Anger mounts as Gaza toll rises

[Morch]

 

 

The Chomsky video is particularly apropos IMO

 

I am sorry but if one is to have an opinion in the subject ,one has to make a minimum investment

 

 

I am personally quite at home with knowledge on the topics at hand, and with the opinion of both gentlemen mentioned, even without spending an extra 3 hours of my life re-hashing things I've read, heard and watched before. Reading this and related topics it is quite evident that knowledge is not a requirement for having an opinion, at least for some, which runs contrary to your assertion.

Sadly it seems that linking lengthy clips with particular points of view is considered an opinion, and that having to submit to watching them represents minimal investment.

 

If you are so at home with knowledge on the topic at hand, why ask all the questions?

The videos were presented in response to your request for information.

Non the less, I am glad you are so well educated, though I never said you were not, I did not say "you" I said One needs" why would you think that "one" is you? other than the  fact that my statement was miss represented by an other "one" of the trifecta of Israeli apologists in this thread.

Anyway, being so well educated in the subject and what Noam Chomsky has to say about it, could you please tell me , what if any of it you disagree with?

 

 

 

I think you are mixing me with another poster. I did not present you with a list of questions nor requested information.

 

My point was that linking lengthy clips, which present a rather opinionated view of the conflict, and implying that not willing to spend the time watching them constitutes a refusal for "minimal" investment.

 

Your last baiting question is rejected. If you are not willing to make the minimal effort of expanding on a position you hold, there is no call for asking others to refute it. Got to say this is quite a bizarre demand, considering your previous posts.

 

 

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

 

Interestingly enough, the link does start with mentioning something often repeated on these topics - 

 

As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by United Nations Human Rights Council since its creation in

2006 the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined.

The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council...

 

Now, I'm sure that some would say Israel's evil deeds are equal to those of the rest of the world, but perhaps, somewhere

deep inside they know how ridiculous this is.

 

 

Funny how posters who criticize Israeli policy are so quickly thrown under the bus as being in a loony anti-semite conspiracy camp.

 

Yet, you and others so quickly surmise that the ONLY reason Israel has been condemned by the UNHRC so many times is there is some kind of anti-Israel conspiracy within the UN.

 

How about not being so paranoid as to WHY there are so many resolutions and instead look into whether the resolutions have merit?

 

 

Funny how I do not see anything about antisemitism mentioned in the partial quote of my post.

 

As for what I surmise, you may go back to previous posts on other topics - that criticism of Israel would go down much easier with Israelis if such criticism was not constant, one-sided and out of proportion. Not that Israel is a state of angels, far from it being anything of the sort. Then again, having a UN body charged with global matters dedicating about half of its efforts to but one single country does seem a bit unreasonable.

 

I doubt that many here actually are familiar with the content of resolutions, methods of inquiry, sources and personnel involved

There is no denying, at least on my part, that Israel has a lot to answer to. There is also no denying that there is a certain gap between the amount/level/tone of accusations, their objectivity and their even-handedness and between reality.

 

I would urge you, and others, to think if these statistics pertaining to the UNHRC work are acceptable, considering that they are charged with global aspects of human rights situations. If that fails, there's the UN leadership own condemnation of the UNHRC's work, as being partisan and falling short of its goals.

[Morch]

 

 

 

Just supplied a couple of links to Hamas leaders sticking with the old version. There are plenty more, especially when

checking Arabic sources and more so, Hamas media channels.

 

I think that there is a certain gap between Western conceptions of what Hamas says and how these words translate

into reality. The concept of eradicating an enemy is not quite something you hear much these days in the West, so it

may sound unreal, and therefore not credible. The concept of signing a long term treaty with the intention of breaking

it when conditions are favorable is another example.

 

Until there are concrete actions, it is hard to be excited with words.

 

The manifesto thing is exactly the same as above. The Hamas said outright it does not let go of core beliefs. So basically,

everything is just postponed for later. There is no real change, but like their Western counterparts - they made an election

promise which was not meant to be kept. Making the manifesto somewhat less extreme as a temporary measure to garner

support does not strike me as something out of the ordinary. You see this sort of thing all over the world, why not Hamas?

 

Consider their action and what they are saying when not on the campaign path.

 

I do not believe that Gazan's should suffer because they voted Hamas. At best, I stated that they suffer because of Hamas,

and probably even that was qualified further. This line of reasoning is not something I advocated, so not for me to protect it.

 

 

I wish other posters followed your thinking in that regard (bolded above). It needs to be remembered that Hamas won 44% of the vote - not 100%

 

Regarding the 2006 election, will you agree with me that, everything else aside, it is a good sign that they had to "drop the call" for Israel's destruction from their platform (not the charter UG) temporarily in order to garner more Palestinian votes?

 

If all Palestinians were violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction, wouldn't Hamas have doubled down on the call for Israel's destruction for the election? 

 

 

I am not responsible for other posters beliefs and ideas, even if sometimes we support the same side. Furthermore,

I would suggest that clumping groups of posters together on the assumption that if they support a side, they all hold

exactly the same opinions is quite ridiculous. Personally, I do try to avoid doing that and attempt to relate to specific

posts, posters and content, rather than apply them wide brush strokes.

 

Back to the 2006 elections and Hamas position - not really seeing it as a positive sign, just as means to an end. If

there was any real intention to follow up on that, they would have. The main element differentiating the Hamas from

the Fatah is holding on to the armed struggle and no compromise with Israel stance. The thing is, that if let go of this,

then the Hamas got little to offer the Palestinians nowadays, having grown as corrupt as the Fatah.

 

Never suggested that all Palestinians were violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction, so not quite sure what

response is expected to your last question.

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interestingly enough, the link does start with mentioning something often repeated on these topics - 

 

As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by United Nations Human Rights Council since its creation in

2006 the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined.

The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council...

 

Now, I'm sure that some would say Israel's evil deeds are equal to those of the rest of the world, but perhaps, somewhere

deep inside they know how ridiculous this is.

 

 

Funny how posters who criticize Israeli policy are so quickly thrown under the bus as being in a loony anti-semite conspiracy camp.

 

Yet, you and others so quickly surmise that the ONLY reason Israel has been condemned by the UNHRC so many times is there is some kind of anti-Israel conspiracy within the UN.

 

How about not being so paranoid as to WHY there are so many resolutions and instead look into whether the resolutions have merit?

 

 

This is so true. 

 

The Hasbara-bots repeatedly cry and wail about the numerous UN resolutions against Israel as if it some sort of vast conspiracy, when it is actually directly related to the numerous atrocities and illegal actions committed by Israel. 

 

And if there wasn't any merit to the charges, why doesn't Israel provide evidence to the contrary instead of hiding behind the apron of the US?

 

 

 

 

What is true is that some posters continuously get mixed up with issues pertaining to the UN, Israel and the USA.

 

The USA veto right applies only to the UN Security Council, not to the General Assembly, nor to other UN bodies

(such as the UNHRC). The USA stance on using the veto right in connection with resolution proposals relating to

Israel can be read about here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine and is essentially about making

resolutions more even-handed. In my personal opinion, the veto right is over-applied, but not always so.

 

Most of the criticism raised by Israel and its supporters has to do with the UNHRC, WCAR, and to a lesser degree

certain instances of General Assembly resolutions.

 

If you, or others, think that the sheer amount of resolutions (or vetos) relating to Israel is proportional of Israel's

portion of global evil, that we can probably just agree to disagree. But having a UN body charged with the global

state of human rights infractions spend about half of its efforts on Israel does seem to be unbalanced. The criticism

regarding this is far from being articulated only by Israel and the USA, in fact the UN leadership is not that happy

with it as well.

 

It is not that there is no merit to some of the resolutions, far from it. It is the scope and one-sided attitude evident

that makes them suspect.

 

Lastly, I do not see how name-calling and clumping all arguments who does not conform with your own into one

neat bundle promote any meaningful discussion.

[Morch]

My Jewish pals have just left after our weekly breakfast. 

 

Even the guys that describe themselves as racist are appalled at the current imbroglio.  

 

 

 

 

I would probably not have friends openly describing themselves as racist. Surely not for breakfast. Maybe you ought to find new and nicer imaginary friends.

 

[sirineou]

 

 

 

The Chomsky video is particularly apropos IMO

 

I am sorry but if one is to have an opinion in the subject ,one has to make a minimum investment

 

 

I am personally quite at home with knowledge on the topics at hand, and with the opinion of both gentlemen mentioned, even without spending an extra 3 hours of my life re-hashing things I've read, heard and watched before. Reading this and related topics it is quite evident that knowledge is not a requirement for having an opinion, at least for some, which runs contrary to your assertion.

Sadly it seems that linking lengthy clips with particular points of view is considered an opinion, and that having to submit to watching them represents minimal investment.

 

If you are so at home with knowledge on the topic at hand, why ask all the questions?

The videos were presented in response to your request for information.

Non the less, I am glad you are so well educated, though I never said you were not, I did not say "you" I said One needs" why would you think that "one" is you? other than the  fact that my statement was miss represented by an other "one" of the trifecta of Israeli apologists in this thread.

Anyway, being so well educated in the subject and what Noam Chomsky has to say about it, could you please tell me , what if any of it you disagree with?

 

 

 

I think you are mixing me with another poster.

I did not present you with a list of questions nor requested information.

 

My point was that linking lengthy clips, which present a rather opinionated view of the conflict, and implying that not

willing to spend the time watching them constitutes a refusal for "minimal" investment.

 

Your last baiting question is rejected. If you are not willing to make the minimal effort of expanding on a position you

hold, there is no call for asking others to refute it. Got to say this is quite a bizarre demand, considering your previous

posts.

 

 

 

It is quite possible that i have, and If I have I apologize.

Earlier, among other things, I made the comment that an Apartheid condition existed in Israel, just as egregious as the one we all rejected in South Africa.My position is supported by   a former president of the USA, and a respected academician and a Jew himself, Noam Chomsky. 

The reply  was made that some people might not have the time to watch the videos and if I could summarize.

my reply that if one was to have an opposing opinion in a matter as serious as this one would need to make  a minimal investment themselves, I did not did not single any one out, that is why I chose the word "One".

I dont know what anyone's information level in this matter is, but by some of the replies and attitude, toward the Palestinians, I am willing to guess. And if they have the time to reply as some have more then several times in this thread, I would think they would have the time to at the the very least entertain a different opinion. 

Anyway I said all I have to say on the subject,i suggest that if any of you ever find the time , watch the Noam Chomsky  talk, especially the question and answer section, where his assertions were challenged, and he was able to easily, logical. and politely defend them. And if any of you can find an area where he was wrong, please PM me and perhaps I can also be more educated in this subject. 

[Ulysses G.]

i suggest that if any of you ever find the time , watch the Noam Chomsky  talk, especially the question and answer section, where his assertions were challenged, and he was able to easily, logical. and politely defend them.

I would live to see Chomsky debate Charles Krauthammer or Hillel Neuer on Israel. That would be the end of Chomsky's reputation and he could go back to linguistics, where he actually has some expertise. 

[sirineou]

 

i suggest that if any of you ever find the time , watch the Noam Chomsky  talk, especially the question and answer section, where his assertions were challenged, and he was able to easily, logical. and politely defend them.

I would live to see Chomsky debate Charles Krauthammer or Hillel Neuer on Israel. That would be the end of Chomsky's reputation and he could go back to linguistics, where he actually has some expertise. 

 

You are right , That is very funny 

[johna]

 

i suggest that if any of you ever find the time , watch the Noam Chomsky  talk, especially the question and answer section, where his assertions were challenged, and he was able to easily, logical. and politely defend them.

I would live to see Chomsky debate Charles Krauthammer or Hillel Neuer on Israel. That would be the end of Chomsky's reputation and he could go back to linguistics, where he actually has some expertise. 

 

I would love to see Chomsky debate that murderer Bibi Netanyahu, but it will never happen.

 

Despite claims that anti Semitism is on the rise in the UK, it's Israel's critics who need protection.

Those who speak out against the massacre in Gaza face real danger.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/despite-claims-that-antisemitism-is-on-the-rise-in-the-uk-its-israels-critics-who-need-protection-9651586.html

[Ulysses G.]

i suggest that if any of you ever find the time , watch the Noam Chomsky  talk, especially the question and answer section, where his assertions were challenged, and he was able to easily, logical. and politely defend them.

I would live to see Chomsky debate Charles Krauthammer or Hillel Neuer on Israel. That would be the end of Chomsky's reputation and he could go back to linguistics, where he actually has some expertise. 

I would love to see Chomsky debate that murderer Bibi Netanyahu, but it will never happen.

It would not make much difference. Netanyahu is far from stupid. At the very least, he would hold his own.

[kblaze]

 

 

Actually, nobody did. Another Straw Man.  

 
Do you even know what a Straw Man is? Or are you just posting for the sake of posting.
 
My sentence;
 
"If all Palestinians were violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction, wouldn't Hamas have doubled down on the call for Israel's destruction for the election?"
 
is what is known as a rhetorical question 

 

Setting up an argument on a premise than no one is making but YOU.

straw man
: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated

 

 

Ok good you do know. 

 

Now where is the "weak or imaginary" argument? How is the question set up to be defeated? In fact, its the opposite, its set up to be AFFIRMED.

 

My question is rhetorical because obviously they would have doubled down. Thus it is not truly a question, but a statement aka a "rhetorical question".

 

Can we move on?

[Ulysses G.]

Now where is the "weak or imaginary" argument? 

Because no one - but you - is suggesting that ALL Palestinians are terrorists - hence the imaginary argument. You do not seem to understand that rhetorical questions are often used as Straw Men.

[kblaze]

 

Now where is the "weak or imaginary" argument? 

Because no one - but you - is suggesting that ALL Palestinians are terrorists - hence the imaginary argument. You do not seem to understand that rhetorical questions are often used as Straw Men.

 

 

That's true regarding rhetorical crossing into Straw Man, but come on, the main point of a straw man, is an argument set up to be defeated...mine was set up to be affirmed. 

 

I didn't accuse anyone specifically of saying all Palestinians are terrorists, but you know as well as I that there are some who harbor those beliefs. Just go to the comments section of any story on the conflict. Just as there are extremists on the other side who think that Israel is all bad. 

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

I am personally quite at home with knowledge on the topics at hand, and with the opinion of both gentlemen mentioned, even without spending an extra 3 hours of my life re-hashing things I've read, heard and watched before. Reading this and related topics it is quite evident that knowledge is not a requirement for having an opinion, at least for some, which runs contrary to your assertion.

Sadly it seems that linking lengthy clips with particular points of view is considered an opinion, and that having to submit to watching them represents minimal investment.

 

If you are so at home with knowledge on the topic at hand, why ask all the questions?

The videos were presented in response to your request for information.

Non the less, I am glad you are so well educated, though I never said you were not, I did not say "you" I said One needs" why would you think that "one" is you? other than the  fact that my statement was miss represented by an other "one" of the trifecta of Israeli apologists in this thread.

Anyway, being so well educated in the subject and what Noam Chomsky has to say about it, could you please tell me , what if any of it you disagree with?

 

 

 

I think you are mixing me with another poster.

I did not present you with a list of questions nor requested information.

 

My point was that linking lengthy clips, which present a rather opinionated view of the conflict, and implying that not

willing to spend the time watching them constitutes a refusal for "minimal" investment.

 

Your last baiting question is rejected. If you are not willing to make the minimal effort of expanding on a position you

hold, there is no call for asking others to refute it. Got to say this is quite a bizarre demand, considering your previous

posts.

 

 

 

It is quite possible that i have, and If I have I apologize.

Earlier, among other things, I made the comment that an Apartheid condition existed in Israel, just as egregious as the one we all rejected in South Africa.My position is supported by   a former president of the USA, and a respected academician and a Jew himself, Noam Chomsky. 

The reply  was made that some people might not have the time to watch the videos and if I could summarize.

my reply that if one was to have an opposing opinion in a matter as serious as this one would need to make  a minimal investment themselves, I did not did not single any one out, that is why I chose the word "One".

I dont know what anyone's information level in this matter is, but by some of the replies and attitude, toward the Palestinians, I am willing to guess. And if they have the time to reply as some have more then several times in this thread, I would think they would have the time to at the the very least entertain a different opinion. 

Anyway I said all I have to say on the subject,i suggest that if any of you ever find the time , watch the Noam Chomsky  talk, especially the question and answer section, where his assertions were challenged, and he was able to easily, logical. and politely defend them. And if any of you can find an area where he was wrong, please PM me and perhaps I can also be more educated in this subject. 

 

 

Unless I am very much mistaken you can find my views on both the general claim regarding the application of the "apartheid"

term to Israel, and some of the specific arguments made by Chomsky, in posts I made in the past.

As far as I can tell you did not expand on your position, but rather relied on opinions expressed by others. As posters seem to

enjoy flaunt knowledge of rhetorical terms, let me add another to the stockpile: Argument from Authority (or argumentum ab auctoritate). My assertion is that it is you who cannot be bothered to formulate your own ideas and thoughts on the matter,

and thus - unwilling to make that fabled minimal investment.

[Jingthing]

Noam Chomsky ... "a Jew himself" ... now that settles it! 

[Morch]

 

 

 

i suggest that if any of you ever find the time , watch the Noam Chomsky  talk, especially the question and answer section, where his assertions were challenged, and he was able to easily, logical. and politely defend them.

I would live to see Chomsky debate Charles Krauthammer or Hillel Neuer on Israel. That would be the end of Chomsky's reputation and he could go back to linguistics, where he actually has some expertise. 

 

I would love to see Chomsky debate that murderer Bibi Netanyahu, but it will never happen.

 

It would not make much difference. Netanyahu is far from stupid. At the very least, he would hold his own.

 

 

No, he won't.  Netanyahu is not a great thinker, but a politician. And he rarely gets into any real debate, anyway. However, If such circumstances do arise, he commands a full array of rhetorical evasive maneuvers, obfuscations and deflections - and he does that quite well. Worked better in the past, as mileage was lower. Besides, being a politician, especially one subscribed to a certain political view makes concessions, even articulated as part of as public debate, a no go zone.

[Ulysses G.]

 

 

Now where is the "weak or imaginary" argument?

Because no one - but you - is suggesting that ALL Palestinians are terrorists - hence the imaginary argument. You do not seem to understand that rhetorical questions are often used as Straw Men.

 

 
That's true regarding rhetorical crossing into Straw Man, but come on, the main point of a straw man, is an argument set up to be defeated...mine was set up to be affirmed.

 

Of course it was set up to be affirmed. That is why it is an imaginary argument. You made a statement - asked a rhetorical question - that would be difficult to disagree with, but, in fact, no one had suggested that ALL Palestinians are terrorists but YOU. The argument is based on a false premise that you put forth - a Straw Man. 

 

[quote name="kblaze" post="8206386" timestamp="1407314354"]

[b]If all Palestinians were violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction, wouldn't Hamas have doubled down on the call for Israel's destruction for the election? [/b]
[/quote]
 
Yes, of course (answering your last question).
Did Morch (or me or anyone else) say [b]all [/b]Palestinians are violent terrorists hell-bent on Israel's destruction?

[Ulysses G.]

And he rarely gets into any real debate, anyway. However, If such circumstances do arise, he commands a full array of rhetorical evasive maneuvers, obfuscations and deflections - and he does that quite well.

Didn't you just make my point? I did not say that he would win the debate, but that he would hold his own. However, I much rather have Hillel Neuer take care of Chomsky as he is quite the skilled debater.

[Morch]

 

And he rarely gets into any real debate, anyway. However, If such circumstances do arise, he commands a full array of rhetorical evasive maneuvers, obfuscations and deflections - and he does that quite well.

Didn't you just make my point? I did not say that he would win the debate, but that he would hold his own. However, I much rather have Hillel Neuer take care of Chomsky as he is quite the skilled debater.

 

 

I don't see holding on to a silly position much of an achievement, but then I'm no supporter of Netanyahu.

Mind, Chomsky can get quite pig-headed and narrow-sighted when it suits him as well, but he's quite a few rungs

up the intellectual debate ladder than Netanyahu.
 

[Ulysses G.]

I have figured out that you are not fond of Netanyahu, but he is very articulate and a seasoned debater.  I really enjoy listening to him speak and have been listening to him since before he was famous, when he used to be a spokesman for Israeli policy on American TV. 

[Morch]

I have figured out that you are not fond of Netanyahu, but he is very articulate and a seasoned debater.  I really enjoy listening to him speak and have been listening to him since before he was famous, when he used to be a spokesman for Israeli policy on American TV. 

 

Each to his own. By the way, you just echoed a very popular Netanyahu meme: "I was the first to to identify...."
 

[sirineou]

Noam Chomsky ... "a Jew himself" ... now that settles it! 

No it does not,If it settles anything is only that he is a Jew,

but it does illustrate that there are opposing views to yours in both sides of the divide, and that not all Jews are of the same mindset.

I am really disappointed in you Jingthing, as a member of an oppressed minority , I would think you would be a little more sympathetic toward an other, but I guess, at the very least, one good thing come out of it, your attitude serves to illustrate that gay people are just like every one else.  Some good , some bad, some smart some stupid, some compassionate,others not, in an other word, just human.

[Jingthing]

 

Noam Chomsky ... "a Jew himself" ... now that settles it! 

No it does not,If it settles anything is only that he is a Jew,

but it does illustrate that there are opposing views to yours in both sides of the divide, and that not all Jews are of the same mindset.

I am really disappointed in you Jingthing, as a member of an oppressed minority , I would think you would be a little more sympathetic toward an other, but I guess, at the very least, one good thing come out of it, your attitude serves to illustrate that gay people are just like every one else.  Some good , some bad, some smart some stupid, some compassionate,others not, in an other word, just human.

 

Your logic is flawed.

 

Gay people are supposed to support a radical Islamist Jihadist terror organization that:

 

treats its women as chattel

murders its gay people

is dedicated to a genocidal agenda against Jews

murders any internal dissenters

uses it's own children as human shields knowing they will be killed when they launch rockets. for purposes of getting pictures to use for international propaganda

 

Not quite, dude.

[up-country_sinclair]

Hell yes, anger is mounting.

 

Anti-Israel Boycotts Are Spreading Across Britain And They’re Here To Stay

“Die-ins” in Sainsbury’s stores, boycotts of shops that stock Israeli goods, and protests involving people locking their necks to poles in government departments are becoming increasingly common. And it doesn’t look like they’ll end soon.

 

 

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/anti-israel-boycotts-are-spreading-across-britain

 

 

#BDS

Edited August 8, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[up-country_sinclair]

 

 

 

People (particularly the younger generations) have had enough of Israel's murderous policies, and they're going to affect change. 

 

#BDS

 

 

[up-country_sinclair]

 

Anonymous Hackers Target Israeli Government Sites Including Mossad

 

The "hacktivist" group Anonymous took responsibility Monday for bringing down several Israeli government websites, including that of the intelligence agency Mossad. "[The] government of Israel [has] experienced a small fraction of our anger," said the Twitter account @AnonymousGlobo, which claimed to represent the network. It posted links to the websites for various Israeli official websites - including Mossad, the Israel Defense Forces, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Justice Department, and National Security Council among others – at least some of which appeared to be down

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/anonymous-hackers-target-israeli-government-sites-including-mossad-n171911

 

 

 

 

 

#BDS

 

 

[Morch]

 

Noam Chomsky ... "a Jew himself" ... now that settles it! 

No it does not,If it settles anything is only that he is a Jew,

but it does illustrate that there are opposing views to yours in both sides of the divide, and that not all Jews are of the same mindset.

I am really disappointed in you Jingthing, as a member of an oppressed minority , I would think you would be a little more sympathetic toward an other, but I guess, at the very least, one good thing come out of it, your attitude serves to illustrate that gay people are just like every one else.  Some good , some bad, some smart some stupid, some compassionate,others not, in an other word, just human.

 

 

How does this illustrate anything both sides of the divide?

And how about coming up with some clips of dissent from Palestinian/Arab/Muslim sources?

The "he's Israeli/Jew and he says so" thing gets old.
 

[dr_lucas]

 

 

Noam Chomsky ... "a Jew himself" ... now that settles it! 

No it does not,If it settles anything is only that he is a Jew,

but it does illustrate that there are opposing views to yours in both sides of the divide, and that not all Jews are of the same mindset.

I am really disappointed in you Jingthing, as a member of an oppressed minority , I would think you would be a little more sympathetic toward an other, but I guess, at the very least, one good thing come out of it, your attitude serves to illustrate that gay people are just like every one else.  Some good , some bad, some smart some stupid, some compassionate,others not, in an other word, just human.

 

 

How does this illustrate anything both sides of the divide?

And how about coming up with some clips of dissent from Palestinian/Arab/Muslim sources?

The "he's Israeli/Jew and he says so" thing gets old.
 

 

 

He probably won't, Morch, so I will do it on his behalf :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KakxXN5Z-XI

[Ulysses G.]

#BDS

"Interest" in a boycott. Well that will certainly show them. 

[up-country_sinclair]

 

#BDS

"Interest" in a boycott. Well that will certainly show them.

 

 

Yes, it will.  With each passing day. 

 

The anger and outrage at Israel's murderous actions in Gaza is real and worldwide.  The BDS movement is growing every day.