Bil'in - my Us-Them Pt2 Blog interrupted...


By Stanley Walinets
January 15, 2011
Share

I trust people will remember my Jan 9th blog, based on Anshel Pfeffer's helpful JC article on the death from tear-gas of a woman at the Bil'in demonstration.
There were many responses to that blog, ending with this rather typical one from jose:
"jose 10 January, 2011 - 04:29 : Any intention to apologise for your blood libel, Walinuts?"

I replied to all the comments I'd received. But to my surprise, straight after my reply came this message:
"Anonymous 12 January, 2011 - 15:59 : Comments for this page are now closed."

I emailed Webmaster, who told me this closure was because "The comments on the blog had descended into name-calling and it was no longer a constructive debate." (The name 'Anonymous' had been a site error, should have been 'Administrator').

This was distressing, precisely because my response had been DRAWING ATTENTION to the name-calling and urging people to stop it and look again at what Anschel Pfeffer had actually written, and comment on that.

So -- since people weren't able to do that because the blog had been closed, I'll now copy my last comment below: and I invite people to take up the points I'd made. I hope you all will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Walinets
12 January, 2011 - 14:57

Oh my God!
Why don't such commenters as 'jose', 'Yoni1', 'amber' and the rest of them above (who perhaps understandably hide behind anonimity)- WHY do not they EVER read what I've written but simply leap into their (often semi-literate) howls of insults? Do you people really sincerely believe that if you see any facts you don't like, you can prove there's no truth in them by simply shrieking, and insulting, and even mis-spelling names (eg 'Walinuts') just like the kids in the playground did when I was at school? Is that how you believe truth can be found? Even Mr Hoffman spells my name correctly, though he regards it as a swear-word...

But look. I'm a patient man. So I have to point out that none of you - NONE OF YOU - have acknowledged above that what I've written there is simply quoting the article by the JC's Jerusalem correspondent Anshel Pfeffer. NONE of you seems to have even read it. Or perhaps you have, and have written to him to scream at him to stop being a self-hater...

I'll forgive you. Just read what he wrote and what I quoted. If you'll look at it again, I wrote:-
"Perhaps Anshel's article still doesn't give an absolutely clear answer. But if you're prepared to read it carefully, then re-read Mr Hoffman's version, you will see Mr H has not checked his sources honestly (perhaps he was overcome by his perceived smell of ordure...)."
I went on:-
"What's really important is that we read especially carefully paragraphs 4,5,and 7. (GO ON, READ THOSE NOW!) They show there's a whole important background to this incident going back several years; mentioning the IDF's refusal to carry out the Supreme Court Order; the 21 Palestinians who've been killed and others injured during these protests; and the reasons behind these protests - the village cut off from a large part of its agricultural land."

"I sincerely hope, dear friends, (I wrote) that you will consider this event and its history and begin to think how we ourselves would like to be treated like this."

Now - do it. Or forever give up any claim to have the ability Jews have for centuries been proud of, the ability to consider facts and think with wisdom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I look forward to your reasoned comments. And I'm sure Webmaster does too.

COMMENTS

jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/15/2011 - 15:19

Rate this:

2 points

So you don't apologise for your blood libel, Walinuts?


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/15/2011 - 15:30

Rate this:

2 points

(The name 'Anonymous' had been a site error, should have been 'Administrator').

It is not an error and is always 'Anonymous', by the way. Once again, you show your incapacity to observe things and adhere to realities, which is not surprising considering the rest of your ludicrous prose.


Jonathan Hoffman

Sat, 01/15/2011 - 17:46

Rate this:

3 points

Change the record ffs walinets ... the horse is not only dead, it has rigor mortis..........


Yoni1

Sat, 01/15/2011 - 18:30

Rate this:

2 points

" ... who perhaps understandably hide behind anonimity ... often semi-literate ... "

And then he whines about 'insults' ...


Stanley Walinets

Sun, 01/16/2011 - 17:46

Rate this:

-1 points

Thank you for your responses so far.

jose 15 January: "So you don't apologise for your blood libel, Walinuts?"

Dear Jose - Can you really not see what you're doing? Webmaster said this closure was because "The comments on the blog had descended into name-calling and it was no longer a constructive debate." Yet here you are just calling me names again! You don't even say what you mean by your 'blood libel' allegation...

-----------------------------------------
jose 15 January: "(The name 'Anonymous' had been a site error, should have been 'Administrator')".
You corrected me Jose, saying rather smugly "It is not an error and is always 'Anonymous', by the way. Once again, you show your incapacity to observe things and adhere to realities, which is not surprising considering the rest of your ludicrous prose."

Dear Jose - Here's what Webmaster actually wrote me in his email: "The “Anonymous” name that appears should in fact read “Administrator”, however an error relating to the framework that the site is built upon causes the change, which we are working on." OK?

--------------------------------------------
Jonathan Hoffman 15 January: "Change the record ffs walinets ... the horse is not only dead, it has rigor mortis.........."

Dear Mr Hoffman - sorry, hoffman - Do you ever consider changing YOUR record? And your expletives? You have a good mind. You might find it helpful to consider changing it some times. You could try now, by looking at my suggestion above (and in my previous, cut-short, comment), which you keep ignoring. It refers to the Anshel Pfeffer article. Look above - it starts "What's really important is that we read especially carefully paragraphs 4,5,and 7.....They show there's a whole important background to this incident going back several years..." Go on - read it.

-------------------------------------------
Yoni1 15 January: " ... who perhaps understandably hide behind anonimity ... often semi-literate ... "

And then he whines about 'insults' ..."

Dear Yonil - Forgive me, for I have sinned. You're quite right of course - it's 'anonymity'. Anything else you'd like to say? For example, why you prefer anonymity? Or why you think 'insults' doesn't actually describe so many of the responses people have made, rather than responding honestly to what I write?


Stanley Walinets

Sun, 01/16/2011 - 17:46

Rate this:

-3 points

Thank you for your responses so far.

jose 15 January: "So you don't apologise for your blood libel, Walinuts?"

Dear Jose - Can you really not see what you're doing? Webmaster said this closure was because "The comments on the blog had descended into name-calling and it was no longer a constructive debate." Yet here you are just calling me names again! You don't even say what you mean by your 'blood libel' allegation...

-----------------------------------------
jose 15 January: "(The name 'Anonymous' had been a site error, should have been 'Administrator')".
You corrected me Jose, saying rather smugly "It is not an error and is always 'Anonymous', by the way. Once again, you show your incapacity to observe things and adhere to realities, which is not surprising considering the rest of your ludicrous prose."

Dear Jose - Here's what Webmaster actually wrote me in his email: "The “Anonymous” name that appears should in fact read “Administrator”, however an error relating to the framework that the site is built upon causes the change, which we are working on." OK?

--------------------------------------------
Jonathan Hoffman 15 January: "Change the record ffs walinets ... the horse is not only dead, it has rigor mortis.........."

Dear Mr Hoffman - sorry, hoffman - Do you ever consider changing YOUR record? And your expletives? You have a good mind. You might find it helpful to consider changing it some times. You could try now, by looking at my suggestion above (and in my previous, cut-short, comment), which you keep ignoring. It refers to the Anshel Pfeffer article. Look above - it starts "What's really important is that we read especially carefully paragraphs 4,5,and 7.....They show there's a whole important background to this incident going back several years..." Go on - read it.

-------------------------------------------
Yoni1 15 January: " ... who perhaps understandably hide behind anonimity ... often semi-literate ... "

And then he whines about 'insults' ..."

Dear Yonil - Forgive me, for I have sinned. You're quite right of course - it's 'anonymity'. Anything else you'd like to say? For example, why you prefer anonymity? Or why you think 'insults' doesn't actually describe so many of the responses people have made, rather than responding honestly to what I write?


Yoni1

Sun, 01/16/2011 - 18:01

Rate this:

3 points

Yoni is my name.

"Yet here you are just calling me names again!"

Blood libel is a factual statement. There is no 'calling me names' involved.

Next!


jose (not verified)

Sun, 01/16/2011 - 18:42

Rate this:

2 points

Can you really not see what you're doing?

Yes, I see that exactly, Walinuts. I'm asking you if you are going to ever apologise for your blood libels?
The blood libels, in case anyone with a drop of Jewish blood ignores it, are the false accusation of killing innocent people that were used to trigger pogroms against Jews by the gullible but antisemitic population.
I hope now that Walinuts see the relation with what he is doing. But it is a very foolish hope, I admit!


Stanley Walinets

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 12:34

Rate this:

-4 points

Yoni1 - My apologies, I didn't know 'Yoni' is your name. Perhaps it's that '1' after it which suggests anonymity. Anyway, sorry. (tho' the absence of a surname, as with so many other respondents, does convey an intention of anonymity, you must agree?).

Jose - Thank you for saying what you mean by 'blood libel'.
But really, are you saying that the deaths of, for example, all 1400 or so Palestinians in Gaza - about 400 of them children - didn't happen, were 'false accusations of killing innocent people'?
Are you saying that the crushing by IDF bulldozer of Rachel Corrie while protesting against house demolitions was a 'false accusation' of killing an innocent person?
Are you saying that the deaths of the 21 Palestinians who've been killed, and others injured, during the 6-year-long protests by Bil'in villagers over the theft of their farmland by the 'security fence' - are you really saying these deaths haven't happened, were mere 'false accusations to trigger pogroms against Jews'?
And how about this 'false accusation': In 1992 when settler Baruch Goldstein was himself killed after gunning down 29 Muslim worshippers in a shared Muslim-Jewish shrine in Hebron, Rabbi Yaarov Perrin, officiating at Goldstein's burial, said "The fingernail of a Jew is worth a thousand Arabs"...

Think again, Jose. And while you're thinking, could you try to grasp that my name is 'Walinets', not 'Walinuts'?
Thanks.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 12:44

Rate this:

3 points

But really, are you saying that the deaths of, for example, all 1400 or so Palestinians in Gaza - about 400 of them children - didn't happen, were 'false accusations of killing innocent people'?

Killing innocent people happen in wars, you remember? Remember that the HAMAS provoked that war by bombing Israeli civilians every day for eight years?
Then saying "1400 innocent people" when dealing mostly with HAMAS militants (as confessed by them), that IS a blood libel indeed, Walinuts.

Are you saying that the deaths of the 21 Palestinians

In 1992 when settler Baruch Goldstein was himself killed after gunning down 29 Muslim worshippers in a shared Muslim-Jewish shrine in Hebron, Rabbi Yaarov Perrin, officiating at Goldstein's burial, said "The fingernail of a Jew is worth a thousand Arabs"...

HAHAHA ! Is that all you have? Put the blame for one nuts like yourself on the whole Israel? You are really nuts!

Throwing stones to riot control troops sometimes involves death. Then do you remember that the 21st is indeed your blood libel?


jose (not verified)

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 12:59

Rate this:

3 points

We can see that Walinuts only have more blood libels to justify his Bilin blood libel.

According to the EU working definition, Walinuts is guilty of antisemitism:
"accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imaginary wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group"
"applying double standards by requiring of [the State of Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation"
"Using the classic symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (eg ... blood libels) to characterize Israel or Israelis"

Walinuts is a clear antisemitic nuts.


mattpryor

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 13:07

Rate this:

2 points

I'm waiting for Stanley's follow-up post about the 20,000 odd civilians massacred by the SriLankan army around about the same time, who took no precautions whatsoever to avoid them, which serves as a useful comparison. And he could also credit the IAF/IDF for the painstaking measures they took to minimise loss of civilian life.

Unless of course he doesn't think the state Israel has any right to defend its own civilians.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 13:19

Rate this:

2 points

Unless of course he doesn't think the state Israel has any right to defend its own civilians.

Exactly, Matt! See point 2: "applying double standards by requiring of [the State of Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation"


jose (not verified)

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 13:20

Rate this:

3 points

And when the HAMAS says it will genocide Jews (not only Israeli Jews), Walinuts has only praise for them.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 13:24

Rate this:

3 points

Yoni1 - My apologies, I didn't know 'Yoni' is your name. Perhaps it's that '1' after it which suggests anonymity.

Of course, it never came to the 'mind' of Walinuts that "Yoni" was already taken by someone else... Damn inteligent guy indeed, that will next pretend to understand a complex conflict such as the one in the Middle East.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 16:17

Rate this:

3 points

The blood libel Walinuts will never utter:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/01/18/2011-01-18_dozens_of_po...

Who would blame the Iraqi Sunni Muslims for the daily massacres in Iraq? No one in his own mind, that would be a blood lible, a call to religious hatred.
And Walinuts doesn't do it... for Iraq. But as soon, as Israel is concerned, Walinuts does not wait for 50 dead. One is enough, even if Tsahal is totally innocent. "Blame Tsahal first, Allah will know the truth" seems to be Walinuts motto.


Stanley Walinets

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 18:02

Rate this:

-2 points

Oh Jose, jose, JOSE! What can I say to you that will persuade you to read what I write instead of leaping to deny whatever it is you prefer to THINK you've read?

And why, also, do you REALLY think that spelling my name as 'Walinuts' somehow proves that what you say is right and what I say is wrong? ('Walinuts' is, if it interests you, precisely what little 'Yoks' called me when we were schoolchildren... it didn't prove whatever it was they believed either).

You say: "Remember that the HAMAS provoked that war by bombing Israeli civilians every day for eight years?
Then saying "1400 innocent people" when dealing mostly with HAMAS militants (as confessed by them), that IS a blood libel indeed, Walinuts."

Re 'Hamas provoked...'etc, I accept that Hamas had been sending rockets for several years; but are you aware that Hamas had actually agreed with Israel to a ceasefire for some 6 months before Cast Lead, AND HAD OBSERVED IT?
They only resumed firing after Israel broke that agreement by sending agents across Gaza's border to kill six or seven people they claimed were terrorists. They might have been right, tho' as usual they didn't produce evidence; but it's also been claimed they did that on purpose to provoke a predictable Hamas retaliation, which would then 'excuse' the Cast Lead attack. Cast Lead, you must agree, was an operation carefully planned over time, not a simple knee-jerk response to the Hamas resumption of rockets: and the fact remains, HAMAS HAD OBSERVED THE CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT, until Israel broke it. Think about that - people often forget it.

About your "1400 innocent people" extract from my response. I didn't say that. Read again what I actually wrote (the key word you've ignored is 'all' - I'm not going to spell it out for you, you must simply learn to read with care).

You say: "Throwing stones to riot control troops sometimes involves death." Presumably this refers to the death by bulldozer of Rachel Corrie. She wasn't throwing stones. She was standing in front of the bulldozer trying to signal it to stop demolishing someone's house. Many witnesses confirmed that.

You quote my: "In 1992 when settler Baruch Goldstein was himself killed after gunning down 29 Muslim worshippers in a shared Muslim-Jewish shrine in Hebron, Rabbi Yaarov Perrin, officiating at Goldstein's burial, said "The fingernail of a Jew is worth a thousand Arabs"... and you respond with "HAHAHA ! Is that all you have? Put the blame for one nuts like yourself on the whole Israel? You are really nuts!".

Your response is very unclear. Perhaps you mean Goldstein was the 'one nut'? In which case, are you aware of the incident which triggered Goldstein to shoot those 29 praying Muslims? He had felt inspired by Yigal Amir, the theology student who had just assassinated Prime Minister Rabin for seeking to negotiate peace with the Palestinians.
Or are you thinking of the Rabbi who valued the fingernail of a Jew as worth a thousand Arabs - is he the 'one nut' you have in mind? Well, he too wasn't alone in that belief. A certain Rabbi Dov Lior, for example, wrote that "a thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail"; and Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, wrote that "the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs." (you can check that out on www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3527410,00.html).

In short, there ARE Israelis with such attitudes, and they're NOT one-off nuts: on the contrary, many are right-wing Rabbis with great authority, who claim to speak for Israel. Thank God there are Israelis, and diaspora Jews, who disagree with them. Do you?

As for your "Hamas says it will genocide Jews...", I do NOT support the elimination of the State of Israel. All I wish for is that Israel should behave with decency and justice towards Palestinians. If only it had been doing that these past decades, Hamas might well not have been driven into the refusal-to-recognise attitude it now maintains. And mark my words, the longer Israel refuses to restrain the current 500,000 or so settlers from their illegal occupation, the more hostility towards Israel WILL GROW. So much of the anti-semitism Israel unquestionably suffers - and the rest of us Jews along with it - they are bringing upon themselves. Can't you see that?
No, I suppose you can't.... Alright then - WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION to it all?

Dear Mattpryor - I take your point of course. But I do in fact support many other causes besides those concerning Israel and the Palestinians. I contribute my mite to funds, sign petitions, write to Governments etc. But I choose to concentrate on Israel because I'm a Jew. I therefore have a direct interest. Much - but NOT all - that Israel does will have its effects on me. When, in my view, Israel's activities actually feed anti-semitism, then I'm likely to suffer along with the rest of us. I therefore concentrate on Israel because I have a right to. If I were an ex-patriate Sri Lankan, or a Sunni Muslim, I'd have a similar right, but I can only 'intercede' in their affairs as an outsider. I hope that answers your objection.

Finally - jose again: "Of course, it never came to the 'mind' of Walinuts that "Yoni" was already taken by someone else... Damn inteligent guy indeed, that will next pretend to understand a complex conflict such as the one in the Middle East."
Jose - How was I supposed to know there's more than one 'Yoni'? My 'error' merely shows why it's so confusing that so many critics choose to be nameless anonymities.

And before I let you go - re your accusation:"According to the EU working definition, Walinuts is guilty of antisemitism:..." : I'm sorry, that accusation simply doesn't fit, doesn't describe my position AT ALL. So please now start taking as much care in your writing as I do in mine.


mattpryor

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 18:16

Rate this:

3 points

When, in my view, Israel's activities actually feed anti-semitism, then I'm likely to suffer along with the rest of us.

Stanley, I am not Jewish. And I can assure you that antisemites need no help from Israel to be antisemites. It is a psychological disorder, not an opinion. They are the people you should be naming and attacking, not Israelis.

As a Jew you will be under fire when Israel is in trouble regardless of what Israelis have or have not done, and no matter how much you denounce them. As a supporter of Israel I will be in the same boat.

Something to think about perhaps?


mattpryor

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 18:22

Rate this:

5 points

And you should NEVER think that you bring anti-Semitism upon yourself. No Jew does. Nothing you do or say, or think, EVER justifies that irrational hatred.


amber

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 19:39

Rate this:

2 points

Walinets, I see you are well versed with the name of Rachel Corrie.

Name one Rachel who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists during the second intifada.

There are quite a few of them.


amber

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 19:42

Rate this:

2 points

Walinets also knows Goldstein's name.

Name one Palestinian suicide bomber who blew up a bus or a shop. There are a few more of them (several hundred) than one Goldstein.

Walinets, such exclusivity and double standards are simply a sign of antisemitism. It's that simple.


amber

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 19:43

Rate this:

2 points

Matt, the idea that Jews bring antisemitism on themselves is as old as the hills - and morally repugnant.

Only an antisemite would say such a thing.


amber

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 19:45

Rate this:

2 points

Walinets repeats the lie that Hamas observed the "ceasefire" (it was actually a hudna - not the same thing Walinets). It was Hamas which rejected Israel's offer to renew it.


jose (not verified)

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 20:40

Rate this:

2 points

but are you aware that Hamas had actually agreed with Israel to a ceasefire for some 6 months before Cast Lead, AND HAD OBSERVED IT?

Only if you think that 200 rockets in six month is "observing a cease-fire", in which case I understand that you have been called Walinuts for a long time.
No HAMAS never observed any truce, just refrained from going into a full-scale war for six months. But then, they tried to dig under the frontier, in order to abduct more Israelis. Then Tsahal destroyed the tunnel. Preparing an agression is not respecting a truce either, Walinuts.
Then HAMAS started shooting 80 rockets a day... They were warned. And they are not innocent at all. Those who voted for them are as innocent as those who voted for NSDAP in 1933.

So much of the anti-semitism Israel unquestionably suffers - and the rest of us Jews along with it - they are bringing upon themselves. Can't you see that?

There has always been 'good reasons' for antisemitism, Walinuts. Your blood libels, an occupation that continues because 'Palestinians' want 81% of 'Palestine' rather than 80% of it, because you and they want a Judenrein 'Palestine' where they can do as they wish to women, homosexuals and atheists... There are lots of 'reasons'... You chose yours for hate. I rejected all of them.

How was I supposed to know there's more than one 'Yoni'?

HAHAHAHA! Because who would chose "Yoni1" instead of "Yoni" if it was possible. You don't see the reasons for the things in your environment, do you Walinuts? Facts are a mystery to you, right?


jose (not verified)

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 20:45

Rate this:

2 points

So please now start taking as much care in your writing as I do in mine.

I couldn't go that low even if I typed with my feet.


Stanley Walinets

Thu, 01/20/2011 - 18:28

Rate this:

-1 points

Juice - sorry,Jose - Walinuts speaking.
You are right.
Absolutely right.
Nothing you ever say is wrong.
Or even mistaken.
It cannot be, ever.
Because you are Jose.
Therefore BY DEFINITION you are ALWAYS right (I'm assuming you understand that word 'definition' - it is a rather big one I agree).
You never need to consider facts if they aren't what you believe, because such things cannot BE facts. Obviously.

Oh - there IS one fact you might not have noticed. In my last pack of lies, I did write eight words you seem to have missed. May I, on my knees and with humble respect, draw your attention to them? I wrote: "Alright then - WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION to it all?"
I do hope you can tell us. Only you can possibly know. The whole world awaits your wisdom.

While I'm waiting, with your permission I'll now respond to mattpryor, who wrote, with welcome civility:
"Stanley, I am not Jewish. And I can assure you that antisemites need no help from Israel to be antisemites. It is a psychological disorder, not an opinion. They are the people you should be naming and attacking, not Israelis.
As a Jew you will be under fire when Israel is in trouble regardless of what Israelis have or have not done, and no matter how much you denounce them.... you should NEVER think that you bring anti-Semitism upon yourself. No Jew does. Nothing you do or say, or think, EVER justifies that irrational hatred."

I certainly agree Matt that irrational hatred is always around, in many spheres of life, and that by definition such haters can't be affected by persuasion.
But that is only a segment of any population. Other segments can exist who base their attitudes, often reluctantly, on what they actually perceive. Thus, it's a fact that after the Hollocaust was discovered, the whole world was shocked and there was great sympathy for the Jews, and much less anti-Semitism (and even the irrationals kept their attitudes to themselves). My experience is that when Israel behaves badly towards others (major example - West Bank people more and more displaced by illegal settlers, currently 500,000-plus and expanding) then people previously sympathetic to us begin to feel 'anti-Israel', which transforms into anti-Semitism. And is then eagerly latched on to by all the 'irrationals', now free to come into the open with their hatred.
This is surely why, if we persist in shouting that Israel is never wrong and that any criticism of her is simply 'anti-Semitic', we are hiding our heads in the sand. Good God, there are plenty of Jews INSIDE Israel who are very critical of their Government's behaviour and want to behave decently to the Palestinians. But they are shouted down, called 'self-haters' and the rest of it, especially just now with Lieberman and his ultra-Right Party wielding such power.
And another sad aspect is that as the West Bank people are increasingly badly treated (house demolitions, land stolen, etc etc) INEVITABLY they become anti-Israel; and their resentment and frustration escalates. And Hamas and their ilk do more and more of the only thing they can do, which is to resist with rockets wherever they can, and refuse to recognise Israel. What else can they do? What else would WE do - you, me, the British people - if we were treated as Israel treats it's neighbours? And our more violently-disposed citizens would be in the forefront with their rockets and screams of hate.
So yes, I'm afraid Israel's Government DOES generate anti-Semitism, and we Diasporans do suffer from it along with Israel's own people. Which is a TERRIBLE shame, when you think of all the wonderful, brilliant people and ideas that have come from Jews (many of whom as you will know, have been sneered at as 'self-haters' for criticising).

I hope you can see my point. I'll say no more right now, I can feel the apoplexy rising among the other respondents here...

Just a word to amber tho', about the violence of Palestinian suicide bombers and the like. I quite agree how terrible that is. But it only demonstrates my point, that when people are deprived of their rights - as they see them - 'terrorism' is what they resort to. You're clearly a historian amber. Can you recall, for instance, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and other freedom fighters, then called 'terrorists', who blew up the King David Hotel to get 'justice' as they saw it?
That's what people do when they feel they're victimised by an occupying power.

I won't reveal my address, if you don't mind - I can feel you seething already.

Look forward to hearing your solution, juicy - sorry, jose!


Stanley Walinets

Thu, 01/20/2011 - 18:42

Rate this:

-2 points

An after-thought, friends. Just received this by email from Rabbi Brant Rosen, Chair of the Jewish Voice for Peace Rabbinical Council:-

"Many of us recall childhoods spent collecting coins for the Jewish National Fund's famous little blue boxes. The money in the boxes, we were were told, would go towards planting trees that would "make the desert bloom" in Israel. But what we didn't know was that from the founding of the Jewish state, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) was planting forests in order to mask and excuse the destruction of Palestinian villages and expropriation of Palestinian land. The JNF continues this practice today.

On January 16, Israeli authorities demolished the Israeli Bedouin village of Al Araqib for the ninth time in the past six months in order to build a forest for the JNF. Bulldozers from the Israel Land Administration remain on the villagers' land, even though the demolitions are completed.

Tu B'shvat is a Jewish holiday known as the New Year of the Trees. JNF tree planting ceremonies on stolen land are now ubiquitous as a way to mark this holiday. This Tu B’shvat, please affirm that planting forests on top of uprooted communities is not the Jewish way."

L'chaim.


mattpryor

Thu, 01/20/2011 - 19:30

Rate this:

1 point

Stanley will you please do me a favour and read "Son of Hamas" by Mosab Hassan Yousef (former Hamas member, Sin Bet informant who converted to Christianity and now lives in the US). I don't think you appreciate what Hamas is, and that book really will enlighten you. To put it mildly you are being overgenerous by trying to understand or sympathise with their mentality. If you like I can lend you my copy (PM me if so).

On the subject of justifying terrorism, can you tell me why the 7/7 bombers did what they did? Were they similarly so oppressed that the only way of fighting back was to commit mass murder? They seemed to have quite normal (not to say comfortable) lives.

People often say "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". I don't hold by that, because most Arab terrorism is political terrorism and is usually sponsored by a state actor. In the case of Hamas Saddam Hussein paid for a lot of the suicide bombings against Israel during the second Intifada. The same is true for PLO terrorism - it was political terrorism against a state, financed by other states. However the Stern Gang were genuine examples of freedom fighters - those men had fought against the Nazis, and Jews were literally facing extinction. If they had not forced Britain to cede the mandate the consequences would have been awful. So I do not approve of what they did (although Israelis might, and I would not judge them for it) but I think if they had not done what they did history would have been very different, and worse.

I would also like to tell you a story. During Operation Cast Lead my heart was truly torn. I've always thought highly of Israel, being a country that I consider Britain's ally and a brave little nation, and middle eastern politics intrigues me. In the news I heard about massacres, deliberate killings of civilians, deliberate bombings of hospitals and schools etc. None of it seemed to fit with what I knew about Israelis. It was a very difficult time and the pressure to conform was immense. The easiest thing in the world for me would to have believed it all. At any point I could have thought "well then they don't deserve my support" - and it was extremely tempting. Because you see that would have let me off the hook. I wouldn't have to worry about feeling guilty or scared by the people waving Hamas flags in London, because I could have decided that they were right and Israel was wrong. It was a constant struggle to keep believing in Israel's goodness and to disbelieve the things which the press were saying about the IDF. But I did, through force of will, and by constantly checking my thought processes. Why? Because Judaism is an enlightened and cultured civilisation, like Britain. Civilised and cultured people do not generally commit wanton murder. British soldiers don't do it (often) so it would be anti-Semitic to believe that Jewish soldiers would. As it turns out I've ended up being even stronger in my support for Israel, but I imagine it could easily have gone the other way.

But if I had taken the other path, the only way of justifying it to myself would have been to believe that Jews were somehow inferior to the rest of western civilisation. Do you understand? Who knows, I might have ended up signing up to ISM along with waterman etc!

I became sure when I attended the pro-Israel rally in Trafalgar square. Did you go? There were thousands of people there. And it was magical. After attending that I was convinced of the essential goodness of Israel's cause. They raised money for Gazans Stanley. What did the pro-Hamas rallies do? Smash up shops? Attack police? Just hatred and violence. That underscores the difference better than anything.

There has rarely been a better case of simple good verses evil. If you understand the nature of Hamas (for goodness sake read the book I recommended) you will see what I mean. And Israel is a good country, in spite of its flaws. And one day we in Britain may have to face similar situations as Israelis do. I hope we will be able to rely on them for help, and most of all I hope we can keep our heads and avoid hatred and bigotry, as Israelis have. But when I look at groups like the EDL I'm not so sure if we will be up to the task.

Anti-Semitism is a choice. It's a choice to give up on the goodness of human nature, and of Judaism, of western civilisation, and of God, because that is the easiest path. And it is a slippery slope towards evil and madness.

If you want to help Arabs you must educate them. Correct their misconceptions about Jews and the west. All I see is you repeating the same slogans and exaggerations as our enemies do, and I have to say it is very upsetting. It doesn't help them (as I have said it silences moderates and emboldens extremists) and it certainly doesn't aid peace in the region.

The reason you feel like you do Stanley - betrayed and hurt, outraged, lied to - is because you have been let down by the British establishment and the British media. When you needed support from the people in charge they kept their mouths shut. When you needed to be told the truth you were fed propaganda. Stanley it is us Brits that have let Israel and Jews down - not the other way round.


Yoni1

Thu, 01/20/2011 - 19:36

Rate this:

2 points

"I'm afraid Israel's Government DOES generate anti-Semitism"

Anyone who accuses Jews of causing antisemitism is an antisemitic shit.

"the violence of Palestinian suicide bombers and the like. I quite agree how terrible that is. But"

When someone appends 'but', you know he is trying to excuse these genocidal Nazi scum. And that makes him scum.

"Can you recall, for instance, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and other freedom fighters, then called 'terrorists', who blew up the King David Hotel"

You pathetic moron. That was a MILITARY HQ. Do you know what that means, or do you need your remedial teacher to explain to you the difference between that and civilians on a bus?

"to get 'justice' as they saw it?"

As they saw it? What a disgusting moron. The British were foreign occupiers with no connection to the place. The Jews are indigenous, had not attacked the UK, and were establishing their own free country.

Now crawl back under your stone, you disgusting creature.


Stanley Walinets

Sat, 01/22/2011 - 12:27

Rate this:

-3 points

Matt - thank you for a very reasonable response - so much more valuable than diatribes, personal insults etc which characterise so many responses from readers who disagree with me... I'll say no more on that - let those who the cap fits, wear it....

So, to the very important points you make.
1) Hamas. I fully agree with your criticisms of them. It's depressing that they have aligned themselves with the extremist end of Islamic believers - just as, it must be said, many of our Lubavitch Rabbis insist on extremist interpretations of Judaic belief (Example: Lubavitch/Chabad Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira published 'Torat HaMelech' in 2009, a book which advocates and justifies the killing of non-Jews, according to which: "Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations."..."There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults." You can check this at http://www.alternet.org/story/148016/...

I don't want to dwell on that. And I absolutely hate those Sharia 'laws' attributed to Allah by the crazy end of the Mullah fraternity. I'm only saying that in any society, extremists can take over. And Hamas has certainly done that, according to reports. It CAN be said tho' that Israel MIGHT be partly to blame, in that it carefully destroyed Yasser Arafat's PLO (culminating in its tank seige and near-demolition of his HQ during his final illness etc...) - with the result that his PLO was neutered. The more moderate PLO was then, inevitably, replaced by the more aggressive Hamas, which likely outcome Israel could have anticipated but didn't. (Peaceful earlier relations with the PLO were also neutered, you may remember, after Prime Minister Rabin and Arafat's PLO had made a decent negotiation agreement - whereupon a 'patriotic' rabinical student assassinated Rabin for his peaceful efforts...).

2) You say "the Stern Gang were genuine examples of freedom fighters - those men had fought against the Nazis, and Jews were literally facing extinction. If they had not forced Britain to cede the mandate, the consequences would have been awful."
Quite so. But don't overlook the fact that the outcome WAS awful for those Palestinian families who were then ejected by our new State, after living there for generations. (I know many will argue that they were urged out tactically by Arab states, but that was an Arab ploy that failed, and they were certainly not allowed back to their homes).

3) Your own story is moving. But I have to say your conclusion, that the Israeli forces didn't commit the atrocities they were accused of, is really based as you say on your belief that "Because Judaism is an enlightened and cultured civilisation... Civilised and cultured people do not generally commit wanton murder.... so it would be anti-Semitic to believe that Jewish soldiers would."

Judaism IS an enlightened and cultured civilisation, I agree: but many cultured civilisations have been known to lapse. Consider eg Britain in its Empire period; America in the days of slavery and after; indeed, most Germans in the thirties believed themselves as civilised, but that didn't stop their horrible lapse when they were persuaded by German fanatics that nations next door rightly belonged to 'the Fatherland'.
Crazy minorities do sometimes take over a nation and even the cultured classes go along with them. So yes, it WAS possible that Israel's defence system did commit the atrocities they were accused of, despite your reluctance to believe that...

4) You "attended the pro-Israel rally in Trafalgar square. There were thousands of people there. And it was magical".... you were "convinced of the essential goodness of Israel's cause. They raised money for Gazans..."
Good on them. But you must ask yourself why was it so necessary to raise money for Gazans? Might not their needs have arisen because of the huge damage 'Cast Lead' had done to them; and continues to do by Israel's blockade since then, which has been only marginally lifted - Gazans are still not allowed materials to rebuild their destroyed homes, free movement across borders for trade, etc.

5) You say "If you want to help Arabs you must educate them. Correct their misconceptions about Jews and the west. All I see is you repeating the same slogans and exaggerations as our enemies do, and I have to say it is very upsetting."

Matt - Israel is certainly "educating" Arabs. But absolutely NOT in ways to 'correct their misconceptions about Jews'. Quite the opposite. Look again at my 'after-thought' above, by Rabbi Rosen of Jewish Voice for Peace: -
"On January 16, Israeli authorities demolished the Israeli Bedouin village of Al Araqib for the ninth time in the past six months in order to build a forest for the JNF. Bulldozers from the Israel Land Administration remain on the villagers' land, even though the demolitions are completed."

Consider also the constant demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem, decreed by the local Planning Authority on the grounds that they don't have 'Planning consent' though they've lived in them for generations. Let alone the continuous expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank - often accompanied by attacks on the Arab villages next door.

These experiences are certainly an education for the Arabs aren't they? And I'm not simply "repeating slogans and exaggerations" - these are thoroughly authenticated accounts of what is going on.

I'll end there. I do appreciate what you've said and I don't want this to be a point-scoring contest. But I hope you'll think my reply makes sense.

Before I stop, a word for Yoni1.
Thank you Yoni1, for your carefully reasoned and undoubtedly well-based arguments, so carefully and politely expressed. For example, I'm thinking of sending to the publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary your fascinating contribution to the language:-

'but' (appendage): An attempt to excuse Nazi scum, as in "that makes him scum".

I extend to you my recent invitation to jose: "Alright then - WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION to it all?"


Yoni1

Sat, 01/22/2011 - 14:18

Rate this:

2 points

The settlements in J&S are not 'illegal'. You can screech as much as you like that they are, but it doesn't make them so.
Next!


amber

Sat, 01/22/2011 - 15:18

Rate this:

2 points

Walinets, to answer your points:

It is absurd to compare Hamas with any Lubavitch rabbi. Hamas has not "aligned itself" with extremist Islamisim, as you claim. It was born out of Islamist extremism - it's the whole raison d#etre of the movement. It is antisemitic to the core, and advocates the extermination of every Jew on earth. The crucial thing, which you miss, is that its adherents go into Israeli shops, buses and cafes, and gleefully murder Jews (and anyone else who happens to be there). They do this because they are in the grip of religious fanaticism. Now can you point to a Lubavitch rabbi doing the same?

So the comparison is not just inaccurate, it is morally and intellectually flawed.

You blame Gaza's predicament on "Israel's blockade". Israel operates a partial blockade, and quite rightly. No other country on earth would be expected to provide assistance to an administration hellbent on the genocide of its people. Yet Israel, remarkably, provides hundreds of thousands of tonnes of food and other essentials. Also, thousands of Gaza receive free medical treatment in Israel every year, whiolst Israel provides power (even though Hamas occasionally bombs the power statio providing its own electricity. Israeli workers have been killed at the pwer plant). By contrast, Egypt provides a big fat zero - not a thing Stanley. A TOTAL blockade - of their fellow Arabs. Hamas fires rockets into Israel, not Egypt. Yet on and on you go, endlessly blaming Israel for the problem. Apparently, for you, Egypt, and Hamas itself, bear no responsibility for anything.


amber

Sat, 01/22/2011 - 15:20

Rate this:

2 points

Walinets, the solution will only come when the Arab and wider Islamic worlds give up on the idea of annihilating the Jewish state.

Unfortunately, we are a very long way from that happening - largely, but not exclusively, due to their current winning of the propaganda war, and gullible and ignorant western opinion, as exemplified by what you have written.


amber

Sat, 01/22/2011 - 15:22

Rate this:

3 points

Matt, excellent post. Being a non-Jew, you summed up how I feel as well.

The groupthink going on is really scary.


amber

Sat, 01/22/2011 - 15:25

Rate this:

2 points

Mr Walinets, I notice that you have not named a single suicide bomber, nor another Rachael murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Yet the names Goldstein and Rachael Corrie roll off your tongue very easily.

Have you ever asked yourself why that is?


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/22/2011 - 15:57

Rate this:

2 points

Walinuts:

1) Hamas. I fully agree with your criticisms of them. It's depressing that they have aligned themselves with the extremist end of Islamic believers - just as, it must be said, many of our Lubavitch Rabbis

Yet an intelligent man would make a difference between talking stupids and acting stupids, betwen elected Nazis and minority Nazis. Walinuts put them exactly on the same level.
Wake up Walinuts: HAMAS is the regime elected by 'Palestinians'.

Crazy minorities do sometimes take over a nation

Consider also the constant demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem

Homes built without permit are destroyed in every country I know. This argument is antisemitism as defined in the EU working definition of it.

Well, Walinuts, on the 'Palestinian' side, the nuts are in power.

But I hope you'll think my reply makes sense.

Abandon all hope: your answer does not make any sense.

The solution is very simple. All Arab countries must recognise the Jewish state of Israel immediately and without any prerequisite, stop funding international terrorism, and disarm the terrorists they supported. UNRWA must be dissolved and 'Palestinians' return to the normal status of refugees of UNHRC. In thirty years, there won't be any more refugee problem and 'right of return'. Then, the only remaining point will be the frontier, a problem that do not depend on how many colonies will be inside or outside.
The colonies is a false problem, as Obama just understood after 10 months of a useless freeze.


Yoni1

Sat, 01/22/2011 - 16:58

Rate this:

2 points

Except that they are not 'colonies', a term I find utterly offensive.


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/22/2011 - 17:21

Rate this:

0 points

Well, Arabs are descendants of colons, in Judea Samaria.


jose (not verified)

Sat, 01/22/2011 - 17:25

Rate this:

1 point

Let's stick to Walinuts' blood libel. He is very eager to divert attention from it, but he has to apologise for his racist, antisemitic, despicable words.


Stanley Walinets

Sun, 01/23/2011 - 15:31

Rate this:

-1 points

Yoni1: "The settlements in J&S are not 'illegal'. You can screech as much as you like that they are, but it doesn't make them so. Next!"

I see, Yoni1, you must be right, since you do screech louder than me....

OK, I'll try again to be serious with you.
I assume like me you live in England. Let's say you live in Surrey. And let's suppose amber lives near you.

Suppose an army came from Wales, and Welsh people occupied where you live, and where your families have lived for generations. They justify their occupation (in which for instance they don't recognise your ownership of your house because you never had their consent to live in it...) - they justify their occupation on the grounds that their ancestors lived in Surrey several centuries ago: which is perfectly true, for their ancestors were Anglo-Saxons, who were indeed displaced from their land and herded into Wales by the Romans.

1) Would you say they were entitled to push you out now?
2) Would you quietly accept them and just go?
3) Or might you resist them in any way you could?
4) Or might you eventually accept a border and the divison of Surrey into two halves, and try to negotiate the details with them?
5) But if while you were negotiating, they insisted on sending more Welsh folk to live in your half, how would you feel?
In answering these questions, please keep in mind that you are answering as a Surrey resident, not as a Welsh in-comer.

Jose. As I've said before, I MUST agree with you. Everything you say is absolutely right. How do I know that? Well, because you always spell my name as 'Walinuts' so how could you possibly be wrong?

I do look forward though to the day when you eventually learn to read ...

Or wait - perhaps it's a medical condition you have - I suggest an opthalmologist might help you. Tell him your problem is that whenever you see something, some fact you'd rather not consider, your eyes sort of mist over and the only thing you can do then is shriek until the fact disappears. He MIGHT be able to help you. But it's a serious condition, there might not be a cure... Good luck anyway.


Yoni1

Sun, 01/23/2011 - 15:38

Rate this:

2 points

SW, were you born stupid and ignorant or did you have to take evening classes to achieve this state?

Your Wales analogy is simply dumb. The two situations are not remotely similar. Unlike Surrey, there has never been an established state in J&S since the Jewish polity 2000 years ago, there were only occupations by successive invaders. The Jews are the only ones who have ever had a legitimate state there.

Moreover, you don't seem to have the mental apparatus to understand the distinction between individual houses, and a region.

Israel is the legitimate sovereign entity in J&S. It has every right to establish towns on government land and also on land the state acquires under due process.


Yoni1

Sun, 01/23/2011 - 15:41

Rate this:

2 points

"But if while you were negotiating, they insisted on sending more Welsh folk to live in your half, how would you feel"

More dumb drivel. The Arabs are REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE. They have REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE since November 1947.

Read that sentence 20 times, 100 times, as many times as it takes for it to penetrate your thick, ignorant skull.


Stanley Walinets

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:35

Rate this:

-1 points

Yoni1
I'm finding it impossible to discuss ANYTHING with someone who cannot contemplate ANYTHING she disagrees with in any way other than screams of denial and insult. And you're not alone in this attitude.
It's especially sad to note that the only respondent willing to discuss disagreements in a straightforward, polite and precise way has been Mattprior - who is not a Jew. Aren't you ashamed to project an image of us Jews as being unable to discuss differing opinions except in hot-tempered and abusive language? Please think about this.

However - here's something to set you going again.
You write:
"More dumb drivel. The Arabs are REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE. They have REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE since November 1947."

I BEG you to please read today's Guardian. I know the suggestion that you look at that revolting, disgusting, Stalinist, L*FT*ST paper will horrify you, but its content today really is important. Why? Because it contains details of 1600 internal and classified records just revealed, of negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders over the last decade.

And these records show how VERY VERY VERY FAR Palestinian negotiators have gone in offering to accept Israel's demands, and how Israel has continually rejected them in favour of its policies of expansion.

Example: Tzipi Livni, then Foreign Minister, responding to the Palestinian's secret offer to accept West Bank and Jerusalem annexations, said:
"The Israel policy is to take more land day after day...(then in the end)...we'll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the state."

Yoni - if this reaches you too late to get today's Guardian, you can probably read it on their website. Alternatively, get the paper tomorrow or later, as these revelations are so detailed and extensive that the paper is reporting them over several days.

PLEASE - LOOK AT IT.


Stanley Walinets

Wed, 01/26/2011 - 17:32

Rate this:

0 points

Two days have now passed, without a response. I'm pleased to assume that people are now studying, and being deeply moved by, the revelations in the Guardian. So I'll now declare this blog closed. And will start another one.
L'chayim, everybody.


Yoni1

Wed, 01/26/2011 - 19:05

Rate this:

1 point

"I know the suggestion that you look at that revolting, disgusting, Stalinist, L*FT*ST paper will horrify you"

All the above is irrelevant. It has proved, over 20+ years, that it is an ANTISEMITIC, LYING rag. It's instructive that you completely ignore that aspect, one which makes it utterly unreliable as far as anything connected with Israel or Jews is concerned.
Instructive, that is, about your thick-skulled attitude, which simply refuses to accept that antisemitism even exists, let alone that it informs the attitude of what is laughingly called the British intelligentsia.
And let us not even start on your refusal to accept that the Arabs, by word and deed, have proved their genocidal agenda towards Israel and Jews.
Your stupid new blog, which attempts to accuse Israel (!) of causing the shelling from Gaza of Israeli civilians, is a perfect example of your ... what is it? Stupidity? Chutzpah? You tell me.


Stanley Walinets

Thu, 01/27/2011 - 16:58

Rate this:

-1 points

Yoni1 - It seems to me that if ANYONE disagrees with what you choose to believe, that person is by definition a liar.
For example - you write of me that I "simply refuse to accept that antisemitism even exists". How can you SAY that, after all I've written about it, its presence, its origins, its development and so on? How can you - unless you simply don't bother to read what I write.

A famous philosopher (Sartre, was it?) said "I think, therefore I am". You have a variant belief: "I disagree, therefore you lie"

Given that conviction on your part, what else can I say?


Yoni1

Thu, 01/27/2011 - 17:41

Rate this:

2 points

Oh my gosh. It was Descart. Don't you have any education?


Yoni1

Thu, 01/27/2011 - 17:44

Rate this:

2 points

Not strong on logic or reading comprehension, are you?

"It seems to me that if ANYONE disagrees with what you choose to believe, that person is by definition a liar."

"For example - you write of me that I "simply refuse to accept that antisemitism even exists".

The second sentence is not an 'example' of the first: I didn't call you a liar.
(But you sure are thick.)

The liars I was talking about are the Guardian writers. The clue is in the word 'rag' in the sentence: "It has proved, over 20+ years, that it is an ANTISEMITIC, LYING rag".
And so it is. Zero credibility. A bit like Falk.


mattpryor

Thu, 01/27/2011 - 19:22

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley, my response to your points:

1) Hamas are the antithesis of western liberalism and the freedom that you enjoy. No ifs, no buts, that is the reality. Israelis are good people and they are very vulnerable. The consequences of failing to stand up for them is that we will end up with Hamas in Britain as well. Which politicians do you think will stand up to them when they won't even stand up for Israel standing up to them? It's no good saying "but we're not perfect either" - this is not a popularity contest, this is survival. You are not God, and you do not get to judge which side you think is better or more deserving of your support.

You also blame Israel for Hamas' rise to power. This is false, since Hamas were an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Perhaps you think Israel should have supported the PLO more, who at the time were notorious for murdering (and castrating) Olympic athletes, hijacking planes and generally causing murder and mayhem. Some choice huh?

2) You should have just stopped talking after "Quite so". There is no moral equivalence between Hamas and Irgun. I'm glad you conceded this point. Please stop going around saying that to people. Now if you want to sympathise with the refugees from the war of independence then you need to change the way they are treated by their host countries. They will never be allowed to live in Israel. It's not going to happen, unless Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state in which case we are all f*cked, because by the time that happens things will be VERY VERY bad in the UK.

3) The IDF stood accused of DELIBERATELY murdering civilians and DELIBERATELY bombing UN facilities for no reason other than spite. This was not the case.

Did you believe it was?

The IDF behaved as any western military would, targeting bad guys and trying their best to avoid hurting non-combatants. That's what we do in the civilised world (against groups like Hamas it is a weakness by the way), and Israel is no different.

4) Yes, the war caused damage and loss of life, mostly to the losing side. This typically happens in wars. See above. What is your point?

5) You have painted one very bleak side of the story. There is also another much more positive side to Israel, which many Arabs experience. Why don't you tell people about that instead of concentrating on all the negatives? Who do you think you're helping? Why do you look for bad news and feel the need to repeat it?

I think you have a death wish. I really do. I suggest you sort yourself out before you get us all killed.


Stanley Walinets

Thu, 02/03/2011 - 18:37

Rate this:

2 points

Matt - I've just spent over an hour responding to your points, was just about to click on 'Post comment' - and the whole damn thing just disappeared. I've no idea why, or what I did, if anything, to make that happen - but there it damnwell is. I MIGHT try again tomorrow... but I can't face it now, sorry! I trust you'll understand...

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.