The I.D.F.

[(((Fergus)))]

Obama is spot on on this one. The Jerusalem settlement plan is just madness. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "vital interests of the state of Israel", which firmly lie on facilitating the peace process by calling a halt to settlement building in all areas. In any negotiations, you have to give to receive, and it's time Netanyahu stopped pandering to zealots and settlers and considered the real interests of the majority of Israelis and Palestinians

Sorry missed this earlier on. What exactly do you mean about the Jerusalem settlement plan? That Jerusalem should be divided?

I'm not sure about Judea and Samaria, but certainly most Israelis support full Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. They consider this to be in their real interests. I also fail to see how you could successfully secure one half of a city against attacks from the other without driving a no-man's land akin to Berlin through the middle of it.

[khib70]

Sorry missed this earlier on. What exactly do you mean about the Jerusalem settlement plan? That Jerusalem should be divided?

I'm not sure about Judea and Samaria, but certainly most Israelis support full Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. They consider this to be in their real interests. I also fail to see how you could successfully secure one half of a city against attacks from the other without driving a no-man's land akin to Berlin through the middle of it.
I agree that most Israelis would support full sovereignty. However, there won't be peace unless both sides are prepared to make concessions, and nothing should be regarded as non-negotiable at that level.

While I would rather see Jerusalem undivided, I don't think that it's inevitable that the Arab part of a divided city would be used to attack the Jewish part. The whole point of a negotiated settlement would be to remove this possibility, surely (and the possibility of attacks by Jewish extremists on the Arab areas)

What the continued building of settlements is doing is damaging the prospect of any kind of constructive engagement with the Palestinians which will make all of Israel more secure. Provided Israel's national security and legitimate borders are guaranteed, everything else should be negotiable IMO.

[(((Fergus)))]

I agree that most Israelis would support full sovereignty. However, there won't be peace unless both sides are prepared to make concessions, and nothing should be regarded as non-negotiable at that level.

I think the data shows that whenever Israel compromises on territory and control, there is an upsurge in attacks from the Arab side. Fine, build a wall/Iron Dome, whatever. If you have seen the media coming out of PA areas you will know how they feel about the existence of Israel. You should also know how the Islamists/nationalists feel towards Arabs who seek peace and recognition of Israel. They have been intimidating and killing these 'collaborators' since the 20s and 30s. From what I can see, it's apparent that any peace agreement will merely be a staging ground for the next phase of the 'armed struggle' against Israel. To succeed the moderates would have to crush the extremists and that will merely serve to put them in the same camp as Israel and therefore in the sights of Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and so on. It's therefore not physically possible for the Palestinians to make peace with Israel (since those who attempt it would be ostracised or killed). Peace would also spell the end of the massive financial aid (40% of PA economy I read recently). If I was an Arab, I would see no other option than to play the waiting game.



While I would rather see Jerusalem undivided, I don't think that it's inevitable that the Arab part of a divided city would be used to attack the Jewish part. The whole point of a negotiated settlement would be to remove this possibility, surely (and the possibility of attacks by Jewish extremists on the Arab areas).

I fear too much water has flowed under the bridge for there to be the kind of reconciliation that would enable a city to be shared.



What the continued building of settlements is doing is damaging the prospect of any kind of constructive engagement with the Palestinians which will make all of Israel more secure. Provided Israel's national security and legitimate borders are guaranteed, everything else should be negotiable IMO.

Do you mean in Judea and Samaria as well? What I don't understand is why Jews should not be allowed to purchase private land or rent state land and build on it. It is currently a capital offence in the PA to sell land to Jews (de facto the same situation as existed for many years before Independence). (Isn't that racism/apartheid etc.?)

While the Arabs are constantly trying to turn the clock back to 1967 if not 1948 or 1880, Israel has a record of looking forward and developing its country/industry. A halt in construction therefore benefits the Arab game plan and is not a neutral position. If the Arabs can't keep their side of the bargain and make peace, isn't it their own fault if they get left behind?

[khib70]

I think the data shows that whenever Israel compromises on territory and control, there is an upsurge in attacks from the Arab side. Fine, build a wall/Iron Dome, whatever. If you have seen the media coming out of PA areas you will know how they feel about the existence of Israel. You should also know how the Islamists/nationalists feel towards Arabs who seek peace and recognition of Israel. They have been intimidating and killing these 'collaborators' since the 20s and 30s. From what I can see, it's apparent that any peace agreement will merely be a staging ground for the next phase of the 'armed struggle' against Israel. To succeed the moderates would have to crush the extremists and that will merely serve to put them in the same camp as Israel and therefore in the sights of Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and so on. It's therefore not physically possible for the Palestinians to make peace with Israel (since those who attempt it would be ostracised or killed). Peace would also spell the end of the massive financial aid (40% of PA economy I read recently). If I was an Arab, I would see no other option than to play the waiting game.



I fear too much water has flowed under the bridge for there to be the kind of reconciliation that would enable a city to be shared.



Do you mean in Judea and Samaria as well? What I don't understand is why Jews should not be allowed to purchase private land or rent state land and build on it. It is currently a capital offence in the PA to sell land to Jews (de facto the same situation as existed for many years before Independence). (Isn't that racism/apartheid etc.?)

While the Arabs are constantly trying to turn the clock back to 1967 if not 1948 or 1880, Israel has a record of looking forward and developing its country/industry. A halt in construction therefore benefits the Arab game plan and is not a neutral position. If the Arabs can't keep their side of the bargain and make peace, isn't it their own fault if they get left behind?
It's hard for me to argue with your analysis of the situation to date, especially the first paragraph. I think we choose, rightly or wrongly, to be optimistic or otherwise about prospects for the future.

I think there still is a chance of peaceful co-existence, since I sincerely believe that that is what the majority of people on either side really want. You clearly have less faith in the great majority of ordinary Arabs than I have. It's a valid viewpoint in the face of the evidence, but I just feel more comfortable believing that away from the intimidation of armed gangs and the manouverings of Iran, Syria and their client organisations on the ground, Palestinians would happily coexist with Jews provided that rights were mutually recognised. (I'm not for a minute suggesting it will be easy - just preferable to a permanent state of warfare)

I think the best way to undermine these malign influences is to rein in provocative expansionism, at least until any response from the other side can be evaluated.

[LiverpoolHibs]

What a delighful exchange that was. It's heartening to see two people united in their support for oppression, appropriation, dispossession, colonisation and the violation of international law. Fairly warms the old cockles, so it does.


Sorry missed this earlier on. What exactly do you mean about the Jerusalem settlement plan? That Jerusalem should be divided?

I'm not sure about Judea and Samaria, but certainly most Israelis support full Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. They consider this to be in their real interests. I also fail to see how you could successfully secure one half of a city against attacks from the other without driving a no-man's land akin to Berlin through the middle of it.

I have to say, in all seriousness, I do quite enjoy your genuinely incredible ability to completely reverse the reality of the situation in Israel/Palestine and create some bizarre alternate world where Israelis are the besieged and threatened party. Presumably one where someone engaged in the illegal appropriation of land doesn’t respond to having stones thrown in the direction of his car by stopping his car, exiting it armed with an assault rifle and shooting a sixteen year old boy in the back – killing him (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8682272.stm).

Note even the use of 'Judea and Samaria'. On the surface that looks like a relatively small-scale slight, but then you think what is actually involved in it. It's a wiping out of an entire people and an entire history with a click of the fingers. 'They' don’t exist, 'they' never existed so no wrong has ever been done to them - the occupier and oppressor can do whatever they like because these people don't exist. That's not only the thinking of and out-and-out racist (that's not news, we established that a while ago) but that of (to use and over-used pejorative) a confirmed fascist.


I agree that most Israelis would support full sovereignty. However, there won't be peace unless both sides are prepared to make concessions, and nothing should be regarded as non-negotiable at that level.

While I would rather see Jerusalem undivided, I don't think that it's inevitable that the Arab part of a divided city would be used to attack the Jewish part. The whole point of a negotiated settlement would be to remove this possibility, surely (and the possibility of attacks by Jewish extremists on the Arab areas)

What the continued building of settlements is doing is damaging the prospect of any kind of constructive engagement with the Palestinians which will make all of Israel more secure. Provided Israel's national security and legitimate borders are guaranteed, everything else should be negotiable IMO.

Why would you 'rather' Jerusalen was appropriated and annexed in its entirity?


I think the data shows that whenever Israel compromises on territory and control, there is an upsurge in attacks from the Arab side. Fine, build a wall/Iron Dome, whatever. If you have seen the media coming out of PA areas you will know how they feel about the existence of Israel. You should also know how the Islamists/nationalists feel towards Arabs who seek peace and recognition of Israel. They have been intimidating and killing these 'collaborators' since the 20s and 30s. From what I can see, it's apparent that any peace agreement will merely be a staging ground for the next phase of the 'armed struggle' against Israel. To succeed the moderates would have to crush the extremists and that will merely serve to put them in the same camp as Israel and therefore in the sights of Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and so on. It's therefore not physically possible for the Palestinians to make peace with Israel (since those who attempt it would be ostracised or killed). Peace would also spell the end of the massive financial aid (40% of PA economy I read recently). If I was an Arab, I would see no other option than to play the waiting game.

Sorry, what do you think the media coming out of the P.A. should have to say with regards to the existence of Israel? Should they broadcast programmes celebrating Yom Ha'atzmaut? Perhaps organise and televise a rally in which the Palestinian population can give thanks to their overlords for inflicting the Nakba.

Any Palestinian who has attempted to make peace with Israel has been killed or an attempt has been made to kill them? Did I miss the assassinations of the entire PLO Oslo Accords negotiation team?

Oh, and can I see your 'data', please.


I fear too much water has flowed under the bridge for there to be the kind of reconciliation that would enable a city to be shared.

Oh look, there's another sentence that seems fairly innocuous until you give it a bit of thought. The city can't be shared, you want in under Israeli rule. Therefore, the Palestinians get out or are forced out. Isn't ethnic cleansing a grand wheeze.


Do you mean in Judea and Samaria as well? What I don't understand is why Jews should not be allowed to purchase private land or rent state land and build on it. It is currently a capital offence in the PA to sell land to Jews (de facto the same situation as existed for many years before Independence). (Isn't that racism/apartheid etc.?)

Only if you're a complete ****ing idiot who doesn't understand how racism and/or apartheid work and thinks that, for example, a nineteenth century Indian refusing to sell land to the British Raj would be guilty of racism. Or, in your case, a white supremacist who presumably does understand but isn't interested because it's a case of people vs. non-people.


While the Arabs are constantly trying to turn the clock back to 1967 if not 1948 or 1880, Israel has a record of looking forward and developing its country/industry. A halt in construction therefore benefits the Arab game plan and is not a neutral position. If the Arabs can't keep their side of the bargain and make peace, isn't it their own fault if they get left behind?

Right, I can't read this bit without feeling slightly nauseous. Was there really not a point when you were writing it when you had a similar sensation? Are you just trying to wind people (me) up or are you actually that despicable?


It's hard for me to argue with your analysis of the situation to date, especially the first paragraph. I think we choose, rightly or wrongly, to be optimistic or otherwise about prospects for the future.

I think there still is a chance of peaceful co-existence, since I sincerely believe that that is what the majority of people on either side really want. You clearly have less faith in the great majority of ordinary Arabs than I have. It's a valid viewpoint in the face of the evidence, but I just feel more comfortable believing that away from the intimidation of armed gangs and the manouverings of Iran, Syria and their client organisations on the ground, Palestinians would happily coexist with Jews provided that rights were mutually recognised. (I'm not for a minute suggesting it will be easy - just preferable to a permanent state of warfare)

I think the best way to undermine these malign influences is to rein in provocative expansionism, at least until any response from the other side can be evaluated.

That's nice. The two choices are that; either the 'evidence' shows that Arabs are manipulated into resisting Israeli occupation and oppression - making them awful but saveable. Or the 'evidence' shows that they are just naturally that awful. Always, always remember to blame the victims; otherwise one day you just might have the dreadful realisation that you've been supportive of one of the gravest injustices in modern history.

In the words of a great man,

"Until the time comes when Israel assumes moral responsibility for what it has done to the Palestinian people, there can be no peace."

That is the absolute centre of the matter. Nothing else.

[khib70]

What a delighful exchange that was. It's heartening to see two people united in their support for oppression, appropriation, dispossession, colonisation and the violation of international law. Fairly warms the old cockles, so it does.



I have to say, in all seriousness, I do quite enjoy your genuinely incredible ability to completely reverse the reality of the situation in Israel/Palestine and create some bizarre alternate world where Israelis are the besieged and threatened party. Presumably one where someone engaged in the illegal appropriation of land doesn’t respond to having stones thrown in the direction of his car by stopping his car, exiting it armed with an assault rifle and shooting a sixteen year old boy in the back – killing him (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8682272.stm).

Note even the use of 'Judea and Samaria'. On the surface that looks like a relatively small-scale slight, but then you think what is actually involved in it. It's a wiping out of an entire people and an entire history with a click of the fingers. 'They' don’t exist, 'they' never existed so no wrong has ever been done to them - the occupier and oppressor can do whatever they like because these people don't exist. That's not only the thinking of and out-and-out racist (that's not news, we established that a while ago) but that of (to use and over-used pejorative) a confirmed fascist.



Why would you 'rather' Jerusalen was appropriated and annexed in its entirity?



Sorry, what do you think the media coming out of the P.A. should have to say with regards to the existence of Israel? Should they broadcast programmes celebrating Yom Ha'atzmaut? Perhaps organise and televise a rally in which the Palestinian population can give thanks to their overlords for inflicting the Nakba.

Any Palestinian who has attempted to make peace with Israel has been killed or an attempt has been made to kill them? Did I miss the assassinations of the entire PLO Oslo Accords negotiation team?

Oh, and can I see your 'data', please.



Oh look, there's another sentence that seems fairly innocuous until you give it a bit of thought. The city can't be shared, you want in under Israeli rule. Therefore, the Palestinians get out or are forced out. Isn't ethnic cleansing a grand wheeze.



Only if you're a complete ****ing idiot who doesn't understand how racism and/or apartheid work and thinks that, for example, a nineteenth century Indian refusing to sell land to the British Raj would be guilty of racism. Or, in your case, a white supremacist who presumably does understand but isn't interested because it's a case of people vs. non-people.



Right, I can't read this bit without feeling slightly nauseous. Was there really not a point when you were writing it when you had a similar sensation? Are you just trying to wind people (me) up or are you actually that despicable?



That's nice. The two choices are that; either the 'evidence' shows that Arabs are manipulated into resisting Israeli occupation and oppression - making them awful but saveable. Or the 'evidence' shows that they are just naturally that awful. Always, always remember to blame the victims; otherwise one day you just might have the dreadful realisation that you've been supportive of one of the gravest injustices in modern history.

In the words of a great man,

"Until the time comes when Israel assumes moral responsibility for what it has done to the Palestinian people, there can be no peace."

That is the absolute centre of the matter. Nothing else.
The centre of the matter is your completely brainwashed and unreasoning support for the destruction of Israel by any means. You can stamp your feet and fling around your melodramatic accusations of racism, fascism and whatever else you think will draw sufficient attention to yourself. But the above is not going to happen.

People of more humanity and less paper-selling, student union dogmatism than yourself, certainly people of more maturity and vision than yourself, will get together and resolve the situation.

I would prefer to exchange views with one of these people without your snide and increasingly hysterical interventions.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The centre of the matter is your completely brainwashed and unreasoning support for the destruction of Israel by any means. You can stamp your feet and fling around your melodramatic accusations of racism, fascism and whatever else you think will draw sufficient attention to yourself. But the above is not going to happen.

Every time you accuse me of 'flinging around' accusations of racism (and in this case fascism) I ask you to explain to me why I should retract those claims, which I'm quite happy to do if what you say is convincing. You haven't been able to do so to date but I may as well give it another shot.

The fact you've been reduced to claiming I want to see 'the destruction of Israel by any means' shows how intellectually bankrupt your arguments are.


People of more humanity and less paper-selling, student union dogmatism than yourself, certainly people of more maturity and vision than yourself, will get together and resolve the situation.

Can I ask for anything that I've said that is indicative of a lack of humanity?


I would prefer to exchange views with one of these people without your snide and increasingly hysterical interventions.

Or indeed anything 'snide' or 'hysterical'. You may not particularly object to them, but I surely can't be the only person who finds Fergus' contributions on this subject highly disturbing.

[ballengeich]

Only if you're a complete ****ing idiot who doesn't understand how racism and/or apartheid work and thinks that, for example, a nineteenth century Indian refusing to sell land to the British Raj would be guilty of racism.


Can I just check. Are you supporting a law which says that an individual selling private property can be condemned to death because of the ethnicity or religion of the purchaser?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Can I just check. Are you supporting a law which says that an individual selling private property can be condemned to death because of the ethnicity or religion of the purchaser?

Did I say I supported the law?

[ballengeich]

Did I say I supported the law?

That doesn't answer my question.

[LiverpoolHibs]

That doesn't answer my question.

Yes it does. I didn't say I supported the law so why have you decided that I may do so?

I just said that it was not racist to have an in-conflict law prohibiting people from selling Palestinian territory so that it would be subsumed into the Israeli state. The idea that it has anything to do with 'selling to Jews' is disingenuous in the extreme.

[One Day Soon]

Yes it does. I didn't say I supported the law so why have you decided that I may do so?

I just said that it was not racist to have an in-conflict law prohibiting people from selling Palestinian territory so that it would be subsumed into the Israeli state. The idea that it has anything to do with 'selling to Jews' is disingenuous in the extreme.

I don't think it does answer the question really. The way you have responded to the question comes across as disingenuous itself. The question put may not be at the centre of the debate precisely but nonetheless it has been asked. Apart from anything else if the intended effect of the law is to prevent selling to those whose ownership could see the land being subsumed into the Israeli state - who else other than Jewish people would that apply to?

In point of fact it is precisely the assertion of such dogmatic, exclusive and narrow perspectives on both sides - claiming that one issue and one issue alone is the centre of the matter to the exclusion of all else - that has eroded and continues to deny the opportunity for meaningful dialogue to take place or even to be recognised as legitimate.

Those who are holding the leadership ring on both sides (and it is a pretty unequal though unwinnable power struggle in which might faces grievance) deserve a special place in the pantheon of the mindlessly stupid.

Sadat must be spinning in his grave.

[khib70]

Every time you accuse me of 'flinging around' accusations of racism (and in this case fascism) I ask you to explain to me why I should retract those claims, which I'm quite happy to do if what you say is convincing. You haven't been able to do so to date but I may as well give it another shot.
I don't believe that anything Fergus said was racist, fascist or despicable. Neither was my own comment on the Sweden thread, to which you disingenuously put down to "Islamophobia". Once again, you were sitting in omniscient judgement on the motives and thoughts of others

The fact you've been reduced to claiming I want to see 'the destruction of Israel by any means' shows how intellectually bankrupt your arguments are.

Perhaps "by any means" is doing you an injustice, since you're clearly not an advocate of genocide. The rest I would stand by



Can I ask for anything that I've said that is indicative of a lack of humanity?
Implicitly supporting a law which makes selling land to Jews a capital offence will do for a start. I know you've denied this, but I don't believe you



Or indeed anything 'snide' or 'hysterical'. You may not particularly object to them, but I surely can't be the only person who finds Fergus' contributions on this subject highly disturbing.
The first paragraph of your previous post is both snide ("warms the old cockles") and your repeated denunciations of Fergus are seriously hysterical. I see nothing in what he says that justifies your response, even though I disagree with him on many points. I, however, prefer to voice this disagreement without resorting to sloganising and insults

[LiverpoolHibs]

I don't think it does answer the question really. The way you have responded to the question comes across as disingenuous itself. The question put may not be at the centre of the debate precisely but nonetheless it has been asked. Apart from anything else if the intended effect of the law is to prevent selling to those whose ownership could see the land being subsumed into the Israeli state - who else other than Jewish people would that apply to?

There's nothing disingenuous about it. He intimated that I did, in fact, support the law when all I had said was that it was not racist. So when he said so, I asked whether I had said I supported it. The answer to which is 'no', that should have been the end of it.

Of course it only applies to Jews. But it is nothing whatsoever (feel free to prove me wrong with, y'know, evidence or anything) to do with them being Jews qua Jews. It's to do with that land being taken into the Israeli state.


I don't believe that anything Fergus said was racist, fascist or despicable. Neither was my own comment on the Sweden thread, to which you disingenuously put down to "Islamophobia". Once again, you were sitting in omniscient judgement on the motives and thoughts of others

Well, then, I'm afraid that reflects incredibly badly on you. And you can't just state that what he has said is not racist, I've explained why it is, you now need to explain why it isn't. For example;

Originally Posted by hibsbollah http://hibs.net/message/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Hence the alternative; 'ethnic cleansing'

http://hibs.net/message/images/smilies/agree.gif Although second-class citizenship (zero access to politics or military) would be another alternative.

and...

Israel has to dominate the Arabs in order to protect itself.

and...

If the Arabs were ever to get the upper hand, they would massacre the Jews. That's why Israel will never allow that to happen. If that means denying people voting rights, then so be it. It's no different to the lot of Arabs in neighbouring states.

and...

Denying human rights? The Arabs should have thought about that before they commenced killing Jews in 1920.

This has all now been supplemented by the parts of his last post I have pointed out. If we're going to do this properly you (if you're going to keep standing up for him) need to put a coherent argument against what I've said.

On your comment in the other thread; I have no idea how you could have taken the initial comment to mean anything other than what it clearly means. There's not a communication problem; it was either a mask-slip on your behalf, or you didn't properly work out what he meant.


Perhaps "by any means" is doing you an injustice, since you're clearly not an advocate of genocide. The rest I would stand by

What's that 'perhaps' doing there, hedging your bets? There's a chance that I do support genocide?

And you're no dubt well aware of what 'destruction of Israel' is meant to evoke. Cheap.


Implicitly supporting a law which makes selling land to Jews a capital offence will do for a start. I know you've denied this, but I don't believe you

Oh, well that's going to contribute to a decent standard of debate.

Ok then, is it racist for a population under siege and occupation to institute a law forbidding the sale of land to the nation conducting the siege and occupation? Either explain why it is or explain why that description is a misrepresentation

I have never said I support the law, I have only said that it is not indicative of racism or apartheid as Fergus (typically) ludicrously claimed. Again, feel free to prove me wrong with a reasoned argument.


The first paragraph of your previous post is both snide ("warms the old cockles") and your repeated denunciations of Fergus are seriously hysterical. I see nothing in what he says that justifies your response, even though I disagree with him on many points. I, however, prefer to voice this disagreement without resorting to sloganising and insults

Meh, ok - I'll give you snide.

My 'repeated denunciations of Fergus' are not hysterical - there are no signs of uncontrollable emotion - they have always been coherent and cogent

Again, you can't just keep saying you see nothing wrong. Tell me why my objections are unfounded.

[khib70]

My 'repeated denunciations of Fergus' are not hysterical - there are no signs of uncontrollable emotion - they have always been coherent and cogent

Again, you can't just keep saying you see nothing wrong. Tell me why my objections are unfounded.
OK. I haven't responded to your request to do this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he is more than capable of doing it himself. Secondly, they're his views, not mine.

The idea that they are not "racist", "fascist" or "white supremacist" is mine and I'll tell you why I think that. (By the way, "white supremacist" is one of your sillier charges. White supremacists are hardly known for their affection for things Jewish, are they?

What I believe Fergus to be saying is that he sees Israel as a nation under siege from a variety of hostile elements, some of which wish the total annihilation of the Jewish presence in the Middle East. Those hostile elements are principally Arab. Therefore Israel is in a state of emergency in which certain measures considered unacceptable in normal situations may be necessary to safeguard the continued existence of the Jewish homeland. He sees a degree of ethnic cleansing as protection against a much greater degree which might happen were the Arabs to gain military or political supremacy.

I think that's wrong since I believe that a state taking the measures he advocates would forfeit the right to be called a legitimate Jewish state. I believe it's wrong because it plays into the hands of those who would benefit from a hardening of Israeli attitudes to that extent. I don't think it's racist, though. And I don't think it's necessary or valid to use accusations of that nature to debunk his arguments. There are all sorts of ways to do that, which you have both the knowledge and the ability to deploy.

[ballengeich]

There's nothing disingenuous about it. He intimated that I did, in fact, support the law when all I had said was that it was not racist. So when he said so, I asked whether I had said I supported it. The answer to which is 'no', that should have been the end of it.

Of course it only applies to Jews. But it is nothing whatsoever (feel free to prove me wrong with, y'know, evidence or anything) to do with them being Jews qua Jews. It's to do with that land being taken into the Israeli state.

I did not intimate that you supported the law. I asked whether you did, and you have continued to evade giving a yes or no answer. At least your last reply to me did give a more coherent account of what you believe to be the PA's reason for having the law.


Israel has to dominate the Arabs in order to protect itself.

and...

If the Arabs were ever to get the upper hand, they would massacre the Jews.
and...




You see these last statements as evidence of racism. What do you believe would have been the fate of the Jewish inhabitants of Israel if its Arab neighbours had ever had the kind of military superiority over Israel that would have allowed them to win any of the various conflicts of the past 60 years?

[LiverpoolHibs]

OK. I haven't responded to your request to do this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he is more than capable of doing it himself. Secondly, they're his views, not mine.

Well, then you shouldn't have kept claiming my accusations were innacurate if you did not want to defend that.

He may be capable of it but it's been quite a few months now since the initial accusation and he hasn't even attempted to do so yet.


The idea that they are not "racist", "fascist" or "white supremacist" is mine and I'll tell you why I think that. (By the way, "white supremacist" is one of your sillier charges. White supremacists are hardly known for their affection for things Jewish, are they?

It depends on whether they're considered 'white' or not at whatever point in time. Historically you're completely correct and no doubt that still exists (mainly because one form of racism tends to contiguent with every other form of racism), but the white supremacists of the European far-right line themselves up squarely and resolutely behind Israel. As Ruth Smead of the Board of Deputies of British Jews notes,

"The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel and at the same time demonises Islam and the Muslim world. They are actively campaigning in Jewish communities, particularly in London, making a lot of their one Jewish councillor, their support of Israel and attacking Muslims. It is a poisonous campaign but it shows a growing electoral sophistication."


What I believe Fergus to be saying is that he sees Israel as a nation under siege from a variety of hostile elements, some of which wish the total annihilation of the Jewish presence in the Middle East. Those hostile elements are principally Arab. Therefore Israel is in a state of emergency in which certain measures considered unacceptable in normal situations may be necessary to safeguard the continued existence of the Jewish homeland. He sees a degree of ethnic cleansing as protection against a much greater degree which might happen were the Arabs to gain military or political supremacy.

And this isn't racist?! Some crank who envisions hordes of menacing Arabs bent on destruction and genocide and advocates ethnic cleansing as a means of dealing with this, isn't a racist?! This is the reasoning of every pogromist from Tsarist Russia, to Nazi Germany to the Balkans. And this isn't over-stating the case, I'm afraid.

Seriously khib, we've had our disagreements and everything but you always been at least decent; this is the defence of the indefensible.


I think that's wrong since I believe that a state taking the measures he advocates would forfeit the right to be called a legitimate Jewish state. I believe it's wrong because it plays into the hands of those who would benefit from a hardening of Israeli attitudes to that extent. I don't think it's racist, though. And I don't think it's necessary or valid to use accusations of that nature to debunk his arguments. There are all sorts of ways to do that, which you have both the knowledge and the ability to deploy.

It is absolutely necessary to call people who hold racist and fascistic ideas exactly what they are. Racists and fascists.


I did not intimate that you supported the law. I asked whether you did, and you have continued to evade giving a yes or no answer. At least your last reply to me did give a more coherent account of what you believe to be the PA's reason for having the law.

You said 'can I just check', as if there was something that needed 'checking' about what I said. I said it was not racist (which, notably, no-one has been able to dispute despite the insistence that it is), I did not say I supported the law, I do not support the law.


You see these last statements as evidence of racism. What do you believe would have been the fate of the Jewish inhabitants of Israel if its Arab neighbours had ever had the kind of military superiority over Israel that would have allowed them to win any of the various conflicts of the past 60 years?

As I don't have the ability to see into an alternate reality, I'm not exactly sure. Undoubtedly you think there would have been ethnic cleansing of Jews in Israel/Palestine. Why do you think that would have happened? Do you know have evidence of an Arab document the equivalent of the Plan Dalet?

[ballengeich]

I did not say I supported the law, I do not support the law.

Thank you for this clarification. It's to your credit IMO

As I don't have the ability to see into an alternate reality, I'm not exactly sure. Undoubtedly you think there would have been ethnic cleansing of Jews in Israel/Palestine. Why do you think that would have happened? Do you know have evidence of an Arab document the equivalent of the Plan Dalet?

There would certainly have been widespread removal of Jews from areas which had been in Arab hands before 1948. Beyond that, as you correctly remark, we cannot be exactly sure. The consequences of war for a defeated population are invariably horrible and the existence or otherwise of any particular document would be irrelevant in the chaos which would occur in practice.

[magpie1892]

The consequences of war for a defeated population are invariably horrible

I disagree. The immediate aftermath of WWII was pretty grim for Germans (esp. if you lived in Berlin) but within 10 years the economy was purring like a kitten and the smashed infrastructure rebuilt with an eye on the future, unlike the Victorian facilities which remain in the UK.

Look at the respective fortunes of the UK and Germany (Austria was virtually untouched) since WWII. The UK-led allies won the war, but Germany won the peace by quite some margin.

There are plenty of other examples of the same but I think your assertion is shaky at best.

[ballengeich]

I disagree. The immediate aftermath of WWII was pretty grim for Germans (esp. if you lived in Berlin) but within 10 years the economy was purring like a kitten and the smashed infrastructure rebuilt with an eye on the future, unlike the Victorian facilities which remain in the UK.

Look at the respective fortunes of the UK and Germany (Austria was virtually untouched) since WWII. The UK-led allies won the war, but Germany won the peace by quite some margin.

There are plenty of other examples of the same but I think your assertion is shaky at best.

Beyond the immediate aftermath, economic progress in post-war (West) Germany was triggered by the Marshall Plan. This was an unusual, possibly unique, response by a conquering power (US not UK led).

[hibsbollah]

There would certainly have been widespread removal of Jews from areas which had been in Arab hands before 1948. Beyond that, as you correctly remark, we cannot be exactly sure. The consequences of war for a defeated population are invariably horrible and the existence or otherwise of any particular document would be irrelevant in the chaos which would occur in practice.


Since we're doing hypotheticals, I wonder what would have happenend if this nuclear sale between Israel and apartheid South Africa had gone through?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons


Secret South African documents reveal that Israel (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/israel) offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents) of the state's possession of nuclear weapons (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nuclear-weapons).

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show thatSouth Africa (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/southafrica)'s defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middleeast).

They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.

A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were "never any negotiations" between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.

South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.
The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal".

Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.

The memo, marked "top secret" and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: "In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere."

But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.

The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.

[magpie1892]

Beyond the immediate aftermath, economic progress in post-war (West) Germany was triggered by the Marshall Plan. This was an unusual, possibly unique, response by a conquering power (US not UK led).

Unusual, yes. Unique, no.

But still gives the lie to the assertion of 'invariably', nonetheless.

[(((Fergus)))]

Sorry I've missed this thread, I'll catch up soon.

In the meantime, I wanted to post something that Bollah put me on to which is the economic/technological status of Israel. When we spoke before I hadn't appreciated the importance of Israel in terms of technological innovation. The video is from AIPAC and not surprisingly it's a little bit slushy :wink: but it covers most of the bases very quickly although it doesn't explore the extent of penetration by Israeli technology in global products, e.g., computer chips, mobile phone systems and so on. The material is presented by a pro-Israel body, however the Nasdaq does not lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EQliG9Wsdo

As the guy says, Israel is not really about exporting citrus fruit these days (the boycotters should forget about the supermarkets alone and just ditch their PCs and mobiles) therefore there is not the same need for agricultural land. This may explain why Israel has been willing to withdraw from conquered territory rather than hold on to it like most 'normal' nations do - something that had puzzled me for a long time. Basically if you are generating wealth through your creativity and ideas, you don't need loads of land and the unnecessary responsibility that comes with ownership.

Equally, it explains why conquering land is so important to the arabs in particular (many other nations of course too, not least our own in recent memory). If you look at what their economies are based on it is all about exploiting natural resources - often with foreign (including Jewish :wink:) technical expertise. Since natural resources are finite if not managed with care, you need to get your hands on as much as you can.

I've been reading an American soil conservationists report on Palestine from the 1930s/40s and this bears this out. A country which at the time of Jesus supported a minimum of 4 million people (very conservative estimate) with terraced fields, aquaducts and other 'technological innovations' had been allowed to decline to the point that it supported one tenth of that population in the mid-1800s (very generous estimate). Of course Palestine still retained many excellent citrus groves etc., however these were not the lands that the early Jewish immigrants purchased and restored.

It's a pity to say the least that a certain section of the Arab leadership took issue with Jewish regeneration as the combination of Jewish innovation and Arab manpower and land resources would create an Eden for everybody.

BTW maybe someone has details but I've never read any articles in the Israeli press about a worldwide credit crunch - opposite in fact. How come they have withstood it while we have not?

[(((Fergus)))]

Meanwhile back in the war zone three arabs are killed and seven injured - by the Iranian Republican Guard.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/05/29/109945.html

Apparently over the past couple of decades, the amount of land taken from Iranian Arabs by the state is roughly equivalent to the size of Israel (including all the territories) - this despite the fact that they fought for Iran against Iraq.

These are the sort of stories you don't hear on the BBC.

[Betty Boop]

Meanwhile back in the war zone three arabs are killed and seven injured - by the Iranian Republican Guard.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/05/29/109945.html

Apparently over the past couple of decades, the amount of land taken from Iranian Arabs by the state is roughly equivalent to the size of Israel (including all the territories) - this despite the fact that they fought for Iran against Iraq.

These are the sort of stories you don't hear on the BBC.
The link is in Arabic. :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

The link is in Arabic. :greengrin

You can get a translation of sorts in Google Chrome


Northern city of Ahvaz
Arabs killed and wounded in clashes with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard

Ahvaz has seen unrest over the past years

Dubai - the success of the Mohammed Ali
Arab demonstrators killed three and injured seven others, including 2 in critical condition Saturday 5/29/2010 during a clash with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the village "Jalizi" of the city of Hamidiya north of the city center province of Khuzestan, Ahvaz, according to informed sources of the "Arab."

And sources confirmed that the deaths were children of the tribe through resistance "Khazraj" Arab living in this region of the Revolutionary Guard and civilian elements to accompany them came to dominate the agricultural land in order to seize them.

These sources say that the number of Revolutionary Guards were also wounded.
This was the land in the Arab region, given at the time of the monarchy to the non-Arab farmers brought in from outside the province of Khuzestan, and they had after the revolution to return to their regions, like the residents of the city "Yazd Nu", which was established on Arab land was controlled by Arabs revolution.

Recall that the Khuzestan province, a predominantly Arab region is the only one in Iran, which classified all of its territory under the "pure land", a term called on government land, according to the decision taken by the Reza Shah after the fall of the local government in 1925, which was headed by Sheikh Khaz `al-Kaabi

[Betty Boop]

Noam Chomsky interview.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25571.htm

[LiverpoolHibs]

It would be really nice to occasionally read a post on this topic from Fergus that was vaguely rational and wasn't replete with attempts at historical deception, racist under/overtones and apologism for mass injustice. But it never seems to happen...


Sorry I've missed this thread, I'll catch up soon.

In the meantime, I wanted to post something that Bollah put me on to which is the economic/technological status of Israel. When we spoke before I hadn't appreciated the importance of Israel in terms of technological innovation. The video is from AIPAC and not surprisingly it's a little bit slushy :wink: but it covers most of the bases very quickly although it doesn't explore the extent of penetration by Israeli technology in global products, e.g., computer chips, mobile phone systems and so on. The material is presented by a pro-Israel body, however the Nasdaq does not lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EQliG9Wsdo

The Nasdaq may not lie, but I'm struggling to work out the point of any of this. Is it that people should support Israel because it's more technologically advanced than some parts of the Arab world? That they should be supported because they provide us with lots of nice shiny stuff? That they are somehow racially capable of technical advance whereas Arabs are not?


As the guy says, Israel is not really about exporting citrus fruit these days (the boycotters should forget about the supermarkets alone and just ditch their PCs and mobiles) therefore there is not the same need for agricultural land. This may explain why Israel has been willing to withdraw from conquered territory rather than hold on to it like most 'normal' nations do - something that had puzzled me for a long time. Basically if you are generating wealth through your creativity and ideas, you don't need loads of land and the unnecessary responsibility that comes with ownership.

No, as I've said many times, Israel does not incorporate land 'won' in war beacuse the non-Jewish population can never be allowed to exceed 20% and the lands 'won' are overwhelmingly Arabic. You presumably know this, so are you attempting to convince yourself or fool others?

And that's without mentioning the fact that Israel occupies East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and, in effect, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. Who are these other nations that Israel is set apart from? Who are the 'normal nations' who occupy more land than that?

And Christ knows who you think it's news to that Israel's economy isn't based on exporting citrus fruit. Shock horror, that's what billions of dollars in direct, no-strings-attached aid can do for an economy.


Equally, it explains why conquering land is so important to the arabs in particular (many other nations of course too, not least our own in recent memory). If you look at what their economies are based on it is all about exploiting natural resources - often with foreign (including Jewish :wink:) technical expertise. Since natural resources are finite if not managed with care, you need to get your hands on as much as you can.

Ah yeah, those funny Arabs and their war-mongering ways. What Arab nations currently exhibit the importance of conquering land? It's good that you show an understanding of a materialist account of history, but it's a shame you've got it completely arse over tit.


I've been reading an American soil conservationists report on Palestine from the 1930s/40s and this bears this out. A country which at the time of Jesus supported a minimum of 4 million people (very conservative estimate) with terraced fields, aquaducts and other 'technological innovations' had been allowed to decline to the point that it supported one tenth of that population in the mid-1800s (very generous estimate). Of course Palestine still retained many excellent citrus groves etc., however these were not the lands that the early Jewish immigrants purchased and restored.

Sorry, you don't really think there were four million people living in ancient Palestine do you!? And that's a conservative estimate? I think I'm right in saying even Magen Broshi never estimated (which is all that can be done) the peak population at anything above one million.

And more 'backwards Arabs' stuff, you don't even make the effort of hiding the racism any more, eh?


It's a pity to say the least that a certain section of the Arab leadership took issue with Jewish regeneration as the combination of Jewish innovation and Arab manpower and land resources would create an Eden for everybody.

I'm sorry to do this again, but there's only one possible response to this sort of stuff, you are an absolute lunatic. But you're worse than that, you're a denier and manipulator of historical fact.

Again, I don't know if you're trying to convince yourself or those who may be reading. I mean, I really hope people can recognise how absolutely sickening it is for someone to attempt these distortions, for someone to attempt to claim that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine took place because the Arab leadership (who's this Fergus?) refused to co-operate with the Zionist project. It's absolutely insane. There is not one properly researched historical account of the period that backs this nonsense up.

Oh and the 'white = brains; non-white = labour' theme couldn't be more disgusting. Well done.


BTW maybe someone has details but I've never read any articles in the Israeli press about a worldwide credit crunch - opposite in fact. How come they have withstood it while we have not?

They haven't, their public debt is significantly higher than Britain's. But as I've said billions of dollars of aid can do a lot to plug that.


Meanwhile back in the war zone three arabs are killed and seven injured - by the Iranian Republican Guard.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/05/29/109945.html

Apparently over the past couple of decades, the amount of land taken from Iranian Arabs by the state is roughly equivalent to the size of Israel (including all the territories) - this despite the fact that they fought for Iran against Iraq.

These are the sort of stories you don't hear on the BBC.

Tee-hee, it never ceases to amuse me that people think the BBC is anti-Israel.

I'm happy to admit I don't have a great deal of knowledge of what's going on in Khuzestan (beyong there being a relatively strong Arab separatist movement and numerous human rights violations by the Iranian government), so when you say 'land taken from Iranian Arabs' what do you mean? Genuine question, by the way. Khuzestan hasn't been annexed recently or anything like that, is this just a reference to Ahmadinejad's nationalisation project?

And I'm confused what this has to do with the topic of the thread. I don't think anyone on here is a supporter of the Iranian regime.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Which side are you on? (http://s.wsj.net/media/051410pow11.jpg)

FACING A CROWD: A Palestinian woman whose house has been occupied by Jewish settlers argued with Israelis who came to celebrate Jerusalem Day in the mainly Arab neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem, Wednesday. (Ahmad Gharabli/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

[Betty Boop]

16 people have been killed and more than 50 injured, as Israeli commandos stormed an Aid Convoy bound for Gaza. :grr:

www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/31/2914131.htm?section=world

[khib70]

16 people have been killed and more than 50 injured, as Israeli commandos stormed an Aid Convoy bound for Gaza. :grr:

www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/31/2914131.htm?section=world

From your link

"It is understood Israeli forces boarded the Mavi Marmara and opened fire after passengers attacked them with axes and knives.
Israeli army radio reported 10 to 14 people were killed in the clash but it is not known if any Israeli commandos were among the dead.

Four Israeli commandos have been wounded, apparently by gunfire."

This would be a convoy of "peace activists" then?

[LiverpoolHibs]

From your link

"It is understood Israeli forces boarded the Mavi Marmara and opened fire after passengers attacked them with axes and knives.
Israeli army radio reported 10 to 14 people were killed in the clash but it is not known if any Israeli commandos were among the dead.

Four Israeli commandos have been wounded, apparently by gunfire."

This would be a convoy of "peace activists" then?

Oh excellent, up to twenty people are barely cold and the apologias for slaughter begin.

All that is important here is that the flotilla was in international waters, now you've consistently made it clear that you're not particularly bothered by the violation of international law, but I think most people still are. The attack on the flotilla was an act of piracy in violation of international law. It was an act of war and the men, women and children on board were perfectly justified in resisting the attack (if that is even the correct order of events). That Israel responds to this through slaughtering those on board is absolutely no surprise, it is par for the course. It's bizarre justifications for its actions are equally unsurprising. The slightly surprising bit is that people actually go out of their way to believe this ****.

Gideon Levy - Gaza Flotilla Drives Israel Into Sea of Stupidity (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gaza-flotilla-drives-israel-into-a-sea-of-stupidity-1.292959)

The Israeli propaganda machine has reached new highs its hopeless frenzy. It has distributed menus from Gaza restaurants, along with false information. It embarrassed itself by entering a futile public relations battle, which it might have been better off never starting. They want to maintain the ineffective, illegal and unethical siege on Gaza and not let the "peace flotilla" dock off the Gaza coast? There is nothing to explain, certainly not to a world that will never buy the web of explanations, lies and tactics.

Only in Israel do people still accept these tainted goods. Reminiscent of a pre-battle ritual from ancient times, the chorus cheered without asking questions. White uniformed soldiers got ready in our name. Spokesmen delivered their deceptive explanations in our name. The grotesque scene is at our expense. And virtually none of us have disturbed the performance.

Excellent article but he is, unfortunately, wrong there. Sadly there are people all over the world who evidently lap up everything the propaganda machine is willing to offer justifications for slaughter. They're no different than those who attepted to exculpate apartheid South Africa in the wake of the Soweto massacre.

There were no guns on board, Regev knows that, the BBC knows that everyone knows that. Though it's not inconceivable that some will now be planted when the boat gets to Ashdod.

P.S. Oh and would any of the assorted weirdos who think the BBC is antipathetic to Israel like to watch some of the news reports with that lying ******* Regev getting a free-run and get back to me please.

P.P.S. Protests in Edinburgh and Glasgow at 5pm, Foot of the Mound and George Square respectively, if anyone's interested.

[Betty Boop]

From your link

"It is understood Israeli forces boarded the Mavi Marmara and opened fire after passengers attacked them with axes and knives.
Israeli army radio reported 10 to 14 people were killed in the clash but it is not known if any Israeli commandos were among the dead.

Four Israeli commandos have been wounded, apparently by gunfire."

This would be a convoy of "peace activists" then?

I can't believe you are defending the indefensible!

[hibsbollah]

I can't believe you are defending the indefensible!

Theres no evidence of any axes or knives in the footage ive seen, just members of a well-known and respected international peace organisation, authors, journalists etc being shot at in international waters. Israeli diplomats being summoned to embassies all across Europe.

If, as has been reported, non-'Arabs' have been killed there will be repurcussions for Israel in a way there wouldnt be if theyd just killed 'Arabs'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/may/31/israel-troops-gaza-ships

[khib70]

Oh excellent, up to twenty people are barely cold and the apologias for slaughter begin.

All that is important here is that the flotilla was in international waters, now you've consistently made it clear that you're not particularly bothered by the violation of international law, but I think most people still are. The attack on the flotilla was an act of piracy in violation of international law. It was an act of war and the men, women and children on board were perfectly justified in resisting the attack (if that is even the correct order of events). That Israel responds to this through slaughtering those on board is absolutely no surprise, it is par for the course. It's bizarre justifications for its actions are equally unsurprising. The slightly surprising bit is that people actually go out of their way to believe this ****.

Gideon Levy - Gaza Flotilla Drives Israel Into Sea of Stupidity (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gaza-flotilla-drives-israel-into-a-sea-of-stupidity-1.292959)

The Israeli propaganda machine has reached new highs its hopeless frenzy. It has distributed menus from Gaza restaurants, along with false information. It embarrassed itself by entering a futile public relations battle, which it might have been better off never starting. They want to maintain the ineffective, illegal and unethical siege on Gaza and not let the "peace flotilla" dock off the Gaza coast? There is nothing to explain, certainly not to a world that will never buy the web of explanations, lies and tactics.

Only in Israel do people still accept these tainted goods. Reminiscent of a pre-battle ritual from ancient times, the chorus cheered without asking questions. White uniformed soldiers got ready in our name. Spokesmen delivered their deceptive explanations in our name. The grotesque scene is at our expense. And virtually none of us have disturbed the performance.

Excellent article but he is, unfortunately, wrong there. Sadly there are people all over the world who evidently lap up everything the propaganda machine is willing to offer justifications for slaughter. They're no different than those who attepted to exculpate apartheid South Africa in the wake of the Soweto massacre.

There were no guns on board, Regev knows that, the BBC knows that everyone knows that. Though it's not inconceivable that some will now be planted when the boat gets to Ashdod.

P.S. Oh and would any of the assorted weirdos who think the BBC is antipathetic to Israel like to watch some of the news reports with that lying ******* Regev getting a free-run and get back to me please.

P.P.S. Protests in Edinburgh and Glasgow at 5pm, Foot of the Mound and George Square respectively, if anyone's interested.
Rentamob assembles again. What a surprise.

Why exactly did this "aid convoy" require 800 people? Because it suits you to think there were no weapons on board, you decide that "everyone knows" that. Your evidence for this sweeping assertion is? And of course, if any are found they'll have been "planted" - no lose situation there, eh?

A group of ships, containing 800 people, some of them armed, with the declared intention of violating your territorial waters gives any nation the right in my book to take pre-emptive action to prevent what is in effect, an invasion.

Armed troops who are attacked with gunfire have the right under their rules of engagement to defend themselves with a similar level of force.

That's not to say that Israel has handled this well. The "aid flotilla" was a blatant provocation intended to produce precisely this kind of result. Ironically, a much larger deployment of forces might have prevented this level of bloodshed.

Since you are proceeding from your usual viewpoint that any and all actions by the IDF are deliberately homicidal and that all Israeli spokespeople tell lies, I don't expect to convince you of anything. But, enjoy your little rant at the foot of the Mound, - it's a nice day.

[(((Fergus)))]

There's footage of the 'peace activists' attacking the commandos as they rappel onto the deck of the ship.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896588,00.html

Never a good idea to lay a hand on a soldier or police officer - unless you want to be a martyr

[(((Fergus)))]

Five commandos being treated in Tel Hashomer hospital, two of them in serious condition.

Friendly fire during a massacre of sleeping civilians?

From Freegaza.org: "Under darkness of night, Israeli commandoes dropped from a helicopter onto the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, and began to shoot the moment their feet hit the deck. They fired directly into the crowd of civilians asleep."

More lies as the video clearly shows.

[hibsbollah]

There's footage of the 'peace activists' attacking the commandos as they rappel onto the deck of the ship.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896588,00.html

Never a good idea to lay a hand on a soldier or police officer - unless you want to be a martyr

No, it doesnt show that at all:confused: Im starting to think your contributions are just a wind-up.

The most interesting statement on your link was this one "Ayalon accused the sail's organizers of having ties to the Hamas (http://www.hibs.net/unescape(this.href)) and al-Qaeda (http://www.hibs.net/unescape(this.href)) terror organizations."

Since the organisers were in fact, the Turkish Government, perhaps Israel thinks this key NATO ally is in fact, in league with al-Qaeda?

Israels Riefenstahlen-esque propaganda would be funny if so many innocent people hadnt been killed.

[(((Fergus)))]

In tragic irony, Turkey loses six naval personnel to a rocket attack by Kurdish 'activists'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10195996.stm

[(((Fergus)))]

No, it doesnt show that at all:confused: Im starting to think your contributions are just a wind-up.

The most interesting statement on your link was this one "Ayalon accused the sail's organizers of having ties to the Hamas (http://www.hibs.net/unescape(this.href)) and al-Qaeda (http://www.hibs.net/unescape(this.href)) terror organizations."

Since the organisers were in fact, the Turkish Government, perhaps Israel thinks this key NATO ally is in fact, in league with al-Qaeda?

Israels Riefenstahlen-esque propaganda would be funny if so many innocent people hadnt been killed.

Well I can see a commando beaten with some kind of bar rather than opening fire on people. I'm sure more videos will be made available, possibly from the helicopter.

[hibsbollah]

From Freegaza.org: "Under darkness of night, Israeli commandoes dropped from a helicopter onto the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, and began to shoot the moment their feet hit the deck. They fired directly into the crowd of civilians asleep."

More lies as the video clearly shows.

No, theres nothing in the footage in your link that contradicts the free.gaza statement. All it shows is confusion, scuffles and lots of people scared. It doesnt show at what point in the massacre the footage was taken.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Rentamob assembles again. What a surprise.

Why exactly did this "aid convoy" require 800 people?

Yeah, imagine people having a problem with this?!

Why is aid convoy in speech marks?

What's the objection to there being that amount of people on board?


Because it suits you to think there were no weapons on board, you decide that "everyone knows" that. Your evidence for this sweeping assertion is? And of course, if any are found they'll have been "planted" - no lose situation there, eh?

No, because there's absolutely no evidence of there being any arms on board outside of the obvious Regev assertion; the same man who regularly appeared on news stations during Cast Lead to insist Israel wasn't using white phosphorus shells over pictures of white phosphorus falling on Gaza.


A group of ships, containing 800 people, some of them armed, with the declared intention of violating your territorial waters gives any nation the right in my book to take pre-emptive action to prevent what is in effect, an invasion.

Armed troops who are attacked with gunfire have the right under their rules of engagement to defend themselves with a similar level of force.

The same question that I've asked of Fergus, are you trying to convince yourself or others with this nonsense? The depths you have to plumb to support what no sane person could ever support seems to know no bounds.

They did not have the declared intention to violating Israeli waters - you are either being duplicitous or are woefully ill-informed. They had the intention of breaking the illegal siege of the Gaza Strip. The waters they intended to enter are not Israel's.


That's not to say that Israel has handled this well. The "aid flotilla" was a blatant provocation intended to produce precisely this kind of result. Ironically, a much larger deployment of forces might have prevented this level of bloodshed.

Since you are proceeding from your usual viewpoint that any and all actions by the IDF are deliberately homicidal and that all Israeli spokespeople tell lies, I don't expect to convince you of anything. But, enjoy your little rant at the foot of the Mound, - it's a nice day.

Ah, of course, only in the mind of a psychopathic state and its psychopathic supporters could an aid convoy be a provocation and a blockade not one.

Moving on from the lunacy. Turkey's withdrawn its ambassador and cancelled joint operations - Israel's made a ****ing huge mistake here.

[LiverpoolHibs]

In tragic irony, Turkey loses six naval personnel to a rocket attack by Kurdish 'activists'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10195996.stm

Where's the irony?

[hibsbollah]

Moving on from the lunacy. Turkey's withdrawn its ambassador and cancelled joint operations - Israel's made a ****ing huge mistake here.

Greece has also just cancelled military operations with Israel as a result.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmLl_Pq9SjM&feature=related

Two of the ships were American, I wonder how that will be reported in the States. Israel has blocked all information and communication about the incident.

[(((Fergus)))]

No, theres nothing in the footage in your link that contradicts the free.gaza statement. All it shows is confusion, scuffles and lots of people scared. It doesnt show at what point in the massacre the footage was taken.

I don't know either but I suspect since the helicopter was lowering the commandos onto an unsecured deck it will have been at the beginning of the operation. I don't think they will have boarded using grappling hooks from a speedboat then embarked the main force from a helicopter into a crowd.

Regarding what happens in the video, I see commandos lowered at speed into the middle of a crowd and at least one of the soldiers being beaten with a bar, presumably metal. Frankly, I don't know why Israel cuts these people so much slack. They had been warned many times in advance and carried on regardless - it was obvious there was going to be a violent confrontation. If I were the commander there is no way I would risk my troops by lowering them onto a deck like that. I would fire shots across the bows and, if they did not desist, disable the ship and have it towed back to Cyprus.

[khib70]

No, theres nothing in the footage in your link that contradicts the free.gaza statement. All it shows is confusion, scuffles and lots of people scared. It doesnt show at what point in the massacre the footage was taken.
Selective blindness? At what point in the video does it show Israeli soldiers firing into "sleeping people" at "the very moment they hit the deck"? The freegaza statement doesn't mention confusion or scuffles and is clearly a pack of lies.

[(((Fergus)))]

Here's another video of a peace activist apparently stabbing one of the commandos in the back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buzOWKxN2co&feature=player_embedded

[hibsbollah]

Selective blindness? At what point in the video does it show Israeli soldiers firing into "sleeping people" at "the very moment they hit the deck"? The freegaza statement doesn't mention confusion or scuffles and is clearly a pack of lies.

It doesnt show the soldiers firing into sleeping people. Since its an Israeli military release I wouldnt expect it to. This doesnt mean it didn't happen, and doesnt mean it is 'a pack of lies'. I thought you were bright enough to understand the distinction:confused:.

[(((Fergus)))]

Here's a live blog about the incident which seems the best source of information from the Israeli side
http://muqata.blogspot.com/2010/05/anti-shalit-flotilla-updates.html

Apparently the commandos were armed with paint-ball rifles :confused: their handguns to be used as last resort. If true, whoever planned this mission should be charged with negligence.

[(((Fergus)))]

It doesnt show the soldiers firing into sleeping people. Since its an Israeli military release I wouldnt expect it to. This doesnt mean it didn't happen, and doesnt mean it is 'a pack of lies'. I thought you were bright enough to understand the distinction:confused:.

That's video shot by peace activists on the boat. I presume it was broadcast live through the IHH channel.

[hibsbollah]

Frankly, I don't know why Israel cuts these people so much slack

Do you really, truly believe this? :bitchy:

[(((Fergus)))]

Do you really, truly believe this? :bitchy:

Look, the Israelis are mad murderous bloodthirsty criminals according to the people on that boat. Why then would any sane person sail right into them, ignore repeated instructions to change course, etc.? The only explanation I can see - maybe you can see another - is that they were looking for a fight.

They obviously have no chance of fighting their way through to Gaza so the aim - if there was one other than just futilely venting rage, etc. - is to become a martyr and create bad publicity for Israel in the hope that this will bring about the demise of the country in the long term.

What I don't understand is why the Israeli commander risked his troops in letting these people live out their fantasy. Why not just disable the ship and tow it away?

EDIT: I should add that part of the reason for provoking a fight with the IDF is that there might be a chance of taking down one or two soldiers with them, something which almost happened. Anything to land a blow however puny on Israel.

[(((Fergus)))]

Here's the first account I've found of the chronology of the boarding and 'ambush'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896796,00.html

"It appears that the error in planning the operation was the estimate that passengers were indeed political activists and members of humanitarian groups who seek a political provocation, but would not resort to brutal violence. The soldiers thought they will encounter Bilin-style violence; instead, they got Bangkok. The forces that disembarked from the helicopters were few; just dozens of troops – not enough to contend with the large group awaiting them."

Find it hard to believe the IDF made such a misjudgement when the type of character on the boat was obvious from the live broadcasts they had been making

[LiverpoolHibs]

Ninety years ago the Fergus's and khibs's of this world were seeking justification for the Black and Tans massacre of Gaelic football fans at Croke Park, fifty years ago they sought to defend the police who opened fire on protestors at Sharpeville, fourty years ago the sought to defend the Paras who opened fire on demonstrators in the Bogside and thirty years ago they sought to defend the South African Army in their massacre at Soweto.

Incredibly depressing.


Look, the Israelis are mad murderous bloodthirsty criminals according to the people on that boat. Why then would any sane person sail right into them, ignore repeated instructions to change course, etc.? The only explanation I can see - maybe you can see another - is that they were looking for a fight.

They obviously have no chance of fighting their way through to Gaza so the aim - if there was one other than just futilely venting rage, etc. - is to become a martyr and create bad publicity for Israel in the hope that this will bring about the demise of the country in the long term.

What I don't understand is why the Israeli commander risked his troops in letting these people live out their fantasy. Why not just disable the ship and tow it away?

EDIT: I should add that part of the reason for provoking a fight with the IDF is that there might be a chance of taking down one or two soldiers with them, something which almost happened. Anything to land a blow however puny on Israel.

What an absolute maniac.

[thekaratekid]

Here's the first account I've found of the chronology of the boarding and 'ambush'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896796,00.html

"It appears that the error in planning the operation was the estimate that passengers were indeed political activists and members of humanitarian groups who seek a political provocation, but would not resort to brutal violence. The soldiers thought they will encounter Bilin-style violence; instead, they got Bangkok. The forces that disembarked from the helicopters were few; just dozens of troops – not enough to contend with the large group awaiting them."

Find it hard to believe the IDF made such a misjudgement when the type of character on the boat was obvious from the live broadcasts they had been making

I wouldn't trust an Israeli news source to report the truth on these events.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Bradley Burston writing in Ha'aretz.

A Special Place In Hell (http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/a-special-place-in-hell-the-second-gaza-war-israel-lost-at-sea-1.293246)

A war tells a people terrible truths about itself. That is why it is so difficult to listen.

We were determined to avoid an honest look at the first Gaza war. Now, in international waters and having opened fire on an international group of humanitarian aid workers and activists, we are fighting and losing the second. For Israel, in the end, this Second Gaza War could be far more costly and painful than the first.

In going to war in Gaza in late 2008, Israeli military and political leaders hoped to teach Hamas a lesson. They succeeded. Hamas learned that the best way to fight Israel is to let Israel do what it has begun to do naturally: bluster, blunder, stonewall, and fume.
Hamas, and no less, Iran and Hezbollah, learned early on that Israel's own embargo against Hamas-ruled Gaza was the most sophisticated and powerful weapon they could have deployed against the Jewish state.

Here in Israel, we have still yet to learn the lesson: We are no longer defending Israel. We are now defending the siege. The siege itself is becoming Israel's Vietnam.

Of course, we knew this could happen. On Sunday, when the army spokesman began speaking of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in terms of an attack on Israel, MK Nahman Shai, the IDF chief spokesman during the 1991 Gulf war, spoke publicly of his worst nightmare, an operation in which Israeli troops, raiding the flotilla, might open fire on peace activists, aid workers and Nobel laureates.

Likud MK Miri Regev, who also once headed the IDF Spokesman's Office, said early Monday that the most important thing now was to deal with the negative media reports quickly, so they would go away.

But they are not going to go away. One of the ships is named for Rachel Corrie, killed while trying to bar the way of an IDF bulldozer in Gaza seven years ago. Her name, and her story, have since become a lightning rod for pro-Palestinian activism.

Perhaps most ominously, in a stepwise, lemming-like march of folly in our relations with Ankara, a regional power of crucial importance and one which, if heeded, could have helped head off the First Gaza War, we have come dangerously close to effectively declaring a state of war with Turkey.
"This is going to be a very large incident, certainly with the Turks," said Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, the cabinet minister with the most sensitive sense of Israel's ties with the Muslim world.

We explain, time and again, that we are not at war with the people of Gaza. We say it time and again because we ourselves need to believe it, and because, deep down, we do not.

There was a time, when it could be said that we knew ourselves only in wartime. No longer. Now we know nothing. Yet another problem with refraining from talks with Hamas and Iran: They know us so much better than we know ourselves.

They know, as the song about the Lebanon War suggested ("Lo Yachol La'atzor Et Zeh") that we, unable to see ourselves in any clarity, are no longer capable of stopping ourselves.

Hamas, as well as Iran, have come to know and benefit from the toxicity of Israeli domestic politics, which is all too ready to mortgage the future for the sake of a momentary apparent calm.

They know that in our desperation to protect our own image of ourselves, we will avoid modifying policies which have literally brought aid and comfort to our enemies, in particular Hamas, which the siege on Gaza has enriched through tunnel taxes and entrenched through anger toward Israel.

For many on the right, it must be said, there will be a quiet joy in all of what is about to hit the fan. "We told you so," the crowing will begin. "The world hates us, no matter what we do. So we may as well go on building [Read: 'Settling the West Bank and East Jerusalem'] and defending our borders [Read: 'Bolster Hamas and ultimately harm ourselves by refusing to lift the Gaza embargo']."

Hamas, Iran and the Israeli and Diaspora hard right know, as one, that this is a test of enormous importance for Benjamin Netanyahu. Keen to have the world focus on Iran and the threat it poses to the people of Israel, Netanyahu must recognize that the world is now focused on Israel and the threat it poses to the people of Gaza.

'Liberal Zionists' might just be starting to understand.

[(((Fergus)))]

Now here's some video from a drone above the helicopter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE

[khib70]

Ninety years ago the Fergus's and khibs's of this world were seeking justification for the Black and Tans massacre of Gaelic football fans at Croke Park, fifty years ago they sought to defend the police who opened fire on protestors at Sharpeville, fourty years ago the sought to defend the Paras who opened fire on demonstrators in the Bogside and thirty years ago they sought to defend the South African Army in their massacre at Soweto.

Incredibly depressing.



What an absolute maniac.

God, you really are chucking them out of the pram today. For your information I have never in my life uttered a word in defence of any of the above atrocities. You have absolutely no information to justify this hysterical sloganising, and absolutely no right to make these accusations.

Putting this incident on a par with these ones is an illustration of the simplistic dogmatism that lies under your carefully constructed image of intellectual rigour and omniscience. It's also an insult to the victims of Derry, Sharpeville and the rest.

I'm used to your "I'm right, I know everything, everyone who disagrees with me is a Fascist" posturings, though. I've been hearing it from bar-room revolutionaries for forty years. In the end, you're the one (yet again) defending the cynical use of naive but innocent people as cannon fodder to make a political point. I sleep very well these days myself.

[LiverpoolHibs]

God, you really are chucking them out of the pram today. For your information I have never in my life uttered a word in defence of any of the above atrocities. You have absolutely no information to justify this hysterical sloganising, and absolutely no right to make these accusations.

What am I chucking out of the pram?

I never suggested that you'd defended any of them, otherwise I would have said you had rather than saying 'Fifty years ago the Fergus's and khibs's of this world...'

I.e. the sort of person who thinks (thought) the way that you and Fergus do.


Putting this incident on a par with these ones is an illustration of the simplistic dogmatism that lies under your carefully constructed image of intellectual rigour and omniscience. It's also an insult to the victims of Derry, Sharpeville and the rest.

No it isn't. You'd like to think there's a sunbstantial difference, but you can't see that there isn't. Which leads you to act as an apologist for a massacre


I'm used to your "I'm right, I know everything, everyone who disagrees with me is a Fascist" posturings, though. I've been hearing it from bar-room revolutionaries for forty years. In the end, you're the one (yet again) defending the cynical use of naive but innocent people as cannon fodder to make a political point. I sleep very well these days myself.

Did someone inquire about your slumberings?

Who's 'using' the 'naive but innocent people'?

Just to re-cap in case anyone is losing track of what has actually happened here in the face of this onslaught of apologism.

1) The siege of Gaza is a violation of international law.

2) The people on the aid convoys were not engaged in any act illegal under international law.

3) State's hijacking boats which are in international waters is a further violation of international law.

[(((Fergus)))]

Here is some video from earlier in the voyage broadcast on al-Jazeera

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

Surely the IDF military intelligence will have been monitoring these broadcasts? :confused:

Lady at the end explains HER reason for sailing at least.

[khib70]

Here is some video from earlier in the voyage broadcast on al-Jazeera

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

Surely the IDF military intelligence will have been monitoring these broadcasts? :confused:

Lady at the end explains HER reason for sailing at least.
:agree:"Right now we face one of two happy endings: either Martyrdom or reaching Gaza."

Bit of a shame for anyone else in the convoy who hadn't reckoned on the first option, eh?

She's a good example, along with the chanting nutters pictured previously, of who's using people as cannon fodder, LH.

[(((Fergus)))]

Here's the story in the left-wing Ha'aretz - never a supporter of Israel - with reports from a Reuters cameraman inside the Israeli command room

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-commandos-gaza-flotilla-crew-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089

[hibsbollah]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/22/lift-the-gaza-blocade-nick-clegg

Clegg's view on the blockade just 5 months ago. I wonder if he's changed his mind now he's in government?

[(((Fergus)))]

Here's quite a good night vision sequence from the side of the boat showing soldiers rappelling onto the deck and meeting the reception committee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

[hibsdaft]

Fergus, Khib what the **** is yr point?

a bunch of Commando's landed on a boat full of hostiles of varying shades and enough folk had the nerve to attack them with fists and metal poles to make things difficult. thats fair game isn't it.

what the hell were they doing on those ships?

what did they think was going to happen when according to you pair these people clearly weren't all pacifists.

a load of folk are dead now and yr rabbiting on about folk having the temerity to attack heavily armed Commando's on a boat they shouldn't have been on.

its makes you look like a pair of blinkered monothought weirdo's tbh.

[(((Fergus)))]

Fergus, Khib what the **** is yr point?

a bunch of Commando's landed on a boat full of hostiles of varying shades and enough folk had the nerve to attack them with fists and metal poles to make things difficult. thats fair game isn't it.

what the hell were they doing on those ships?

what did they think was going to happen when according to you pair these people clearly weren't all pacifists.

a load of folk are dead now and yr rabbiting on about folk having the temerity to attack heavily armed Commando's on a boat they shouldn't have been on.

its makes you look like a pair of blinkered monothought weirdo's tbh.

You obviously value their lives more than they did. That's commendable, if a little blinkered.

[LiverpoolHibs]

:agree:"Right now we face one of two happy endings: either Martyrdom or reaching Gaza."

Bit of a shame for anyone else in the convoy who hadn't reckoned on the first option, eh?

She's a good example, along with the chanting nutters pictured previously, of who's using people as cannon fodder, LH.

Jesus, you're getting as weird as Fergus.

Did this woman have a hotline to the IDF, ring them up and ask, "Excuse me gents, I was wondering if you could pop round and martyr me?"

It's more of this odd fascistic victim blaming where a woman on board a boat speaking a pretty throw-away line is to be held more accountable than those conducting an illegal hijacking of a boat in international waters and responding to resistance by massacring up to twenty people.

It's a delightful thought!


Here's the story in the left-wing Ha'aretz - never a supporter of Israel - with reports from a Reuters cameraman inside the Israeli command room

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-commandos-gaza-flotilla-crew-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089

You just prove time and time again that you don't have the faintest idea about the subject you've become so vocal on.

Ha'aretz would probably be considered on the liberal left of Israeli politics but to claim that they are 'never a supporter of Israel' is just a really weird thing to say - it is avowedly Zionist in its orientation.

[Betty Boop]

Nato is to hold emergency talks tomorrow, at the request of the Turkish Prime Minister.

[hibsdaft]

You obviously value their lives more than they did. That's commendable, if a little blinkered.

i was hoping you would at least try and justify/ explain your weird position, but suit yourself.

[LiverpoolHibs]

i was hoping you would at least try and justify/ explain your weird position, but suit yourself.

A cursory glance through the thread will show that he has taken to never replying to those posts objecting to his insane/historically innacurate/racist/illogical/incoherent/psychopathic (delete as appropriate) posts on the subject. So I wouldn't expect him to change his tune any time soon.

[khib70]

A cursory glance through the thread will show that he has taken to never replying to those posts objecting to his insane/historically innacurate/racist/illogical/incoherent/psychopathic (delete as appropriate) posts on the subject. So I wouldn't expect him to change his tune any time soon.
Why should he? You're not interested in debate, merely continuously, repetitively and tediously prosletysing your blinkered black/white views. You don't respond to opposing viewpoints yourself, except with insults, slogans and wild accusations, so it's a bit pot and kettle.

For my part, I don't see why you should be allowed to get away with it

[hibsdaft]

Why should he? You're not interested in debate, merely continuously, repetitively and tediously prosletysing your blinkered black/white views. You don't respond to opposing viewpoints yourself, except with insults, slogans and wild accusations, so it's a bit pot and kettle.

For my part, I don't see why you should be allowed to get away with it

it was me that asked the question, not LiverpoolHibs.

either way he should be able to defend his position if fairly questioned on it.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Why should he? You're not interested in debate, merely continuously, repetitively and tediously prosletysing your blinkered black/white views. You don't respond to opposing viewpoints yourself, except with insults, slogans and wild accusations, so it's a bit pot and kettle.

For my part, I don't see why you should be allowed to get away with it

Well, he doesn't have to but it's usually a goof thing if people are able to engage in debate over their positions.

I'm very interested in debate, cheers. If you have glance back through the thread you'll see that my exchanges with Fergus were pretty good natured and calm - up until his epiphany whereupon he became a racist lunatic unable to manage proper, rational argument. Even after this my objections to his posts have always been rational - even when anger-filled.

None of my accusations have been wild, they have been perfectly proportionate and, frequently, logically explained. On the contrary, it is your constant accusations of 'wild' claims of racism and the like that have no foundation in fact. I don't recall any sloganeering.

Insults, undoubtedly, but I'm not really bothered about that. His (and, to a lesser extent, your) constant attempts to not just bend the truth but smash it about until it's barely recognisable in his desire to excuse slaughter, oppression and dispossession is the behaviour of someone who is slightly maniacal.

[khib70]

Well, he doesn't have to but it's usually a goof thing if people are able to engage in debate over their positions.

I'm very interested in debate, cheers. If you have glance back through the thread you'll see that my exchanges with Fergus were pretty good natured and calm - up until his epiphany whereupon he became a racist lunatic unable to manage proper, rational argument. Even after this my objections to his posts have always been rational - even when anger-filled.

None of my accusations have been wild, they have been perfectly proportionate and, frequently, logically explained. On the contrary, it is your constant accusations of 'wild' claims of racism and the like that have no foundation in fact. I don't recall any sloganeering.

Insults, undoubtedly, but I'm not really bothered about that. His (and, to a lesser extent, your) constant attempts to not just bend the truth but smash it about until it's barely recognisable in his desire to excuse slaughter, oppression and dispossession is the behaviour of someone who is slightly maniacal.
Well, there you go again. He (and I) are not "manaical" in the least. We just have the temerity to disagree with you. In your book, that makes us and anyone else who dares to differ maniacs, lunatics, racists etc. You automatically dismiss any backup material that doesn't precisely match your view as coming from suspect sources, while uncritically touting sources that back you up.

That's why I don't think you're interested in debate.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Well, there you go again. He (and I) are not "manaical" in the least. We just have the temerity to disagree with you. In your book, that makes us and anyone else who dares to differ maniacs, lunatics, racists etc. You automatically dismiss any backup material that doesn't precisely match your view as coming from suspect sources, while uncritically touting sources that back you up.

That's why I don't think you're interested in debate.

OK, but none of that is true.

As I've said, have a look back in the thread and see the exchanges prior to his 'epiphany'. He was consistently disagreeing with everything I said yet the exchanges were pretty reserved.

So it's got nothing to do with my objection being to people disagreeing with me, it's an objection to the outright racism that I have pointed out time and time again without him offering a defence.

And I'm fairly sure you know all this.

[(((Fergus)))]

i was hoping you would at least try and justify/ explain your weird position, but suit yourself.

I don't think you're interested

[hibsdaft]

I don't think you're interested

you don't know anything about me.

[IndieHibby]

This thread has descended into the pits of tedium.