The current uproar over Mick Davis's views


By Stanley Walinets
November 26, 2010
Share

I am full of admiration for UJIA leader Mick Davis for speaking out, and for the JC for giving his views such prominence. At last we in the diaspora are realising the true responsibilities of friendship. To be a friend of Israel does not mean we must never voice our concerns. A true friend shows his sincerity by telling his friend when he is harming himself. It is false friendship to encourage your friend to believe he can do no wrong, to encourage him to ignore uncomfortable truths.

Davis said Israel's actions impact on Jews in London. Absolutely true. But US Anti-Defamation League Abe Foxman's re-action is that that's "arrogant nonsense". Abe -- you are talking like an ostrich with its head deep in the sand. We need only read the regular reports in the JC of anti-Semitic acts over recent decades, to realise that the growth in anti-Semitism has gone hand in hand with Israel's increasingly unacceptable behaviour. After the Hollocaust, sympathy and respect for Jews was world-wide. The undeniable growth in anti-Semitism since then has been an inevitable response to Israel's behaviour since then. And we in the diaspora are its victims, along with our brethren in Israel itself. So we are very much entitled to comment on Israel's mistakes. We suffer too.

A simple analogy. If I'm in a car with my best friend and he's driving dangerously I'd certainly better tell him, before he kills us both. Mick Davis has bravely opened this discussion. It's time to say to Israel, especially its self-important, self-deceiving, extremist frummers, "Israel -- stop. Your behaviour as Jews cannot go on. You are destroying yourself. And you're destroying the rest of us with you."

We must speak out and say that to Israel. Then we can talk seriously about how to make Israel the State we can really be proud of -- humane, intelligent, achieving, an example to all nations. A legitimate State, in fact.

COMMENTS

jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 20:43

Rate this:

1 point

Haaaaaaaaaaaa theres Amber
like I said they know who they are

Childish tantrum.


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 20:47

Rate this:

0 points

I'm ok now my mum brought my hot milk and cookies


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 21:05

Rate this:

0 points

Tspam has been proven disseminating the biased opinion that Israel's actions cause a surge in antisemitism.

He has been unable to explain why such surges happened in the past, before Israel was reborn. Probably a remake of "Effects without a cause" (or "Rebel..."?), or "Back to the Future IV" with reverse time relationship (cause after the effect, something yet unheard of in the macrocosm).

On the other hand, he has not been able to disprove the clear causal relationship between hate propaganda and antisemitic surges in the Western countries. This hate propaganda predates the rebirth of the state of Israel and easily explains the surges observed in History: in Spain 1492 (expulsion, Inquisition), in France 1895 (Dreyfus affair), in the Russian Empire in 1901 (Protocols), in Nazi Germany in 1933 (Mein Kampf), etc.

So we have one theory that doesn't work and is unable to explain all observations, and one that does. I'll leave jandrsimonson decide which he will use. This will show the level of his intelligence.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 21:06

Rate this:

0 points

I'm ok now my mum brought my hot milk and cookies

Don't worry, that won't last.


Yvetta

Sun, 11/28/2010 - 22:37

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley, I was objecting mainly to your implication in your ultimate sentence that Israel is an illegitimate state at present. Sounds rather roguish if you get my drift.

btw, there was an inexplicable burst of antisemitism round the world in 1960 (when Yvetta was knee-high to a grasshopper, naturellement). It subsided as suddenly as it began, and I believe the trigger remains a mystery to this day.
T'sam might know more about this, however - he's quite a brainy lad.


amber

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 00:03

Rate this:

1 point

simonson, if that is truly the level of your debating skills, I submit that you are a pathetic loser who, when cornered (you and walinets have STILL failed to provide a single example of what you allege), resorts to silly meaningless drivel and obfuscation.

And thus the lie of your allegation is exposed for what it is - indeed a lie.


amber

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 00:05

Rate this:

1 point

Let it be noted that walinets and simonson are unable to provide a single example of all criticism of Israel being labelled antisemitic.

They know it isn't true. Will they revise their views about Israel as a result? No - because they are committed to their hatred.

It's hard to admit your wrong - only those with moral courage can do so. Unfortunately, these two are abject cowards.


jose (not verified)

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 05:20

Rate this:

1 point

No, it doesn't. The UN has no sovereignty or authority whatsoever. It has no authority to decide on Israel's legitimacy.

It has an it did. All those who don't respect these decisions such as the creation of the state of Israel are likely to face a coalition of the type that got Kuweit rid of Saddam Hussein.

Whatever we can think of the UN, changed now into a political good-for-nothing body, it did validate the creation of Israel.
That is what makes Israel legitimate. Once it is, the only remaining question is will it be able to defend itself against its powerful aggressors or not. Because nobody counts on the UN to save Israel. Unlike Kuweit, they don't have important petrol ressources.


jose (not verified)

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 05:39

Rate this:

1 point

btw, there was an inexplicable burst of antisemitism round the world in 1960 (when Yvetta was knee-high to a grasshopper, naturellement). It subsided as suddenly as it began, and I believe the trigger remains a mystery to this day.

Interesting Yvetta. Any details? Here is a description of that episode: http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/2cycles.htm

Thus, West Germany accused East Germany and other communist countries of launching anti-Jewish agitation in order to impinge on its diplomatic prestige. A few Zionist groups blamed Nasser and the Arab states, while some anti-Zionists blamed Israeli agents and Zionist organizations of perpetrating the acts in order to accelerate the immigration of Jews to Israel. The idea that Jews themselves were desecrating their synagogues could be found in some antisemitic writings of the period.

Note that it is not a new thing to write that Israel and Jews cause antisemitism and that this theory is found usually in antisemitic writings.

We have already disproved Tspam theory that Israel's action (against antisemitic countries) causes these surges, as there wasn't any Israel during the biggest surges of the last century. We already shown that there is a causal relationship with antisemitic propaganda forwarded by hatemongers and their "useful idiots".


Stanley Walinets

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 07:20

Rate this:

-1 points

Kahina says: The saddest thing in the Arab world, is the contempt Arab states have for the Palestinians. They could so easily help them and accept them as citizens, but they are kept as refugees and used as a tool to fight against the presence of a Jewish State in the region.

It's not so simple, Kahina. Palestinian 'refugees', who've lived in the the Palestine that is now called Israel for many generations, and now live as refugees in the West Bank, do not WANT to be citizens of some other state. Why should they? They've largely accepted that they've been moved and are willing to make their lives in the new (internationally recognised) West Bank area. All they want (that is, most of them -- there are some who still want to fight for what's been taken from them - we call them 'terrorists') - all the majority want is to live in peace in their by now established new land as a separate neighbour state, under a Two State solution - without being overun all over again by 'settlers' (currently around 500,000 and growing). Is that too much to ask?
------------------------------------------
Yvetta complains because I said: "We must speak out ... to Israel. Then we can talk seriously about how to make Israel the State we can really be proud of -- humane, intelligent, achieving, an example to all nations. A legitimate State, in fact."
She complains "Stanley is implying that Israel's legitimacy depends on Israel's conduct - or, rather, behaving as the JfJfP types would wish."

I can't understand you Yvetta. Are you really saying we should NOT want to be proud of Israel for being humane, intelligent, achieving, setting an example to all nations? That you DON'T want Israel to be judged by her conduct? If you don't want to be proud of such an Israel, what DO you want to admire about her?

------------------------------------------

amber says: "Stanley, please provide an example where ANY criticism of Israel is labelled antisemitic.
That is what you said. Just one example."

All I can say, amber, is that whenever one criticises any Israeli behaviour, one is immediately labelled 'anti-semitic'. You must surely be aware of this fact. Consider for example Jonathan Hoffman's words to me, above: "You should be deeply ashamed of yourself for being on the side of the Jew-haters."

(Apropos that remark, is Jonathan aware that in pre-war Nazi-ruled Germany, anyone who criticised the Government was called a 'self-hater'. Can you see an interesting connection here? Alright, I'll spell it out for you: any Jew today who criticises Israel is called a 'self-hater'. Right?)

OK, I can't this minute call to mind an example of an Israeli politician actually saying anyone criticising Israel is 'anti-semitic'. But you surely must agree that whenever Israeli behaviour is criticised, the official response is that the critic is 'anti-Israel'. There is no difference - the Israeli Government's bottom line is 'We never do anything we shouldn't: if you criticise us you're just anti-Israel'.

Enough already. I'll answer more points later. Oh - one more item. I'm accused of never criticising any other country. I've given examples but they've been ignored. So I'll mention that I'm an active member of, or simply subscribe annually (some £600+ from my pension) to around thirty different charities or campaigning bodies concerned with justice around the world; plus I write often to MPs, the Press and foreign embassies on a variety of issues with nothing to do with Israel. I don't do much if anything via the internet though - haven't the time, plus I'm not that comfortable with these 'ere computer thingies ....


Stanley Walinets

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:30

Rate this:

0 points

Dear People,
I want to respond to your various posts above. I've tried twice, at some length, but unfortunately when I've clicked on 'Post Comment', both messages have just diappeared, never to be seen again.
I have emailed Webmaster for assistance and hope to be back soon with my responses.
Thanks for your patience.
Stan Walinets

PS: I'm about to click 'Post comment' for this now, with my fingers crossed (in the form of a Magendovid, of course)


Kahina

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 16:21

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley

It's not so simple, Kahina. Palestinian 'refugees', who've lived in the the Palestine that is now called Israel for many generations, and now live as refugees in the West Bank, do not WANT to be citizens of some other state. Why should they? They've largely accepted that they've been moved and are willing to make their lives in the new (internationally recognised) West Bank area. All they want (that is, most of them -- there are some who still want to fight for what's been taken from them - we call them 'terrorists') - all the majority want is to live in peace in their by now established new land as a separate neighbour state, under a Two State solution - without being overun all over again by 'settlers' (currently around 500,000 and growing). Is that too much to ask?

Actually, I don't think Palestinians really want to live under the PA authority in the West Bank. Can you explain why so many middle class Palestinians are crossing the green line to live in Jewish areas of Jerusalem? I think helping Palestinians means helping to change their leaderships.

And I also don't believe that we can compensate Palestinian refugees without also compensation for the Jews who were kicked out of the Arab countries and also lost properties, businesses, etc. Somewhere in the peace talks their losses have to be addressed as well.

Stanley, I would appreciate your reply, although I think this post has done it's run (maybe that's why it won't accept more comments). What I really would appreciate is your comments on my post of last week http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/will-jfjfp-take-case-palestininan-blogger


Kahina

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 16:22

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley
"It's not so simple, Kahina. Palestinian 'refugees', who've lived in the the Palestine that is now called Israel for many generations, and now live as refugees in the West Bank, do not WANT to be citizens of some other state. Why should they? They've largely accepted that they've been moved and are willing to make their lives in the new (internationally recognised) West Bank area. All they want (that is, most of them -- there are some who still want to fight for what's been taken from them - we call them 'terrorists') - all the majority want is to live in peace in their by now established new land as a separate neighbour state, under a Two State solution - without being overun all over again by 'settlers' (currently around 500,000 and growing). Is that too much to ask?"

Actually, I don't think Palestinians really want to live under the PA authority in the West Bank. Can you explain why so many middle class Palestinians are crossing the green line to live in Jewish areas of Jerusalem? I think helping Palestinians means helping to change their leaderships.

And I also don't believe that we can compensate Palestinian refugees without also compensation for the Jews who were kicked out of the Arab countries and also lost properties, businesses, etc. Somewhere in the peace talks their losses have to be addressed as well.

Stanley, I would appreciate your reply, although I think this post has done it's run (maybe that's why it won't accept more comments). What I really would appreciate is your comments on my post of last week http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/will-jfjfp-take-case-palestininan-blogger


The Bubble Maker

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 17:09

Rate this:

1 point

Mr. Jose,
"Tspam, you poor reading skills are amazing. Olmert:
As long as we continue to be presented as occupiers, we’ll continue to suffer from anti-Semitism.

Do you understand? Who presents the Israeli as occupiers? They are the cause.
Antisemitism is caused by hate propaganda, Israeli 'occupation' is just one more opportunity to spread that hate. But it is not the 'occupation' that is the cause of the hate."

Wrong. It's Jews who present Israel as occupiers; if you take a look at http://www.newisraelfund.org.uk/selected-nif-policies.php
and scroll down to the section on "boycott, divestment and sanctions", you'll find full support by Jews for accusing Israel as "occupiers".

This was recently published here in the blogs, I don't remember which post.


Stanley Walinets

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 18:45

Rate this:

0 points

Damn! I had almost completed a response to Kahina above and the wretched thing has disappeared - again! Can you blame me for hating the internet?!
Experience suggests it MIGHT turn up some time. I'm not going to try write it all again. But fortunately I had copied part of it, a response to her suggestion I look at her other site - http://www.newisraelfund.org.uk/selected-nif-policies.php. So here's that part of it:>

Kahina - thank you for drawing my attention to this arrest of Waleed al-Husseini. I hadn't heard of it. And I am shocked, and absolutely agree it is a terrible thing to have happened -- it is simply one more demonstration of the potential for evil inherent in all absolutist religions and I deplore it (even as I deplore it in our own, when our extremist Rabbis get their way ("G-d tells me therefore I'm right. How do I know G-d tells me? 'Cos he's told me, so shut up or I'll have you punished...")

Forgive me - that's by the way (tho' worth thinking about...). The fact is as you say, that Waheed's arrest is absolutely disgusting and as a JfJfP member I will bring this to the group's attention - they may well not have heard of it, like me. I'd also like to protest to the Palestinian Authorities - can you suggest any addresses?

Before I sign off, I do want to comment on the baying of some of the wolves on this site (see above). They are leaping to condemn JfJfP whose aims are perfectly honourable, and they should stop and think a bit. Their reaction suggests to me that they have very few issues which genuinely justify their dislike of anyone who dares criticise Israel, so they're leaping on this one like slavering dogs - without even knowing if JfJfP has heard of Waheed. Think about it.

One other point, before I rise to protest about Waheed. Utterly deplorable tho' it is, events like this are not without their multiple causes. And one elememnt in this PA swing to extremism must reflect in part on the injustices and subjugation inflicted on the Palestinians these past 60 years. If a community is perpetually ill-treated, extremists within it will take eventually take the upper hand within their community, and resort to absolutism and what we call 'terror'.


Yoni1

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 18:51

Rate this:

0 points

"One other point, before I rise to protest about Waheed. Utterly deplorable tho' it is, events like this are not without their multiple causes. And one elememnt in this PA swing to extremism must reflect in part on the injustices and subjugation inflicted on the Palestinians these past 60 years."

You are one sick, sick man.


amber

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 20:08

Rate this:

0 points

Walinets, that's pathetic. You say that one is immediately labelled "antisemitic" whenever one criticizes Israel at all - indeed, you call it a fact, yet your single example stem from another blogger, and you admite that "offhand", you can't remember a instance of it.

It's not a "fact" then, is it? Merely your perception. The sooner you understand the difference between fact and perception, the sooner you may come to understand the Arab-Israel conflict.

By the way, I do hold that it is antisemitic to exclusively criticize Israel. When Israel is held to standards not applied to others, or when no single positive thing can be said, then it is antisemitism.

It seems to me that you are merely a critic, and not an admirer n any front.


The Bubble Maker

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 20:15

Rate this:

0 points

"And one elememnt in this PA swing to extremism must reflect in part on the injustices and subjugation inflicted on the Palestinians these past 60 years."

What "60 years", exactly? They only started calling themselves "palestinians" in the late eighties. In Golda Meir's time she refused to recognise them, neither did Begin, who joked about himself being "a Polish Palestinian". And before '67 they were under Egyptian and Jordanian rule. How can you accuse such civilised, democratic countries as Egypt and Jordan of inflicting "injustices and subjugation" on a people that at that time did not exist?


amber

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 22:29

Rate this:

0 points

Now it comes out - Walinets is a member of jfjfp, an organization which marches on demos with antisemitic and neo-Nazi supporters of Hamas and Hizbollah (both organization committed, by their respective charters, to the extermination of every Jew on earth).

Says it all.

Disgusting.


Stanley Walinets

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 18:52

Rate this:

-1 points

Amber, Nov 28, wrote:
"Come on Walinets and simonson, give ius an example where someone has said every criticism of Israel is antisemitic.
One example please."

I tried - tho' couldn't off-hand recall a precise example.

Amber replied:
"Walinets, that's pathetic. You say that one is immediately labelled "antisemitic" whenever one criticizes Israel at all - indeed, you call it a fact, yet your single example stem from another blogger, and you admite that "offhand", you can't remember a instance of it.
It's not a "fact" then, is it? Merely your perception. The sooner you understand the difference between fact and perception, the sooner you may come to understand the Arab-Israel conflict."

But she then goes on:
"By the way, I do hold that it is antisemitic to exclusively criticize Israel. When Israel is held to standards not applied to others, or when no single positive thing can be said, then it is antisemitism."

But amber - you've just proved my point! Read carefully what you've said.

But really, this is a trivial issue - we're talking about the fact, the FACT, that the a-s word is hurled back whenever Israel's actions are criticised. My view is it's more important to face criticisms, and refute them if they can be refuted, than to divert attention all the time by ignoring the criticism and hurling abuse at the critic for speaking up.

Now to your latest unjustifiable rant, Amber:
"Now it comes out - Walinets is a member of jfjfp, an organization which marches on demos with antisemitic and neo-Nazi supporters of Hamas and Hizbollah..."

'anti-semitic'? 'neo-Nazi'? JfJfP seeks only what its name says - justice for Palestinians. That's all. If you honestly believe Palestinians have been treated justly then you are hiding your head in the sand. BUT, neither I nor JfJfP 'support' Hamas, and we certainly don't see them as 'neo-Nazis'. We simply draw attention to how Israel's behaviour has resulted, inevitably, in Hamas' ever-growing hostility to Israel, culminating in its quest to destroy Israel altogether.
We do NOT support that aim, and you have no right to taint us as 'neo-Nazis'.
Just one example of how, over the years, Hamas has been driven to the extreme attitudes it now has: For almost a year before 'Operation Cast Lead', Hamas had agreed a cease-fire with Israel - and stuck to it. But eventually Israel decided it wanted to end that truce, so quietly sent some security men into Gaza to assassinate six or seven alleged militants. Hamas inevitably then broke the truce with a few rockets, whereupon Israel had the perfect excuse to launch its carefully planned attack and kill HUNDREDS of Gaza's people.
If you treat a people in these ways, you are foolish to be surprised when they try to fight back.
It is time Israel started to negotiate - HONESTLY - the Two State solution, time Mr Netanyahu stood up to Lieberman for the real neo-Nazi aims he and his Party stand for.
And time we diaspora Jews started to speak up to Israel, in all our interests, instead of shouting endlessly the obvious nonsense that Israel can do no wrong.
That's why I think Mick Davis is a brave and honest man, who we should all listen to.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 19:03

Rate this:

1 point

But eventually Israel decided it wanted to end that truce, so quietly sent some security men into Gaza to assassinate six or seven alleged militants

Where did you get that fairy tale, Stanley?
The militants were caught red-handed digging under the frontier.

We can see here that Stanley Walinets does not care a dime about reality. Only one thing is important to him and it is not justice for Palestinians. Justice for Palestinians is getting them rid of Hamas and corrupted leaders.
The only thing important to Stanley is hate. People like him deserve what they get.


mattpryor

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 19:18

Rate this:

0 points

Mr Wallets perhaps if JfJfP want to be taken seriously and do not want to appear as just another anti-Israel movement they should concentrate on the worst abusers of the refugees from the 1948 war, namely Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and HAMAS - and the PLO aren't that great either. "Palestinians" living under Israeli sovereignty (albeit with a degree of autonomy) are the most well fed, the most educated and enjoy the highest living standards in the region. And unlike their brethren in neighbouring countries they get to vote - when their corrupt and criminal leaders bother to call elections.

The fact that you think HAMAS's ideology and methodology is a result of anything Israel has or has not done just shows a complete failure to understand the evil totalitarian nature of that movement. I find the way you make excuses for their behaviour utterly abhorrent. Have you forgotten that it was HAMAS under Maashal that murdered scores of civilians in suicide bombing raids during the second Intifada? Have you forgotten that it was they who pioneered the technique of loading their bombs with rat-poison laced ball bearings to maximise pain and suffering?

They are thieves, murderers and bandits. Their cause is a corrupt and violent one based on deceit and exploitation. They steal from and murder their own people. For goodness sake stop apologising for them.

I see you have also been reading up on the latest Jihadi propaganda. "A few rockets"? Try thousands. For years. And try living somewhere where they are landing on your kids' school and tell me you would not want your government to retaliate in the strongest possible terms. Where is your sympathy for those people?

I cannot decide whether your willingness to take the side of the West's enemies is due to ignorance or malice, but it scares the hell out of me.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 19:20

Rate this:

0 points

Note that Stanley cargeully avoid repeating the lies of the PCHR that have now been denied by those who pretended they were true. But he knows perfectly that he fell for that propaganda as well.
Let's repeat what the Hamas said: 600-700 militants killed during the "Cast Lead" retaliation for Hamas aggression.

Here is a letter signed by Stanley Walinets (and a Renee, and a Karl):

We the undersigned are all of Jewish origin. When we see the dead and bloodied bodies of young children, the cutting off of water, electricity and food, we are reminded of the siege of the Warsaw Ghetto. When Dov Weisglass, an adviser to the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, talked of putting Gazans "on a diet" and the deputy defence minister, Matan Vilnai, talked about the Palestinians experiencing "a bigger shoah"
(holocaust), this reminds us of Governor General Hans Frank in Nazi-occupied Poland, who spoke of "death by hunger".
The real reason for the attack on Gaza is that Israel is only willing to deal with Palestinian quislings. The main crime of Hamas is not terrorism but its refusal to accept becoming a pawn in the hands of the Israeli occupation regime in Palestine.
The decision last month by the EU council to upgrade relations with Israel, without any specific conditions on human rights, has encouraged further Israeli aggression. The time for appeasing Israel is long past. As a first step, Britain must withdraw the British ambassador to Israel and, as with apartheid South Africa, embark on a programme of boycott, divestment and sanctions.

I love the part starting with "The main crime of the Hamas is not terrorism...".

Israel is not yet done with the Hamas, but it is now evident that Cast Lead reached fully its goals: stop the Hamas constant aggression and force them to continue the truce indefinitely. Cast Lead is justified just as the Lebanon 2006 War was.

And it is Hamas and Hezbollah prudent behaviour after the wars that justified them.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 19:24

Rate this:

0 points

I cannot decide whether your willingness to take the side of the West's enemies is due to ignorance or malice, but it scares the hell out of me.

Malice? Try hate, rather.


mattpryor

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 19:30

Rate this:

0 points

The world according to Stanley:

Victims:

Aggressors:

Sick. Just sick.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 19:48

Rate this:

0 points

Note that Stanley does not care about 'Palestinians': he even call Abbas a "quisling" and support one of the worst terrorist groups in the world.
For Stanley, Abbas is a collaborationist! This means he is even more radical than most 'Palestinians' themselves.
He is a warmonger and hatemonger.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 20:02

Rate this:

0 points

Matt, there is something wrong with the caption of your pictures, don't you think? Could it be that....? I mean, an error is so easy to make....? You don't mean that Stanley....?


amber

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 20:07

Rate this:

0 points

Staley, NO NO NO. Try to understand the word "exclusively". People who EXCLUSIVELY criticize Israel are indeed antisemitic. That is what I wrote. NOT that every criticism of Israel is antisemitic - the charge which you have levelled, and been unable to provide a single example of. It is YOU who has proved my point - for you, criticism of Israel is never antisemitic, even when those who indulge in it exclusively criticize israel, and hold it to a different standard to others. That is racist Walinets.

Your defence of Hamas, and Jfjfp's association with supporters of Hamas, is simply obscene. Hamas advocates as one of its aims the extermination of every Jew on earth. Its memebrs engage in all kinds of antisemitic propaganda and hatred - including Nazi salutes. that you then claim that it is Israel's fault that Hamas is extreme is utterly deplorable. Again, you balme the victim for making he aggressor antisemitic and hateful. The victim brings it on themselves.

You are one sicj individual. next time a Jew gets beaten up, you can explain to them how it is Israel's fault, and not the fault of the perpetrator, who was provoked and couldn't help but act hatefully and violently.


jose (not verified)

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 20:21

Rate this:

0 points

Please note that the letter signed by Stanley Walinets has all the ingredients that are now mentioned explicitely as antisemitic by the Ottawa Conference:
- comparing Israel to Nazis,
- calling the fate of 'Palestinians' a "genocide"
- equating the fate of 'Palestinians' with the suffering of the Jews under the Nazi rule
- excusing terrorism
- blaming the 'moderate' (I know, it is just Abbas, but they don't have that many moderates, back there)
- comparing Israel to South Africa apartheid
- calling for BDS


jose (not verified)

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 20:25

Rate this:

0 points

So Stanley admitted that he didn't know any example of a person who branded all criticism of Israel as antisemitic.

As the impartial referee (elected as target by the extremes), I announce the results:
Amber 1 - Stanley 0

Come again, Stanley: we'd love to see you back!


amber

Wed, 12/01/2010 - 00:00

Rate this:

0 points

Thanks Jose - it seems Walinets has crawled away to lick his wounds. I suggest he engages his brain before posting again.


Stanley Walinets

Wed, 12/01/2010 - 17:49

Rate this:

0 points

Nov 30th, Amber wrote:
"Staley, NO NO NO. Try to understand the word "exclusively". People who EXCLUSIVELY criticize Israel are indeed antisemitic. That is what I wrote. NOT that every criticism of Israel is antisemitic - the charge which you have levelled, and been unable to provide a single example of. It is YOU who has proved my point - for you, criticism of Israel is never antisemitic, even when those who indulge in it exclusively criticize israel, and hold it to a different standard to others. That is racist Walinets."

Amber, please. We're both right. We're both wrong. Or we're both playing with semantics. I do not say EVERY criticism of Israel is anti-semitic (and I don't, by the way, criticise Israel EXCLUSIVELY - other nations, bodies, have been my targets, for what good it's done...).
I'm simply trying to say that criticisms of Israel are FREQUENTLY dismissed as anti-semitic: not ALWAYS, just FREQUENTLY. And that my basic worry about that FACT is that it enables people to ignore reasonable comment, if they'd rather not look at the possibility that Israel is acting unwisely; that perhaps her Governments are mistaken; that perhaps, being human, they're actually capable of behaving badly without realising it. That's all I'm trying to say.

Have I crawled away to lick my wounds? I certainly feel like it. There are so many posts above that seem determined to wound me rather than listen to the truths I speak, and it is depressing. I'm tempted to claim they do protest too much...

They all jump on what they claim to be my faults, sins, terrible anti-semitic crimes. None of them mentions the truths I convey - too painful, I suppose. For instance, the letter I signed,(spotted by Jose, Nov 30 - where and when did you see that Jose, as a matter of interest?). Amidst the chorus of condemnations, no-one mentions that first paragraph, which contains actual facts people would apparently prefer not to see. No - all you 'Israel-right-or-wrong' people simply want to avoid what doesn't suit you.

Well, that is not the way to solve problems. And I take it no-one denies there ARE problems? We gotta talk, folks, lift our heads out of the sand and TALK. Only that way can Israel become the truly legitimate State we ALL want her to be. Incidentally, that buzz-word 'delegitimise' - it's constantly used to describe the alleged aim of critic groups: but it is NOT their aim. Their aim is simply to get Israel to change many of its self-harming practices: thAT 'delegitimisers' word is purely an invention of the Israeli PR workers.

So. Angry posters - try to LISTEN. Talk-talk, not squawk-squawk, is the only way to work on problems with any chance of success. I don't claim to be 100% right in my every utterance; do you?

So back to Mick Davis. It's time we stopped refusing to tell Israel when she's harming herself - and us with her. When we speak out, we COULD just occasionally be wrong. But so could Israel. So could you.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.