So why do people hate Israel?

[MontyB]

Part two:
from the article "The Illegal-Settlements Myth"

"Concluding that Israeli settlements violate Article 49(6) also overlooks the Jewish communities that existed before the creation of the state in areas occupied by today’s Israeli settlements, for example, in Hebron and the Etzion bloc outside Jerusalem. These Jewish communities were destroyed by Arab armies, militias, and rioters, and, as in the case of Hebron, the community’s population was slaughtered. Is it sensible to interpret Article 49 to bar the reconstitution of Jewish communities that were destroyed through aggression and slaughter? If so, the international law of occupation runs the risk of freezing one occupier’s conduct in place, no matter how unlawful".​

​

Yes it is sensible to bar the reconstruction of Jewish settlements in territory that is outside the nations agreed borders, good try but rather a poor diversion I am afraid as the settlements being in occupied territory are clearly not in the area given to the state of Israel and are certainly outside the area accepted by Israel at its formation.

Even if we were to accept the legality of the of the Israeli state they are not entitled to colonise areas beyond the area set aside for that state.

Might get the boys working on better responses as that one was just lazy and if they want to stick to it then one can only assume that Palestinians can reconstruct their villages within Israel using the same argument?

Lets look at those supposed Jewish settlements around Hebron shall we well for a start I see one glaring issue primarily Hebron is dead smack in the middle of the Arab state maybe that is sticking point?
Now here is the one big thing I remember from civics classes at school you can build all the settlements you like but only on land that is yours.

The uncut video was shown in court and, to my knowledge, not yet posted on the internet.

This of course must lead us to wonder how you could possibly know what is in a video that hasn't been made public.

 

[senojekips]

Part two:
You lied a number of times. Show me were the Mandate speaks about "Palestinians". None of the yearly documents from the Mandate mentions "Palestinians" once. So here's your chance: give me the link were the mandate speaks of "Palestinians". Not crap from anti-israel wepages but from the official Mandate documents with link.

It's simple, the mandate itself was named, "The British mandate for Palestine" by default those living in Palestine are Palestinians, as pointed out numerous times previously.

Prove it!

I don't have to. You already have, by your own actions.

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

You fulfil all those criteria excellently. You are attempting to publicly help Israel, and you have denied any connection on several occasions.

really??

You are the first to imply that the video has been edited. Not even the IDF or Israeli courts made such an accusation and it was accepted as evidence.

The uncut video was shown in court and, to my knowledge, not yet posted on the internet.

So would you care to tell us how you can quote from the allegedly "cut" parts of a video that has never been on the internet. This in itself seem odd considering the stink that was raised over the allegedly "cut" video. I's sa this is another of you well known flights of fancy.

Very simple. Let's look at the facts.
You show a hole in the shoe although the hole is not seen in every frame, but let's asume there is a hole, show me the moment were the hole was made, show me the impact of the bullet going through his foot. You cant. So the hole is either an optical illusion or it was there before the event.
Another fact, The person himself has testified before court that he had a blister on his toe. No mention whatsoever of a bullet going through his foot like you claim. Now who would know it better you think? You or the victim himself?

All dealt with several times previously, you're getting desperate aren't you? The hole is clearly visible at any time that the sole of the shoe is seen in sunlight (for more than 96 frames) Of course it cannot be seen when it is in shadow,as is your "miracle Frame 633" in which you claim you can see an uninjured foot, (still inside a shoe no less) andYou still have not posted this frame and given the explanation as to how it shows an uninjured foot.

The "statement" of the victim is known to have been given under duress in that he was given a Death threat by those who shot him. Whereas noting that it was an article of great interest at the time, no one ever took a photo of his wound be it a hole through his foot or a "Blistered toe". It was clearly all stage managed by his aggressors.

You stated and I quote,

Other than which you have not answered as to how you can claim in one post that the victim received a "Blistered Toe" as a result of the shooting of his foot, and now you state that the projectile hit the ground 6 metres away.

Abu Rahama testified in court that he was injured in his right side of his left toe, (there goes your story!) something Physician Nahum Shahaf determined unequivocally in his official affidavit that this could not have been the case because geometric analysis of the ricochet’s trajectory as spotted in several frames and the angel of the gun barrel. The convergence of both angels indicates that rubber bullet hit the sidewalk about six meters behind the Palestinian detainee and in a distance of about 30 to 40 centimeters from his left side of his body. Abu Rahma was standing at the time of the shooting on the road and the bullet hit the sidewalk which is higher than the road by about 15 centimeters. These facts exclude any possibility that Abu Rahama could have been injured in his right side of his left toe, as he claimed just after the shooting and testified in court.

Wow that must be some projectile,...

 

[udaka]

Bascially, many guys on this forum accused the war Israeli between Arabs are bullsh!t and nonsense.

If European got so many lands on the Earth, why the JEWS and Israeli can not got a small land from Arabs?you are the Angel, ha, ha,ha ?
it is their privilige of the Israeli . I support them on this issue.

 

[VDKMS]

[/INDENT][/I]Yes it is sensible to bar the reconstruction of Jewish settlements in territory that is outside the nations agreed borders, good try but rather a poor diversion I am afraid as the settlements being in occupied territory are clearly not in the area given to the state of Israel and are certainly outside the area accepted by Israel at its formation.

Even if we were to accept the legality of the of the Israeli state they are not entitled to colonise areas beyond the area set aside for that state.

Why is Israel not allowed to do what the international community did? The British were the occupying power of a part of the Ottoman Empire because of a defensive war and the US was the occupying power in Iraq. The allies were the occupying power in Germany and Japan after WWII. The only difference is that Israel does not occupy a country. It was land not yet allocated that was illegaly annexed by Jordan and lost to Israel in a defensive war.

Might get the boys working on better responses as that one was just lazy and if they want to stick to it then one can only assume that Palestinians can reconstruct their villages within Israel using the same argument?

Wrong comparison. In order to be able to do that they must occupy Israel through a defensive war. One problem though, they do not officially have a country.

Lets look at those supposed Jewish settlements around Hebron shall we well for a start I see one glaring issue primarily Hebron is dead smack in the middle of the Arab state maybe that is sticking point?
Now here is the one big thing I remember from civics classes at school you can build all the settlements you like but only on land that is yours.

The Arabs refused their part, that means the proposed Arab state (read that very well, it does not say Palestine!) is not created and became unallocated land.
Everyone can build something everywhere as long as he has the approval of the authorities that are responsible for that land. The land where the settlements are build reside under the authority of Israel as agreed in the Oslo accords.

This of course must lead us to wonder how you could possibly know what is in a video that hasn't been made public.

The video was not made public but was filed as evidence so the accused were able to view it, hence the remark that the impact of the bullet was not seen in the movie and since the victim was only superficially wounded the defense argued it was from a ricochet bullet and not a direct hit. Not the victim nor B'Tselem said he was shot through the foot.

It's simple, the mandate itself was named, "The British mandate for Palestine" by default those living in Palestine are Palestinians, as pointed out numerous times previously.

It was a mandate not a country. It was an administrative measure. Everyone living there (legally or illegally) at the start of the mandate became a Palestinian citizen. They got British Palestinian passports. This citizenship has nothing to do with a future "Palestine". The british Palestinian passports became invalid with the termination of the British mandate on 15 May 1948.

I don't have to. You already have, by your own actions.
You fulfil all those criteria excellently. You are attempting to publicly help Israel, and you have denied any connection on several occasions.

You cannot become a citizen from another country by your action. If that were true then you are affiliated with Jihadists.

You are the first to imply that the video has been edited. Not even the IDF or Israeli courts made such an accusation and it was accepted as evidence.

"Lawyer Shlomo Tzipori announced on behalf of his client Lt. Col. Borberg that he intends to officially ask the legal adviser of the Israeli government to open an investigation in order to find who is responsible for doctoring the videotape. Btselem told Channel 10 that these arguments are “groundless and hallucinatory” and that the organization “is willing to cooperate with any professional and independent investigation of the video tape.”"​

So would you care to tell us how you can quote from the allegedly "cut" parts of a video that has never been on the internet. This in itself seem odd considering the stink that was raised over the allegedly "cut" video. I's sa this is another of you well known flights of fancy.

It would expose that the video was tampered with.

This content of the conversation between Salam and her brother does not appear in the short video clip that Btselem published. It clearly supports Lt. Col. Borberg’s testimony that he was furious and hit the soldier after the shooting and that he never gave any order to shoot at the Palestinian detainee. From unknown reason, the reaction of Lt. Col. Borberg that was filmed by Salam, is not seen in the videotape submitted by Btselem to Military Investigative Police.

Another peculiar issue is related to Salam contradicting versions given in an attempt to explain the short break in the video after the shooting. She is heard in the videotape saying that she turned off the camera out of panic. In her testimony in court, she argued that the camera fell out of her hand and in an interview he said that she kept filming with shaky hands and later gave the camera to her brother. All three versions may have different affect of the filming: immediate cut, capturing the way till the camera hit the floor and shaky pictures.​

All dealt with several times previously, you're getting desperate aren't you? The hole is clearly visible at any time that the sole of the shoe is seen in sunlight (for more than 96 frames) Of course it cannot be seen when it is in shadow,as is your "miracle Frame 633" in which you claim you can see an uninjured foot, (still inside a shoe no less) andYou still have not posted this frame and given the explanation as to how it shows an uninjured foot.

Show me the the moment of impact of the bullet in his foot. It was filmed, wasn't it? Unfortunately that split second was not recorded! Pallywood! The dust cloud generated by the hit of the bullet was cut.

It should be noted that Dr. Arik Baltaskia, who was summoned to check Abu Rahma at the scene, noted that he did not find any signs of fracture, bleeding or irreversible damage and determined that the blow couldn’t have been a direct result of the shooting. The Israeli court described Abu Rahma’s testimony regarding the event as “confusing and embedded with contradictions”​

The "statement" of the victim is known to have been given under duress in that he was given a Death threat by those who shot him. Whereas noting that it was an article of great interest at the time, no one ever took a photo of his wound be it a hole through his foot or a "Blistered toe". It was clearly all stage managed by his aggressors.

An opinion disproved by facts. B'Tselem would have cried foul.

You stated and I quote,

Other than which you have not answered as to how you can claim in one post that the victim received a "Blistered Toe" as a result of the shooting of his foot, and now you state that the projectile hit the ground 6 metres away.

You have a short memory. My first reaction on your post in the tread "About Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and other" post #10 a week ago was:

"the way the soldier holds the weapon when fired he can impossible hit the "demonstrator's" foot which B’Tselem said was a rubber coated metal bullet."​

Wow that must be some projectile,...

Pure logic. How can a bullet shot to the left of a person hit his left toe on the right side?
How can a bullet shot to the left side of a person hit him in the middle of his left foot without damaging any bones, without any bleeding and ending in court with a blister on the right side of his left toe!

 

[ASG5IMB]

the british province of israel is legal.

 

[senojekips]

The IDF it seems has a problem with a seriously entrenched culture of lying at all levels of command. Not a problem for them,... but certainly for anyone who is expected to believe what they say.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/59174/lies-we-tell
Lies We Tell
Israelis like to call their army the most moral in the world. But as the case of the recently disgraced Gen. Yoav Galant shows, prevarications are the rule, not the exception.

By Etgar Keret|February 18, 2011 7:00 AM|

About 25 years ago, during the second week of my army basic training, I lost a water canteen. Trembling, I went up to my squad commander and reported the loss. The commander reassured me, explaining that there was plenty of time before roll call and that if I searched carefully I could find another canteen. I didn’t really understand what he meant, so I asked him where he thought I should look. He waved his hand in the general direction of the neighboring company and said, “Go look. I’m sure you’ll find one.” I asked him if he was suggesting that I steal a canteen. The squadron commander, who in retrospect was just a pimply 19-year-old kid, became agitated and started yelling at me not to put words in his mouth. He told me to get lost and watch my ass if I turned up at roll call without a canteen.

Unlike the recent and much talked-about moral conduct of Gen. Yoav Galant—a former candidate for the position of IDF chief of staff who was found to have taken public land for his own use and lied at least twice in court documents about it—this trivial episode required no governmental investigation committee or an opinion from the attorney general. Anyone who served in the army can recount many such moments. I don’t know a single soldier who didn’t have to lie and cut corners during his service, to cover for himself or for a friend or, more commonly, to cover for a commander who had to be kept happy. I must admit that the three years of my military service were the three years during which I told the most lies of my life.

So, if one thing surprised me about the recent revelations in the Galant affair, which led to his dismissal, it was not so much his lies as the total surprise and shock displayed by most commentators in the media. In a country where a president has been convicted of rape and a prime minister is mired in a chilling corruption trial, the iniquities of our civic systems are taken for granted. But for the candidate for chief of staff to lie? The man about to take charge of the army we Israelis so love to call the most moral in the world? Now, that is unfathomable. Perhaps this is the time to mention that the title of “most moral army in the world” is, to my ears, akin to being lauded as “man with least facial hair in the Hezbollah leadership.”

When the state comptroller published a report about three weeks ago discrediting Galant, a military trial came to a close slightly further away from the limelight. It was the trial of Lt. Col. Omri Borberg, a regimental commander from the armored corps implicated in the shooting of a handcuffed protester in Na’alin, a town in the West Bank, and of Leonardo Korea, the soldier who actually pulled the trigger. Koria had argued that Borberg had ordered him three consecutive times to shoot the handcuffed protester with a rubber bullet. Neither man was sentenced to any time, and the colonel was allowed to keep his stripes. During the trial, Borberg maintained that he had not asked the solider to shoot and that it was a "tragic misunderstanding" (The IDF must hold the record for "accidents" and Tragic misunderstandings"). After the verdict was read, Borberg burst into tears of relief and said he wanted to go back to the army and continue serving his country. One day, if fate and his commanders are willing, he too will be an officer in the upper echelons of the IDF, and someone had better warn him right now that what works when you’re talking about shooting a handcuffed protester isn’t quite so palatable when it comes to illegal construction or seizing lands you don’t own.
Translated from Hebrew by Jessica Cohen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michael Ben-Yair, Israel’s attorney general from 1993 to 1996, who described Israel’s approach to the Palestinian territories captured in 1967 thusly: “We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities… We developed two judicial systems: one — progressive, liberal in Israel. The other — cruel, injurious in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture.”
The list of senior Israeli officials describing their approach as apartheid includesShulamit Aloni, who once served as Minister of Education under Yitzhak Rabin, and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Another former prime minister, Ehud Olmert said: “If the day comes when the two state solution collapses, and we face a South African style struggle for equal voting rights, then as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.”
But that is precisely what is becoming increasingly likely under Mr Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing regime

 

[MontyB]

The Arabs refused their part, that means the proposed Arab state (read that very well, it does not say Palestine!) is not created and became unallocated land.
Everyone can build something everywhere as long as he has the approval of the authorities that are responsible for that land. The land where the settlements are build reside under the authority of Israel as agreed in the Oslo accords.

It also says proposed Jewish state not Israel and interestingly enough the Palestine mandate doesn't mention Israel either.

As for the Oslo accords administering an area is not the same as giving away the area, the Oslo Accords were only meant to last 5 years (10 if you take into account Oslo II) at which time a final settlement between the Palestinians and the Israeli's should have been struck you are confusing "administration" of land with "ownership" of land.

Why is Israel not allowed to do what the international community did? The British were the occupying power of a part of the Ottoman Empire because of a defensive war and the US was the occupying power in Iraq. The allies were the occupying power in Germany and Japan after WWII. The only difference is that Israel does not occupy a country. It was land not yet allocated that was illegaly annexed by Jordan and lost to Israel in a defensive war.

How many British settlements were built in the Ottoman Empire, how much of the Ottoman Empire has Britain kept as part of "Greater" Britain?
Name a US settlement in Iraq, Germany or Japan.

So let me see if I understand this it was land never assigned to Jordan but because they took it and then Israel attacked them "defensively" (yeah it amuses me as well) it suddenly became legitimate Israeli land?

Now if I stole a car and Senojekips then showed up, beat me up and took the car you are saying it is now his car?
I would suggest that the law like the UN would still see it as stolen property.

I can certainly see why the Israelis have tapped you to sell their propaganda you stick to story line no matter how discredited it is, without a doubt you earn your 30 shekels.

I tend to think you are still labouring under the impression that we believe you are just a "concerned citizen with a somewhat sycophantic love for Israel" when in reality we know exactly what your game is as the Hasbara manual is all over the internet along with how to combat it.

Surely the fact that you have been abandoned here even by Israelis indicates you just aren't convincing anyone, my suggestion would be to talk to your supervisor maybe they can assign you a more appropriate board to help develop those skills you will need to sell the misery of those you oppress as the right thing to do.

Oh yeah and here is a neat little factoid for ya, guess what feat got the Oslo Accords started?

A) The PLO recognized the State of Israel. Israel recognized the PLO as "the representative of the Palestinian people"; no more, no less.

Yes that would be the same Palestinians that you keep saying don't exist.

Let me make it clearer for you, this is what you are trying to sell...

 

[MontyB]

Seems even the US State Department believes the settlements are illegal however it does appear they got ambushed today...

QUESTION: Jen, on – yesterday, I brought up this issue with the SodaStream and Scarlett Johansson.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I’m assuming that you don’t have any opinion one way or the other on Ms. Johansson’s – who she works for? Is that – I just want to make sure before we go on to --
MS. PSAKI: Right. I’m not going to speak to the Super Bowl commercial, and certainly --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- she’s a private citizen.
QUESTION: Okay. So on the broader issue, which is really what I’m more interested in --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- can you restate – is it – am I correct that your policy on settlements and things that are produced within settlements has – is essentially – or is the same, it has not changed, and that that policy is – although you regard settlement activity as illegitimate, you do not think that there’s anything illegitimate about goods or products that are produced on that territory for – to sell – to import into the United States or to anywhere else. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: That is – our policy is that we believe that settlements are illegitimate, as we’ve said; that we reject efforts to boycott or delegitimize Israel; that any notion or reports or rumors that the Secretary or anyone in this building is encouraging anyone to do that are inaccurate.
QUESTION: Encouraging anyone to do what, to boycott?
MS. PSAKI: To boycott or delegitimize.
QUESTION: Okay. So if the settlements are illegitimate, in your view, why is it – also, you’re – let me start this again. You regard the settlements as illegitimate, but you also regard boycotts of products produced in settlements as delegitimizing of Israel. Is that right?
MS. PSAKI: Boycotts of products produced by Israel, yes.
QUESTION: On – within settlements?
MS. PSAKI: Well, produced by Israel. They’re produced in a range of places. Obviously, Matt --
QUESTION: Okay. So there’s a lot of illegitimacy here, right?
MS. PSAKI: Matt, obviously --
QUESTION: Efforts to boycott, you think, are attempts really not to go after the companies or to – but they’re to delegitimize Israel, not to express a dissatisfaction with their policies on settlements. Is that right?
MS. PSAKI: Matt, obviously, this is incredibly complex, as you’ve outlined here today.
QUESTION: Yes, yes.
MS. PSAKI: One of the reasons we’re talking about all of these issues is because we want to resolve them, we want to put an end to disputes over borders and settlements and all of these issues. That is our position. Obviously, this is a company based in Israel. Beyond that, I don’t have any further analysis for you.
QUESTION: Okay. But you do believe that efforts by groups or countries or groups of countries, like the European Union, which has talked about boycotts and that kind of thing, those in themselves are delegitimizing of Israel, which is engaged in illegitimate settlement activity on land that the Palestinians claim. Is that right?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve not been supportive, Matt, of boycotts or efforts to delegitimize Israel.
QUESTION: Can you take the question – and I don’t know if it’s possible because I’m not sure that anyone can answer it --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- how is it that the – how does the Administration square those two positions, the – one, that the settlements are illegitimate, but that the products made there on – as a result of this illegitimacy – that boycotts of those products are, in themselves, delegitimizing of Israel? I just – I’m having a hard time understanding how that works. It would seem to me that if you regard settlements as illegitimate, you would not be opposed to efforts or to campaigns that would – that agree with that position.
MS. PSAKI: Matt, we will see if there’s more to provide.
QUESTION: But you know there are – from this end, that we’re a bit confused on this issue that Matt is raising, because you seem to be on both sides of legitimate/illegitimate kind of a thing. Can you clarify that?
MS. PSAKI: It’s two separate issues.
QUESTION: They’re two separate issues?
MS. PSAKI: That’s why I gave you our policy positions.
QUESTION: So if a settlement is illegal, and that land on the settlement produces peaches or olives and so on and gets imported, that is legitimate?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into a hypothetical --
QUESTION: No, it’s not hypothetical. These are real things. I mean, that’s why --
MS. PSAKI: -- road race with you here, Said.
QUESTION: -- there is a boycott.
MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve answered our question. Go ahead – or Ali.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/01/221045.htm

Anyway see if you can read that with a straight face, I couldn't.

Could almost make a joke out of it.

 

[senojekips]

What's happened,.... VD is taking a long, lonnnnng time to find the answers to the questions I've been asking him to answer for several weeks now, and I have a great post waiting for him when he has explained the last lot of lies.

What do you think of all this Boyne_water? Why is VD such a psychopathic liar? Is it part of his naturally very shallow character, or do you feel that it's just the poor quality of his controllers who feed him this rubbish, not remembering what lies they have told and to whom?

 

[MontyB]

Haha I used to watch the Daily show because it is hysterical at times however I have discovered that the US State department is just full of comdians...

QUESTION: So related to this and following on the settlement issue that was – we talked with Jen about yesterday, I’m wondering if today, after that discussion yesterday, you are able to offer any more – a bit more of a clear explanation as to why you believe that boycotts of products produced in settlements are de-legitimizing of Israel when you yourself believe that settlements are – Israeli settlements are --
MS. HARF: Right.
QUESTION: -- illegitimate. Is there a better --
MS. HARF: Well, as we’ve said, boycotts directed at Israel are unhelpful, and we oppose them. Again, just because we’ve made clear what our policy is on settlements, that doesn’t necessarily follow that there’s one course of action from a policy perspective that we think fits what we’re concerned about. This is exactly why we think that these issues need to be discussed at the negotiating table, and that we need to get a final status agreement. There’s just not a one size fits all that if we believe A, B should necessarily follow.
QUESTION: Well, okay, fair enough. But --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- I guess what I don’t understand is why you believe that a boycott of something – of products made in settlements would be de-legitimizing of Israel when, in fact, they’re being made in settlements which are contested areas that you believe the occupation of which is illegitimate.
MS. HARF: Okay, right. I’m sorry, I’m trying to --
QUESTION: I just don’t --
MS. HARF: Sorry. I don’t want to get tied up in the words here.
QUESTION: I’m having a problem with the --
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- with the logic.
MS. HARF: Well, that we think the boycotts are unhelpful of Israel, and we oppose them because we believe that in order to resolve these issues, we need to discuss them directly between the two parties at the negotiating table, and that that kind of action isn’t helpful; it’s a part of that process. That’s part of the reason that we oppose them.
QUESTION: Well, I guess – it’s not directed at Israel; it’s directed at a private company --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- operating a settlement. And if you say you oppose boycotts of Israel because you don’t think they’re helpful, then that raises a huge question about --
MS. HARF: But it’s directed at a company because of Israeli policies --
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but people are --
MS. HARF: -- or Israeli Government policies.
QUESTION: People are free to buy or not buy whatever product they want to, right? I mean --
MS. HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- when you say if – when you say that boycotts are not helpful --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- boycotts of Israel are not helpful, it just raises a giant flag when you look at Jo’s question, when the entire world, with the exception of two – one other country thinks that your boycott/embargo of Cuba is wrong and unhelpful, why it is that you have this position that that’s okay, but then something to display – another country trying to display its displeasure with Israelis – Israeli policy, that that’s not helpful. I don’t – if you – what I don’t understand is, if you believe that the settlements are – that settlement activity is illegitimate yourself – and by you, I mean the United States --
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- how is it that you can – how is it that you oppose other people who share that view taking some kind of action to demonstrate their unhappiness or to protest that that --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, each situation is different, obviously, when we’re talking about how to respond policy-wise when we disagree with policies in one country. I think part of the nature is the across-the-board boycott of Israel on some of these issues, certainly. Again, I’m happy to check with our folks, Matt. I think a trade embargo in Cuba is obviously very, very, very different than boycotts of Israel that we do not believe are the way to resolve these issues. We don’t think it’s helpful to the process. We believe that these issues need to be discussed between the two parties, and that’s how we’re going to get some resolution on them; not through boycotts of Israel.
QUESTION: Okay. So --
MS. HARF: I’m happy to see if there’s more analysis. I’m sorry. I just --
QUESTION: Okay, but – no, no, no, I understand. But I just –
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Hold on. Hold on, Lesley. One more thing. How do you suggest that other countries or people, other groups, should demonstrate their unhappiness with another country’s – in this case, Israel’s – policy? If not through a peaceful action like a boycott, what should they do? I mean, this is not just something --
MS. HARF: I think we speak out very clearly when we don’t agree with Israel’s policies, and what – that we don’t think the settlements are legitimate. We say that very clearly and make that very clear, and work with the parties to get resolution on these issues through final status negotiations. That’s how we think we should help resolve these issues that are really underneath the boycott issue.
QUESTION: Okay. But by your own admission, your speaking out against this particular policy hasn’t had any effect.
MS. HARF: I don’t think I’ve ever said that.
QUESTION: Well, let’s put it this way. You speak --
MS. HARF: I think that’s your analysis.
QUESTION: You speak out about them, and the Israelis keep doing it. Is that not correct?
MS. HARF: Well, I think you’re making a broad generalization. You have no idea what the impact always is of our private diplomatic discussions and what would’ve been done differently if we hadn’t had those discussions.
And I am actually am on a time schedule, so we need to --
QUESTION: So you’re saying that you think that the Israelis would be doing more of this if you hadn’t been doing those --
MS. HARF: I’m saying I wouldn’t make any assumptions, Matt, about the kind of leverage we have.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Well, let’s go back 25, 30 years.
MS. HARF: I have about three more minutes.
QUESTION: Sure – 25, 30 years, there was, as part of the anti-apartheid movement, a concerted effort on people who opposed the regime in South Africa to not spend money with companies that did business with that government, notably multinational oil companies. How is this situation with SodaStream any different?
MS. HARF: Every situation is different, guys, every single situation in every country. We have different policy, diplomatic, and economic tools that we think are important in getting us to the policy goal we want in every country. I’m just not going to compare them.
QUESTION: And the U.S. doesn’t consider Israel an apartheid state. I just want to clarify that.
MS. HARF: Yes, correct.
QUESTION: So, just going off this, is it the policy – do you think it’s fair to conflate the settlement issue writ large with the – this issue that has caused a lot of riff-raff, which is the private company of SodaStream employing 250 people in a settlement and selling its products?
MS. HARF: I’m sorry, I don’t understand the gist of your question.
QUESTION: I’m sorry.
MS. HARF: No, it’s okay. We’re all getting tangled up in words here.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: I mean, what we said is we don’t support boycotts, we oppose them, period, of Israel. So --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: -- I think that’s pretty clear.
QUESTION: Not under any circumstance?
MS. HARF: Period.
QUESTION: Under any circumstance?
MS. HARF: Matt, yes, we oppose them. I’m sure you will find some circumstance in 20 years where we would not, but right now we do.
QUESTION: No, I – okay.


[FONT=&quot]http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/01/221118.htm[/FONT]

 

[senojekips]

It's bloody painful.

I sometimes wonder how these people manage to get dressed on their own and yet they end up in places like The State Department.

Has there been a time in the last 20 years when the US wasn't boycotting or enforcing sanctions on some country or another?

 

[MontyB]

It's bloody painful.

I sometimes wonder how these people manage to get dressed on their own and yet they end up in places like The State Department.

Has there been a time in the last 20 years when the US wasn't boycotting or enforcing sanctions on some country or another?

I am still trying to work out what the moral of the story is here, is it:
a) Boycotts are acceptable as long as it isn't Israel.
b) Boycotts are acceptable as long as no one says they arent.
c) Boycotts are acceptable as long as it is Cuba or we impliment it.
d) Please don't bring this up again because we have no idea what we are saying and for gods sake do not mention our sanctions on Iran who haven't broken any laws.

The beauty of the BDS boycott is that it is purely up to the individual it isn't about countries doing it and therefore does not rely on the mythical politician with a backbone to enforce and it blends in with the knowledge that regardless of what politicians think or do people can not be forced to buy a product and as such it gets around the power and money of groups like AIPAC.

It is a ground up boycott in that if enough people stop buying a product companies will stop stocking that product (as no company will stock a product that they can't turn a profit on) which by default draws them into the boycott and that process continues on up the chain.

And I think it is working as the BDS movement is getting headlines...

January 31, 2014 7:29 pm
A star stumbles in the settlements
Scarlett Johansson’s defence of her sponsor is naive

The decision by actress Scarlett Johansson to stop being an ambassador for Oxfam, the social justice charity, and continue as brand ambassador to SodaStream, an Israeli company that makes home-carbonated drink dispensers at a plant in the occupied West Bank, might be dismissed as a storm in a fizzy cup. It should not be.

The Lost in Translation star has accidentally turned a searchlight on an important issue – whether it is right or lawful to do business with companies that operate in illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land – as well as inadvertently sprinkling stardust on the campaign to boycott Israel until it withdraws from the occupied West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem – a separate issue, at least so far.

SodaStream makes some dispensers in Maale Adumim, the biggest of Israel’s West Bank settlements, illegal under international law. It employs about 500 Palestinians and claims to promote jobs and peaceful coexistence between Arabs and Jews. Ms Johansson says the company is “building a bridge to peace between Israel and Palestine”. That is naive, as is her conflation of this controversy with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement advocating the isolation of Israel.

The status of the settlements is clear in international law even if Israel chooses to ignore this and expand its colonisation of Palestinian land, while ostensibly negotiating on the creation of a Palestinian state. Last year the EU adopted rules prohibiting grants to entities operating in illegal settlements. Yet the EU still let Israel into Horizon 2020 – the only non-member state in this €80bn research and development programme – making Israeli tech high flyers eligible for European public money provided it is not spent in the settlements.

That is not a boycott. It is the application of the law. Yet if Israel maintains its occupation, and spurns the peace terms being negotiated by US secretary of state John Kerry, such distinctions will erode. European pension funds are already starting to pull their investments in Israeli banks with branches in the settlements.

Israeli leaders, from former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert to Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, justice and finance ministers in the present rightwing government of Benjamin Netanyahu, have warned that Israel faces ostracism unless it makes a deal on Palestine. Now it is the settlements that are being targeted. But that could easily morph into a general boycott.

It is disingenuous to romanticise settlement enterprises. The occupation imprisons thousands of the Palestinians’ young men, gives their land and water to settlers, demolishes their houses and partitions the remaining territory with scores of checkpoints and segregated roads. There are almost no basic foundations for an economy. The way to create Palestinian jobs is to end the occupation and let Palestinians build those foundations – not to build “bridges to peace” on other people’s land without their permission.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1301...44feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2s8tXDv8y

 

[senojekips]

I am still trying to work out what the moral of the story is here, is it:
a) Boycotts are acceptable as long as it isn't Israel.
b) Boycotts are acceptable as long as no one says they arent.
c) Boycotts are acceptable as long as it is Cuba or we impliment it.
d) Please don't bring this up again because we have no idea what we are saying and for gods sake do not mention our sanctions on Iran who haven't broken any laws.

e) All of the above

The beauty of the BDS boycott is that it is purely up to the individual it isn't about countries doing it and therefore does not rely on the mythical politician with a backbone to enforce and it blends in with the knowledge that regardless of what politicians think or do people can not be forced to buy a product and as such it gets around the power and money of groups like AIPAC.

It is a ground up boycott in that if enough people stop buying a product companies will stop stocking that product (as no company will stock a product that they can't turn a profit on) which by default draws them into the boycott and that process continues on up the chain.

And I think it is working as the BDS movement is getting headlines...

January 31, 2014 7:29 pm
A star stumbles in the settlements
Scarlett Johansson’s defence of her sponsor is naive

The decision by actress Scarlett Johansson to stop being an ambassador for Oxfam, the social justice charity, and continue as brand ambassador to SodaStream, an Israeli company that makes home-carbonated drink dispensers at a plant in the occupied West Bank, might be dismissed as a storm in a fizzy cup. It should not be.

I have a printed copy of many of the Israeli owned, or companies who back Israel on the side of the fridge. Fortunately much of it is not easily found in Australia, or plays a great part in our life.

 

[VDKMS]

It also says proposed Jewish state not Israel and interestingly enough the Palestine mandate doesn't mention Israel either.

True, but the Palestine mandate talks about a Jewish homeland not an Arab one.

As for the Oslo accords administering an area is not the same as giving away the area, the Oslo Accords were only meant to last 5 years (10 if you take into account Oslo II) at which time a final settlement between the Palestinians and the Israeli's should have been struck you are confusing "administration" of land with "ownership" of land.

An administration is responsible for (change of) ownership. Otherwise no one can sell or buy a house or land. When a country takes the ownership of land that is (officially) not theirs it is called annexation. Israel did not annex the West Bank. The "Palestinians" have as of yet not the legal sovereignty of the West Bank. The Oslo accords are between Israel and the PLO (PA).

How many British settlements were built in the Ottoman Empire, how much of the Ottoman Empire has Britain kept as part of "Greater" Britain?
Name a US settlement in Iraq, Germany or Japan.

The settlements in area c of the West Bank are not part of Israel. The only thing Israel does, because it is responsible for civil rule, is give building permits, just as the allies did in Germany, Japan and Iraq when they ran the civil administration. Whether those settlements become Israeli or Palestinian depends on the outcome of the talks between them.

So let me see if I understand this it was land never assigned to Jordan but because they took it and then Israel attacked them "defensively" (yeah it amuses me as well) it suddenly became legitimate Israeli land?

The Egyptians closed the Gulf of Aqaba to israeli shipping. This is according to international customary and treaty law an act of war which gave Israel a legitimate reason to attack. This is called a defensive war. Since Jordan had joined the alliance between Syria and Egypt they too were a legitimate target. The land Israel took from Jordan is not annexed by Israel. In fact nowhere is stated what happens to land not yet allocated that was illegally annexed and liberated/conquerd afterwards by another country that does not annex it.

Now if I stole a car and Senojekips then showed up, beat me up and took the car you are saying it is now his car?
I would suggest that the law like the UN would still see it as stolen property.

As long as it is not given away or sold by the owner it stays his property. The "Palestinians" never owned it. There never was any "Palestinian" society until Arafat came and founded with Jewish help the PA. The only surviving society is the Jewish one, all others have vanished.

I can certainly see why the Israelis have tapped you to sell their propaganda you stick to story line no matter how discredited it is, without a doubt you earn your 30 shekels.

Wishfull thinking.

I tend to think you are still labouring under the impression that we believe you are just a "concerned citizen with a somewhat sycophantic love for Israel" when in reality we know exactly what your game is as the Hasbara manual is all over the internet along with how to combat it.

Wishfull thinking.

Surely the fact that you have been abandoned here even by Israelis indicates you just aren't convincing anyone, my suggestion would be to talk to your supervisor maybe they can assign you a more appropriate board to help develop those skills you will need to sell the misery of those you oppress as the right thing to do.

Can't do that. I do not have supervisors.

Oh yeah and here is a neat little factoid for ya, guess what feat got the Oslo Accords started?

A) The PLO recognized the State of Israel. Israel recognized the PLO as "the representative of the Palestinian people"; no more, no less.

Yes that would be the same Palestinians that you keep saying don't exist.

You are twisting my words. I said that the "Palestinians" never existed untill Arafat came along. BTW, Arafat was Egyptian.

Let me make it clearer for you, this is what you are trying to sell...

Wrong picture, this is a better one:

May 8, 1970: Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorists attacked an Israeli school bus with bazooka fire, killing nine children and three teachers. The victims were from Moshav Avivim.

Now, about the boycot. Who will benefit from the boycot? I give an example.
PGGM (not the largest Dutch pension fund as was mentionend in the media, APB is twice as big) is going to withdraw their investments in Israeli banks linked to West Bank projects. Read that again , Israeli. They still hold investments in companies like Veolia (Dutch), Alstom (French) and G4S (British) who also are involved in projects in the west Bank. But there is more, they also invested in two Chinese banks (Bank of China and China Construction Bank) both involved in Chinese projects in Tibet, which the Chinese occupy. It seems that Palestinians are much more valuable than Tibetans. But they also invest in Turkish and Indomesian state securities. Turky occupies northern Cyprus since 1974 and Indonesia Western New Guinea since 1963. And I can go on. More here. The real reason is propably this: to attract the Dutch muslim population (almost 1 million) and anti-israeli groups to buy their products.
If the boycots are succesfull, and that's what you want isn't it, then 20.000 Palestinians will lose their jobs. Of course that's not your problem but I do care about those people. 20.000 families in financial ruin. No help comes from the PA because they need the money to give 6 figure incomes to the terrorists who are kept in Israeli jails. The Israeli companies? Well, they move to Israel and it is back to business as usual.
Here some facts:
- Standard & Poor's will leave Israel's credit rating unchanged at A+, projecting its economy will remain stable.
- Foreign investment in israel increased from $4.4 billion in 2009 to almost $10 billion in 2013.
- The Bank of israel has almost $80 billion in reserve.
- Newly discovered gas fields are estimated to be worth billions of dollars.
- Last year Israeli companies exported about $62 billion worth of goods.

 

[senojekips]

So, VD, you're back from your Hasbara re-education classes.

How about you demonstrate to us that you are not just pathological liar making up your lies as you go along, before starting on your "We are the Victims" Hasbara bullsh!t.

I notice that you still have not shown and explained your miraculous interpretation of your oft quoted "Frame 633" in which you claim you can see an "uninjured foot" inside a shoe .

Can you also explain how the projectile that you claim missed the victim by 40cms hitting the ground 6 metres to his rear was also claimed to have "Blistered his toe" on top of which the visual evidence clearly shows both stories to be lies,... but then again, we are dealing with a country so determined to attempt to whitewash it's War Crimes and innumerable Crimes against Humanity that it actually formed a government department to organise it.

You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing the projectile hitting the ground 6m behind the victim and having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation ever took place, and the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site).

There's a lot more but it can wait.

Don't even bother deleting or changing your posts as I have saved all the pages as .html files.

 

[MontyB]

I waited a week for that reply?
I realise the Hasbara bots are running around putting out an ever greater number of fires these days but you could have taken an extra day to come up with a worthwhile response.

Now, about the boycot. Who will benefit from the boycot? I give an example.
PGGM (not the largest Dutch pension fund as was mentionend in the media, APB is twice as big) is going to withdraw their investments in Israeli banks linked to West Bank projects. Read that again , Israeli. They still hold investments in companies like Veolia (Dutch), Alstom (French) and G4S (British) who also are involved in projects in the west Bank. But there is more, they also invested in two Chinese banks (Bank of China and China Construction Bank) both involved in Chinese projects in Tibet, which the Chinese occupy. It seems that Palestinians are much more valuable than Tibetans. But they also invest in Turkish and Indomesian state securities. Turky occupies northern Cyprus since 1974 and Indonesia Western New Guinea since 1963. And I can go on. More here. The real reason is propably this: to attract the Dutch muslim population (almost 1 million) and anti-israeli groups to buy their products.

Oh no not the vast and powerful Dutch Muslim Lobby, Holland has never been the same since they made all the windmills face Mecca.
Yep and Dutch apparently see Israel as worse than all of the other attrocities mentioned congratulations you should be proud to be backing an occupation that not even bankers want to deal with.

If the boycots are succesfull, and that's what you want isn't it, then 20.000 Palestinians will lose their jobs. Of course that's not your problem but I do care about those people. 20.000 families in financial ruin. No help comes from the PA because they need the money to give 6 figure incomes to the terrorists who are kept in Israeli jails. The Israeli companies? Well, they move to Israel and it is back to business as usual.

Well given that a victory will free 2.5 million other Palestinians from the apathied system you have them under now I am not sure the sacrifice of "20,000" incomes is a huge deal compared to what will be gained.

Nice try though, hell a ton of Frenchmen had jobs building the Atlantic wall for Hitler do you consider the Allies inconsiderate for launching D-Day and putting them out of work?

Here some facts:
- Standard & Poor's will leave Israel's credit rating unchanged at A+, projecting its economy will remain stable.
- Foreign investment in israel increased from $4.4 billion in 2009 to almost $10 billion in 2013.
- The Bank of israel has almost $80 billion in reserve.
- Newly discovered gas fields are estimated to be worth billions of dollars.
- Last year Israeli companies exported about $62 billion worth of goods.

Cool hopefully we can get that down a bit over the next few years, always good to have targets.

Here is a nice story from Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame...
A note from Roger - February 1, 2014


February 1, 2014 at 5:46am

In the past days I have written privately to Neil Young (once) and to Scarlett Johanson (a couple of times). Those letters will remain private.


Sadly, I have received no reply from either.


And so I write this note on my Facebook page somewhat in bewilderment.


Neil? I shall ponder all of this long and hard. We don't really know each other, but, you were always one of my heroes, I am confused.


Scarlett? Ah, Scarlett. I met Scarlett a year or so ago, I think it was at a Cream reunion concert at MSG. She was then, as I recall, fiercely anti Neocon, passionately disgusted by Blackwater (Dick Cheney's private army in Iraq), you could have been forgiven for thinking that here was a young woman of strength and integrity who believed in truth, human rights, and the law and love. I confess I was somewhat smitten. There's no fool like an old fool.
A few years down the line, Scarlett's choice of Soda Stream over Oxfam is such an act of intellectual, political, and civil about face, that we, all those of us who care about the downtrodden, the oppressed, the occupied, the second class, will find it hard to rationalize.


I would like to ask that younger Scarlett a question or two. Scarlett, just for one example, are you aware that the Israeli government has razed to the ground a Bedouin village in the Negev desert in Southern Israel 63 times, the last time being on the 26th of December 2013. This village is the home to Bedouin. The Bedouin are, of course, Israeli citizens with full rights of citizenship. Well, not quite full rights, because in "Democratic" Israel there are fifty laws that discriminate against non Jewish citizens.


I am not going to attempt to list, either those laws(they are on the statute book in the Knesset for all to research) or all the other grave human rights abuses of Israeli domestic and foreign policy. I would run out of space. But, to return to my friend Scarlett Johanson.


Scarlett, I have read your reposts and excuses, in them you claim that the Palestinian workers in the factory have equal pay, benefits and "Equal rights". Really? Equal Rights? Do they?

Do they have the right to vote?

Do they have access to the roads?

Can they travel to their work place without waiting for hours to pass through the occupying forces control barriers?

Do they have clean drinking water?

Do they have sanitation?

Do they have citizenship?

Do they have the right not to have the standard issue kicking in their door in the middle of the night and taking their children away?

Do they have the right to appeal against arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment?

Do they have the right to re-occupy the property and homes they owned before 1948?

Do they have the right to an ordinary, decent human family life?

Do they have the right to self determination?

Do they have the right to continue to develop a cultural life that is ancient and profound?

If these questions put you in a quandary I can answer them for you. The answer is, NO, they do not.

The workers in The Soda Stream Factory do not have any of these rights.

So, what are the "equal rights" of which you speak?

Scarlett, you are undeniably cute, but if you think Soda Stream is building bridges towards peace you are also undeniably not paying attention.


Love
R.



http://www.facebook.com/notes/roger...fset=0&total_comments=1120&notif_t=note_reply

 

[VDKMS]

So, VD, you're back from your Hasbara re-education classes.

How about you demonstrate to us that you are not just pathological liar making up your lies as you go along, before starting on your "We are the Victims" Hasbara bullsh!t.

I notice that you still have not shown and explained your miraculous interpretation of your oft quoted "Frame 633" in which you claim you can see an "uninjured foot" inside a shoe .

Can you also explain how the projectile that you claim missed the victim by 40cms hitting the ground 6 metres to his rear was also claimed to have "Blistered his toe" on top of which the visual evidence clearly shows both stories to be lies,... but then again, we are dealing with a country so determined to attempt to whitewash it's War Crimes and innumerable Crimes against Humanity that it actually formed a government department to organise it.

You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing the projectile hitting the ground 6m behind the victim and having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation ever took place, and the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site).

There's a lot more but it can wait.

Don't even bother deleting or changing your posts as I have saved all the pages as .html files.

Sounds you are a desperate man. Why do you bring this up when the one who was shot told, not only the court but also B'Tselem and journalists (completely free of pressure), that he had a blister on the richt side of his left toe. But of course, you there in Ausralia claims to know it all better than the one who was hit. Did you call hem yet? He is walking around with a 15mm hole caused by a 15mm steel bullet that went right through his foot with a small nice hole and white blood (very dangerous!) dripping out and he is not aware of it! Maybe they must amputate his foot because gangrene has set in.

I think the "Palestinians" are aliens. The above has white blood and the Al Dura's, claimed to have been riddled with bullets, don't bleed at all. Injured "protesters" hump in an ambulance and miraculously are cured within seconds or the medics look at a right leg and the left one is cured!
You must contact the manager of Monty Python so they can make a movie about it and everyone will laugh their socks off.

I waited a week for that reply?
I realise the Hasbara bots are running around putting out an ever greater number of fires these days but you could have taken an extra day to come up with a worthwhile response.

Wishfull thinking

Oh no not the vast and powerful Dutch Muslim Lobby, Holland has never been the same since they made all the windmills face Mecca.
Yep and Dutch apparently see Israel as worse than all of the other attrocities mentioned congratulations you should be proud to be backing an occupation that not even bankers want to deal with.

You don't know how powerfull (not only Dutch) muslim lobbyists are? Shame on you! Did you know that Obama has 6 (!) Muslim Brotherhood advisers around him? Are you aware of the charter of the Muslim Brotherhood, designated a terrorist organization in their country of origin?

Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna: “It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”​

Instead of looking at anti-israel internet pages (full of lies of course) you would better do some research on the links all those different muslim organisations have with each other and don't be surprised to find many links to Al Qaeda, including the oh so peaceful charity organisations.

Well given that a victory will free 2.5 million other Palestinians from the apathied system you have them under now I am not sure the sacrifice of "20,000" incomes is a huge deal compared to what will be gained.

You surprise me. I thought your knowledge was better. From the 2.5 million, only about 150.000 resort under full Israeli civilian rule (area C) and most of them belong to herding communities.
Did you know that more than 100.000 "Palestinians" work in Israel? Do you also want them to lose their jobs? But there is more that you don't (want?) to know. The "Palestinian" labor force in the West Bank is about 1.134 million, that means that about 10% of the working population of the Palestinians work in Israel or Israeli settlements. As of know there are 152.000 unemployed. If you add an extra 100.000 to it then you have a major problem!
Are you still convinced of the "sacrifice"?

Nice try though, hell a ton of Frenchmen had jobs building the Atlantic wall for Hitler do you consider the Allies inconsiderate for launching D-Day and putting them out of work?

Again your ignorance strikes me! The Frenchmen were forced labourers the Palestinians are not. They are free to work there or keep being unemployed or work for much less pay.

Cool hopefully we can get that down a bit over the next few years, always good to have targets.

You didn't know? Shame in you! Wait untill they start exporting their gas. They'll become energy independent. bad news for you, isn't it?

Here is a nice story from Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame...
A note from Roger - February 1, 2014


February 1, 2014 at 5:46am

In the past days I have written privately to Neil Young (once) and to Scarlett Johanson (a couple of times). Those letters will remain private.


Sadly, I have received no reply from either.


And so I write this note on my Facebook page somewhat in bewilderment.


Neil? I shall ponder all of this long and hard. We don't really know each other, but, you were always one of my heroes, I am confused.


Scarlett? Ah, Scarlett. I met Scarlett a year or so ago, I think it was at a Cream reunion concert at MSG. She was then, as I recall, fiercely anti Neocon, passionately disgusted by Blackwater (Dick Cheney's private army in Iraq), you could have been forgiven for thinking that here was a young woman of strength and integrity who believed in truth, human rights, and the law and love. I confess I was somewhat smitten. There's no fool like an old fool.
A few years down the line, Scarlett's choice of Soda Stream over Oxfam is such an act of intellectual, political, and civil about face, that we, all those of us who care about the downtrodden, the oppressed, the occupied, the second class, will find it hard to rationalize.

----skipped by me, post was too long.

Love
R.



http://www.facebook.com/notes/roger...fset=0&total_comments=1120&notif_t=note_reply

Well another person who only respects people who think the same like him and treat others like morons. And I must believe those guys want everyone to be treated equal when they themselves don't?
I say two thumbs up for Scarlett!!

 

[MontyB]

Wishfull thinking

So we finally have the confession, all that "I am not associated with Israel" story you have fed us is just what everyone else understood you are a paid shill.

Instead of looking at anti-israel internet pages (full of lies of course) you would better do some research on the links all those different muslim organisations have with each other and don't be surprised to find many links to Al Qaeda, including the oh so peaceful charity organisations.

The funny thing is that the vast majority of those "anti-Israel" pages you claim I am looking at are in fact Jewish websites but then if you pulled your head out of the "pro-zionist" propaganda pages you would understand that.

But then you are fighting a war where you are hamstrung by the fact that everyone knows your tactics and where your only recourse is to stifle debate with the same old rhetoric of "anti-Semitic" chants as was shown by the campaign against the Modern Language Association...

February 3, 2014
The Sound of Silencing in American Academe 1Lauren Rolwing for The Chronicle
By Marianne Hirsch

I’ve attended more than three dozen conventions of the Modern Language Association, but this year’s was different. And that’s not because I was MLA president, organized a forum, and delivered my presidential address. It was because I became the target of an intimidation campaign that took the form of hate-email blasts, public attacks, personal letters and phone calls, and insistent appeals to stop one of the convention’s 800 sessions before it was held. The session was called "Academic Boycotts: A Conversation About Israel and Palestine."

Unlike the American Studies Association, which voted in December to "endorse … the call of Palestinian civil society for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions," the MLA was not considering a boycott resolution. Nonetheless, the emails I received were written as if a boycott resolution were not only under consideration but had already passed.

The specific resolution on the agenda of the MLA’s Delegate Assembly concerned restrictions on the freedom of travel for American students and faculty members of Palestinian descent to universities in the West Bank. Those restrictions are documented on the U.S. State Department website, and the resolution asked the MLA to urge the State Department to "contest" them.

The messages that poured in from individuals and groups like Hillel and the Israel on Campus Coalition persisted in mischaracterizing, exaggerating, and distorting both the session and the resolution. "Shame on MLA for the hate and anti-Semitism," one email read. Many demanded "balance." But academic conference sessions are not talk-show debates; speakers explore a topic, raise questions, and advance nuanced conclusions. Disagreement can be voiced during the discussion period. Critics have claimed that academic boycotts violate academic freedom and the open exchange of ideas. Yet the vehemence of the opposition, the hyperbolic fliers that were distributed condemning boycotts, and the portrayal of the session as a foregone conclusion, in fact blocked the open conversation that we in the U.S. academy need to nurture and protect.

At the same time, the MLA resolution to "urge" the State Department to "contest" Israeli travel restrictions was mischaracterized as "condemning" Israel. Eric Fingerhut, president of Hillel, and Jacob Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, wrote a letter to university presidents asking them to take pre-emptive action against the MLA. "Rather than speaking after the fact, as we were forced to do with the ASA resolution," their letter reads, "we urge you to make clear, in advance of the MLA resolution, your opposition to it and to any other effort to hold Israel to a different standard than any other nation."

Some of the emails my colleagues and I received were accompanied by well-known photographs of Nazis with signs calling for boycotts of Jewish stores. One, in particular, was sent by many dozens of people from around the country and abroad:

"I am writing in protest of the Modern Language Association’s resolution to ‘condemn Israel’s denial of entries to academics invited to Palestinian universities.’ … Boycotts of the Jewish people were commonplace in Europe leading up to the Holocaust, and led to the extermination of 6 million of our people in the Shoah. Less than 80 years ago Jews suffered our biggest losses, but we also made our biggest gain: a homeland for the Jewish people. Finally, after 4,000 years of unwavering persecution, a land to call our own. We will never leave that land, and the MLA can do nothing about it.

"The Jewish people have faced many enemies over the years. We have defeated all of them, including Nazi Germany. Your resolution is simply another attempt to remove us from our historic claim to the land of Israel. In doing so, you only serve to discredit yourselves."

Note what the email conflates: "contest" with "condemn" and the resolution with a full-fledged boycott and an attempt to remove Jews from Israel. Note, above all, how it distorts history.

As a daughter of Holocaust survivors and as someone who has been doing scholarly work on the cultural memory of the Holocaust for over two decades, I was viscerally upset to read these accusations and to see Nazi propaganda images on my computer screen. But I was more disheartened by how American Jewish organizations and their members insisted on violating the painful history of Jews, including that of my parents, to foreclose discussion of the policies of the state of Israel and their impact on Israeli and Palestinian education.

Hyperbole is not limited to one side where discussions of Israel/Palestine are concerned. For example, a recent article on the Electronic Intifada website pre-empts all opposition to academic boycotts, for whatever reason, stating that "Academic boycott — along with its partners, divestment and sanctions — serves the greater goal of Palestinian decolonization. No matter the specific nature of the argument, all negative responses to boycott illustrate a profound discomfort with that possibility."

When it comes to the topic of Israel and Palestine, discussion is curtailed before it begins. In a debate that is structured to allow only two clear-cut sides, words lose their meaning. And logic is twisted to stifle expression. Russell Berman, a professor at Stanford, said at an alternative panel, held off-site during the convention: "Criticism of Israeli policies or Zionism is not necessarily anti-Semitic. But the mere fact that one has anti-Zionist views does not prove that one is not anti-Semitic."

Some words have become so inflammatory that their mere mention unleashes the extreme reactions we’ve been witnessing. "Boycott" is such a word, and, if we could discuss the constellation of issues to which that term applies, we could also put into historical perspective the call to boycott by Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and non-Jews. We could sort out how limited the practical effects of a boycott of institutions rather than individuals by scholarly associations like the ASA would be. We could sort out the ethics and politics of boycott as symbolic action. And we could explore alternative means of expressing solidarity with Palestinian colleagues, means that might be less divisive.

Many people have questioned the MLA’s right to intervene in politics. But isn’t it precisely our linguistic expertise that could help sort out the irreconcilable meanings of words, their irresponsible deployment, and the practices of silencing that ensue?

To create the space for the difficult conversations we need to have now and in the future, we must get beyond the silences imposed in the name of academic freedom. We need our academic leaders, our university presidents, not to condemn our scholarly associations, but rather to protect our right to have and to sponsor those important conversations free from harassment campaigns and pre-emptive threats.

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Sound-of-Silencing-in/144339/

You surprise me. I thought your knowledge was better. From the 2.5 million, only about 150.000 resort under full Israeli civilian rule (area C) and most of them belong to herding communities.
Did you know that more than 100.000 "Palestinians" work in Israel? Do you also want them to lose their jobs? But there is more that you don't (want?) to know. The "Palestinian" labor force in the West Bank is about 1.134 million, that means that about 10% of the working population of the Palestinians work in Israel or Israeli settlements. As of know there are 152.000 unemployed. If you add an extra 100.000 to it then you have a major problem!
Are you still convinced of the "sacrifice"?

Yes I am convinced it is worth the sacrifice, seriously what price do you put on freedom especially since you are on a forum where people are prepared to die for theirs, I honestly do not care how many unemployed Palestinians there are if in the end they are free of Israeli oppression and I will stick to that opinion as long as Palestinians are willing to fight for their cause.

Again your ignorance strikes me! The Frenchmen were forced labourers the Palestinians are not. They are free to work there or keep being unemployed or work for much less pay.

I would argue that the analogy stands as the Palestinians have little choice but work for the occupation given that the occupation force do everything they can to ensure that the Palestinians are a captive work force.

And I quote from that "Muslim" website the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory.

http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/oc...ivilians_weekly_report_2014_01_16_english.pdf

 

[MontyB]

You didn't know? Shame in you! Wait untill they start exporting their gas. They'll become energy independent. bad news for you, isn't it?

Of course they will need to find someone to buy the gas and develop the fields and if said boycott continues to grow it may not be quite so lucrative, just ask the Iranians how well sanctions/boycotts work on an economy.

Well another person who only respects people who think the same like him and treat others like morons. And I must believe those guys want everyone to be treated equal when they themselves don't?
I say two thumbs up for Scarlett!!

I was going to skip this but then I noticed you cut the important part of the letter out so I figured I should bring that oversight to your attention again after all we would not want to see such important information just forgotten.

I will leave the Scarlett references out as she really is a nonentity in the discussion...

I have read your reposts and excuses, in them you claim that the Palestinian workers in the factory have equal pay, benefits and "Equal rights". Really? Equal Rights? Do they?

Do they have the right to vote?

Do they have access to the roads?

Can they travel to their work place without waiting for hours to pass through the occupying forces control barriers?

Do they have clean drinking water?

Do they have sanitation?

Do they have citizenship?

Do they have the right not to have the standard issue kicking in their door in the middle of the night and taking their children away?

Do they have the right to appeal against arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment?

Do they have the right to re-occupy the property and homes they owned before 1948?

Do they have the right to an ordinary, decent human family life?

Do they have the right to self determination?

Do they have the right to continue to develop a cultural life that is ancient and profound?

If these questions put you in a quandary I can answer them for you. The answer is, NO, they do not.

The workers in The Soda Stream Factory do not have any of these rights.

So, what are the "equal rights" of which you speak?

Scarlett, you are undeniably cute, but if you think Soda Stream is building bridges towards peace you are also undeniably not paying attention.

 

[senojekips]

Sounds you are a desperate man. Why do you bring this up when the one who was shot told, not only the court but also B'Tselem and journalists (completely free of pressure), that he had a blister on the richt side of his left toe. But of course, you there in Ausralia claims to know it all better than the one who was hit. Did you call hem yet? He is walking around with a 15mm hole caused by a 15mm steel bullet that went right through his foot with a small nice hole and white blood (very dangerous!) dripping out and he is not aware of it! Maybe they must amputate his foot because gangrene has set in.

I think the "Palestinians" are aliens. The above has white blood and the Al Dura's, claimed to have been riddled with bullets, don't bleed at all. Injured "protesters" hump in an ambulance and miraculously are cured within seconds or the medics look at a right leg and the left one is cured!
You must contact the manager of Monty Python so they can make a movie about it and everyone will laugh their socks off.

I'm not desperate, I'm having the time of my life exposing you for what you are,... a pathological Liar, who will make up, and say absolutely anything to evade the truth.

Please show the video where the victim is walking around on his wounded foot.
Foot wounds don't necessarily lead to Gangrene and it's not mentioned anywhere so obviously this is another of your miraculous diagnoses.
There is no "white" blood, but there is the sun reflecting of a growing wet stain emanating from the exit hole in the sole of the victim's shoe.
Please provide a link to the claim that the Al Durah's stated to be "riddled" with bullets. (and Yes, I did notice your childishly lame attempt at evading the subject at hand by changing the subject).

(1).

the way the soldier holds the weapon when fired he can impossible hit the "demonstrator's" foot

OK so on this one occasion we will say, "his foot was not hit",....
(2).

Abu Rahmeh, 27, took off his shoe and showed a large blister on his toe, with bruising underneath. He said for several days after the shooting, the toe was swollen.

But,... you had just said that it was impossible to hit the victim's foot based on the way the lump of sh!t was holding the weapon. It was also recommended by the Israeli prosecutor that their crimes were serious enough that they should be sentenced to terms of imprisonment for their crimes, I can't imagine that being asked for, for a "blistered toe".

Also there is this absolute howler.
(3).

Physician Nahum Shahaf determined unequivocally in his official affidavit that this could not have been the case because geometric analysis of the ricochet’s trajectory as spotted in several frames and the angel (sic) of the gun barrel. The convergence of both angels indicates that rubber bullet hit the sidewalk about six meters behind the Palestinian detainee and in a distance of about 30 to 40 centimeters from his left side of his body.

It would seem that the Israelis seem to have a great dealt of difficulty getting their lies to agree. So this demonstrates very clearly that so called "evidence" emanating from the Israeli court is highly suspect as it releases mutually contradictory statements, which is a good indication that it has been "sanitised" for release to the public. That's what happens when you tell lies.
(4). You also stated that the victim was not a protester.

That guy was not "a Palestinian protester"

A fact disproven in the very beginning of the video where he is clearly seen protesting in centre screen. Another blatant Lie. made up by you to suit your story.

On top of which you stated that the original video was longer with all manner of audio evidence that had been edited out. Something that was not raised nor proven in the subsequent IDF investigation or court proceedings, and only one mention of this can be found on a pro-Israel blog. You claim to know what was said yet can't produce any evidence as to how you know this? You are lying again.

All of your bullsh!t aside, I see you never made any attempt to answer the questions that I've been asking for a week now.

How about you demonstrate to us that you are not just pathological liar making up your lies as you go along, before starting on your "We are the Victims" Hasbara bullsh!t.

I notice that you still have not shown "Frame 633"and explained how you could see that the foot within the shoe was "uninjured"

Can you also explain how the projectile that is also claimed to have missed the victim by 40cms hitting the ground 6 metres to his rear was also claimed to have "Blistered his toe" on top of which the visual evidence clearly shows both stories to be lies,... but then again, we are dealing with a country so determined to attempt to whitewash it's War Crimes and innumerable Crimes against Humanity that it actually formed a government department to organise their lies. The amazing "Blistered Toe" story also does not agree with evidence given about rubber coated steel bullet wounds, by Israeli doctors who stated that these projectiles could pierce the skull and break bones at ranges exceeding 40 yards. This wounding was done at a range of 1-1.5 metres.

You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing supposed evidence that the projectile hit the ground 6m behind the victim, also having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this alleged conversation ever took place, the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site).

No doubt, he's probably as big a liar as you are. It appears that not even the Hasbarats are game to try and pass it off.