Phil Innes wrote:

Dear Wlod,

I concur that the title, "Being a Jew and a Liar", is prima facie
evidence of
anti-Semitism


I am not a Jew, I am a Celt.
I have told lies.
Therefore I am a Celt and a Liar.

That is a logical statement of the result of combining two phrases,
right?

If you are a liar, how do we know you are a Celt?

Tueschen uses expressions such as "Jew officials" and "evil Jewish hatred",
he also repeats Irving's filth. There is no question that he is an
anti-Semite, as are those who support him.

..
If you are a liar, how do we know you are a Celt?


Easy: he's from Vermont. All Vermontese are Celtic liars who support
anti-semitiic Germans by not using the ad hominem fallacy against them at every
conceivable opportunity. Try to keep up, old boy!




There is no question that he is an
anti-Semite, as are those who support him.


His parents must be dragged into this?!!





Mark Trollsby already pointed out the obvious fact that *every* poster who
fails to take the "proper" side here is automatically (read: without actual
brain activity) branded an anti-semite. This is (for the truly ignorant) known
as ad hominem, or arguing to the person. (See also the title of this thread.)






I am not a Jew, I am a Celt.
I have told lies.
Therefore I am a Celt and a Liar.


Minor nitpick: Therefore you are a Celt and a liar. Only the foremost liar
here may use the capital "L" to signify his dominant status.




If you are a liar, how do we know you are a Celt?


And if he is a Celt, how do we know he is a liar?
If he is a liar, we cannot take his word that he is a Celt. And if he says
he is a liar, we cannot take his word for that, either. :-)

"Phil Innes" wrote in message .. .
Dear Readers, I don't know who is writing this stuff , or why, however...

Dear Wlod,

I concur that the title, "Being a Jew and a Liar", is prima facie
evidence of
anti-Semitism


I am not a Jew, I am a Celt.
I have told lies.
Therefore I am a Celt and a Liar.

I guess I'll have to take your word on that... ;-)

That is a logical statement of the result of combining two phrases, right?

Yes. However, the fact that a statement is logical is irrelavent to
the question as whether it is also bigoted

Is it not possible that Jewish people have told lies?

Of course: lying is part of the human condition

Or is it not
permissable to say so?

Under some circumstances I suppose that it would be "permissable".
However, I think that Rolf's usage of the phrase "a Jew and a Liar"
merits criticism. Moreover, on its merits, I think that the claim that
Rolf's comment was anti-Semitic is correct.

Clearly, the juxtaposition of Rolf's words is meant to imply that a
person's Jewishness is correlated to a tendency to lie. Otherwise, the
inclusion of the word "Jew" is a complete and utter nonsequitur. You
have established that Rolf's statement is NOT logically incorrect.
Therefore, Rolf's inclusion of "Jew" is no nonsequitur.

Given that, one must conclude that the phrase is anti-Semitic.
Further eveidence can be gained for this conclusion, by examining
Rolf's comments, in his diatribe that comprised the body of his post.

Rolf's subject header defames an entire group of people. The
individual's Jewishness is not germane to whether he is a liar or not.

Jews (and other groups) should not be condemned because of the
supposed misdeeds of a few individuals; Likewise, individual Jews
should not be maligned because of the actions of a group of Jews (e.g.
the State of Israel)

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.

Phil Innes

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message .. .
Dear Readers, I don't know who is writing this stuff , or why, however...

Dear Wlod,

I concur that the title, "Being a Jew and a Liar", is prima facie
evidence of
anti-Semitism


I am not a Jew, I am a Celt.
I have told lies.
Therefore I am a Celt and a Liar.

That is a logical statement of the result of combining two phrases, right?

Is it not possible that Jewish people have told lies? Or is it not
permissable to say so?


Indeed it is neither possible nor permissable, and that is the point.


Don't get hysterical....


pro-Israeli propaganda is necessarily true.

Pro-Israeli "propaganda" is **usually** true. Israeli supporters
have little need to lie, since the historical facts stronglyh support
their arguments.


Anti-Israeli propaganda is
necessarily false. Anyone who disagrees is anti-Semitic.

Alas, quite frequently, this is the case. However, those who
promulgate anti-Israeli "propaganda" are not **always** anti-Semites.
Many are simply ignoramuses, who simply do not know any better; some
small percentage make valid critiques of Israel.



It's
perfectly acceptable to make wild claims about the inherent "goodness"
of Israel *without* substantiating the same.

This is a straw man argument. I doubt that there are many Israeli
supporters who claim that Israel is inherently good, or that Israel is
better than, say, the U.K.


It's perfectly
acceptable, too, to make wild claims about the inherent evil of
Palestinians, whose soldiers hide behind perambulators, while gallant
Israeli soldiers protect their infants.

Actually, the "wild claim" are about the inherent evil of
Palestinian **soldiers** (militants/terrorists) in particular, NOT the
Palestinian people in general. Houslby, look at your above paragraph,
and note that the content of the image that so vexes you has become
out of balance. The image compares Palestinian "soldiers" with Israeli
soldiers, and make an implicit comment on the respective societies
from whence they came. However, there is nothing in the image that
suggests the "inherent evil" of the Palestinian baby in the
Palestinian perambulator. Rather, the image is meant to convey that
the Palestinian baby is being cynically and grotesquely exploited by
the Palestinian "soldier".

As I've demonstrated in previous posts, it is the case that many
Palestinian kids are being groomed as cannon fodder, or are used as
human shields by Palestinian militants.


Haven't you been following the
thread(s): "Middle East"?

Do keep up, old boy, what, what?

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.


You are in a minority.

Or maybe Phil Innis simply isn't as "sensible" as he'd like to
think he is!






Phil Innes

Mark Houlsby

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message
.. .
Dear Readers, I don't know who is writing this stuff , or why,
however...

Dear Wlod,

I concur that the title, "Being a Jew and a Liar", is prima facie
evidence of
anti-Semitism


I am not a Jew, I am a Celt.
I have told lies.
Therefore I am a Celt and a Liar.

I guess I'll have to take your word on that... ;-)

That is a logical statement of the result of combining two phrases,
right?

Yes. However, the fact that a statement is logical is irrelavent to
the question as whether it is also bigoted

But, Isidor, the statement is NOT logical, in terms of any sense, only
logical grammatically [This is the way you write the words which compound
two statements.] Because I lied in the past doesn't mean that I lie now.
Although I was a Celt, am I acting 'as a Celt' now?

Its the association of the two phrases, from the past to an implied present,
which contains no link.

Is it not possible that Jewish people have told lies?

Of course: lying is part of the human condition

Or is it not
permissable to say so?

Under some circumstances I suppose that it would be "permissable".
However, I think that Rolf's usage of the phrase "a Jew and a Liar"
merits criticism. Moreover, on its merits, I think that the claim that
Rolf's comment was anti-Semitic is correct.

There are many aspects of Celtic culture that seem regressive and
destructive to me. Am I defaming Celts in saying this - am I anti-Celt?

.

Given that, one must conclude that the phrase is anti-Semitic.
Further eveidence can be gained for this conclusion, by examining
Rolf's comments, in his diatribe that comprised the body of his post.

Rolf's subject header defames an entire group of people. The
individual's Jewishness is not germane to whether he is a liar or not.

Except if it were in the sense I mention above. We are now a long way from
the original text. What do you think of that now?

In your very next post you wrote, in this sequence:
~~~~~~~~
Do keep up, old boy, what, what?

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused
and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.


You are in a minority.

Or maybe Phil Innis simply isn't as "sensible" as he'd like to
think he is!
~~~~~~~

First there is the fatuous 'old boy' stuff then there follows "sensible" in
inverted commas, proposing that I would like to think of myself that way,
and that it is a quotation.

I am not a boy, no English 'old boy', I did not make a claim to wish to seem
sensible to myself.

So the writer of that piece becomes inventive and, well, lies! right

Will you say it is only rhetorical, or something? Wasn't your intent to
diminish someone else - not based on what they said, but making up something
they said in order to rubbish them a bit? Just a petty-defamation. I will
survive.

Jews (and other groups) should not be condemned because of the
supposed misdeeds of a few individuals; Likewise, individual Jews
should not be maligned because of the actions of a group of Jews (e.g.
the State of Israel)

O. I agree. However, lets be more honest connecting what is singular and
what is plural, and their inter-relation. Otherwise it is so easy to invent
what people think, isn't it?

Phil

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused
and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.

Phil Innes

"Phil Innes" wrote in message .. .
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
om...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message
.. .
Dear Readers, I don't know who is writing this stuff , or why,
however...

Dear Wlod,

I concur that the title, "Being a Jew and a Liar", is prima facie
evidence of
anti-Semitism


I am not a Jew, I am a Celt.
I have told lies.
Therefore I am a Celt and a Liar.

That is a logical statement of the result of combining two phrases,
right?

Is it not possible that Jewish people have told lies? Or is it not
permissable to say so?


Indeed it is neither possible nor permissable, and that is the point.
pro-Israeli propaganda is necessarily true.

Wait! What is this 'propaganda'? I am not saying any propaganda. I didn't
offer you to freely associate on what I wrote. If you choose to do so, then
I suppose you are free to do so, but you waste my time.


You missed the irony. If you *read* "Middle East" you will see that we concur.

Anti-Israeli propaganda is
necessarily false. Anyone who disagrees is anti-Semitic. It's
perfectly acceptable to make wild claims about the inherent "goodness"
of Israel *without* substantiating the same. It's perfectly
acceptable, too, to make wild claims about the inherent evil of
Palestinians, whose soldiers hide behind perambulators, while gallant
Israeli soldiers protect their infants. Haven't you been following the
thread(s): "Middle East"?

Do keep up, old boy, what, what?

What indeed?

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused
and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.


You are in a minority.

Ah! This is a popularity contest!


No, it's a call-to-arms.

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes

Phil Innes

Mark Houlsby

(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message .. .
Dear Readers, I don't know who is writing this stuff , or why, however...

Dear Wlod,

I concur that the title, "Being a Jew and a Liar", is prima facie
evidence of
anti-Semitism


I am not a Jew, I am a Celt.
I have told lies.
Therefore I am a Celt and a Liar.

That is a logical statement of the result of combining two phrases, right?

Is it not possible that Jewish people have told lies? Or is it not
permissable to say so?


Indeed it is neither possible nor permissable, and that is the point.


Don't get hysterical....



WHO'S HYSTERICAL??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ********SPEAK UP, MAN!!!!!********

pro-Israeli propaganda is necessarily true.

Pro-Israeli "propaganda" is **usually** true.

You're suggesting that the image to which Parparov's link is directed
is "true", are you?

It's as accurate a depiction of reality as an unretouched photograph,
right?


Israeli supporters
have little need to lie, since the historical facts stronglyh support
their arguments.


Yet they do lie. Go figure.


Anti-Israeli propaganda is
necessarily false. Anyone who disagrees is anti-Semitic.

Alas, quite frequently, this is the case.

Oh yes, and quite frequently, it is not the case. Such as the case of
the Israeli government's Settlement policy.

However, those who
promulgate anti-Israeli "propaganda" are not **always** anti-Semites.
Many are simply ignoramuses,


.....ignorami......

who simply do not know any better; some
small percentage make valid critiques of Israel.


So, is opposition to the Israeli government's Settlement policy valid
or invalid?

It's
perfectly acceptable to make wild claims about the inherent "goodness"
of Israel *without* substantiating the same.

This is a straw man argument.

Is it?


I doubt that there are many Israeli
supporters who claim that Israel is inherently good,


Earlier, in the "Middle East" thread, Wlod made a small number of
outlandish and unsubstantiated claims about Israel. You jumped in to
defend him, but so far you have failed to provide *any* evidence which
might suggest that your having done so was justified. Are you going to
do that, or are you simply going to continue to argue from a position
of ignorant denial?


or that Israel is
better than, say, the U.K.


Whether Israel is better than the U.K. is a moot point. The U.K. is
pretty bad.


It's perfectly
acceptable, too, to make wild claims about the inherent evil of
Palestinians, whose soldiers hide behind perambulators, while gallant
Israeli soldiers protect their infants.

Actually, the "wild claim" are about the inherent evil of
Palestinian **soldiers** (militants/terrorists) in particular, NOT the
Palestinian people in general. Houslby, look at your above paragraph,
and note that the content of the image that so vexes you has become
out of balance. The image compares Palestinian "soldiers" with Israeli
soldiers, and make an implicit comment on the respective societies
from whence they came. However, there is nothing in the image that
suggests the "inherent evil" of the Palestinian baby in the
Palestinian perambulator. Rather, the image is meant to convey that
the Palestinian baby is being cynically and grotesquely exploited by
the Palestinian "soldier".


Well, gee, I'm glad you explained that one, I'd never have got it
otherwise.

What you're *now* saying, then, is that the *propaganda* image is
*inherently* distorted - which is *precisely* MY objection to it -
precisely the reason *why* I now consider Parparov to be beneath
contempt.

As I've demonstrated in previous posts, it is the case that many
Palestinian kids are being groomed as cannon fodder, or are used as
human shields by Palestinian militants.


Yes. Why do they do that, do you suppose? How does Israel's Settlement
Policy help to solve these problems?

Haven't you been following the
thread(s): "Middle East"?

Do keep up, old boy, what, what?

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.


You are in a minority.

Or maybe Phil Innis simply isn't as "sensible" as he'd like to
think he is!


"Phil Innis (sic)" (whoever he is) may well not be 'as "sensible" as
he'd like to think he is', but Mr. InnEs raises a valid point that
some criticism of Israel is *justified* and, as such, it is *not*
INHERENTLY anti-Semitic.

Do you agree?

..
Clearly, the juxtaposition of Rolf's words is meant to imply that a
person's Jewishness is correlated to a tendency to lie.


Congratulations: you have missed the entire point of Mr. Tueschen's post --
no small feat, that.


Far from asserting that any such "correleation" exists, Mr. Tueschen noted
that his criticism was *automatically* branded as "anti-semitic," merely
because the liar in question was a Jew, while Mr. Tueschen was (ever so
conveniently) a German.

In fact, what we see here is indeed bigotry, but not of the sort claimed.
Bigotry against Germans, who are automatically suspected of anti-semitism as
well as fascism, because of their nationality.




Jews (and other groups) should not be condemned because of the
supposed misdeeds of a few individuals; Likewise, individual Jews
should not be maligned because of the actions of a group of Jews (e.g.
the State of Israel)


I wish this would equally apply to the issue of maligning Americans based
upon what our government has done (and is still doing).
It is not that we Americans refuse to accept responsibility for our
government's actions, it is more a recognition of the fact that a small
minority of Americans have all the decision-making powers, and those who make
the political decisions are the ones directly responsible for their outcomes,
not those who happen to also reside within the same political borders, by
accident of birth.




Mr. Tueschen's crime (apart from using the word "liar" in the same sentence
with the sacred word, "Jew"), was in taking strong exception to a clear
misstatement of facts.
A German, you see, is not *allowed* to be offended by anything uttered by a
Jew, no matter how absurd, because the sins of the (German) fathers are visited
upon his children, to the seventh generation. They are so visited, if not by
some higher power, then at least by the bigots of this world.





I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism'
should not be confused and indeed diminished by
such trite objections as are made here.


Note well how the "discussion" has tended to surround Mr. Tueschen himself.
"Kill the messenger," the King ordered! "This will teach them not to send me
any more bad news," he muttered....

"Phil Innes" wrote in message ...
"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message
.. .
Dear Readers, I don't know who is writing this stuff , or why,
however...

Dear Wlod,

I concur that the title, "Being a Jew and a Liar", is prima facie
evidence of
anti-Semitism


I am not a Jew, I am a Celt.
I have told lies.
Therefore I am a Celt and a Liar.

I guess I'll have to take your word on that... ;-)

That is a logical statement of the result of combining two phrases,
right?

Yes. However, the fact that a statement is logical is irrelavent to
the question as whether it is also bigoted

But, Isidor, the statement is NOT logical, in terms of any sense, only
logical grammatically [This is the way you write the words which compound
two statements.] Because I lied in the past doesn't mean that I lie now.
Although I was a Celt, am I acting 'as a Celt' now?

Its the association of the two phrases, from the past to an implied present,
which contains no link.

Is it not possible that Jewish people have told lies?

Of course: lying is part of the human condition

Or is it not
permissable to say so?

Under some circumstances I suppose that it would be "permissable".
However, I think that Rolf's usage of the phrase "a Jew and a Liar"
merits criticism. Moreover, on its merits, I think that the claim that
Rolf's comment was anti-Semitic is correct.

There are many aspects of Celtic culture that seem regressive and
destructive to me. Am I defaming Celts in saying this - am I anti-Celt?

.

Given that, one must conclude that the phrase is anti-Semitic.
Further eveidence can be gained for this conclusion, by examining
Rolf's comments, in his diatribe that comprised the body of his post.

Rolf's subject header defames an entire group of people. The
individual's Jewishness is not germane to whether he is a liar or not.

Except if it were in the sense I mention above. We are now a long way from
the original text. What do you think of that now?

In your very next post you wrote, in this sequence:
~~~~~~~~
Do keep up, old boy, what, what?


Phil, it was I, Mark, who wrote "Do keep up...", *not* "Gunsberg"
here...

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused
and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.


You are in a minority.


I wrote "You are..." too.

Or maybe Phil Innis simply isn't as "sensible" as he'd like to
think he is!
~~~~~~~

First there is the fatuous 'old boy' stuff then there follows "sensible" in
inverted commas, proposing that I would like to think of myself that way,
and that it is a quotation.


No, I don't think that that's what it means at all. I don't remember
who described quotation marks as "the literary equivalent of surgical
gloves". It may have been G. K. Chesterton, but it probably wasn't
(can anyone enlighten me, please?).

Anyways I suspect that the Zionist troll Gunsberg's intention was to
imply that actually, you're not sensible at all. I would beg to differ
with this assertion, yet I believe that, like me, sometimes you do not
read as carefully as you might.

I am not a boy, no English 'old boy', I did not make a claim to wish to seem
sensible to myself.

So the writer of that piece becomes inventive and, well, lies! right


wrong

Will you say it is only rhetorical, or something? Wasn't your intent to
diminish someone else - not based on what they said, but making up something
they said in order to rubbish them a bit? Just a petty-defamation. I will
survive.

Jews (and other groups) should not be condemned because of the
supposed misdeeds of a few individuals; Likewise, individual Jews
should not be maligned because of the actions of a group of Jews (e.g.
the State of Israel)

O. I agree. However, lets be more honest connecting what is singular and
what is plural, and their inter-relation.

....and exactly who wrote what to whom....

Otherwise it is so easy to invent
what people think, isn't it?


Indeed it is. Luckily, Google keeps a record.

Phil

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused
and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.

Phil Innes

Mark

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message .. .
Dear Readers, I don't know who is writing this stuff , or why, however...

Dear Wlod,

I concur that the title, "Being a Jew and a Liar", is prima facie
evidence of
anti-Semitism


I am not a Jew, I am a Celt.
I have told lies.
Therefore I am a Celt and a Liar.

That is a logical statement of the result of combining two phrases, right?

Is it not possible that Jewish people have told lies? Or is it not
permissable to say so?


Indeed it is neither possible nor permissable, and that is the point.


Don't get hysterical....



WHO'S HYSTERICAL??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ********SPEAK UP, MAN!!!!!********

pro-Israeli propaganda is necessarily true.

Pro-Israeli "propaganda" is **usually** true.

You're suggesting that the image to which Parparov's link is directed
is "true", are you?

It is not "The Truth", but it reflects a sad (and outrageous)
reality of the Israeli--Palestinian struggle. Obviously, even if an
image is worth a thousand words, it does not suffice to fully reflect
the realities of a multi-faceted situation.

BUT, Palestinian militants DO exploit kids as cannon fodder and
human shields. They DO regularly, with great deliberation, attack
Israeli kids

It's as accurate a depiction of reality as an unretouched photograph,
right?

I didn't say that. Of course, it depends on the nature of the
unretouched photograph. For instance, even an unretouched photo could
be shot out of context.

Israeli supporters
have little need to lie, since the historical facts stronglyh support
their arguments.


Yet they do lie.

Not as consistantly, egregiously, or as frequestly as do
Palestinian apologists.


Go figure.


Anti-Israeli propaganda is
necessarily false. Anyone who disagrees is anti-Semitic.

Alas, quite frequently, this is the case.

Oh yes, and quite frequently, it is not the case. Such as the case of
the Israeli government's Settlement policy.

Some critics of the Israeli government's settlement policy are
Ant-semitic; others are not. You have a tendency to over-generalize.

However, those who
promulgate anti-Israeli "propaganda" are not **always** anti-Semites.
Many are simply ignoramuses,


....ignorami......

If we were writing Latin, perhaps this would be correct.

However, we are communicating in English

ignoramus

SYLLABICATION: ig·no·ra·mus
PRONUNCIATION: gn-rms
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. ig·no·ra·mus·es
An ignorant person.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000

who simply do not know any better; some
small percentage make valid critiques of Israel.


So, is opposition to the Israeli government's Settlement policy valid
or invalid?

It may be either, depending on the nature of the opposition,
and who is doing the opposing.

Does everything have to be Black or White with you?

It's
perfectly acceptable to make wild claims about the inherent "goodness"
of Israel *without* substantiating the same.

This is a straw man argument.

Is it?


I doubt that there are many Israeli
supporters who claim that Israel is inherently good,


Earlier, in the "Middle East" thread, Wlod made a small number of
outlandish and unsubstantiated claims about Israel. You jumped in to
defend him, but so far you have failed to provide *any* evidence which
might suggest that your having done so was justified.

I thought that the claims were, for the most, self-evident. He
claimed, for instance, that Israel is a Democracry. How outlandish!
Now, if you choose not to accept that fact, there is little use in me
trying to convince you further with "evidence". No doubt, you'd
dismiss it all as Zionist Propaganda, anyhow.

Are you going to
do that, or are you simply going to continue to argue from a position
of ignorant denial?

What, precisely, constitutes my "ignorant denial"? If we were to
have a "****ing contest", I suspect that I am far more knowledgeable
about the Israel--Arab (Palestinian) conflict than you are.


or that Israel is
better than, say, the U.K.


Whether Israel is better than the U.K. is a moot point. The U.K. is
pretty bad.

Then, if the U.K., is "pretty bad", the standard for conduct of a
nation is pretty low. Why then pick on Israel? What is the
justification for the exceptionalism?

Are there not places in the world where more people are killed?
Are there not other countries (or indigenous areas) which are
occupied?
Are there not other countries where human rights abuses take place
on a greater scale, under more aggravated circumstance, and of greater
ferocity?


It's perfectly
acceptable, too, to make wild claims about the inherent evil of
Palestinians, whose soldiers hide behind perambulators, while gallant
Israeli soldiers protect their infants.

Actually, the "wild claim" are about the inherent evil of
Palestinian **soldiers** (militants/terrorists) in particular, NOT the
Palestinian people in general. Houslby, look at your above paragraph,
and note that the content of the image that so vexes you has become
out of balance. The image compares Palestinian "soldiers" with Israeli
soldiers, and make an implicit comment on the respective societies
from whence they came. However, there is nothing in the image that
suggests the "inherent evil" of the Palestinian baby in the
Palestinian perambulator. Rather, the image is meant to convey that
the Palestinian baby is being cynically and grotesquely exploited by
the Palestinian "soldier".


Well, gee, I'm glad you explained that one, I'd never have got it
otherwise.

What you're *now* saying, then, is that the *propaganda* image is
*inherently* distorted - which is *precisely* MY objection to it -
precisely the reason *why* I now consider Parparov to be beneath
contempt.

No, **YOUR** interpretation of the image was distorted. You
revealed your own prejudice when you claimed that the image depicted
**ALL** Palestinians as evil. Yet the image only featured Palestinian
"soldiers" (militants/terrorists) and Israeli soldiers, along with
innocent children. The image only suggests that the Palestinian
"soldiers" (and by extension, all those involved with the machinery of
death) are evil, NOT the rest of the Palestinian population. You will
note, in fact, that the image implies that the Paletinian children
(symbolized by the pram) are innocent victims of the....Palestinian
"soldiers".

As I've demonstrated in previous posts, it is the case that many
Palestinian kids are being groomed as cannon fodder, or are used as
human shields by Palestinian militants.


Yes. Why do they do that, do you suppose?

Because they are evil.


How does Israel's Settlement
Policy help to solve these problems?

It doesn't help to solve the problem of Palestinian terrorism. I
never claimed that it does. The security fence will help to solve the
problems.

In any case, I do not subscribe to the belief that Israel's
Settlement Policy **justifies** the Palestinian actions (i.e.
terrorism)

Haven't you been following the
thread(s): "Middle East"?

Do keep up, old boy, what, what?

I think what is sensibly meant by 'anti-semitism' should not be confused and
indeed diminished by such trite objections as are made here.


You are in a minority.

Or maybe Phil Innis simply isn't as "sensible" as he'd like to
think he is!


"Phil Innis (sic)" (whoever he is) may well not be 'as "sensible" as
he'd like to think he is', but Mr. InnEs raises a valid point that
some criticism of Israel is *justified* and, as such, it is *not*
INHERENTLY anti-Semitic.

Do you agree?

Yes, of course. I simply have been making the equally valid point
that some (much) critism of Israel is **unjustified** and, as such,
**IS** anti-Semitic.
And, depending of the nature of the criticism, it may even be
"INHERENTLY anti-Semitic" in nature.

The issue is NOT Black or White, remember?