BanksyPalestineBarrier

Baroness Ashton and Jewish Sensitivities

by on

Baroness Ashton

The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was criticised yesterday  for  comparing the killing of three children and a rabbi in a shooting attack in France to the situation in Gaza.

At the “Palestine refugees in the changing Middle East” conference in Brussels, Baroness Ashton, described the murders in Toulouse as a

terrible tragedy”, but  she then added: “When we see what is happening in Gaza and in different parts of the world – we remember young people and children who lose their lives.”

Seemingly some prominent Jewish and Israeli leaders couldn’t agree less. For them Jewish suffering exceeds all other suffering and Palestinian’s in particular.

The London Jewish Chronicle quoted some of the outraged critics.  “Even when read in context, Ashton’s words are beyond unacceptable,” said Oliver Worth, the British chairman of the World Union of Jewish Students. He said they were “truly outrageous and revolting” and called for her to resign because she had “lost all credibility”.  And yet, Mr Worth fails to explain why is it “outrageous and revolting” to equate Jewish suffering with Palestinian one.

Baroness Ashton’s remarks were both crass and wholly inappropriate,”

said  the chief executives of the Board of Deputies, yet he also fails to provide any reasoning.

“There is absolutely no equivalence between the situation in Gaza and the cold and callous murder of Rabbi Jonathan Sandler and the three children,”

said Stefan Kerner, director of public affairs for the Zionist Federation.

And I wonder why there is no ‘equivalence’,  is it because the Jews are yet to withdraw from Toulouse?  Or may be Mr Kerner actually expects the French to withdraw from Toulouse and to leave it to Rabbi Sandler and a few other Jews. I obviously find it really difficult to follow the Zionist logic anymore.

The Rabbi added: “For a person in Baroness Ashton’s position to even consider her comments appropriate is disgraceful. She should withdraw her statement immediately and apologise unreservedly for the offence that she has caused.”  And I wonder why is it offensive to Jews when someone equates their grief with Goyim’s suffering. Does the Rabbi really believe that Jewish suffering is somehow superior?

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s Foreign Minister, said he viewed her remarks as “inappropriate”. He said he hoped that she “re – examines and retracts them”. And I wonder, what kind of a retraction would please the Israeli Government. Do they really expect Baroness Ashton to  accept  that Jewish suffering is the ultimate form of human grief?

Israeli war criminal as well as Opposition leader Tzipi Livni also,  attempted to offer some reasoning. She  described Ashton’s remark as “reprehensible, infuriating, and wrong” to draw any link “between the murder of children in Toulouse and the massacre Assad is leading in Syria and the situation in Gaza”. Livni may be right for a change, the crime committed in Gaza by the Jewish State in the name of the Jewish People is indeed unique in the history of brutality. Also the fact that 94% of the Israeli Jewish population supported IDF genocdial tactics at the time of operation Cast Lead is also very unique. Israel’s war crimes are indeed uniquely cruel and beyond comparison.

But Livni didn’t just stop there, she tried to qualify her statement.

“A hate crime or a leader murdering his people is not like a country fighting terror, even if civilians are hurt.”

According to Lvini, the Baroness had failed to make “the appropriate moral distinction”. To start with we do not know yet what led to the tragic event in Toulouse. However,  the fact that Israel defines the Palestinians as “terrorists” is yet to provide the Jewish State with an moral excuse to slay indigenous people of the land  and to abuse every possible human right.

I guess that we are all becoming impervious to Jewish political logic. But maybe this is another symptom of the Zionification of our reality. From now on we are expected to obey.

Share Button
185 replies to this post

    • And can you endorse Atzmon’s comment that ‘Jewish leaders’ – a category he does not specify or qualify in any other way – ‘have lost any sense of empathic thinking let alone ethics’?

      I believe that most people, given a moment’s reflection, would find that an unsupportably broad comment with anti-Semitic intent.

      • Actually it was initially my comment but Gilad mentions a number of Jewish leaders by name. What else should they be called?

        There is nothing anti-semitic about this whatsoever.

        Your comment is yet another example of the debasement of the term anti-semitic.

        • ‘Actually it was initially my comment but Gilad mentions a number of Jewish leaders by name.’

          But you comment on ‘Jewish leaders’ without qualifiers, and Atzmon gives an equally unqualified endorsement of your blanket judgment.

          This is the kind of thing that earns him his well-deserved reputation for anti-Semitism.

      • Allow me to help, you must be SO tired.

        1. Why did Gilad say “jewish”? There must be some critics of the Baroness who are not jews. Why single out the jews? It’s anti-semitic.

        2. Why did he say “leaders” without defining the word? Leaders of what? Of other Jews? Of what? It’s a red flag word sneakily reminding the reader of the idea of Jewish dominance of… well, everything. It’s anti-semitic.

        3. What does he mean by “loss of empathic thinking”? He has not shown his method of quantification. It is an unsupported statement.
        Unsupported statements critical of things Jewish are anti-semitic.

        4. What does he mean by “empathic” and by “thinking”? He just throws words around without providing a glossary.

        Everything Gilad says is wrong; it is for all practical purposes axiomatic. Worse: it’s anti-semitic.
        It is hoped that most people would take a moment to reflect–more is not recommended–and see the broad (I would also add “deep”) anti-semitism at work here.

        • Arianda, if you are not tired you are simply lame beyond belief.

          1. Why did Gilad say “jewish”?

          G: Because I was referring to Jewish leaders quoted by the Jewish ‘JEWISH CHRONICLE’ as URL suggests

          2. Why did he say “leaders” without defining the word?

          G: Ho really? are we going to define every word from now on? And why did you say “Why” without defining it? Let me help you here. The BOD regards itself as the sole representative of UK Jews hence its leader is a prominent Jewish leader. A Rabbi is a spiritual leader. Lieberman and Livni are elected Israeli political leaders.. these people are certainly dominant within the Jewish discourse.

          3. What does he mean by “loss of empathic thinking”?

          G: Thinking solely of Jewish suffering is symptomatic to lack of empathic thinking… so simple.

          4. What does he mean by “empathic” and by “thinking”? He just throws words around without providing a glossary.

          G: really, don’t be lazy, use your dictionary. do your homework.

          Arianda: It is hoped that most people would take a moment to reflect–more is not recommended–and see the broad (I would also add “deep”) anti-semitism at work here.

          G: once again a clumsy attempt is detected. You didn’t manage to prove a single argument or to point at anti semitism in my argument…. but you managed to waste 3 min’ of my precious time.

          • Thanks, but not quite “everyone”– funny enough the ones who are not fooled are the ones I parody. There must be some goebbelsian rules of zioprop I am unwittingly breaking.

          • I only concede that it was a waste of YOUR time, because I don’t believe you need any training at this point to keep in debating shape and for that I am sorry.
            But I don’t think it was a wasted effort for your readers.
            I had a similar problem initially with Greg Felton on the Oscar Awards comments…
            The thing is that many times when I write a satire it is such a close imitation of zioprop that people like you and Greg take it at face value even though I say things like “it is an axiom that Gilad is always wrong,” or I go into endless requests for definitions and quibble with lateral details and append “anti-semtic at the end of almost every sentence.
            As I said to Greg it is very hard work to come up with a satirical imitation of that which is absurd and grotesque–it comes out too much like the real thing.

          • Sorry Arianda,,, you indeed sounded like pro troll.. well done, we must use you in our counter hasbara team…

            It is the first time i visited the comments for over a month and must have forgotten who is who…

            Peace

          • Nothing for you to be sorry about. Your reply was worth it, addressed as it was not actually to me personally but to the “arguments” I presented.

        • Is it anti-Catholic to call the Pope a Catholic leader (without defining leader)?

          Baroness Ashton was going out of her way to express and evoke empathy (look up the word) by drawing parallels between Toulouse and Gaza (and other situations / events).

          The reaction of the Jewish leaders was to reject such comparisons and reject empathy with the victims at Toulouse. Instead, they twisted her words to make political capital, in the same way that the holocaust is used for political capital, without respect for the victims.

          They were saying that Jewish suffering is somehow unique. Palestinian suffering cannot be equated with Jewish suffering. This is part of a continuum. We saw for example how the imprisonment of one Jewish soldier (Gilad Shalit) was treated as far worse than the imprisonment of hundreds of (unnamed) Palestinians. We are expected to be unmoved by the DAILY suffering of thousands of Gazans but when one Israeli dies we get Mark Regev in our faces on every news bulletin.

          Gilad Atzmon is absolutely correct on this point.

          • ‘Is it anti-Catholic to call the Pope a Catholic leader (without defining leader)?’

            Once again, your comment did not single out individuals. It was a blanket condemnation of ‘Jewish leaders.’ One Atzmon was happy to join, and then amplify upon.

          • So tell us Solar, do you really believe that Jewish culture, identity and politics as well as leaders should be beyond criticism? And why, is it because they are chosen? is it because you are chosen? I am perplexed..

      • (a) Its not Atzmon’s comment – as pointed out above.

        And (b) there’s nothing objectionable about it anyway. If the victims were British, and the people lamenting their deaths while implicitly condoning other deaths were also British, would it be racist to say that the hypocrites concerned were British?

        Its just utter nonsense, and if anything the ethos that says that Jews must not be criticised when such criticism of anyone else would be innocuous, is likely to create the kind of resentment that could find expression in anti-semitism.

        • Jewish specialism is “likely to create the kind of resentment that could find expression in anti-semitism”… Well, yes. But this is like saying that white racism is likely to create the kind of resentment that could find expression in anti-whitism – but nobody ever said that.

        • Ah, redscribe, you’re smarter than that, although I can understand your desire to dumb yourself down so that you better blend in with the average poster here.

          What is the difference between the following two statements -

          ‘Jewish leaders … have lost any sense of empathic thinking let alone ethics’

          ‘Some Jewish leaders … have lost any sense of empathic thinking let alone ethics’

          With that in mind, reflect a bit on what Chester and Atzmon actually said.

          • Not trying to control what you say, Atzmon. Just demonstrating to you yet again how well you’ve earned your reputation for ant-Semitism.

          • ‘Earn my reputation as an anti semite where exactly?’

            Pretty much everywhere outside your own shrinking little circle. People have done something utterly terrible about you, Gilad – they have finally bothered to suss out what you’re really saying. They have finally taken you seriously enough to be worth the effort. And finding out you’re every bit as anti-Semitic as your protesters have been saying all along. They did the worst thing imaginable to you, Gilad – they bothered to actually find out who you are.

            And that’s why this has been a year of disaster for you and your circle, getting pushed ever more strongly to the margins of the fringe.

          • Solar: “own shrinking little circle”
            Listen baby solar. I welcome the entire universe to stand against me… In the history of thought some visionary beings faced resistance. I have never regarded myself as a visionary person but judging by the desperate resistance to my ideas, i realise that i may as well introduce a change here

            Solar, in case you didn’t realise. The entire solidarity movement stood up for me in the last week. Not a single university succumbed to Jewish pressure..I completed one of the biggest tour in the history of this movement…

            I am happy and proud..

            the book is translated into 10 languages…
            the only problem I ve is that I don’t find time to practice my sax or compose new music..

          • Gilad,
            you are widly admired and your work and efforts are appreciated and noticed by many,many people all around the globe.
            There are also tons of little doggies ,( that serve their masters),that make tons of noice and will try to chase you and bite your ankles. That’s their job. They think is is a very important job.I call them “useful idiots” and unfortunately, there are many of them aas well.
            But the Greatness always shines through, no matter what.

          • ‘The entire solidarity movement stood up for me in the last week.’

            Hahahah! Gilad the Grandiose shares another delusion with us.

          • There is no difference. We are talking about those who are recognised spokespersons for a community. If they did not have such credentials, they would not be ‘leaders’.

          • What on earth does that mean? Please speak in a language other people can understand!

            Its very simple really – if Chester had attacked all Jews as being devoid of morality, ethics or empathy, or whatever, then there might have been some traction for what you are saying. But he did not – he talked about Jewish leaders. Making a distinction between leaders and led is a standard way of making clear that you are not attacking a whole people, merely those who presume to speak for them.

            If it is racist to attack the established leaders of the Jewish community as devoid of ethics, who else is it forbidden to so criticise. If I say that the leaders of China are vicious and corrupt to a man – which they probably are – is this an attack on all Chinese? That would be an absurd thing to say.

            Or is this peculiar logic restricted to Jews only? If it is, then it is you who are arguing from a racist standpoint, not the people you are criticising.

          • So your answer is, yes, you are going to continue to play dumb.

            Let’s try it like this. What is the difference between saying

            ‘Italians are mafiosos’

            and

            ‘Some Italians are mafiosos’?

          • Redscribe, I thought you didn’t believe in arguing with racists ;) – I am not so pure.

            Solar’s analogies are misleading. Confusing all Italians with mafiosi is not like criticizing “Jewish leaders”. It’s like saying all Jews are Jewish leaders, and condemning all of them. Criticizing “Jewish leaders” is ambiguous – it’s not clear whether it means all or some. Only J-AZZ types would assume the worst. There were Jewish leaders who opposed Zionism, but they were defeated by the fact that more Jews supported Zionists than anti-Zionists.

    • redscribe, you might find this article quite interesting:

      http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2009-11-24/anti-zionism-anti-semitism-and-revisionism

      While I don’t necessarily agree with all the politics of the authors or their organization, it sets out what I would consider to be a true marxist view on Zionism, anti-semitism and the murder of Jews in WW2.

      It is of course completely different from the debased pseudo-marxism of politically correct leftists and AZZs like Tony Greenstein.

  3. Mr Gilad Atzmon couldn’t be as stupid as he trys to present himself could he?
    Putting the point blank execusion of children on the same level as a traffic accident or unintentional deaths in Gaza while trying to prevent terrorists from targeting children with rockets, is morally wrong. Putting all these things in one big pile cheapens the deaths of the murdered. Its no big deal that Assad is slaughtering his own people, its not nice but people dying from car accidents in China is about the same thing.
    There is a reason why there is a diffrent setence for involuntary manslaughter and murder.

    • Cosmo, I fear you might be as stupid as you sound, in your critique of Gilad. Catherine Ashton was discussing the Remembrance of ‘all’ children that have died in these terrible circumstances. In criticising her words, these people have exposed their supremacist bigotry. In joining them you have similarly exposed yourself.

      Just to pick up on one point you (laughably) attempt to make, firing missiles into overcrowded civilian areas cannot be called manslaughter. Those firing clearly don’t care who actually dies – the goal is to collectively terrorise and kill Palestinians, whoever they might be, and therefore it is murder – premeditated, cold and callous as it comes!

      • when Baroness Ashton said “when we see what is happening in Gaza” she was referring to the latest round of violence in Gaza.
        24 out of the 26 Palestinians who have died were terrorists. No army in modern history was able to reach such a ratio. To claim that the IDF do not care who dies and still manages to achieve that is laughable. The people who are firing rockets into overcrowded civilian areas are the Palestinian terrorist groups. Most of those 24 died while they were preparing another indiscriminate attack on Israeli civilians.
        Palestinian terrorists group fired 330 rockets and mortars on to Israeli civilian cities during that time according to their own admission.
        Calling day night and night day is claiming Israel is collectively terrorizing Palestinians is laughable. Especially when Palestinian factions representatives interview and take pride in the fact that although they weren’t able to murder any Israelis this round they managed to terrorize
        over a million Israelis and disrupt their daily lives.
        And of course I didn’t claim that the deaths of the 2 civilians was manslaughter. Manslaughter would means something was done not according to international law. Where in fact the opposite is true. Giving terrorists a free reign to launch rockets, try and murder Israeli civilians, simply because they operate in a civilian environment would be considered against international law, since Israel is obliged to protect its own civilians.

        • “24 out of the 26 Palestinians who have died were terrorists”

          Quite apart from the Mark Regev abuse of the word “terrorists” this is a lie.

          On March 14, seven-year old Baraka Mughrabi died of his wounds sustained during the Israeli raids. Another child, 13-year old Ayyoub Asseili died when he was hit in an Israeli airstrike on his way to school on March 11. On March 12, seven people were killed in Gaza including a father and his daughter while they were planting mulokhiya, a green leafy vegetable near Jabalyia.

          Apart from the many deaths in the raids, 80 people were wounded, mostly women and children.

          But to supremacists like Cosmo this doesn’t matter because they are Palestinians and therefore terrorists, which is Israeli/Zionazi code for Untermenschen.

        • “Calling day night and night day is claiming Israel is collectively terrorizing Palestinians is laughable.”

          Presumably the allegation (a.k.a.) that said Palestinians were expelled from their own country is also ‘laughable’.

          As presumably is the allegation (a.k.a. fact) that the Israeli border towns/villages that Israel claimed to be protecting were built over the ruins of Arab towns/villages which were razed and whose inhabitants were thrown out of their own homeland.

    • Cosmo’s Glossary:
      Operation Cast Lead = “traffic accident or unintentional deaths”

      Listen Cosmo we are talking here about an IDF massacre that was supported by 94% of Israeli Jews. A war crime committed by the Jewish state in the name of the Jewish people…

          • Jay, you are faced with a mentality compatible with that of a Nazi saying “Yes, indisputably we did Lidice. But did you ask why?”
            Why Cast Lead? Competitiveness, I guess. To outLidice the Nazis is to prove “superiority” because a toxic tenet toxic of zioprop is that the only way to never be weak, powerless victims again is to be feared war criminals.

          • There is no comparison between Cast Lead and Lidice and only a Jew-hating prick would say otherwise.

          • ‘There is no comparison between Cast Lead and Lidice and only a Jew-hating prick would say otherwise.’

            Quite right. I’ve found that the more willing someone is to compare anything in the Israel/Palestine conflict to something the Nazis did, the more likely it is that they don’t know squat about what the Nazis did.

          • Leaving aside your foul language which I notice erupts through the rather flimsy scholarly demeanour from time to time, there is every reason to compare Cast Lead to Lidice – except that at Lidice the casualties were far less extensive.

          • That’s absurd, and you know it.

            In Lidice, every single man in the town was shot. The women were all sent to Ravensbrück, and the children were largely sent there as well, with the exception of the ones who were “Aryan”-looking enough to be adopted by Nazi party members in Germany.

            Please provide a single analog between that and what Israel did in Cast Lead.

          • You do not seem to understand that COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT is the important analogy, not if in Cast Lead the Jews were derelict in not shooting “every man in town” or whether the Nazis adopted children whereas the Jews would not consider such a thing.
            It is probably true that when it comes to cataloging zionist war crimes by all imaginable characteristics you would be an excellent resource.
            You said nothing about Nazi uniforms versus IDF garb.

          • If you can’t see the distinction between these two events, then I can’t help you, and it says a lot about the way you view the world.

          • “You do not seem to understand that COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT is the important analogy, not if in Cast Lead the Jews were derelict in not shooting “every man in town” or whether the Nazis adopted children whereas the Jews would not consider such a thing.”

            I think you mean “Israelis” — not “Jews.”

            Or did you?

          • “I think you mean “Israelis” — not “Jews.”

            Israel is The State for Jews and those who carried out Cast Lead were all Jews, were they not?
            Or were there some of what you call Israeli Arabs (to avoid saying Palestinians who do not exist) among them?
            Are we playing the shell game where you tell me when I am allowed to call the Jews Jews?

          • Here, Paul, I’ll even give you an assist: If you want to compare Lidice to a Ziocrime, try Deir Yassin. That’s the proper analog.

            You’re welcome.

          • I think perhaps Paul and Ariadna are getting into a trap contrasting specific Nazi with specific Israeli atrocities. It’s quite possible that Aemathisphd is right on facts in the specific cases you mention. And we can all agree on Deir Yassin. The point is, it happened in 1948, and Cast Lead in 2008/2009. The Nazi regime ended in 1945. South African apartheid also began in 1948, but it collapsed in 1994. We live in the most powerful countries on earth. These countries officially oppose overt racial supremacy, and for the most part, oppose it in fact.

            There is one glaring exception – the Jewish state of Israel. The thing is to find out why it is an exception, and change our societies so it no longer is so. Arguing about whether any specific past crime is as bad as Jewish racialist crimes today is a diversion.

          • Come on, Jay. Try to apply some reason.

            Israel said since the signing of the Camp David Accords, after which Gaza held ZERO strategic value for it, that it would have done nearly anything to be rid of Gaza. Only the most radical of the settlers had even the most remote desire for it. Pulling out was virtually the only good thing that Sharon did as a human being.

            If Gaza had stayed quiet and not lobbed missiles into Israel, it wouldn’t have been attacked. Period.

            I will grant that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are played by an entirely different set of rules, but not Gaza. Sorry.

          • Sharon pulled Jews out of Gaza so Israel could bomb it without killing Jews. It’s not about ‘strategic value’, it’s about hate. However, Ariadna goes too far to compare you to the Nazis. You aren’t a Zionist, just an apologist for them. But she can’t be a Jew-hating prick now, can she?

      • Baroness Ashton said: “when we remember young people who have been killed in all sorts of terrible circumstances – the Belgian children having lost their lives in a terrible tragedy and when we think of what happened in Toulouse today…”
        She was referring to the 22 Belgian children which died in a Swiss bus crash and that is the traffic accident i was referring to. She wasn’t talking about happened in Gaza in 2009 she was talking about what was going on in this latest round. Not sure how relevant is the percentage of support to Cast Lead. There is no question Israel had a legal right and legal obligation to go on operation Cast Lead to protect its citizens. Only people blinded by hate would claim Israel was trying to maximize civilian casualties, They could have done than by using a fraction of the power by randomly bombing Gaza city . The only question is whether Israel did enough to minimize them.
        So please answer me which army would have done a better job? How many combats taking place in urban terrain were there a better civilian to militant ratios?
        In response to terrorist attack on Israeli civilians.
        Is Israel allowed to try and target these militants (drone attacks) ?
        Is Israel allowed to go to an operation to remove that threat? (Cast Lead)
        Is Israel allowed to use economic sanctions? (blockade)
        Is Israel allowed to build a barrier to protect itself? (the wall)
        From what I read you would say no to every one of these options.
        Is there anything Israel is allowed to do or should it tell its civilians to stop complaining while they are being attacked?

          • You know during that exact 1948 war. Every last inch of land Arab Armies manage to conquer was cleansed of Jews. Arabs Managed to get a hold of parts of Jerusalem every last Jew was thrown to the streets Arabs managed to conquer the West Bank every last Jew living there was removed from his home. From that moment on did the Palestinians and Jordanians lose any right to defend themselves?
            I think it’s a bit much to complain about the population transfer done by the other side while your side was doing the exact same thing. That was the standard at a time. Tens of millions of people have moved in the exact same way all across the world around those years.

          • Demonology. Jews had lived for many centuries in this area, and were not ethnically cleansed. Many of the Palestinians are in fact descendants of ancient Hebrews who became either Muslim or Christian, and lived side by side with Jews for all that time.

            The whole point of the Zionist project was forced population transfer and ethnic cleansing. There is no other way known to change the composition of a country so much as to establish a state based on an group that was previously a minority.

            Incidentally, in principle I don’t have a ‘side’ – except with those whose rights have been massively, systematically violated. There is no inherent reason to support Arabs against Jews. It is the oppressor against the oppressed and an end to oppression that matters.

          • First of All Jews were the majority in the land allocated to them under the partition plan. The Jews agreed to that partition which would make them the majority in their own land the Palestinians rejected. Besides Israel were to be home for all Jews around the gloab not just the Jews which were already living there.
            You are right Jews have been living for centuries in places like East Jerusalem. They have been living there non stop for thousands of years until in 1948 there were all removed from there for a few short years until 1967. Jews were the majority in Jerusalem since before 1900 until today.
            When the Zionist project was in its first step the number of Arab living in what was to be the land of Israel was a small fraction of the number of Jews around the world.

          • You conveniently omit to mention that large numbers of that Jewish majority were settlers imposed by force on a powerless population occupied by one of the world’s most powerful imperialist states. One of the great crimes of Britain was to occupy Palesetine and promise it to a third party over the heads of its people. That makes a ‘majority’ of colonists illegimate in my book.

            Just as it is likely that in a few years that there will be a majority of Han Chinese settlers in Tibet. There is probably close to that now. The Tibetans have no more choice in the matter than the Palestinian Arabs have, and the putative Han ‘majority’ also has no right to claim Tibet.

            Whatever the make up of Palestine before the Zionist colonisation there was certainly not a majority of Zionists. Those Jews did not think of themselves as separate from the other confessional/ethnic components and you have a damned nerve to claim to speak for them.

            No more right than some follower of Hitler has to claim to speak for all Germans.

          • Redscribe – it is true that Palestine was occupied by an imperialist power, but that is not what makes Zionism illegitimate – it would have been so anyway. It wasn’t imperialist interests which made Britain favor Jews over Palestinians – it took quite a bit of backroom manoeuvring and emotional blackmail. When Western leaders bow down to Tel Aviv, it is not an elaborate facade designed to cover up for the real material interests involved, and divert us from a class analysis to seeing the problem as Jewish power.

          • redscribe, If these people wouldn’t have come to Israel chances are most of the would have been slaughtered by the Nazis. Zionism is what saved their lives. So I think it was worth it even if you think it was illegitimate.
            The founding of the state of Israel was voted in the UN that makes it as legitimate as any other country out there if not more. What makes Australia USA or Chad more legitimate? Are we going to start going over hundreds years of history of every nation out there and decide whether we approve of their existence or not?
            So isn’t what you describe happening in Tibet exactly what you are trying to inflict on Israel?
            Don’t you want the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Palestinians, people who have never set foot in the land to start “colonizing” Israel in order to take it away from the natives? After all Most Israelis were born in Israel.

          • The refugees would not have been slaughtered by the Nazis if they had gained asylum elsewhere. It is a matter of considerable public record that Zionist leaders agitated against them being admitted to the US and Britain, and in effect acted with the imperialists to coerce many to Palestine. This had nothing to do with humanitarian concern, rather ensuring a supply of cannon fodder for use in a colonising project.

            The UN is about as legitimate as a college of Mafia dons. All the major players were guilty of massive crimes against other nations – all were gangsters. Presumably if you had a piece of paper signed by Hitler or Eichmann testifying to Israel’s ‘legitimacy’ Zionists would be crowing about that – particularly if the war had ended differently. Indeed evidence exists that they tried to do exactly that!

            How cynical to accuse the descendants of people driven out by force and kept away likewise by force from their homeland of having ‘no connection’ to the land stolen from them. They have a damned sight more connection to the land than many of the Jewish colonists, whose only connection is that that they stole it. I suppose a thief can be said to have a ‘connection’ to his loot, but I don’t think many would consider it legitimate.

            But I’m not advocating anyone be forced to leave. Merely that the whole of Israel be opened up to the Palestinians to live there on equal terms with full restitution. My guess is that many Israeli racists would leave as they don’t want to mix with Arabs, but that is their choice.

          • If the Western countries followed their principles and their interests, people born in Israel would be allowed to stay there, and people whose great great grandparents were born there would be allowed in. As it is, Jews who have no connection to the place have rights over people who do. Almost all Jewish immigration took place after the defeat of Nazism.

            For Redscribe, ‘imperialists’ are always wrong. Britain restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine. Probably the left at the time said this was ‘racist’. Then it gave in to moral blackmail, and let them in. The ‘theory’ of imperialism can’t explain both behaviours.

        • “Is there anything Israel is allowed to do?”

          Yes Cosmo, it is allowed to treat Palestinians with dignity, i.e. as human beings who are free to return to their homeland.

          Until then it cannot adequately protect its citizens, no matter how many Palestinian children it kills, no matter how many walls it builds, and no matter how insanely cruel it is towards the people of Gaza and the West Bank.

          • “Until then it cannot adequately protect its citizens, no matter how many Palestinian children it kills, no matter how many walls it builds, and no matter how insanely cruel it is towards the people of Gaza and the West Bank.”

            Really? Is it OK with you that Israeli civilians are targeted as well?

          • On the contrary, ‘aemathisphd’, Chester is concerned that Israeli citizens are not being ‘adequately protected’.

          • “Really? Is it OK with you that Israeli civilians are targeted as well?”

            It is not OK that any one is getting killed in Palestine, whether “targeted” or not.

            The word “targeted” in this context is of couese just code for “they are Jewish so killing them is the worst of crimes”.

            It’s another example of the way that Zionists say to each other “the killing of Jews is an outrage violation of civilized values. The killing of Palestinians? So what already? They are all tirrists.”

          • How is Israel cruel to Gaza? She gave back Gaza, and was rewarded by thousands of rocket attacks aimed at civilian targets.. so cruel.. how?? because she created a security fence to keep terrorists out? because she launched Cast Lead to put an end to the attempted slaughter of her population? How about this :- Before 1967, Gaza was ‘occupied’ by Egypt and West Bank was ‘occupied’ by Jordan. Did they cry out “We are occupied!!!” NO…….
            It was only after the Arabs caused the 6 day war, and legally occupied the territories, that they howled out “OCCUPIED!!!” You have to know, that Israel will NEVER stop protecting her people. She allows humanitarian aid into Gaza which – in my opinion she should NOT do since all she gets in return are rockets. Ask what Egypt is doing for the Palestinians. Why is the fate of the Palestinians Israel’s business?

      • What nonsense!
        You fling words like ‘massacre’ and ‘war crime’ about with as much grace as a child trying to launch a badly contructed paper ‘plane. Have you forgotten about the so called “Jenin Massacre”? That, like Operation Cast Lead, was described as a massacre by people like you, sir, who would later have a red face (if you are mature enough to eat humble pie). As you well know< Judge Goldstone AND the Hamas leader acknowledged that the civilian deaths after Cast Lead were mainly the bodies of terrorists. We know that cowardly terrorists wear no uniform, and fire rockets at Israel from domestic dwellings. They use human shields, and the leaders sat in Damascus sipping tea whilst the murderers cuddled babies on their laps as they aimed to kill innocent men women and children in Israel.

        • I don’t know where you’ve sprung from all of a sudden and I don’t want to be theatrical about it snarling: “This site ain’t big enough for both of us” because actually it is big enough.
          Until now I have been the only zionist stand-up act here and, not to boast about it, but not too shabby at it either.
          I admit that I was impressed by your stuff like “She gave back Gaza,” or “the civilian deaths after Cast Lead were mainly the bodies of terrorists,” or “She allows humanitarian aid into Gaza which – in my opinion she should NOT do since all she gets in return are rockets.”
          Most of all I was impressed by “Have you forgotten about the so called “Jenin Massacre”?–that is a professional touch, i.e., adduce more arguments against the one you pretend to uphold.
          I could perhaps challenge you to a competition to see which one of us can pack more authentic zioprop in a two-paragraph comedy routine, but why fight?
          Why not agree to cooperate? It is notoriously difficult to satirize hasbara, as hard as painting over a clown’s face to make it more grotesque.
          Is there a special area of zioprop in which you have developed stand-up acts or are you a generalist?
          If you have an area you prefer to cover I could leave that to you an only post to support your statements.

    • Chester, to paraphrase aemaswhateverphd, “are you aware I [don't] have a PhD degree?…. Well, I don’t but as a linguist my verdict is that “Cosmo” is the genuine thing insofar as the opinions expressed but someone who tries to hide his identity. It is probably one of the trolls that have been clogging the comments here for a while, now posing as someone by pretending to be a poor speller.
      The sentence structure, however, the correct grammar and the right spelling of some “difficult” words are at odds with what looks like intentional ‘editing’ like: “trys,” “its” (for “it’s”) and “diffrent.” Could be the resident PhD.
      Paul said something the other day that is clearly true: they go on and on and on and round and round and never stop.
      They are not interested in any real dialog; they are abusive and aim to just slow down and impede the comments. I think that the best way to deal with them is to treat them like something on the pavement you don’t wish to have on your shoes: side-step them.

          • “Is there nothing in which this Talmudic Phd is not an expert?”

            Oh my God! Is that a double negative????

            Never mind, I’m sure our resident expert in all things linguistic will come to my aid.

          • And don’t even bother with that “Talmudic” crap. What you know about the Talmud would echo in a thimble. Loudly.

          • Because you’re a coward, Paul, who hates himself with the burning passion of a thousand suns.

            We’re all aware of that. Trust me, even your allies are aware of it. That’s why they’re your allies.

          • “The burning passion of a thousand suns”. Wow. Move over, Sylvia Plath.

            Seriously, ‘aemathisphd’, you suggest that Paul Eisen’s allies support him because he hates himself. Why would we support him because of that?

        • Au contraire Dr mathis.
          “Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings” Wiki.
          It appears, indeed, that you are psychological projection personified.

          • No Dr Mathis, your point clearly missed me.
            For I am wearing my own zio point proof thimble, not to be confused with your Talmudic echo chamber thimble, with which you so clumsily tried to encase Paul.
            By the way, your poetic outburst “…who hates himself with the burning passion of a thousand suns.” is clear psychological projection, ask your therapist.
            “And don’t even bother with that “Talmudic” crap.” ;)

          • fool me once, do you think there is any hope that once having exhausted their usual and typical repertoire of bullying, spitting, spewing insults, hurling abuse, pathetic strutting and boasting, and generally littering the site with their venomous absurdities they will decide that this environment of “self-hating jews,” “anti-semites” and just plain stupid goyim is not zioprop-sustaining and will finally leave?

          • Ha ha, great description. I think that they are the actual self-haters and anti-semites. Can you imagine being in a group of friends consisting of the likes of solar, mathis etc? I do think they’re here to stay though, in some guise or another. :(

          • No worries, Fool, My friends and I have quite a laugh over the stuff that happens in this site. Because we know that, after the PSC AGM and the Zero Authors statement and the Ali Abunimah statement and the ThreeWayFight statement, dark and ignorant corners like this one are the very last stand of the Atzmon circle – and it’s not very much of a stand.

            And if anybody asks me whether Gilad Atzmon is an anti-Semite, I point them here. And they end up shaking their head and saying “ewwwwww” when they see it in Technicolor.

          • ‘their usual and typical repertoire of bullying, spitting, spewing insults, hurling abuse, pathetic strutting and boasting, and generally littering the site with their venomous absurdities’

            Got that mirror turned the wrong way there, don’t you, Ariadna?

          • Solar, thank for the completion :”Got that mirror turned the wrong way there, don’t you, Ariadna?”
            I had forgotten to add one of your let-motifs. Now it’s better:
            “… their usual and typical repertoire of bullying, spitting, spewing insults, hurling abuse, pathetic strutting and boasting, and generally littering the site with their venomous absurdities, and screeching “Projection! over and over.”
            It must really kill you that it is not working.

          • Worth re-posting the corrected version in case the typos are the only things that could bother you:

            Solar, thanks for the completion :”Got that mirror turned the wrong way there, don’t you, Ariadna?”
            I had forgotten to add one of your leit-motifs. Now it’s better:
            “… their usual and typical repertoire of bullying, spitting, spewing insults, hurling abuse, pathetic strutting and boasting, and generally littering the site with their venomous absurdities, and screeching ‘Projection!’ over and over.”

            It must really kill you that it is not working.

          • ‘It must really kill you that it is not working.’

            The only dying going on right now is my dying of laughter at the immense gulf between what your words are worth and what you think they’re worth.

            Please, please continue the entertainment. Go on. Tell us more about what you ‘think’.

  5. What alerted me was the clumsy introduction of the red herring about “traffic accidents in China”. Cosmo apparently wants us to believe that these fall into the same category of “unintentional deaths” as those caused when Israel drops bombs on Gaza.

    Surely this is parody?

    • It is nice to see you agree with me and stand against what Baroness Ashton was saying.
      It is Ashton that claims, putting a bullet into the head of a child at point blank is regrettable but then again a child which died in a car accident like what happened on that Belgian bus is also regrettable.

      • Cosmo, Baroness Ashton said nothing of the sort. Here is what she said:

        We are gathered here because we have recognised the potential of the youth of Palestine. Against all the odds, they continue to learn, to work, to dream and aspire to a better future. And the days when we remember young people who have been killed in all sorts of terrible circumstances – the Belgian children having lost their lives in a terrible tragedy and when we think of what happened in Toulouse today, when we remember what happened in Norway a year ago, when we know what is happening in Syria, when we see what is happening in Gaza and Sderot and in different parts of the world – we remember young people and children who lose their lives. Here are young people who are asking not to be leaders of the future, but to be taken seriously as leaders of today. And it is to them that we should look and to them we should listen and it is to them that I pay tribute.

        Note the words “all sorts of terrible circumstrances”. Note the total absense of the word “regrettable”.

        So tell us, what makes you such a terrible liar?

          • “I think it was understood to be my own phrasing.”

            It was understood to be exactly what it was Cosmo. A big fat Zionist lie.

        • Chester you have to keep in mind the rules of discourse in the Zio Wonderland where you can take anything anyone says, twist it around to mean something completely different and then claim it is what the person said but “in my own phrasing.” It is the zioprop tea party and the Mad Hatter is pouring.

  6. The loss of life or maltreatment of any one single individual on this planet which is due to anything other than natural causes or genuine freak accident (natural or accidental it still rates as a terrible tragedy) is deplorable and unconscionable and that is the one and only issue that has any relevance. Where any government, group of individuals or individual set in motion either direct attack or bring about the circumstances where loss of life or suffering is incurred then that is categorically a man made and contrived event, all contrived events of death and suffering on this planet rank equally degenerate and deplorable regardless of who perpetrates it and who suffers at the hands of it.
    .
    The killing of three children and a rabbi in a shooting attack in France was contrived and is degenerate and deplorable,,,,,, as was the killing of 16 Afghan civilians, 9 of them children,,,,, as are the deaths and continued suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli government,,,,,, Etc. Etc. ad infinitum, man made, contrived, degenerate and deplorable, it ranks all of it exactly the same and anyone seeking to quantify one over the other in relevance absolutely lacks empathy, humanity and logic.
    .
    I am sick to the back teeth of leaders and governments of all countries in this world, it`s almost impossible to think of any that do not have blood on their hands or are responsible through their action or inaction for the suffering of vast amounts of people. They forward daily their pathetic and degenerate justifications, they proffer their carefully worded and politically expedient lies and deceptions, apportion blame in every direction but their own and every untruth possible is explored in an effort to avoid the real truth lest the majority find it out and realise just what is really going on.
    .
    The response of these Jewish leaders and Israeli officials to Baroness Ashton`s words are exactly that, just another set of politically expedient explorations of the untruth in an effort to subvert the real truth from being seen and guilt always precedes such subversions.

    • I figured it was a take on the Stalinist phrase “rootless cosmopolitans,” which was the Soviet euphemism for Jews being persecuted by the Soviets for being Jews. Another bit of anti-Semitic rhetoric Gilad Atzmon has added to his repertoire.

          • who_me apparently thinks you’re trying to hide your identity. Starting with your using your real name.

            Such deep thinkers!

          • you zioqueens like to stick together. what did you all do before web cams can down in price enough you could afford them? rhetorical question, don’t answer. :D

          • ah, superdude is trying his hand at some psychological analysis. how israeli-jewish. :D

            there is nothing about being gay that is any different than anything else. it’s not “special”, it’s even not “special” when jews are gay [shock]. it is fun to ridicule gay jews about being gay, or jewish, or being both, because they are oh so serious about being gay and jewish. ever make fun of a white supremacist about their “superiority”? the same mechanic. people with inferiority complexes who get all emotional when their illusions of superiority are pissed on.

            btw, cosmo, aemathisphd & solar, and whatever else you want to be seen as, it’s not your homosexuality i am ridiculing, it’s the fact you are a j edgar hoover type of homosexual. you’re an impotent nazi in a silly pink uniform. remember that nazi recruiter in the film slaughterhouse 5? that’s you. on a good day. :D in other words, israeli, you are a cloned cartoon of a nazi satire in a film who takes themselves seriously.

            get some counseling, go on a diet, get some exercise, get a decent job where you’re not selling your arse. maybe then you can join the human race and live a normal life. or turn yourself in before you hurt any others.

          • btw, the same which I posted about “special” gay jews applies to closet gay catholics who think they are “special” because they are married and “not” gay. ;)

          • But how can I be gay when your mother was blowing me just yesterday?

            By the way, if I were Israeli, why would I hide it from the likes of you? I was born in Philadelphia. I still live here. You can look me up — unlike most of the other cowards, I post under my real name.

            Coward.

          • you people and your projected mother fetishes, aphid. what’s that old saying? a queen and his mom. then there is your obsession with fellatio… :D

  9. Well, if we’re talking definitions, let’s go to the Oxford English Dictionary. This is from the supplement to the first edition.

    Anti-Semitism: ‘Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence, anti-semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Semitic, [adjective].

    So now, Eisen, you may move on to your next pretext for your inability to name even one single living anti-Semite. And as such, you will continue to demonstrate the ethical bankruptcy of your stance.

    • “‘Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence, anti-semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Semitic, [adjective].”

      According to this definition ANY action–even a peaceful protest–directed against the STATE FOR JEWS is anti-semitic.
      Handy, ain’t it?

        • Opposition to Israel is, in a sense, directed against the Jews – it is an attempt to remove a privilege which all Jews have, even those who don’t want it. The anti-apartheid movement took away a privilege white people had. In any case, the dictionary definition doesn’t reflect actual usage, which is created by the powerful. In the USA and the EU, the most powerful forces include believing that the Jewish apartheid state is racist as an example of ‘anti-semitism’. Thus, supporting white apartheid is racist, but opposing Jewish apartheid is racist. Anti-semitism is a refusal to give special rights to Jews.

          • Actually, reflecting usage is PRECISELY what a dictionary does, and the OED is the best of the lot.

    • So, “many,” and you personally read about one.
      How many PALESTINIANS (try to write the word, it won’t kill you) served in the Cast Lead massacre. You are so well informed–you must know this. How many?

      If more than 98 % of the IDF soldiers are Jews is it OK to call them JEWS?

      • No, it’s not, because the implication then becomes that they are acting as Jews and not as Israelis.

        How many Palestinians serve in the IDF? None, because they’re not Israelis, unless you’re talking about Israeli Arabs who identify as Palestinians. IIRC, they have the ability to claim a deferment, and I’d imagine virtually all of them do, although deferments are claimed more by Muslim Israelis than by Christians. Nazareth, unsurprisingly, has a large Christian Arab population and high IDF service rates.

        Unlike Israeli Arabs who identify as Palestinian, Druze and Bedouins are required to serve. In fact, Druze serve at a higher rate than the Jewish population, as Haredi Jews have traditionally sought (and received) deferments as well.

        • So, let me get this straight: it is not permissible to call the Jews in Israel Jews “because the implication then becomes that they are acting as Jews and not as Israelis.”

          Can you please list various activities in which the Israeli Jews (a) act as Jews, (b) act as “Israelis,” as well as (c) activities in which they can alternatively or even simultaneously act as Jews and/or Palestinians.

          Everyday activities like eating, sleeping,shooting Palestinians children, biking, bombing Gaza, jogging, manning checkpoints, jogging, etc.

          • Typo Correction:
            (c) activities in which they can alternatively or even simultaneously act as Jews and/or Israelis.

          • One more question:
            Do you think The State for Jews should start calling itself the State for Israelis to avoid that same ‘confusion’?

          • Sorry, I saw your correction after writing my last post.

            Regarding this question: “Do you think The State for Jews should start calling itself the State for Israelis to avoid that same ‘confusion’?”

            Yes, frankly, I do.

            Although Israeli doesn’t refer to itself as the “State for Jews,” it does refer to itself as a Jewish state and as the nation-state of the Jewish People. I particularly object to the latter case — for precisely the reasons we’re discussing here.

            Clear enough?

          • ‘Aemathisphd’ – you ‘object’ to Israel referring to itself as ‘the state of the Jewish People’. Do you know many other Jewish people who share your objection? Are you helping the Jewish masses organize to stop Israel referring to itself thus, to isolate it from the Jewish people worldwide? Obviously not. It would be a waste of time.

          • Yeah, it would be a waste of time, nor am I duty-bound to do anything other than express my dissatisfaction. What exactly else can I do?

            Well, here’s an anecdote: About a decade ago, I went on a date to see the Israeli consul for the Northeastern U.S. speak at a local synagogue. The guy, a flack for Sharon, stated how Israel “never targets civilians.”

            This was merely weeks after the Israelis killed Ahmed Yassin and a dozen innocent people along with him by dropping a bomb on an apartment building in Gaza City.

            I literally stood on my chair and yelled at him, “You dropped a one-ton bomb on the most densely populated place in the world and you didn’t expect to kill innocent people? Either you’re very stupid, or you think we are.”

            (By the way, I think killing Ahmed Yassin was totally justified; it was the innocent people that pissed me off.)

            So what else would you have me do?

          • I didn’t really mean my comment to sound like a criticism of you, aemathisphd. My point is about the relationship between the Jewish community as a whole and the Jewish state. The former largely supports the latter. That’s one of the points Atzmon makes, one of the points the Jewish left tries to blackmail us into avoiding, and you basically agree with it. So you should help challenge that blackmail.

          • Another thing you could do is abandon your attempt to advise Israel which Palestinians it should, and which it should not, murder. Its arbitrary, since they are all fighting back against ethnic cleansing, and besides, Israel will never take any notice, ‘coz it hates them all.

          • “I think killing Ahmed Yassin was totally justified; it was the innocent people that pissed me off.”

            So you support assassinations –”targeted killings”–it is only the “collateral damage” that causes bad PR that displeases you.
            And you bravely reprimanded the Israeli Consul for this bad PR which underestimated the audience’s intelligence and did so dramatically by standing up on your chair and yelling at him.
            A perfect AZZ act worthy of your cherished remembrance.

          • It depends on the situation. It isn’t ALWAYS wrong to refer to Israelis as “Jews.” But it was in the instance that you did.

            So when do:

            (a) Israeli Jews act as Jews? How about at Passover seders? That work for you?

            (b) Israeli Jews act as Israelis? Any time they are acting in an official capacity of the state.

            (c) Israeli Jews as “alternatively or even simultaneously … as Jews and/or Palestinians”? I’m not sure I’m following you. Did you mean Israelis rather than Palestinians? If so, on an individual basis, an Israeli Jew can be both at any point in time.

            What I object to is the notion that an Israeli military action is “Jewish.” Or, for that matter, an Israeli war crime.

            Everyday activities would certainly include much of what you list. “shooting Palestinian children” would not be, unless you have some unbiased source that indicates that this is some common Israeli and/or Jewish pasttime.

            Otherwise, you’re just engaging in a blood libel. And a nice lady like you wouldn’t do that, now would she?

          • “What I object to is the notion that an Israeli military action is “Jewish.”

            Tell them to remove the Magen David off their tanks and bombers.

            “Or, for that matter, an Israeli war crime.”
            So what kind of war crime is one committed by Jews who are citizens of Israel? Neither Jewish nor Israeli…
            A Middle Eastern crime committed by Europeans naturalized in Palestine who call themselves Jews? Clumsy and long.

            “shooting Palestinian children” would not be, unless you have some unbiased source that indicates that this is some common Israeli and/or Jewish pasttime.”

            No source I could cite describing the “games” the IDF soldiers were known to play to get Palestinian kids to throw stones and then shoot at them is going to be considered “unbiased” by you. Your mind is locked.

            “Otherwise, you’re just engaging in a blood libel.”
            Oh, no! You just showed me the Uzi in your zioprop armamentarium. “Anti-semite!” is the Merkava. Now I’m scared…. not.
            Is that what you call IDF’s killings of Palestinian children? “Blood libel”? I must make a new entry in my Ziolexicon.
            Have you ever looked at the numbers of Palestinian children killed by Israeli JEWS (don’t start with the” there are Druze in the army too” laughable rejoinder) on the ifamericansknew site? Or is that not reliable as an “unbiased source”?

          • “So what kind of war crime is one committed by Jews who are citizens of Israel? Neither Jewish nor Israeli…”

            Israeli.

            “A Middle Eastern crime committed by Europeans naturalized in Palestine who call themselves Jews? Clumsy and long.”

            Well, since the majority were born in Israel, now they’re Israeli, not European, like I’m American, not European.

            “No source I could cite describing the “games” the IDF soldiers were known to play to get Palestinian kids to throw stones and then shoot at them is going to be considered “unbiased” by you. Your mind is locked.”

            Try me.

            “Is that what you call IDF’s killings of Palestinian children? “Blood libel”? I must make a new entry in my Ziolexicon.”

            Read and learn:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

            “Have you ever looked at the numbers of Palestinian children killed by Israeli JEWS (don’t start with the” there are Druze in the army too” laughable rejoinder) on the ifamericansknew site? Or is that not reliable as an “unbiased source”?”

            Give me a human rights org — Amnesty, HRW, B’Tselem, UN, etc. Don’t give me Alison Weir.

          • That does not indicate intentional killing of children. What it indicates is two things:

            (1) More Palestinians are killed than Israelis. I don’t dispute that.

            (2) Palestinians have more children than Israelis. I don’t dispute that either.

            If you have some proof of deliberate targeting of children by the IDF, then please offer it.

          • So thousands of Palestinian children killed by the IDF (mostly shots in the chest and head) to your lights “does not indicate intentional killing of children.”
            The IDF are incredibly bad shots then. Is that why they prefer bombing? More productive slaughter without the need for sharp-shooting training?
            But the reason… you interestingly offer is that:
            “Palestinians have more children than Israelis.” What does that mean? More to spare so their parents offer them up? Or more for target practice and so preferred by the IOF? Maybe they are used by their callous parents as human shields–hasbara has been saying that for a long time.

            You are truly a piece of work, “post-zionist” zionist.

          • Ariadna is falling into a trap. It’s not about how many children Israel kills, or how many it kills deliberately. It’s not what Israel does. Israel doesn’t DO ethnic cleansing, Israel IS ethnic cleansing. Israel doesn’t indulge in a bit of racial supremacy now and again – that’s what Israel, the Jewish state, IS. When it is forced to change, to bring itself in line with South Africa and the rest of civilization, it will not be the Jewish state any more. It will not even have a Jewish majority.

            I made a mistake too. I commented in Paul’s article “We’re all anti-Semites now!” – ‘Aemathisphd is not Israeli, and he is not a Zionist’.

          • Yap, yap, yap, Ariadna. You haven’t proved your allegation yet. You can keep yapping all you want about head and body shots having killed Palestinians, but you haven’t provided a source to back that up. Until you do, it’s just noise.

            If you can’t figure out why I mentioned that Palestinians have more children than Israelis, then you are literally too stupid to debate anymore.

            I will conclude that you think suicide bombings are just groovy. Thanks for that.

          • Yeah, I’m not either. Though I guess anyone who disagrees with the yahoos here is a Zionist.

            Perhaps you could define the term.

  11. Mathis why are you now calling ariadnna a stalker? It was me who put the first link up to the “Shongalolla” blog and then requested it be taken down and replaced with the now existing link, in the interests of fair play to the child.
    What is your accusation of “stalker” based on?
    So far you’ve called her;
    an arsehole
    a prick
    a stalker- and more
    and also the reason for you being gay.
    The content of your posts has really gone down hill. When you first appeared you had a buzz about you, but now you’ve descended to the level of a bitter, depressed drunk shouting at the monitor. Sort yourself out Dr.

  12. aemathisphd March 23, 2012 at 1:13 am

    “There is no comparison between Cast Lead and Lidice and only a Jew-hating prick would say otherwise.”

    you really hate women. you know, you and the idf would make a fine union. they hate women, too. they also hate muslims, another thing the idf and you have in common. but not only that, they absolutely loathe muslim women, just like you do. and there is more. many, if not most idf’ers are gay. bingo! you and idf are a perfect match. :) you’d be in zioheaven. why don’t you put your mouth where your mind is and go join up?

  13. Responses require a new post.

    I wrote, “I think killing Ahmed Yassin was totally justified; it was the innocent people that pissed me off.”
    Ariadna responded, “So you support assassinations –”targeted killings”–it is only the “collateral damage” that causes bad PR that displeases you.”

    No.

    Rather than assume my position on something, why not ask me?

    I supported the killing of Ahmed Yassin because he was responsible for sending suicide bombers into Israel who killed scores of innocent people. I would just targeted assassinations on a case-by-case basis.

    I disagree with killing innocent people regardless of whose side they’re on.

    “And you bravely reprimanded the Israeli Consul for this bad PR which underestimated the audience’s intelligence and did so dramatically by standing up on your chair and yelling at him.”

    No, I reprimanded him for representing a gov’t that killed innocent people.

    “A perfect AZZ act worthy of your cherished remembrance.”

    I don’t claim to be a Zionist or an anti-Zionist. Non-Zionist is what I prefer. Or post-Zionist, if you’d rather.

    • For my money you are a zionist. You support Israel’s extra-judicial killings on the rationale that the victim is already proven guilty, judged and sentenced by the State (not For Jews, as you specified but OF Jews) and also on the rationale that PREVENTIVE aggression and killings constitute an acceptable principle of state policy.
      The whole campaign of Israel to get the US to attack Iran is based on the same rationale of “prevention.”
      The IDF kidnaps people in Gaza routinely and imprisons them in Israeli jails where it holds them without any due process, sometimes for years. That’s “preventive” also. Perhaps you have some good info from “unbiased sources” as to why they did not kidnap Yassin.
      “Targeted assassinations on a case-by-case basis.” Did you yell that as you were bravely standing on the chair?

      • “For my money you are a zionist.”

        And for my money, you’re an anti-Semite, so I guess we’re even.

        “You support Israel’s extra-judicial killings on the rationale that the victim is already proven guilty, judged and sentenced by the State (not For Jews, as you specified but OF Jews) and also on the rationale that PREVENTIVE aggression and killings constitute an acceptable principle of state policy.”

        Militarily, yes.

        Note that I would NOT have supported an extrajudicial killing of Arafat. Nor was I happy about the killing of Rantissi (sp?), as he hadn’t had more than four days to make a case for himself one way or the other. If he’d continued Yassin’s policy of sending 15-year-old boys across to Green Line into Passover seders to kill Israelis for being Jewish, then yes, I’d have supported killing him too.

        You’re so freaking offended by this, and yet I don’t hear you saying anything about these suicide bombers. Why is that? Let me straw man a bit, so you get some feeling what it’s like dealing with you:

        “YOU don’t condemn suicide bombers because YOU think they’re great! YOU wish you could be a suicide bomber yourself!! I bet you gather around the blast sites to gather up Jewish baby limbs to chew on…”

        See?

        “The whole campaign of Israel to get the US to attack Iran is based on the same rationale of “prevention.””

        See, this is what a strawman tactic gets: I never said I supported targeted assassination as a rationale for “prevention.” Thus, I’m under no obligation to address this point.

        “The IDF kidnaps people in Gaza routinely and imprisons them in Israeli jails where it holds them without any due process, sometimes for years. That’s “preventive” also.”

        Nor that.

        “Perhaps you have some good info from “unbiased sources” as to why they did not kidnap Yassin.”

        Nope, and I don’t care. I’m glad he’s dead, and I’m glad Israel killed him. He had the blood of civilians on his hands, and he never even bothered trying to give a rationale other than “Kill the Jews!”

        “Targeted assassinations on a case-by-case basis.” Did you yell that as you were bravely standing on the chair?”

        Nope, it wasn’t the point at the time.

        You’re really, really bad at debating. Has anyone ever told you that? Oh, yeah: I did.

        • “For my money you are a zionist.”
          And for my money, you’re an anti-Semite, so I guess we’re even.
          _________
          “Even”? If you viewed the category of zionist equally objectionable as the “anti-semite” one there’d be hope for you. But you don’t. You see hasbara unraveling and you only find it inconvenient to be SEEN as a zionist.

          “I bet you gather around the blast sites to gather up Jewish baby limbs to chew on…”
          Do these petit mal seizures combined with paranoia make you feel better after you come to? And do you ever come to or do they just diminish in intensity? Are you so far gone over the bend that you think such a spectacle is the mirror image of someone stating as FACT the IDF killings of Palestinian children?

          “I disagree with killing innocent people regardless of whose side they’re on.”
          You can keep telling yourself that after you have defined for yourself “innocent/guilty” as verdicts that can be established by the state of Israel extra-judicially and extra-judicial killings as acceptable as long as the military do them. In fact you can accept anything as long as you operate with your (hasbara) definitions.

          “KIll the Jews!”— so what bothers you is that the Palestinians don’t cry “Kill the Israelis”? They must be confused–you have shown us how complicated it is to establish when an Israeli Jew is a Jew or an Israeli or an Israeli Jew.

          • “You see hasbara unraveling and you only find it inconvenient to be SEEN as a zionist.”

            I don’t know what hasbara is.

            “Do these petit mal seizures combined with paranoia make you feel better after you come to? And do you ever come to or do they just diminish in intensity? Are you so far gone over the bend that you think such a spectacle is the mirror image of someone stating as FACT the IDF killings of Palestinian children?”

            You’ve yet to prove that these killings are deliberate. Ergo, you need to either prove the statement or withdraw it. She who alleges must prove.

            “You can keep telling yourself that after you have defined for yourself “innocent/guilty” as verdicts that can be established by the state of Israel extra-judicially and extra-judicial killings as acceptable as long as the military do them.”

            During a war, that’s the case. Or would you rather that soldiers go into wars and, before shooting each other, arrest one another and take them to court? Nice idea, but it’s not how the world works. Nor should a man who willingly sends teenagers into civilian areas to blow themselves up expect anything less than what he got.

            Notably, you have yet to condemn these actions.

            I think if it had happened to Sharon rather than to Yassin, you’d applaud it.

            “In fact you can accept anything as long as you operate with your (hasbara) definitions.”

            See above.

            ““KIll the Jews!”— so what bothers you is that the Palestinians don’t cry “Kill the Israelis”? They must be confused–you have shown us how complicated it is to establish when an Israeli Jew is a Jew or an Israeli or an Israeli Jew.”

            It’s not complicated at all for something with half a brain.

          • “I think if it had happened to Sharon rather than to Yassin, you’d applaud it.”
            Totally wrong as always when you try to imagine what anyone other than zionist in drag like you thinks.
            I would have very much liked to see Sharon’s large murderous carcass dragged into an international court of law and tried like any reprehensible war criminal. He cheated the world by becoming a candidate for taxidermy and future pilgrimages to his stuffed shell by the likes of you.

            “It’s not complicated at all for something with half a brain.”

            It’s a given though, isn’t it? Have you ever encountered anyone who refused your offerings of hasbara leavings whom you did not consider your inferior?
            Compared to your frequent Tourette’s utterings this is downright civil.
            pared to your

          • Tell me whether you condemn suicide bombings.

            No, you don’t.

            Coward.

            By the way, I already condemned Sharon elsewhere. Will you condemn Yassin? Of course not. Because he did what you only dream of doing.

          • I do like it –not much than you do obviously– when you have this dialog with yourself by yourself with your imaginary anti-semites as you do now

          • A hypothetical for you Mathis;
            If let’s say a jewish person found employment in a local vegetarian restaurant and after a few weeks realised that everyone including the owner and staff were virulent anti-semites. Then one day his anti-semitic co-workers ganged up on him and locked him in the food store cupboard. Concluding they intend to finish him off later, he decides to consume all the sprouts and beans, washed down with a few yeasty malt beers. After a few hours fermenting, he pulls out his lighter, drops his pants and ignites an almighty fart – The whole restaurant and all those within are obliterated.
            Question – Would you condemn his actions?

          • Now cackle that they are ‘biased” sources, why don’t you?

            http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/idf-child-killing-unit-speaks-out/blog-125685/

            http://irish4palestine.blogspot.com/2009/05/israeli-army-shoot-12-year-old-child.html

            http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2011/07/palestinian-kids-and-idf-photos.html

            http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3790178%2C00.html

            Some Israeli soldiers have admitted that the army gives them “carte blanche” to shoot and kill Palestinian above the age of 12.

            The noted Israeli award-wining journalist Amira Hass interviewed an Israeli sniper nearly two years ago in which the soldier described the commands he received from his superiors:

            The soldier replied: “This is according to what the IDF says to its soldiers. I do not know if this is what the IDF says to the media.”“Twelve and up, you are allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us,” he said. “So,” responded the reporter, “according to the IDF, the appropriate minimum age group at which to shoot is 12.”

            Many Palestinians are convinced that these atrocities fuel the fire of further attacks against Israel.

            “The blood of their children is not more precious than that of our children,” said the new Hamas leader in Gaza, Abd al-Aziz al-Rantisi. “Let them stop killing our civilians, and we will stop killing theirs.”

            http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/child_41304.html
            http://truthiscontagious.com/2012/03/21/yes-virginia-israel-does-kill-palestinian-children

            http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles/SunilSufferChildren.htm

            http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2000.html

            http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/iof-kidnap-three-school-children-in-al-khalil-yesterday/

            http://www.jai-pal.org/content.php?page=351

            http://firstlightforum.com/2009/03/idf-soldiers-stomp-the-heads-of-gazan-kids/
            http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2011/03/list-of-palestinian-children-killed-by.html

        • “I don’t claim to be a Zionist or an anti-Zionist. Non-Zionist is what I prefer. Or post-Zionist, if you’d rather.” – ‘aemathisphd’

          “Post-Zionist” is nonsense. Atzmon didn’t go from Jewish supremacy to indifference to it! Roy Bard, from South Africa, who writes on this site, isn’t ‘post-apartheid’ – he’s anti-apartheid.

          Ethnic cleansing isn’t a policy of the Jewish state, it’s what it is. Without it, there would be no Jewish state. So advising it on what it should and should not do is premised on the continuation of racial supremacy. You can’t be for the Jewish state but against ethnic cleansing, like you can be for the Republic of South Africa and against apartheid, or for the USA and against segregation. Perhaps a ‘post-Zionist’ state would be called ‘Israel’ – but it would not be a Jewish state. You are critical of Jewish supremacy. You want to reform it. You are a liberal Zionist, but a Zionist nonetheless.

          • I think so too–the bit about Palestinians having more children and that explains why the jIDF kills so many of them was my limit.

          • Right. I said that right after you said that it literally gives you an orgasm to imagine Jews being murdered by Palestinian suicide bombers. I have that right, don’t I?

          • “Right. I said that right after you said that it literally gives you an orgasm to imagine Jews being murdered by Palestinian suicide bombers.”

            is a woman having an orgasm that frightening to you, aphid? you really are far gone. :)

    • Seriously, it matters, because if his intention is to burn the building down, then I’d condemn his actions for two reasons:

      (1) He’s killing innocent people.

      (2) The people he’s trying to kill who aren’t innocent haven’t done anything physically harmful to him.

      And therein lies the difference. If it was an accident, then those two points don’t apply.

      Anyway, try to keep up. There are reasons why suicide bombing is an illegitimate tactic, but the key one is that it targets civilians.

      And I know you’re going to say, “Israel does too.”

      Yes, they do, and I condemn that as well.

      The Palestinians have every right in the world to resist the occupation, including the use of violence against the occupying force. But once they start killing civilians as a primary goal, then they lose their legitimacy in my book.

      If you, e.g., asked me whether I condemn Hamas killing IDF soldiers in the Palestinian territories, then answer would be “no.” I don’t necessarily like it, but I don’t condemn it. They’re at least getting the target right.

  15. “I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Try again.”

    this is an example of the failure of the modern american education system. they will give a boy who doesn’t understand plain, simple english, like aphid here, a phd in in english.

Leave a Reply