm, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 9:13 am, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jan 1, 8:12 am, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>news:7curjvah7rmy.1r...@40tude.net...
>
> >> >> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:39:07 -0800 (PST),
>
> >> >> >> Reitzer was unusual among Jewish South Africans in her open
> >> >> >> enthusiasm
> >> >> >> for apartheid
>
> >> >> > I wish that could be said of non-Jewish whites most who
> >> >> > supported
> >> >> > apartheid
> >> >> > --
>
> >> >> You have, of course, no comment to makes about the article
> >> >> itself,
> >> >> which
> >> >> shows Israel to be a much more evil and vicious regime than
> >> >> Apartheid SA
> >> >> ever was. The reason you have no comment to make is that you are
> >> >> morally
> >> >> bankrupt, like the philosophy you support.
>
>
> >> There is no fleeing of the thread. It may come to the point where
> >> you
> >> no longer hold any entertainment value.......
>
> > What a mess you are, absolutely paralyzed.
>
> What the fuck else are you here for? To let "the world" know your
> views? Earth to asshole...your meanderings may be observed by about
> 20 or so people. You would be better standing on a soap box on some
> non descript street corner in east bumble-fuck.
Typically I'm read over five hundred times a week. It's small but it's
something. Wresting back our Middle East policy from the Israel lobby
will be the result of thousands of us working on it. I am obligated to
contribute. You see, it's easy for me. I have only one national
loyalty.
Stick around Stewart. We can get up to speed quickly.
coaste...@yahoo.com
On Jan 3, 3:59 pm, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 9:13 am, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jan 1, 8:12 am, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>news:7curjvah7rmy.1r...@40tude.net...
>
> >> >> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:39:07 -0800 (PST),
>
> >> >> >> Reitzer was unusual among Jewish South Africans in her open
> >> >> >> enthusiasm
> >> >> >> for apartheid
>
> >> >> > I wish that could be said of non-Jewish whites most who
> >> >> > supported
> >> >> > apartheid
> >> >> > --
>
> >> >> You have, of course, no comment to makes about the article
> >> >> itself,
> >> >> which
> >> >> shows Israel to be a much more evil and vicious regime than
> >> >> Apartheid SA
> >> >> ever was. The reason you have no comment to make is that you are
> >> >> morally
> >> >> bankrupt, like the philosophy you support.
>
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Naw, I'm an old fashioned State Department Liberal. You know, an anti-
communist, anti-totalitarian, civil liberties liberal. I detest
racists. And I especially detest racists with ethnic conflicts of
interest such as the one you display. It's disloyal, especially at a
time of crisis such as we're in now. You have only one native land.
I've voted Democratic all my rather long life except once, for Reagan
for his second term. By that time I could see that he was actually
making a run at taking down the Soviet Union. I supported that, just
as I support extricating ourselves from the morbid grip of Israel,
i.e., by forcing a fundamental change in the relationship. The tail
will no longer wag the dog, Stewart. We can talk about these things if
you like.
Aviroce
I have advocated "How to disentangle the tentacles of the octopus."
The octopus is the Jewish-Israeli power lobby. It is the system these
Jews have developed that makes them so powerful to the demise of the
United States of America.
On Jan 4, 9:35 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> you like.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
TheZ
The greed of the Muslim Oil states has been insatiable, and it is crippling
the rest of the world.
"Aviroce" <dudar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fb6486c-11e2-4f85...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Stewart
If it doesn't hit you in the face, you can't comprehend it. Rational
thought processes are beyond you.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=12
Stewart
The only anti you are is anti Jew, so you must be self loathing. You
speak of liberalism, yet use the time old dodge of disloyalties...
From one of your heroes...
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is
always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack
of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country."
H. Georing
> I've voted Democratic all my rather long life except once, for
> Reagan
> for his second term. By that time I could see that he was actually
> making a run at taking down the Soviet Union. I supported that, just
> as I support extricating ourselves from the morbid grip of Israel,
> i.e., by forcing a fundamental change in the relationship. The tail
> will no longer wag the dog, Stewart. We can talk about these things
> if
> you like.
>
Nothing to talk about with the likes of you. Your one sided thinking
is predictable, your lying is typical.
>
Stewart
"Aviroce" <dudar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fb6486c-11e2-4f85...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> The octopus is the Jewish-Israeli power lobby. It is the system
> these
> Jews have developed that makes them so powerful to the demise of the
> United States of America.
>
You dream the impossible dream. The tentacles are closing quite
nicely, our ever tightening grip is now indefensible.
Stewart
See previous posts. It's been offered, you are just to blinded by
hatred to see it.
Stewart
> On Jan 3, 3:51 pm, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Snip for focus
>
>> Why get out of the west bank? The PA have proven time and time
>> again
>> that they cannot or will not offer up any type of security.
>
> They owe you no security. You are attacking the Palestinian people
> and
> have been since 1947.
Standard chicken or the edge bullshit.
Stewart
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is
always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack
of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country."
>
Stewart
By posting the same message multiple times?
Fish Supper
>
> "Fish Supper" <li...@sea.com> wrote in message
> news:gbidnQl77r4AUN3W...@bt.com...
>>
>> "Stewart" <gort...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhq7vl$itk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Fish Supper" <li...@sea.com> wrote in message
>>>> No, see, you got that wrong there, Stewpot. I didn't say "cut and paste
>>>> an article by McGreal that shows him to be an independent minded
>>>> journalist".
>>>> Didn't say that, Stewy; Didn't say that at all.
>>>>
>>>> What I did say was "Explain how and when Mr McGreal has been
>>>> demonstrably biased in his reporting". See, what you've done Stewy, is
>>>> you've provided evidence that supports my contention about McGreal and
>>>> kinda blows your own position up in your face. But it's the season of
>>>> goodwill, so I'll give you another crack at it.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, you have failed to realize that he shows his bias through
>>> omission. Omission of any further investigative support. Not exactly
>>> what one would expect from someone that is supposed to be one of the
>>> best in his field.
>>
>>
>> What, in the name of Christ, are you talking about now?
>> "Omission of any further investigative support"?
>
> The guy is a supposed to be a high end reporter, not a fresh out of
> college newbie. Every story has an opportunity for exploration, and being
> who he is, he should have. So why did he not explore/investigate?
>
>> or is it the usual zionist maneouver when backed into a corner: say
>> something, anything - it doesn't matter what, call it 'proof' then run
>> away.
>>
>> McGreal does an article bemoaning the rise of anti-semitism, he
>> interviews an Israeli cabinet minister, two Israeli government officials
>> and the Deputy of the Board of British Jews and you call him 'biased'
>> because he omitted any "further investigative support"?
>
> Yes. That is what he is supposed to supply, or else any staff reporter
> from the associated press could have handled it.
>>
>> What kind of "further support" would he have to provide to avoid
>> accusations of bias? Who, more than three Israeli government officials
>> and a British Jewish leader, would better put their case? If McGreal is
>> open to accusations of bias it would be from those groups who maintain
>> that the rise is anti-semitism is in fact a rise in falsely targeted
>> anti-zionism, and that Jews are being targetted as a result of the almost
>> universal silence of the Jewish 'establishment' on the war crimes and
>> crimes against humanity carried out by Israel. None of the spokespeople
>> for these groups were included in McGreal's article.
>>
>
> He could have dug into the facts to see if the opinions given were
> article because it did not support his own personal bias. Maybe he didn't
> would he?
>
>> drivel that you will somehow persaude readers that you aren't a complete
>> fool?
>> It's not working, Stewy - really its not.
>
> Your simple response offers no depth of thought. This was expected.
OK, let's see if I've got this right.
You accuse McGreal of being biased against Israel in his reporting.
To support this accusation, you provide an article written by McGreal, in
which he examines the rise of anti-semitism.
The only people interviewed by McGreal are Israeli Government ministers and
the Deputy of the Board of British Jews
The only viewpoints put forward as to the cause of that rise are those of
the Jewish people interviewed.
This therefore proves that McGreal is biased against Israel.
You, sir, are a muppet.
coaste...@yahoo.com
In response to a comment abut the Israel Lobby "TheZ" wrote:
> Is that something like the Muslim Oil Lobby strangling the US economy?
> The greed of the Muslim Oil states has been insatiable, and it is crippling
> the rest of the world.
No, the Israel Lobby is very different from the Muslim Oil Lobby. The
latter is a lobby for foreign countries, paid for by those foreign
countries, and registered and regulated as such. It must periodically
report its activities to the responsible agency and also must
scrupulously avoid meddling in US elections. For example it commits a
crime when it injects money into the election process or threatens or
pays-off legislators with campaign contributions or in any other
fashion. Yet these are things done by the Israel Lobby routinely on
behalf of Israel, a country just as foreign as any other and one whose
national interests are just as different from America's as any other.
The result has been the corruption of the decision-making process in
Congress and the executive too.
Aipac, the epicenter of the Irael lobby, is a DOMESTIC organization
working exclusively for a foreign country. It consists of Americans
and utilizes American, not Israeli, money. It is notorious, however,
for doing whatever the Israeli government wants. Yet the lobbying law
registration requirements, prohibitions and sanctions are deemed not
to apply to the interests of that particular foreign country because
of the domestic source of the money. Thus the foreign country, Israel,
gets political access and American election participation rights by
proxy, which other countries are denied.
I don't know if the legitimacy of this arrangement has been tested in
the federal courts, but if not it should be. The evil addressed,
foreign influence corrupting the generation of American policy, ought
to trump the source of the money. I also don't see why Americans,
especially Americans with blatantly obvious conflicts of interest,
should not be forbidden to fund lobbies which are objectively for
foreign countries. Foreign agendas should not be incorporated into
American policy through loopholes such as this, especially not into
American FOREIGN policy which involves matters of war and peace and
vast expenditures of blood, treasure and anguish for the public who
bear these burdens.
dsharavi
wrote:
> In response to a comment abut the Israel Lobby "TheZ" wrote:
> > Is that something like the Muslim Oil Lobby strangling the US economy?
> > The greed of the Muslim Oil states has been insatiable, and it is crippling
> > the rest of the world.
>
> No,
Yes.
< the Israel Lobby is very different from the Muslim Oil Lobby.
According to Noam Chomsky, the latter is far more powerful.
[snip whitewash job]
Deborah
Fish Supper
>
>
>
> > "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Jan 2, 4:49 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>> > > > On Jan 2, 4:09 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 2, 9:32 am, "Stewart" <gorta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Bolt Upright" <HughGRect...@merde.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > > > > >>>>>> "Honest truth" <Honest_tr...@Wisdom.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > >>>>>>news:7curjvah7rmy.1r...@40tude.net...
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:39:07 -0800 (PST),
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Reitzer was unusual among Jewish South Africans in her
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> open
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> enthusiasm
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> for apartheid
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I wish that could be said of non-Jewish whites most who
> > > > > > >>>>>>> supported apartheid
> > > > > > >>>>>>> --
>
> > > > > > >>>>>> You have, of course, no comment to makes about the
> > > > > > >>>>>> article
> > > > > > >>>>>> itself, which shows Israel to be a much more evil and
> > > > > > >>>>>> vicious
> > > > > > >>>>>> regime than Apartheid SA ever was. The reason you have no
> > > > > > >>>>>> comment to make is that you are morally bankrupt, like
> > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>> philosophy you support.
>
> > > > > > >> when Mr
> > > > > > >> McGreal has been demonstrably biased in his reporting - and
> > > > > > >> we'll
> > > > > > >> have none of your poisonous zionist disinformation,
> > > > > > >> insinuation
> > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > >> lies. Cite where he has been demonstrably untruthful.
>
> > > > > > > You're asking Stewie for this? I'll hold the book on the
> > > > > > > likelihood
> > > > > > > of that ever happening.
>
> > > > > > Your ignorant shilling is another baseless goyim ploy to avoid
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > issue.
>
> > > > > journalist with no basis whatever. That's it, nada mas. One thing
> > > > > I do
> > > > > rather like seeing though is your open hostility to the "goyim".
> > > > > We
> > > > > all know it is there. It's comforting to see you admit it.
>
> > > > What a doofus....
>
> > > David? Is that where you keep your doll collection, the ones with the
> > > big blue eyes that you used to proudly display on the web?-
> > >Yeah, that was what iconoass calls evidence. Much like >the rest of his
> > >crapppy
> > >posts. If I did have dolls, I would hide them from your >lustful stares
> > >and wants, you
> > >spineless perv.
>
> > This isn't the shock that you might think, Doodoo.
> > I am sure that you do indeed own an inflatable doll (or several) as it
> > is
> > difficult to fathom how you could find any other source of sexual relief
> > beyond than your own palm
>
> More clockwork. The troll brigade to the defense of iconoass..!!!
Still don't have a girlfriend, David? How come?
***
A fear of having her doll collection nicked?
Am I warm?
TheZ
AIPAC supplies the US with a host of relevances and information in return
for US support for itself and Israel.
This mutual bond is much more in the USA's favor than most care to think
about.
The oil rich middle east potentates grab as much money as they can by
manipulating the flow of oil to the west. Raising the price of a barrel of
oil to squeeze more oil profits, by lying about supply, by cutting supply
short when they needn't. By using every trick available to cause financial
pain to the west.
It's five to 10 cents a gallon of gas in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen
etc., Chavez who is also in OPEC and vocally hates the USA and democracy
sells a gallon of gas at these same prices.
Now lets be clear on what a gallon of gas is before it becomes a gallon of
gas.
First it is in the ground as crude oil, then mined out, now it must be
refined into by-products. Some of these by-products being heating oil,
industrial oil, and gas.
Today the free world is paying over $80.00 us for a 45 gallon drum of light
crude.
Do the math OPEC sells the finished product gas for5 to 10 cents a gallon at
the pump. What does the free world pay a gallon?
Now who is ripping you off AIPAC o OPEC?
The exorbitant overcharge and money excesses allows the Muslims to use the
wests money against itself. OPEC members sponsor terror groups with these
excesses. OPEC members fund islamofacist fundamentalist schools that teach
hate, they also supply funds to train fundamentalist armies, and last but
not least suicide bombers who kill innocent women & children. All this using
your own money against you.
This in the hope they can eventually overthrow their biggest enemies, the so
called "Great Satans" & democracy, human rights, and its better way of life.
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a277715a-9c29-42c4...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Aviroce
AMERICA ARE THE AMERICAN WARS FOR ISRAEL CONDUCTED AT THE GUIDANCE OF
THE ISRAELI-JEWISH-ZIONIST LOBBY IN THE NAME OF JUDAISM. (READ MY
ARTICLE ON THE JEW PHENOMENON, JEW AS RELIGION AND JEW AS RACE)
On Jan 4, 10:31 pm, "TheZ" <T...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Is that something like the Muslim Oil Lobby strangling the US economy?
> The greed of the Muslim Oil states has been insatiable, and it is crippling
> the rest of the world.
>
> "Aviroce" <dudaras...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Aviroce
> "Aviroce" <dudaras...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4fb6486c-11e2-4f85...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I have advocated "How to disentangle the tentacles of the octopus."
> > The octopus is the Jewish-Israeli power lobby. It is the system
> > these
> > Jews have developed that makes them so powerful to the demise of the
> > United States of America.
>
> You dream the impossible dream.
IMPROBABLE, MAY BE. IMPOSSIBLE NO.
The tentacles are closing quite
> nicely, our ever tightening grip is now indefensible
IT LOOKS LIKE THAT TO YOU. YOU ARE A CHILD WHO THINKS HIS FATHER IS
THE STRONGEST MAN ON EARTH AND THAT HIS HOME AND TOWN ARE THE WORLD
ALTOGETHER. CASE IN POINT, IN 1967, PALESTINE SEEMS TOO REMOTE. EVEN
THE THUG EX-PRESIDENT, THE INFAMOUS GEORGE W. BUSH CAME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT A PALESTINIAN STATE SHOULD BE FORMED. NOW, PRESIDENT
OBAMA THINKS THAT A PALESTINIAN STATE IS GOOD FOR ALL PARTIES. WHAT
ABOUT GAZA CUT OUT FROM THE TENTACLES? THAT IS AS FAR AS ISRAEL IS
CONCERNED.
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, AMERICANS ARE AWARE OF THE DANGER OF JEWS.
YOU MAY NOTICE THAT JEWS ARE NOT REFERRED TO AS AUTHORITIES LIKE THEY
USED TO. WITH BOOKS LIKE "PEACE, NOT APARTHEID" AND AN ELECTION IN
WHICH JEWS LOST BIG TIME, BEING A ZIONIST IS BECOMING AN IDEA FADING
AWAY. SOCIALLY, THIS WILL BRING GREAT CHANGE.
IN BRITAIN, ITS UNIVERSAL LAW ON PROSECUTING WAR CRIMINALS IS GIVING
ISRAEL AND JEWS IN GENERAL A SENSE OF DISPOSSESSION, A SENSE OF
ISOLATION AND TAGGING AND EVENTUALLY A SENSE OF SELF DISGUST. I KNOW
JEWS AND I KNOW AMERICANS. TAKE MY WORDS. WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING
SEEMS TO BE THE FACTS ON THE GROUND..
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NefeshBarYohai
Avorice it is difficult for you isn't it. You have the desire to be
good, but the memories of your past guide you in the wrong direction.
I think you should repent before the G-d of Israel destroys you from
the face of the earth for being mean and antagonizing the Jews that
are his special and chosen people that He tells us in His Torah are a
treasured people for Him. G-d loves the Jews more than any other
people on earth. When will you realize that and come to the common
sense position of being a friend to Israel instead of a prick in ones
side. Try to bless the Jews and you will be blessed, but if you
continue to curse them, someday you will fall and never get up and
when you call out to your god, he will not hear you.
Aviroce
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
IN THE COUNTRY OF THE BLIND, THE ONE-EYED MAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE KING.
BUT THE BLIND WOULD FEEL OVER THE EYE UNTIL THEY POKE IT. YOU ARE
DOING THE SAME.
YOU HAVE COMPANY. I KNOW OF A BLACK SCHOOL SYSTEM IN WHICH ALL ITS
SCHOOLS EXCEPT ONE IN A WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD, HAVE BEEN DOING TOO
POORLY, JUST RETARDED. THE BLACK SUPERINTENDENTS WOULD HARP OVER THE
WHITE SCHOOL CHANGING PRINCIPALS, BUSING STUDENTS FROM OTHER
DISTRICTS, DESTABLIZING THE SCHOOL UNTIL THE SCHOOL BECAME LESS
IMPORTANT BUT STILL BETTER THAN ALL THE OTHER SCHOOLS. EVENTUALLY THE
SCHOOL BECAME JUST LIKE THE OTHER SCHOOLS, A DUMPING GROUND FOR NON-
ACHIEVERS.
ICONCLAST WILL NOT CHANGE. HE IS HIS OWN BOSS AND INTEREST.