(Nick) wrote in message . com...
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
Have you ever wondered why evidently more countries (and individuals)
today have decided to boycott Israel?

Have you ever wondered why all of the Muslim Arab countries
treat women in an oppressive manner, and deny them more than a
fraction of the Human Rights that they would be afforded in the West?

Perhaps your arguement is that because so many countries
discriminate against Israel, that their prejudicial policies are both
valid and correct?

Oh, yes. Antisemitism is the keyword.

"I worship God, not the state of Israel."
--a friend of mine (the son of Jews who fled Germany in 1939)

It's a favourite ad hominem practice, particularly in the United States,
of Israel's professed supporters to denounce all criticism of Israel's
government with regard to its policies and practices toward the Palestinians
as motivated purely by anti-Semitism, as though all those policies and
practices must be above criticism. Does "antisemitism is the keyword"
explain why my Jewish friends (some of whom have lived in Israel and even
fought in wars for Israel) tend to be quite critical of Israel?

snip

What does the attitude of your friends have to do with whether
the Boycott of Israeli competitors is due to Anti-Semitism?

Not all people who criticise Israel are Anti-Semitic, to be sure.
However, it is also the case that MANY Muslims in general, and Arab
Muslims in particular, ARE anti-Semitic. The evidence for this comes
from survey after survey that ask questions about Muslim/Arab
sentiments towards Jews.

Israel is often the ONLY country in Asia that is the object of
Boycotts. However, the question must be asked:

Is Israel's human rights record worse than that of Syria? Of Iran?
Of Burma?
Of Saudi Arabia? Of North Korea? Of China? No, of course not. Yet,
clearly, there must be something exceptional about Israel. So, is
Israel being boycotted because she is a Democratic state, and the Arab
countries are not? Because she respects and guarantees the rights of
women? Because she protects people who ar LGBT? Because she rescues
the Falashas from oppression?

The obvious, and simplest explanation is Anti-Semitism on the part
of a core group of Muslim/Arab nations, and expediency on the part of
other countries.

The boycott is grounded in hypocrisy: the truly egregious abusers
of human rights must find a scapegoat to pin blame for the world's
ills upon. Thus, the Muslim/Arab despot can claim: See? I'm not so
bad. Do you see MY county being boycotted?

Those individuals (and nations) that opt for a boycott of Israel do
so out either out of bigotry, or because of simplistic thinking
stemming from gross ignorance.

Can the majority of countries in Asia get it wrong? Can most people
on Earth be mistaken about a question? Yes, most definitely.






So we're more or less forced to compete within Europe.
At least in chess, the benefit of such a setup is mutual.

With all due respect, your apparent political opinions do not
represent those of most of my Israeli friends and acquaintances.

But don't you think European chess benefits from the Israeli
chessplayers being a part of it?

I believe that Israeli chess-players would benefit chess wherever they play.

I was referring to Roman Parparov's "apparent political opinions" in general.

"The broader political effect was equally disappointing. I had hoped that
an acquaintance with the (historical) facts would induce Israeli public
opinion to rethink its attitude toward the Palestinians--the 1948 refugees
in particular--and, by recognising Israel's culpability in that tragedy,
adopt a more enlightened view toward Palestinian resentments and claims.
Those hopes, far from being fulfilled, actually backfired. Whether in public
debate or private conversation, it is difficult to detect remorse over Israel's
treatment of the Palestinians in 1948. On the contrary: right-wingers
frequently incline towards a kind of reverse morality; conceding that Israel
engineered the 1948 exodus, they consequently imply--or declare outright--that
there can be no moral constraints against expelling much or all of the Arab
population remaining in Israel or the occupied territories."
--Peretz Kidron ('Truth Whereby Nations Live' in "Blaming the Victims:
Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question, p. 95)

Roman Parparov wrote:
As for "ruled by Ashkenazi Jews", that is a debatable statement.

Your *misquoted* "ruled by Ashkenazi Jews" is *not* a statement that I
wrote. For the record, I wrote: "Israel...ruled *primarily* by Ashkenazi
Jews."

I know that there are some influential Sephardic Jews in Israeli politics.
As far as I know, given that the Ashkenazim have a lower birth rate than
the Sephardim, notwithstanding their generally lower economic status,
Sephardic Jews eventually should become more politically influential.

Well, before the last elections we had:
a Sephardic Minister of Defence
a Sephardic Minister of Finance
a purely Sephardic party being third by size in the Knesset with
five ministers in the government.
a Sephardic Chief of Staff
a Sephardic Chief of Air Force
a Sephardic Chief of Trade Unions

All those are significant *secondary* positions of power (no Sephardic
Prime Minister, eh?), whose mention corroborates what I have written:
1) "There are some influential Sephardic Jews in Israeli politics."
2) But "Israel (is) ruled *primarily* by Ashkenazi Jews."

So now you are basing you entire argument on the fact that the
Israeli Prime Minister is not Sephardic. As demonstrated above, the
Sephardic presence in Government goes beyond mere tokenism. It is
extremely doubtful that the Ashkenazis could simply group together,
and implement policy, irrespective of the wishes of the Sephardim. If
that happened, the Israeli governement would lose critical support,
and would fall within the day to a no confidence vote.

Parparov brings more to the "debate" than you do, Nick

'Seldom do they prove patient martyrs who are punished unjustly.'
--Thomas Nashe (The Unfortunate Traveller)

--Nick

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message . com...
(Nick) wrote in message . com...
repeats trite anti-Semitic arguments:

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
Have you ever wondered why evidently more countries (and individuals)
today have decided to boycott Israel?

Oh, yes. Antisemitism is the keyword.

It's a favourite ad hominem practice,
particularly in the United States,
of Israel's professed supporters to
denounce all criticism of Israel's
government with regard to its policies
and practices toward the Palestinians
as motivated purely by anti-Semitism,
as though all those policies and
practices must be above criticism.

The above is an anti-Semitic cliche.

Justify this unsupported dismissal. It seems to me that there are
two possible approaches you might adopt:

1) Prove that Israel's policies and practices towards the Palestinians
are *never* wrong.

2) Prove that this ad hominem practice does not exist in, for example,
the United States.

Actually, it would be more logical to have him demonstrate that
people who could reasonably be construed as Anti-Semitic tend to
utilize the cliche that Israeli supporters tend to denounce criticism
of Israel as being Anti-Semitic in nature.


There are hundreds
of governments and countries, whose criticism would
be a thousand times more justified but anti-Semites
and some naives have to zero on Israel,

Ok then, *list* _hundreds_ of governments and countries which fit your
characterisation, and *demonstrate* that criticism of these _hundreds_
of governments and countries "would be a thousand times more
justified" than, say,
criticising the Israeli government's policy of forcibly dispossessing
Palestinians of land and property.

on the country
whose very right to exist is denied by other countries
and organizations. Where is the criticism of those
others?

Have you looked? Can you demonstrate that no such criticism of
whatever countries you have in mind *does not exist* ANYWHERE?


Why should he have to demonstrate that? What is the point of
asking him to demonstrate a negative proposition, anyhow?

Insted, it is so "nice" to criticise a country,
where terrorists kill children, cicilians, kill
anybody in public buses, restaurants, in the houses
of worship, in supermarkets, in dancing clubs, in schools
and kinfergartens... But well meaning hypocrites zero
on criticising the victims.


Prove this.

Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you so desperate to
claim a win in the debate.

Clearly such hypocritical criticism of Israel, as the victim of
terrorist violence, takes place.


For years Israel was able to punish terrorists
in a surgical way with zero civilian casualties.

"Zero" civilian casualties? Which period of "years" did you have in
mind?
Prove that there were "zero" civilian casualties during this period of
"years".

Then the terrorists found their "clever" (read
cowardish) method--they mingle with the general
population, they abuse schools, hospitals,
medical vehicles, houses of worship... The Israeli
casualties went up. This is out of the sheer
desperation that Israel in her fight against the
everyday, everywhere present terror cannot avoid
civilian casualties anymore. If a guy surrounded
by a few willing cicilians was shooting at your
children at their school you would, certainly
should shoot back. You may prefer to shoot just him,
but when those civilians are sticking to the
terrorist you hardly have any choice.

explain why my Jewish friends (some of whom have
lived in Israel and even fought in wars for Israel)
tend to be quite critical of Israel?

And that's another anti-semitic trite trick.
Provide meritoric arguments. When people
discuss things among themselves, all you
can do is to use their arguments but NOT
the fact, that these arguments were pronounced
by themselves.

A time ago I watched a tv meeting/discussion
of Israelis and Paletinians. Israelis had
represented entiore array of poluitical views and
options and even styles. Palestynians had very
little to say in that discussion, they made
an impression of being afraid to voice any
sincere view, they were afraid not of Israelis
but if their own parties, powers, whoever.
They were not free to discuss the issues.
Some of the liberal Israelis were telling Palestinians:
we want to talk to you, but we have nobody to
talk to, no Palestinians step forward. They were
met with silnce. But of course. Which Palestinian
would say publically, on tv: Israel, like every
other country, has its right to exist without
being harrassed by its neighbors. We want
an economic and cultural cooperation with Israel.
Perhaps there are Palestinians who would love it.
But by saying so they would risk their life
from the hands of Arabic terrorist organization,
ot from a random Palestinian hand, they would be
considered "traitors".

All those are significant *secondary* positions of power (no Sephardic
Prime Minister, eh?), whose mention corroborates what I have written:
1) "There are some influential Sephardic Jews in Israeli politics."
2) But "Israel (is) ruled *primarily* by Ashkenazi Jews."

--Nick

What is it, Nick, on your part? A microracism on
the others' behalf? Are you such a great Israeli
expert that you can claim that the qualified
candidates were widely discriminated against based
on their micro-ethnic identity? Because if all
you have are ethnic stats, then your argument is racist.

Prove that it's "racist", rather than, say, simply directed against
some of the *policies* of the *Israeli government*, while providing
evidence which may explain part of the reason why perhaps the *Israeli
government*, in common with many governments, is not above criticism,
as you have clearly implied.

Otherwise you need to be way more specific, and
on a statistically significant scale.

How about demanding that Israel is recognized,
and then having a discussion.

Ok, how about demanding that Israel stops dispossessing Palestinians
and seizing their lands and property, first?

The Israelis are only seizing a small percentage of Arab lands
and properties. The Palestinian terrorists are deliberately murdering
Jewish kids, women, and old folk. Palestinian terror should stop, and
THEN there can be a discussion about allowing the Palestinians a
degeee of self-determination.

Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Your view is horribly biased
to the point that you seem to believe that the *Israeli government*
can do *no wrong*.

Prove that Parparov's view is so biased!

Do you actually believe that?

Nick is *not* denying Israel the right to exist.

Until then how
about condemning the governments which do not
recognize the right of one of the people to
exist, to have their country.

It is in the deepest interest of Israel
to have a prospering, friendly Palestine as
its neighbor.

Uh huh...and the aggressive Settlement policy furthers this
aim...how...exactly?

Now is not a good time to create a prospering, friendly Palestine,
anymore than 1942 was a good time for the allies to bring about a
"prospering, friendly", Germany. The agressive settlement policy will
cease when the time is opportune. There is no sense for the Israeli
government to make concessions when the sacrifice would only lead to
greater demands on the part of the PLO government, and not a
reciprocal gesture.

No minority of ortodox or
even crazy guys could change it. The situation
today is much more difficult than it was several
years ago. It is so, because several countries
in the region actively have supported the
terrorism against Israel, They didn't give
a damn about Palestinians. They were just using
Palestinians against the Palestinian interest.
That why there is still no Palestine state.
Several other Arab or Moslem countries doesn't
want peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
Solve this problem and there will be peace
soon, despite the injuries of the past few years.


How is that problem to be solved, do you think?

That problem may well be solved or ameliorated as a residual
effect of the Coalition "War on Terror".

It is sad to see for years the growing European new
antiSemitism, strongly supported by media (tv, press...),
especially by the anti-semitic (and anti-American)
Reuters with its extreme abusive, word manipulating newspeech,
ugh, ack...

Wlod

You have much to say in criticising Nick, yet you seem conveniently to
fail to understand that you make outlandish, unsupportable claims *on
behalf of the Israeli government* (whose policies do not necessarily
always reflect the views of *all* of Israel's citizens), while
simultaneously condemning many of the world's other nations.

Unless you justify your having done these things, you may seem not to
be as qualified to criticise Nick's *supported* assertions as you
appear to believe that you are.

ugh, ack...

Mark

(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message . com...
(Nick) wrote in message . com...
repeats trite anti-Semitic arguments:

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
Have you ever wondered why evidently more countries (and individuals)
today have decided to boycott Israel?

Oh, yes. Antisemitism is the keyword.

It's a favourite ad hominem practice,
particularly in the United States,
of Israel's professed supporters to
denounce all criticism of Israel's
government with regard to its policies
and practices toward the Palestinians
as motivated purely by anti-Semitism,
as though all those policies and
practices must be above criticism.

The above is an anti-Semitic cliche.

Justify this unsupported dismissal. It seems to me that there are
two possible approaches you might adopt:

1) Prove that Israel's policies and practices towards the Palestinians
are *never* wrong.

2) Prove that this ad hominem practice does not exist in, for example,
the United States.

Actually, it would be more logical to have him demonstrate that
people who could reasonably be construed as Anti-Semitic tend to
utilize the cliche that Israeli supporters tend to denounce criticism
of Israel as being Anti-Semitic in nature.

Oh yes? Provide evidence of this.



There are hundreds
of governments and countries, whose criticism would
be a thousand times more justified but anti-Semites
and some naives have to zero on Israel,

Ok then, *list* _hundreds_ of governments and countries which fit your
characterisation, and *demonstrate* that criticism of these _hundreds_
of governments and countries "would be a thousand times more
justified" than, say,
criticising the Israeli government's policy of forcibly dispossessing
Palestinians of land and property.

on the country
whose very right to exist is denied by other countries
and organizations. Where is the criticism of those
others?

Have you looked? Can you demonstrate that no such criticism of
whatever countries you have in mind *does not exist* ANYWHERE?


Why should he have to demonstrate that?

Ummmm...because, like you, he's an ignorant racist.

What is the point of
asking him to demonstrate a negative proposition, anyhow?

I was attempting to illustrate how ignorant and stupid he is.


Insted, it is so "nice" to criticise a country,
where terrorists kill children, cicilians, kill
anybody in public buses, restaurants, in the houses
of worship, in supermarkets, in dancing clubs, in schools
and kinfergartens... But well meaning hypocrites zero
on criticising the victims.


Prove this.

Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you so desperate to
claim a win in the debate.


I'm being *objective* in the face of racism, moron. Wake up and smell
the coffee.

Clearly such hypocritical criticism of Israel, as the victim of
terrorist violence, takes place.


Well Duh!


For years Israel was able to punish terrorists
in a surgical way with zero civilian casualties.

"Zero" civilian casualties? Which period of "years" did you have in
mind?
Prove that there were "zero" civilian casualties during this period of
"years".

Then the terrorists found their "clever" (read
cowardish) method--they mingle with the general
population, they abuse schools, hospitals,
medical vehicles, houses of worship... The Israeli
casualties went up. This is out of the sheer
desperation that Israel in her fight against the
everyday, everywhere present terror cannot avoid
civilian casualties anymore. If a guy surrounded
by a few willing cicilians was shooting at your
children at their school you would, certainly
should shoot back. You may prefer to shoot just him,
but when those civilians are sticking to the
terrorist you hardly have any choice.

explain why my Jewish friends (some of whom have
lived in Israel and even fought in wars for Israel)
tend to be quite critical of Israel?

And that's another anti-semitic trite trick.
Provide meritoric arguments. When people
discuss things among themselves, all you
can do is to use their arguments but NOT
the fact, that these arguments were pronounced
by themselves.

A time ago I watched a tv meeting/discussion
of Israelis and Paletinians. Israelis had
represented entiore array of poluitical views and
options and even styles. Palestynians had very
little to say in that discussion, they made
an impression of being afraid to voice any
sincere view, they were afraid not of Israelis
but if their own parties, powers, whoever.
They were not free to discuss the issues.
Some of the liberal Israelis were telling Palestinians:
we want to talk to you, but we have nobody to
talk to, no Palestinians step forward. They were
met with silnce. But of course. Which Palestinian
would say publically, on tv: Israel, like every
other country, has its right to exist without
being harrassed by its neighbors. We want
an economic and cultural cooperation with Israel.
Perhaps there are Palestinians who would love it.
But by saying so they would risk their life
from the hands of Arabic terrorist organization,
ot from a random Palestinian hand, they would be
considered "traitors".

All those are significant *secondary* positions of power (no Sephardic
Prime Minister, eh?), whose mention corroborates what I have written:
1) "There are some influential Sephardic Jews in Israeli politics."
2) But "Israel (is) ruled *primarily* by Ashkenazi Jews."

--Nick

What is it, Nick, on your part? A microracism on
the others' behalf? Are you such a great Israeli
expert that you can claim that the qualified
candidates were widely discriminated against based
on their micro-ethnic identity? Because if all
you have are ethnic stats, then your argument is racist.

Prove that it's "racist", rather than, say, simply directed against
some of the *policies* of the *Israeli government*, while providing
evidence which may explain part of the reason why perhaps the *Israeli
government*, in common with many governments, is not above criticism,
as you have clearly implied.

Otherwise you need to be way more specific, and
on a statistically significant scale.

How about demanding that Israel is recognized,
and then having a discussion.

Ok, how about demanding that Israel stops dispossessing Palestinians
and seizing their lands and property, first?

The Israelis are only seizing a small percentage of Arab lands
and properties.

Provide *evidence* of this. Provide *evidence* of how few Palestinians
have been affected by this fundamentally racist policy.

The Palestinian terrorists are deliberately murdering
Jewish kids, women, and old folk.


Yes. They're doing it in *retaliation*. It cuts *both ways*. That's
the point you racists miss.

Palestinian terror should stop,

Should it? Why? Israeli terror continues unabated. Palestinians are
definitely *worse off*. Does that make Palestinians inferior?

? and
THEN there can be a discussion about allowing the Palestinians a
degeee of self-determination.

Oh yeah, if you reduce *your* nuclear arsenal, then I'll reduce mine.
**** YOU ASSHOLE!!!!!!!

There. Those negotiations seemed to go rather well.


Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Your view is horribly biased
to the point that you seem to believe that the *Israeli government*
can do *no wrong*.

Prove that Parparov's view is so biased!

We're discussing Holsztinski's view here you illiterate ****wit.


Do you actually believe that?

Nick is *not* denying Israel the right to exist.

Until then how
about condemning the governments which do not
recognize the right of one of the people to
exist, to have their country.

It is in the deepest interest of Israel
to have a prospering, friendly Palestine as
its neighbor.

Uh huh...and the aggressive Settlement policy furthers this
aim...how...exactly?

Now is not a good time to create a prospering, friendly Palestine,
anymore than 1942 was a good time for the allies to bring about a
"prospering, friendly", Germany.

Oh yes? This justifies the racist policies of the Israeli
government... how... exactly?

The agressive settlement policy will
cease when the time is opportune.

Well DUH! It will *never* be opportune. You're a ****ING MORON.

There is no sense for the Israeli
government to make concessions when the sacrifice would only lead to
greater demands on the part of the PLO government, and not a
reciprocal gesture.

Then there is no sense for the suicide bombings in Israeli cities to
stop either. Many Palestinians consider the PLO (in the person of
Yasser Arafat) to have sold them out. The PLO is not the principal
protagonist of the suicide bombings.

Are you getting this yet, you racist ****wit?


No minority of ortodox or
even crazy guys could change it. The situation
today is much more difficult than it was several
years ago. It is so, because several countries
in the region actively have supported the
terrorism against Israel, They didn't give
a damn about Palestinians. They were just using
Palestinians against the Palestinian interest.
That why there is still no Palestine state.
Several other Arab or Moslem countries doesn't
want peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
Solve this problem and there will be peace
soon, despite the injuries of the past few years.


How is that problem to be solved, do you think?

That problem may well be solved or ameliorated as a residual
effect of the Coalition "War on Terror".

Oh yes? How will this happen? Will the West Bank and Gaza be razed to
the ground? Even then, how can you be *sure* that some Palestinian
babies will not survive and grow up to be suicide bombers?

What's the solution? How do you kill *all* the Palestinians?

I know... you could build concentration camps! What a brilliant idea!
We British *invented* the concentration camp, don't you know.

So... there's a solution for you... does it remind you of any
particular event in Twentieth Century history?

What have you contributed to the debate aside from unsupported, racist
rhetoric?

I have a number of Israeli friends, one of whom is serving in the
Israeli army, who would be appalled by your attitude.

Saying "Palestinian terror should stop" is no more helpful than saying
"Israeli terror should stop".

Can you come up with anything better? So far, you've posted only
puerile, biased, racist BS.

The Israelis are holding nearly all the cards. Who, therefore, do you
think should make the first move?

What prospect is there for an end to "the War on Terror"?

How long will it take to defeat "Terror", once-and-for-all?

Go on, take a wild guess.



It is sad to see for years the growing European new
antiSemitism, strongly supported by media (tv, press...),
especially by the anti-semitic (and anti-American)
Reuters with its extreme abusive, word manipulating newspeech,
ugh, ack...

Wlod

You have much to say in criticising Nick, yet you seem conveniently to
fail to understand that you make outlandish, unsupportable claims *on
behalf of the Israeli government* (whose policies do not necessarily
always reflect the views of *all* of Israel's citizens), while
simultaneously condemning many of the world's other nations.

Unless you justify your having done these things, you may seem not to
be as qualified to criticise Nick's *supported* assertions as you
appear to believe that you are.

ugh, ack...

Mark

"Frederic: You're late.
Lee: Lucy and I kept talking and I didn't realize how late it got...
Frederic: You missed a very dull TV show about Auschwitz. More
gruesome film
clips, and more puzzled intellectuals declaring their mystification at
the
systematic murder of millions...

The reason they can never answer the question: 'How could it possibly
happen?'
....is that it's the WRONG question.

Given what people are, the question should be: 'Why doesn't it happen
more
often?'...."


Woody Allen "Hannah And Her Sisters"
(Max von Sydow as Frederic, Barbara Hershey as Lee)

repeats trite anti-Semitic arguments:

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
Have you ever wondered why evidently more countries (and individuals)
today have decided to boycott Israel?

Oh, yes. Antisemitism is the keyword.

It's a favourite ad hominem practice,
particularly in the United States,
of Israel's professed supporters to
denounce all criticism of Israel's
government with regard to its policies
and practices toward the Palestinians
as motivated purely by anti-Semitism,
as though all those policies and
practices must be above criticism.

The above is an anti-Semitic cliche.

Justify this unsupported dismissal. It seems to me that there are
two possible approaches you might adopt:

1) Prove that Israel's policies and practices towards the Palestinians
are *never* wrong.

2) Prove that this ad hominem practice does not exist in, for example,
the United States.

Actually, it would be more logical to have him demonstrate that
people who could reasonably be construed as Anti-Semitic tend to
utilize the cliche that Israeli supporters tend to denounce criticism
of Israel as being Anti-Semitic in nature.

Oh yes? Provide evidence of this.



Have you looked? Can you demonstrate that no such criticism of
whatever countries you have in mind *does not exist* ANYWHERE?


Why should he have to demonstrate that?

Ummmm...because, like you, he's an ignorant racist.

Heheh ....Houlsby: "Prove it"!

What is the point of
asking him to demonstrate a negative proposition, anyhow?

I was attempting to illustrate how ignorant and stupid he is.

Thanks for your candor. Alas, it was a rather pathetic attempt on
your part.


Insted, it is so "nice" to criticise a country,
where terrorists kill children, cicilians, kill
anybody in public buses, restaurants, in the houses
of worship, in supermarkets, in dancing clubs, in schools
and kinfergartens... But well meaning hypocrites zero
on criticising the victims.


Prove this.

Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you so desperate to
claim a win in the debate.


I'm being *objective* in the face of racism, moron. Wake up and smell
the coffee.

So, your "argument" consists merely of a vociferous claim that you
are right, and that those who disagree with you are racists. Hmmmm

Clearly such hypocritical criticism of Israel, as the victim of
terrorist violence, takes place.


Well Duh!




Ok, how about demanding that Israel stops dispossessing Palestinians
and seizing their lands and property, first?

The Israelis are only seizing a small percentage of Arab lands
and properties.

Provide *evidence* of this. Provide *evidence* of how few Palestinians
have been affected by this fundamentally racist policy.

Israeli settlements comprise only about 3% of the area of the West
Bank. Even after the security barrier is built, the Palestinians will
still have over 92% of the West Bank. I neve claimed that Palestinians
were not "affected". My claim is that Israel is only seizing a small
percentage of "Arab lands and properties", and that therefore only a
relatively few Palestinians are being "dispossessed"

The Palestinian terrorists are deliberately murdering
Jewish kids, women, and old folk.


Yes. They're doing it in *retaliation*. It cuts *both ways*. That's
the point you racists miss.

1) Palestinian violence redounds to harm of the Palestinians
themselves

2) the Israeli Defense Forces are deliberately killing palestinian
terrorists, yet only inadvertantly killing Palestinian women, kids,
and old folk, as part of collateral damage. if the Palestinian
militants were truly "only" retaliating, then they would simply aim to
ONLY kill Israeli soldiers, and NOT target the women and kids.

Palestinian terror should stop,

Should it? Why? Israeli terror continues unabated. Palestinians are
definitely *worse off*. Does that make Palestinians inferior?

No, the Palestinians are inferior morally because their forces
are craven, their leadership is corrupt, they have sown violence
wherever they have resided. With that track record, OF COURSE the
Palestinians are worse off

? and
THEN there can be a discussion about allowing the Palestinians a
degeee of self-determination.

Oh yeah, if you reduce *your* nuclear arsenal, then I'll reduce mine.
**** YOU ASSHOLE!!!!!!!

There. Those negotiations seemed to go rather well.


Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Your view is horribly biased
to the point that you seem to believe that the *Israeli government*
can do *no wrong*.

Prove that Parparov's view is so biased!

We're discussing Holsztinski's view here you illiterate ****wit.


Do you actually believe that?

Nick is *not* denying Israel the right to exist.

Until then how
about condemning the governments which do not
recognize the right of one of the people to
exist, to have their country.

It is in the deepest interest of Israel
to have a prospering, friendly Palestine as
its neighbor.

Uh huh...and the aggressive Settlement policy furthers this
aim...how...exactly?

Now is not a good time to create a prospering, friendly Palestine,
anymore than 1942 was a good time for the allies to bring about a
"prospering, friendly", Germany.

Oh yes? This justifies the racist policies of the Israeli
government... how... exactly?

The agressive settlement policy will
cease when the time is opportune.

Well DUH! It will *never* be opportune. You're a ****ING MORON.

There is no sense for the Israeli
government to make concessions when the sacrifice would only lead to
greater demands on the part of the PLO government, and not a
reciprocal gesture.

Then there is no sense for the suicide bombings in Israeli cities to
stop either.

Then there is no sense for Israel to hold back on massively
retaliating for Suicide bombers....

Many Palestinians consider the PLO (in the person of
Yasser Arafat) to have sold them out. The PLO is not the principal
protagonist of the suicide bombings.

Are you getting this yet, you racist ****wit?


No minority of ortodox or
even crazy guys could change it. The situation
today is much more difficult than it was several
years ago. It is so, because several countries
in the region actively have supported the
terrorism against Israel, They didn't give
a damn about Palestinians. They were just using
Palestinians against the Palestinian interest.
That why there is still no Palestine state.
Several other Arab or Moslem countries doesn't
want peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
Solve this problem and there will be peace
soon, despite the injuries of the past few years.


How is that problem to be solved, do you think?

That problem may well be solved or ameliorated as a residual
effect of the Coalition "War on Terror".

Oh yes? How will this happen? Will the West Bank and Gaza be razed to
the ground? Even then, how can you be *sure* that some Palestinian
babies will not survive and grow up to be suicide bombers?

What's the solution? How do you kill *all* the Palestinians?

I know... you could build concentration camps! What a brilliant idea!
We British *invented* the concentration camp, don't you know.

So... there's a solution for you... does it remind you of any
particular event in Twentieth Century history?

What have you contributed to the debate aside from unsupported, racist
rhetoric?

I have a number of Israeli friends, one of whom is serving in the
Israeli army, who would be appalled by your attitude.

Saying "Palestinian terror should stop" is no more helpful than saying
"Israeli terror should stop".

Can you come up with anything better? So far, you've posted only
puerile, biased, racist BS.

The Israelis are holding nearly all the cards. Who, therefore, do you
think should make the first move?

What prospect is there for an end to "the War on Terror"?

How long will it take to defeat "Terror", once-and-for-all?

Go on, take a wild guess.



It is sad to see for years the growing European new
antiSemitism, strongly supported by media (tv, press...),
especially by the anti-semitic (and anti-American)
Reuters with its extreme abusive, word manipulating newspeech,
ugh, ack...

Wlod

You have much to say in criticising Nick, yet you seem conveniently to
fail to understand that you make outlandish, unsupportable claims *on
behalf of the Israeli government* (whose policies do not necessarily
always reflect the views of *all* of Israel's citizens), while
simultaneously condemning many of the world's other nations.

Unless you justify your having done these things, you may seem not to
be as qualified to criticise Nick's *supported* assertions as you
appear to believe that you are.

ugh, ack...

Mark

"Frederic: You're late.
Lee: Lucy and I kept talking and I didn't realize how late it got...
Frederic: You missed a very dull TV show about Auschwitz. More
gruesome film
clips, and more puzzled intellectuals declaring their mystification at
the
systematic murder of millions...

The reason they can never answer the question: 'How could it possibly
happen?'
...is that it's the WRONG question.

Given what people are, the question should be: 'Why doesn't it happen
more
often?'...."


Woody Allen "Hannah And Her Sisters"
(Max von Sydow as Frederic, Barbara Hershey as Lee)

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...

[a total snip]

Indeed, Mark is "contributing" nothing but obscenities
and thoughtless epithets, unfortunately abusing words
like "racist", he tries hard to make such words meaningless
in this thread. He is not able to contribute in any
meritoric way, he provides nothing but the tricks
described and analysed bu Schopenhauer.

I am neither criticising nor supporting any specific
Israeli's government approach to the way it deals
with terrorism. I am simply not there, I do not know
enough, I cannot judge based on the fractional information
I get, I am not any expert.

But the big picture is only too clear.
Israel would be happy to be in a normal situation,
enjoyed by about every country, it would love to
be free from terroristic worries, it would be better
of if it was recognized by her neighbors, if her
neighbors were not feeding and brainwashing their children
with anti-Jewish prejudices.

In particular it would be to Israel and Palestinian
advantage to have a new country Palestine which would
be at least neutral toward Israel (then actually the
two people would have very friendly relations, based
on a natural, economic cooperation, beneficial to
both of them).

No country A can be asked to create a neighboring
a country B, bent on destroying country A. That's
an utter nonsense. The murderous, terroristic organizations
have to be dismantled, and the criminalists have be put
on trial for their indiscriminant killings before
Palestine can have a moral right to a statehood. Israel
already has difficult time to defend herself, there are
almost daily casualties, and there are many weeks when
casualties go into dozens.

Blind prejudiced people like Mark can shout obscenities
all they want, but when he is disregarding the significance
of murders on the civilians, he is not any partner to
any discussion. Why, he is already saying that he doesn't
care if people get murdered on the streets etc, he is just
against Israel and that's it. Observe that in the discussion
he has no merioric arguments whatsoever, he is just
abusing logic in a shallow and transparent way. A discussion
with him is a waste of time. The fact that Mark is not
ashamed of his silly but ugly shouts is just another small
sign of the rising Western European (including British)
anti-Semitism.

Wlod

This picture summarizes the entire topic:

http://empire.tau.ac.il/peculiar/child.gif

Judge for yourself.


--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)51-34-18-34 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

..
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
.com...

[a total snip]


Hey -- you can't do that! :-)




Indeed, Mark is "contributing" nothing but obscenities
and thoughtless epithets, unfortunately abusing words
like "racist", he tries hard to make such words meaningless
in this thread. He is not able to contribute in any
meritoric way,


The Baloneyman, Mark Houlsby, does indeed have a severe cranial/rectal
disorder, which causes him to spew forth at random, words like "****wit,"
"racist," and "troll," but nevertheless, he can on rare occasions get something
right. Witness his acute observation that "it cuts BOTH ways," for example.
It is hard to comprehend how some posters here may "justify" reckless murder in
their own minds, by casually tossing about phrases like "collateral damage,"
yet the result is precisely the same: death of innocent civilians. Just as in
chess, results are crucial. How often have I seen a movie or TV show whose
writers attempted to morally distinguish between the good guys and the bad
guys, by having the former refuse to take a shot at the latter, simply because
of the risk of killing innocent bystanders! The bad guys, of course, always
take that same shot *without hesitation.* It's a key part of what makes them
the bad guys, you see. On top of the policeman's uniform or what-have-you, the
good guys in the movies have a clear moral advantage.





The fact that Mark is not ashamed of his silly but ugly shouts
is just another small sign of the rising Western European
(including British) anti-Semitism.


And you have just demonstrated how *ad hominem* can be used to try and avoid
the issue, by redirecting the focus to the person of your critic -- or in this
case, to a very broad swipe at his whole country, and even his entire
continent! Call it "collateral damage," I suppose.... :-)

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message ...
This picture summarizes the entire topic:

http://empire.tau.ac.il/peculiar/child.gif

Judge for yourself.

This contribution of yours is truly astonishing. It represents a gross
oversimplification of a highly complex geopolitical question.

It's certainly *not* about soldiers on both sides hiding behind
perambulators.

More than anything else, your post recalls Nazi propoganda.

It is beneath contempt, and so are you.

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message . com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...

[a total snip]

Indeed, Mark is "contributing" nothing but obscenities
and thoughtless epithets, unfortunately abusing words
like "racist", he tries hard to make such words meaningless
in this thread.

This is a lie from start to finish. Earlier in this thread, Nick
wrote:


NB It's a favourite ad hominem practice,
NB particularly in the United States,
NB of Israel's professed supporters to
NB denounce all criticism of Israel's
NB government with regard to its policies
NB and practices toward the Palestinians
NB as motivated purely by anti-Semitism,
NB as though all those policies and
NB practices must be above criticism.

.... to which you responded:

WH The above is an anti-Semitic cliche.

My response to this was to suggest that you:

MH Justify this unsupported dismissal. It seems to me that there are
two possible approaches you might adopt:

1) Prove that Israel's policies and practices towards the Palestinians
are *never* wrong.

2) Prove that this ad hominem practice does not exist in, for example,
the United States.

You have failed to do this. Are you able to do it, or will you simply
continue to ignore your own ignorance and stupidity?

You continued with the rather outlandish claim that:

WH There are hundreds
WH of governments and countries, whose criticism would
WH be a thousand times more justified but anti-Semites
WH and some naives have to zero on Israel,

My response was:

MH Ok then, *list* _hundreds_ of governments and countries which fit
your
characterisation, and *demonstrate* that criticism of these _hundreds_
of governments and countries "would be a thousand times more
justified" than, say,
criticising the Israeli government's policy of forcibly dispossessing
Palestinians of land and property.

You have failed to do this. Are you able to do it, or will you simply
continue to ignore your own ignorance and stupidity?

You continued:

WH on the country
WH whose very right to exist is denied by other countries
WH and organizations. Where is the criticism of those
WH others?

My response:

MH Have you looked? Can you demonstrate that such criticism of
whatever countries you have in mind *does not exist* ANYWHERE?

Strangely, you have failed to demonstrate that criticism of Israel
does not exist anywhere. Could it be because it was ignorant and
stupid of you to have asserted such a thing?

You continued:

WH Insted, it is so "nice" to criticise a country,
WH where terrorists kill children, cicilians, kill
WH anybody in public buses, restaurants, in the houses
WH of worship, in supermarkets, in dancing clubs, in schools
WH and kinfergartens... But well meaning hypocrites zero
WH on criticising the victims.

I responded:

MH Prove this.

You have not proved it. Clearly, if you're unable to prove it, then
what you wrote is no more (and no less) than Zionist propaganda from
the Israeli government and its supporters.

Next, you made the quite astonishing claim:


WH For years Israel was able to punish terrorists
WH in a surgical way with zero civilian casualties.

I responded:

MH "Zero" civilian casualties? Which period of "years" did you have
in
mind?
Prove that there were "zero" civilian casualties during this period of
"years".

You have failed to prove this. Therefore, it's just more Zionist
propaganda.

He is not able to contribute in any
meritoric way, he provides nothing but the tricks
described and analysed bu Schopenhauer.


This is another lie. You made several unsupported claims. I charged
you to support the same. You failed. You're a liar and a troll, no
more, no less/

I am neither criticising nor supporting any specific
Israeli's government approach to the way it deals
with terrorism. I am simply not there, I do not know
enough, I cannot judge based on the fractional information
I get, I am not any expert.


In other words, you are admitting that you are a liar and a troll.

But the big picture is only too clear.

Oh yes? Do enlighten us, you who admitted just now that you "do not
know enough".

Israel would be happy to be in a normal situation,
enjoyed by about every country, it would love to
be free from terroristic worries, it would be better
of if it was recognized by her neighbors, if her
neighbors were not feeding and brainwashing their children
with anti-Jewish prejudices.


If so, why does its government continue to pursue policies *designed*
to *exacerbate* rather than *alleviate* Israel's problems. You are
correct that you do not know enough. You are ignorant and stupid. Stop
trolling.


In particular it would be to Israel and Palestinian
advantage to have a new country Palestine which would
be at least neutral toward Israel (then actually the
two people would have very friendly relations, based
on a natural, economic cooperation, beneficial to
both of them).


Same charge as above. You are speaking from ignorance. Bad idea.

No country A can be asked to create a neighboring
a country B, bent on destroying country A. That's
an utter nonsense.

Yes, and it's *precisely* what Israel's government *has done*, in
effect, by giving the Palestinians some power, while at the same time
bombing its communities (to give just one example of a common activity
of the Israeli military).

So we agree that some of the policies of the Israeli government are
"an utter nonsense." That's progress.

The murderous, terroristic organizations
have to be dismantled, and the criminalists have be put
on trial for their indiscriminant killings before
Palestine can have a moral right to a statehood.

Statehood has *nothing* to do with "moral right". It has to do only
with possessing the *power* to exist.

The Third Reich made a specific propaganda point of distinguishing
itself from all other governments in Germany. One of the ways in which
it did this was by declaring that it would last a thousand years. It
lasted only between 1933 and 1945. It had no "moral right", yet it had
power during that time.

Israel
already has difficult time to defend herself, there are
almost daily casualties, and there are many weeks when
casualties go into dozens.


Indeed, so exacerbating the problem is stupid, wouldn't you say?

This is what the Israeli government is doing in pursuing some of its
policies.

Blind prejudiced people like Mark can shout obscenities
all they want, but when he is disregarding the significance
of murders on the civilians,

On the contrary, I'm taking note of the civilian murders *on both
sides*. Unlike you, I've taken care *not* to make unsupportable
claims.

he is not any partner to
any discussion.

In what sense am I not? Are you the ultimate arbiter, here?

Why, he is already saying that he doesn't
care if people get murdered on the streets etc,

Substantiate this grossly offensive charge. Substantiate all your
other grossly offensive statements, too.

You, sir, seem determined to make yourself look like an imbecile. If
you can't substantiate all of this, then you will, indeed, look like
an imbecile. Publish or be damned.


he is just
against Israel and that's it.

No, I'm not "just against Israel and that's it". I have many friends
in Israel. The Israelis I have met are fine people. I am opposed
*only* to *some* deeply divisive *policies* of *the Israeli
government*. I *am not* opposed to Israel, nor to Israelis.

Observe that in the discussion
he has no merioric arguments whatsoever,

If you cannot substantiate your many outlandish claims, this will be
true of you, rather than me.

he is just
abusing logic in a shallow and transparent way.

Demonstrate this.


A discussion
with him is a waste of time.

You mean, because you're utterly confuted? I concur.

The fact that Mark is not
ashamed of his silly but ugly shouts is just another small
sign of the rising Western European (including British)
anti-Semitism.


It *is not* anti-Semitism, it *is* anti-Zionism. Once again: I abhor
*all* racism *including* anti-Semitism *and* Zionism. Evidently, you
would not say the same about yourself. You are beneath contempt.

Mark

(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote in message . com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...

[a total snip]

Indeed, Mark is "contributing" nothing but obscenities
and thoughtless epithets, unfortunately abusing words
like "racist", he tries hard to make such words meaningless
in this thread. He is not able to contribute in any
meritoric way, he provides nothing but the tricks
described and analysed bu Schopenhauer.

I am neither criticising nor supporting any specific
Israeli's government approach to the way it deals
with terrorism. I am simply not there, I do not know
enough, I cannot judge based on the fractional information
I get, I am not any expert.

But the big picture is only too clear.
Israel would be happy to be in a normal situation,
enjoyed by about every country, it would love to
be free from terroristic worries, it would be better
of if it was recognized by her neighbors, if her
neighbors were not feeding and brainwashing their children
with anti-Jewish prejudices.

In particular it would be to Israel and Palestinian
advantage to have a new country Palestine which would
be at least neutral toward Israel (then actually the
two people would have very friendly relations, based
on a natural, economic cooperation, beneficial to
both of them).

When you look at the Middle East, how many of the Arab countries
(which may be even formally allied with each other) have "very
friendly" relations with each other? An independent Palestine would
have to be markedly different than the other Arab countries, yet I've
seen nothing in the palestinian people that would lead me to believe
that they would come anywhere close to trascending the toxic
"Pan-Arabic" paradigm. It would be a travesty to have an independent
Arab Palestine, if all the world got from it was just another Arab
country.

No country A can be asked to create a neighboring
a country B, bent on destroying country A. That's
an utter nonsense. The murderous, terroristic organizations
have to be dismantled, and the criminalists have be put
on trial for their indiscriminant killings before
Palestine can have a moral right to a statehood. Israel
already has difficult time to defend herself, there are
almost daily casualties, and there are many weeks when
casualties go into dozens.

Absolutely true, and well stated. Oslo was bound to lead to
disaster, because it entailed dealing with Arafat. As if giving Arafat
a Nobel Peace Prize would truly cause that leopard to change his
spots. Israel should insist that no further negotiations occur as long
as Arafat is leader, or in a position of influence. Likewise, the
Palestinian Authority should not be controlled or dominated by
al-Fatah or the PLO. Indeed the PLO must be formally disbanded, and
all of the other Palestinian terrorist organizations, such as Hamas,
al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad, etc., must be crushed, with
their leaders killed or imprisoned.


Blind prejudiced people like Mark can shout obscenities
all they want, but when he is disregarding the significance
of murders on the civilians, he is not any partner to
any discussion. Why, he is already saying that he doesn't
care if people get murdered on the streets etc, he is just
against Israel and that's it. Observe that in the discussion
he has no merioric arguments whatsoever, he is just
abusing logic in a shallow and transparent way. A discussion
with him is a waste of time. The fact that Mark is not
ashamed of his silly but ugly shouts is just another small
sign of the rising Western European (including British)
anti-Semitism.

Houlsby is the poster boy for the degeneration of the British
educational system. He was barely able to complete one of his insipid
sentences without spewing vitriol at those would whom he disagreed.
Most 7 year olds would be ashamed to stoop to the ridiculous name
calling that he felt obliged to employ--no doubt because of the sheer
bankruptcy of his stance.

Wlod