Whose Nose is Longer, Richard Falk's or Michael Mansfield's?


By Jonathan Hoffman
December 1, 2010
Share

Pinoccio's nose grew longer every time he told a lie.

Tonight at the University of London Richard Falk and Michael Mansfield QC seemed to be vying to grow the longest nose (Mansfield is a leftist legal advocate who presided over the Kangaroo Court on Israel (aka Russell Tribunal) last week; Falk is an American law academic, a UN honcho on the Palestinians and an as-a-Jew. He is barred from Israel, for the antisemitic comparison of Israel to the Nazis).

From Falk we had (speaking about the security fence): "The wall has no security role"

From Mansfield (who was chairing): "You cannot use certain words in the Press when it comes to Israel"

Aha, those pesky Jooos control the Press, of course they do, Mike. And did you hear, there were no Israelis in the Twin Towers on 9/11?

Moron - there was never a lefty bandwagon upon which Mansfield did not instantly climb.....

A more detailed account can soon be found on Richard Millett's blog

Update:

http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/memo-mcb-and-richard-falk...

Here is Richard's excellent account

COMMENTS

telegramsam

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 10:37

Rate this:

-1 points

Good morning Jonathan. Many thanks for this. Two slight points: Isn't it the canard than no Jews died in the Twin Towers 9/11? And by pointing out the size of soemone's nose, aren't you being a trifle antisemitic?


amber

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:10

Rate this:

1 point

is that a joke tspam?

Funny, coming from a Jew hater like you.


telegramsam

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:17

Rate this:

-1 points

Amber, many thanks for pointing that out. It is most instructive.


amber

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:29

Rate this:

1 point

tspam, you are a disgrace.

Is your mother proud that she raised an antisemite?


telegramsam

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:29

Rate this:

-1 points

Amber, that, too, was so very instructive. Many thanks. Please continue.


telegramsam

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:30

Rate this:

-1 points

Amber, that, too, was so very instructive. Many thanks. Please continue.


amber

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:33

Rate this:

1 point

As instructive as your incessant stream of hatred against other Jews.

Tell us, what is instructive about your antisemitism?


telegramsam

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 11:35

Rate this:

-2 points

Amber, I do believe you are getting a bit intemperate. I respectfully suggest that for the good of your health you take a break. It can't be good for your blood pressure. We don't want to see you falling ill.


jose (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:32

Rate this:

1 point

Tspam can only utter anti-Israel propaganda. Too difficult to get a brain, these days.


jose (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:35

Rate this:

1 point

By the way, Tspam, Jonathan was making a reference to the Pinocchio story, which is not precisely antisemitic.
Maybe you should go back to kindergarten: even there, there's something you did not get!


amber

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:52

Rate this:

1 point

tspam, antisemitism does not get respect.


telegramsam

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 12:58

Rate this:

-1 points

Amber, again, your post is most instructive. But as you hold Israel to a superior standard, what does that make you?


richmillett

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 13:38

Rate this:

1 point

Sam, where does Amber hold Israel to a superior standard?


jose (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 13:50

Rate this:

1 point

Rich, it is Tspam that holds Israel to a superior standard, ie he applies stricter rules to judge Israel than any other democracy, let alone the Muslim dictatorships.


Armchair Quarterback

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 16:18

Rate this:

0 points

Who is Amber ?


Watchful Iris (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 16:27

Rate this:

-2 points

Jonathan Hoffman: Moron - there was never a lefty bandwagon upon which Mansfield did not instantly climb....

Am I going senile or did the original blog use the term tosser rather than moron?


Robert Snodgrass

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 16:54

Rate this:

3 points

Input from Telegramsam:

- Good morning Jonathan. Many thanks for this. Two slight points: Isn't it the canard than no Jews died in the Twin Towers 9/11? And by pointing out the size of soemone's nose, aren't you being a trifle antisemitic?

- Amber, many thanks for pointing that out. It is most instructive.

- Amber, I do believe you are getting a bit intemperate. I respectfully suggest that for the good of your health you take a break. It can't be good for your blood pressure. We don't want to see you falling ill.

- Amber, again, your post is most instructive. But as you hold Israel to a superior standard, what does that make you?

You can't take him serious. He should be ignored. I like nothing better then a good debate, especially when Israel is involved but these points dont deserve to be addressed

what a shmock


ann levin

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 18:03

Rate this:

4 points

I have to strongly disagree with Mr. Falk's comment that the "security fence" has no security role. Since the fence has been installed, I feel less threatened by the possibility of bumping into a suicide bomber when I visit the Shopping Mall in Kfar Saba. This is located very close to where I live - Ra'anana. Perhaps Mr. Falk or any other disbeliever would care to visit!!


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 19:48

Rate this:

-1 points

Ann I think the argument runs something like this....and please don't shoot the messenger....If the impetus for the fence had been security it would have been built on Israeli soil or at least slap bang along the internationally recognised frontier. That it's course cuts deep into occupied territory causes the world to regard it as more akin to a land grabbing exercise.Maybe you should pay a visit to Bil'in ?

I realise that I am being somewhat disingeneous. Your complaint was about the claim that the fence has NO security role when quite clearly it does. Unfortunately the world overlooks this role as it perceives it to be very much an add on to a land grabbing exercise.

It would have been much wiser to have run the fence along the frontier to prevent such misunderstandings do you not think ?


amber

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 20:15

Rate this:

0 points

tspam, it is YOU, by your own admission, who holds Israel to a higher standard. Oh, the irony...

Either provide evidence I hold Israel to a higher standard, or withdraw the remark.


amber

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 20:18

Rate this:

0 points

Tspam wrote this on another blog:

"if Israel acts to a higher standard than anywhere in the ME, and is found wanting, then it guilty of antisemitism."

Can anyone explain it? It is the most ludicrous thing he has ever written.


jose (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 20:57

Rate this:

0 points

It would have been much wiser to have run the fence along the frontier to prevent such misunderstandings do you not think ?

Is that an argument, samsimonson? You are being disingeneous when you write "frontier" while anyone with kindergarten education knows there is no frontier, only an armistice line in 1949, deemed "indefensible".
Then, even if there was a frontier, the guilt for the necessity of the barrier fall on the terrorist. Why Israel should pay the price for something it is not responsible for and that Fatah is not able to prevent?
Besides, for decades after 1967, the Green line was permeable to 'Palestinian' workers. The only thing that changed, which prompted the necessity of the fence is just the terrorism that went along with the hatemongers during intifadas.

The fence stated goal is to protect Israeli citizens from 'Palestinian' violence. It does that quite well until now. Its place may be controversial, but it matters only if 'Palestinians' refuse to negociate. Once the frontiers will be determined by the negociations, the fence will be moved to the new borders.


jose (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 21:00

Rate this:

0 points

Can anyone explain it? It is the most ludicrous thing [tspam] has ever written.

Call the Guiness Book! That must be some record!


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 21:04

Rate this:

0 points

well wouldnt it have been wise while these new borders are being negotiated to have run the fence along the existing borders and then when the new borders have been negotiated moved it to the new borders ? Like you say its just a lil ole fence very easily moved


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 21:06

Rate this:

0 points

I mean just to circumvent any possible misunderstanding about its purpose ? I assume " jose " you are at least as keen as I am to avoid misunderstandings


J.Clifford

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 22:11

Rate this:

0 points

Does that include the parts where the fence runs inside Israel - never a word about this.


jandrsimonson (not verified)

Fri, 12/03/2010 - 07:20

Rate this:

0 points

Israel built it and has every right to build anything it wants on it's own territory

Its those parts built deep in occupied territory that are inclined to lead to" misunderstandings" about its purpose

Israel wanted the fence so in Israel or slap bang on the frontier is the proper place for it.


jose (not verified)

Fri, 12/03/2010 - 08:43

Rate this:

0 points

What is so difficult to understand in the fact that the frontiers have NOT been detemined, samsimonson?
Comprehension-impairment is a big trouble.

Where are these famous parts built "deep" in "occupied territory, exactly?


jose (not verified)

Fri, 12/03/2010 - 08:48

Rate this:

0 points

So it is impossible to make a fence on a non-existing border, mind all the antisemitic bunch. Why should Israel put the fence on the armistice line of 1949?
The fence is made to make Israel secure. Thus it may at times be at some distance from the armistice line, on disputed territories. Once the borders will be set by negociations, the fence will stick to the border.

Hence the necessity of direct and quick negociations, something the 'Palestinian' leaders (and the 'Palestinians' in their majority) do not seem to get.


jose (not verified)

Fri, 12/03/2010 - 09:04

Rate this:

0 points

I assume " jose " you are at least as keen as I am to avoid misunderstandings

"at least as" is an understatement.
The fact is I avoid them totally, while on the other hand...

Let's be clear again (and again, and again...): there is no frontier to put the fence on. There is only one goal to the fence, security for Israel, for the better good of all including 'Palestinians' (see Gaza if you don't believe it). And when the dispute on territories will be settled by negociations, the fence will stick to the frontier.

Incidentally, advocating that the fence stick to the 1949 armistice line implies preventing East Jerusalem Arabs to enjoy the parks in West Jerusalem with their children. Last time I was in Jerusalem, Israeli Arab kids were playing soccer (watched by Iraeli Arab professors) in a field right across the Knesset, and veiled women with children in baby carriages walking quietly in West Jerusalem streets. On the other hand, Israeli Jews cannot walk safely in East Jerusalem, let alone having children with them, which shows the difference of tolerance between the two sides. Only if one doesn't judge using double standards, of course.

Because double standards are a sure sign of antisemitism.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS