Israel imposes 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians - U.N. report

[kamahele]

It is too bad that anyone who criticizes the policies of the Israeli government which have forced people off of their land and banished them to ghettos is called an anti-Semite or a Nazi. 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, kamahele said:

It is too bad that anyone who criticizes the policies of the Israeli government which have forced people off of their land and banished them to ghettos is called an anti-Semite or a Nazi. 

It's too bad you just posted such an inflammatory and blatant lie.

Normal criticism of Israeli government policies is perfectly acceptable as towards any other government. 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Jingthing

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, kamahele said:

It is too bad that anyone who criticizes the policies of the Israeli government which have forced people off of their land and banished them to ghettos is called an anti-Semite or a Nazi. 

 

Not anyone and not any criticism. But don't let that get in the way of a perfectly good, if off-mark bash.

 

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Instead of putting words in my mouth, twisting what I have actually posted and assuming the usual faux indignant holier than thou position, may want to pay attention once in a while.

 

If you had read the "report", you would have realized that it solely rests on definitions, technicalities and interpretations. That seems to bother you only when applied one way, but not the other. It is also quite when you employ such arguments, but unacceptable for others. Not that I expect anything resembling a reasonable discussion from the likes of you, just pointing out the double standard.

 

And please, do limit the co-opting nonsense to others. Discrimination does not automatically imply an Apartheid, nor all the fiery claims and terms usually featuring in your posts. And Palestinians in East Jerusalem are not routinely denied residency - they have are permanent resident status, by law. The issue raised was to do with citizenship.

 

The false presentation of my words and view by taking it to an extreme I did not relate to, while disregarding some of the other points made is the usual fare. Nothing but another dishonest rhetorical garbage masquerading as "discussion". If you can not debate you argument in a civilized manner, but only through resorting to such low means, there is little point in addressing it.

I can hardly be falsely presenting your words when I always quote them in full for all readers to judge.

 

You are the one doing the interpreting and redefining. Your reasoning that this not apartheid in East Jerusalem rests very narrowly on your technical possibility of citizenship get-out clause:
Morch wrote.."So a lot of the linked bits above are correct, even if your interpretations are rejected. There is discrimination, there is injustice and bad policies. Where we differ, is when it comes to concluding that this represents Apartheid, especially in the sense promoted. If and when it will be officially declared that this path to citizenship is closed, then things will be categorically different."

 

I have read the report (now censored on UN site but available at https://archive.is/ATxuu  read especially page 14) and viewed a discussion with one of the authors, Professor Virginia Tilley of Southern Illinois University.

Rather than comparing Zionist Israel to South Africa or plucking anecdotal or subjective definitions such as yours out of the air, the authors went to a definition of apartheid strictly according to international law. (in particular article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid 1973)
"inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."

https://archive.is/ATxuu

 

Morch wrote..
>>And Palestinians in East Jerusalem are not routinely denied residency - they have are permanent resident status, by law.
...Wrong!  
"Over 14,000 Arabs have had their residency rights revoked since 1967 because they were absent from Jerusalem for more than 7 years. Court ruling challenges practice that treated them like immigrants in their own city."
 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.777750. (well worth a read)

 

In the case I quoted above that absence time now appears to have reduced to 6 months at the whim of an Israeli official.
"Typically, proving permanent residence means spending at least six months a year in Jerusalem, and therefore for the next four years of her studies abroad our daughter will not have an ID that confirms that she is a permanent resident of Jerusalem."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Discrimination-runs-deep-in-east-Jerusalem-468079   (well worth a read)

 

But forget the "routinely"...has this ever happened to Israeli Jews?

 

Of course this is all related to the report's definition of apartheid in international law.."inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group"

 

Israel cannot be a Jewish state unless it has a Jewish majority to maintain its dominance. This is the core purpose of Israeli apartheid.

 

The report shows how the Zionist regime does this by allowing unlimited Jewish immigration and automatic citizenship, but restricts the same right for the 4 different groups of Palestinians:
1.    Gazan Palestinians can hardly move outside Gaza at all.
2.    West Bank Palestinian refugees are not allowed to return to their ancestral homes within Israel.
3.    Israeli citizen Palestinians cannot marry (to live together in Israel) non Jews from the West Bank or a long list of other Muslim countries (supposedly for security but really dog whistle racism to prevent Palestinian numbers increasing), unlike Israeli Jews.
4.    Diaspora Palestinians are not allowed even to live in the West Bank, let alone Israel.

The report outlines how Israel divides and conquers the Palestinians into these 4 groups upon whom they impose apartheid. I have often been sidetracked when criticizing apartheid in the West Bank, by deflections about Israel Palestinians citizens within Israel. Now this report brings it all together to clarify how Israeli apartheid works.

Now the cat is out of the bag and we have the report as a reference point to see how Israel systematically uses different laws to oppress and dominate the 4 different groups of Palestinians. 

[yardrunner]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Normal criticism of Israeli government policies is perfectly acceptable as towards any other government. 

and who decides what is normal  critisism 

[Jingthing]

and who decides what is normal  critisism 

It's usually obvious to any reasonable person. There are of course grey areas like with anything else.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

You are falsely presenting my position, and twisting it to fit your narrative. Like I said, there are only two colors as far as you're concerned, black or white. Yes or no. That's the point of view attributed to extremists, zealots and those hooked on ideology.

 

Like it or not, the "report" is an interpretation, and a choice of how to present things. Same goes for your posts. The pushed idea that either represents absolute truth is a lie. They are point of view on the state of things, not necessarily objective and loaded with the preconceived notions of those presenting them. They are neither gospel nor proof. Others, like myself, may hold different point of view, and interpret things in a different manner. 

 

There were a few references made in my posts. Some were with regard to those drawing direct parallels to SA (which mostly referred to posters views. Some were to the definitions employed by the authors of the "report".  Those bothering to read it will discover that they supply a somewhat different interpretation (or highlight different aspects) as it suits specific issues. The whole thing rests on a rather extreme legal interpretation. That it does not represent an agreed upon interpretation is obvious from reactions to the "report" (and, of course, reactions to previous similar publications by the authors).

 

With regard to the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem and residency issues - either intentionally misrepresenting my view or failing to grasp what was posted. What you refer to is not a denial of residency status, but revocation of existing residency status for failing to meet certain criteria (like staying out of the country for a prolonged time). I have actually mentioned there were related issues and problems with Israel's policy on these matters. The court ruling is indeed welcome with regard to this issue. The question of this ever happening to Israeli Jews is inane at best - most Israeli Jews are citizens. If the question was related to whether this ever happened to non-Palestinian resident, then without the benefit of statistics, but relying experience, yes. The comparison would be more apt if it dealt with East Jerusalem Palestinian holding an Israeli citizenship.

 

The "report" point of origin and conclusion is that Israel should not have come to being as a home for the Jewish people, and that it ought to end its existence as such. All the rest is just legal acrobatics and showmanship, with a healthy dosage of political advocacy and bile. You and the authors may not approve, but the reasoning leading to Israel's creation is founded on concrete issues and real concerns. Blindly following the legal interpretation presented, coupled with the evident ideological bias would neither solve issues, but rather lead to a further crisis and strife.

 

This is exemplified by the list of various constraints and limitations related to Palestinians residing the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Israel and the "diaspora". Other than applying a tunnel vision of legal interpretation, there is little offered by way of addressing how the current state of things between Israeli, the Palestinian and neighboring Arab states contributes to the issue. Nothing much offered on the probable negative outcomes if the "report" authors narrow point of view was to be endorsed.

Edited March 18, 2017 by Morch

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

It's usually obvious to any reasonable person. There are of course grey areas like with anything else.

 

Reasonable doesn't usually show his face all that much on these topics.

[joecoolfrog]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

You are falsely presenting my position, and twisting it to fit your narrative. Like I said, there are only two colors as far as you're concerned, black or white. Yes or no. That's the point of view attributed to extremists, zealots and those hooked on ideology.

 

Like it or not, the "report" is an interpretation, and a choice of how to present things. Same goes for your posts. The pushed idea that either represents absolute truth is a lie. They are point of view on the state of things, not necessarily objective and loaded with the preconceived notions of those presenting them. They are neither gospel nor proof. Others, like myself, may hold different point of view, and interpret things in a different manner. 

 

There were a few references made in my posts. Some were with regard to those drawing direct parallels to SA (which mostly referred to posters views. Some were to the definitions employed by the authors of the "report".  Those bothering to read it will discover that they supply a somewhat different interpretation (or highlight different aspects) as it suits specific issues. The whole thing rests on a rather extreme legal interpretation. That it does not represent an agreed upon interpretation is obvious from reactions to the "report" (and, of course, reactions to previous similar publications by the authors).

 

With regard to the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem and residency issues - either intentionally misrepresenting my view or failing to grasp what was posted. What you refer to is not a denial of residency status, but revocation of existing residency status for failing to meet certain criteria (like staying out of the country for a prolonged time). I have actually mentioned there were related issues and problems with Israel's policy on these matters. The court ruling is indeed welcome with regard to this issue. The question of this ever happening to Israeli Jews is inane at best - most Israeli Jews are citizens. If the question was related to whether this ever happened to non-Palestinian resident, then without the benefit of statistics, but relying experience, yes. The comparison would be more apt if it dealt with East Jerusalem Palestinian holding an Israeli citizenship.

 

The "report" point of origin and conclusion is that Israel should not have come to being as a home for the Jewish people, and that it ought to end its existence as such. All the rest is just legal acrobatics and showmanship, with a healthy dosage of political advocacy and bile. You and the authors may not approve, but the reasoning leading to Israel's creation is founded on concrete issues and real concerns. Blindly following the legal interpretation presented, coupled with the evident ideological bias would neither solve issues, but rather lead to a further crisis and strife.

 

This is exemplified by the list of various constraints and limitations related to Palestinians residing the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Israel and the "diaspora". Other than applying a tunnel vision of legal interpretation, there is little offered by way of addressing how the current state of things between Israeli, the Palestinian and neighboring Arab states contributes to the issue. Nothing much offered on the probable negative outcomes if the "report" authors narrow point of view was to be endorsed.

Despite not always being in agreement with all you say I like many of your posts. You appear to understand both sides of the story which is a rare commodity when discussing Israel.

In truth there will always be conflict whilst a minority of zealots and fundamentalists ( of either persuasion ) hold sway , this sadly is the case at the moment.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

You are falsely presenting my position, and twisting it to fit your narrative. Like I said, there are only two colors as far as you're concerned, black or white. Yes or no. That's the point of view attributed to extremists, zealots and those hooked on ideology.

 

Like it or not, the "report" is an interpretation, and a choice of how to present things. Same goes for your posts. The pushed idea that either represents absolute truth is a lie. They are point of view on the state of things, not necessarily objective and loaded with the preconceived notions of those presenting them. They are neither gospel nor proof. Others, like myself, may hold different point of view, and interpret things in a different manner. 

 

There were a few references made in my posts. Some were with regard to those drawing direct parallels to SA (which mostly referred to posters views. Some were to the definitions employed by the authors of the "report".  Those bothering to read it will discover that they supply a somewhat different interpretation (or highlight different aspects) as it suits specific issues. The whole thing rests on a rather extreme legal interpretation. That it does not represent an agreed upon interpretation is obvious from reactions to the "report" (and, of course, reactions to previous similar publications by the authors).

 

With regard to the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem and residency issues - either intentionally misrepresenting my view or failing to grasp what was posted. What you refer to is not a denial of residency status, but revocation of existing residency status for failing to meet certain criteria (like staying out of the country for a prolonged time). I have actually mentioned there were related issues and problems with Israel's policy on these matters. The court ruling is indeed welcome with regard to this issue. The question of this ever happening to Israeli Jews is inane at best - most Israeli Jews are citizens. If the question was related to whether this ever happened to non-Palestinian resident, then without the benefit of statistics, but relying experience, yes. The comparison would be more apt if it dealt with East Jerusalem Palestinian holding an Israeli citizenship.

 

The "report" point of origin and conclusion is that Israel should not have come to being as a home for the Jewish people, and that it ought to end its existence as such. All the rest is just legal acrobatics and showmanship, with a healthy dosage of political advocacy and bile. You and the authors may not approve, but the reasoning leading to Israel's creation is founded on concrete issues and real concerns. Blindly following the legal interpretation presented, coupled with the evident ideological bias would neither solve issues, but rather lead to a further crisis and strife.

 

This is exemplified by the list of various constraints and limitations related to Palestinians residing the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Israel and the "diaspora". Other than applying a tunnel vision of legal interpretation, there is little offered by way of addressing how the current state of things between Israeli, the Palestinian and neighboring Arab states contributes to the issue. Nothing much offered on the probable negative outcomes if the "report" authors narrow point of view was to be endorsed.

Para 1 I don't think I can do any more than quote your exact words, and still you accuse me of falsely presenting you. So, you tell us what your sentence means "If and when it will be officially declared that this path to citizenship is closed, then things will be categorically different."

Please explain to us how things will be categorically different if the path to citizenship closes. Will the discrimination against East Jerusalem Palestinians which you admit above then become apartheid, or will you find yet another criterion?

 

Para 2 is just a cop out variation on ancient Greek philosophers' "All thing are relative. Man is the measure of all things". If the authors had used S Africa as their benchmark, you'd have said Ah but there are other definitions of apartheid. Same semantics game you have played before with other terminology.

I think the report authors very sensibly used international law as their benchmark. Well, makes sense to most rational people I suppose.

 

Morch wrote..

"The whole thing rests on a rather extreme legal interpretation."
Which part of the definition of apartheid under international law don't you approve of: "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."
https://archive.is/ATxuu
Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

 '"That it does not represent an agreed upon interpretation is obvious from reactions to the "report"' that is simply Morchspeak for Israel and the present US administration disagreed with it.

 

Para 4 The usual semantics games. "What you refer to is not a denial of residency status, but revocation of existing residency status". What's the diff to a Palestinian who has just been kicked out of his birthplace at the whim of some Israeli official.
Israel invaded East Jerusalem then applies the same residency status rules on the Palestinian residents as temporary immigrants ... in a city that is their home. Having to prove that Jerusalem is the center of their everyday life, in order to be allowed to stay living there.

 

Para 5 The report authors' commission was to investigate whether Israel's treatment of Palestinians amounts to apartheid according to international law. They have proven that quite definitively.

 

You are moving the goal posts when you deflect to say their "point of origin and conclusion is that Israel should not have come to being as a home for the Jewish people."

They did not say that, but it is certainly my opinion that the Zionist state of Israel should not have come into being.

You take it as a given that there must naturally be a Jewish state. Why?

But isn't it telling you that something is flawed in this model when you have to:

  employ apartheid and demographic engineering to maintain a Jewish majority and all that that has involved

..ethnic cleansing, refusal to allow refugees to return, restrictive residence and marriage laws, oppression that forces a Palestinian diaspora never to be able to return, while all the while encouraging with huge incentives Jews only to immigrate.

 

And yet still Palestinians are the majority. The racist supremacist ideology of Zionism is clearly a failed model. That is what must change.

 

Para 6 "Nothing much offered on the probable negative outcomes if the "report" authors narrow point of view was to be endorsed." Again, you're moving the goal posts; that was not what they were asked to investigate. Their task was purely concerning apartheid.

 

The reality is that Israel has been established, and Israeli Jews are there to stay, and so are the Palestinians. It's up to others, not the report authors, to work out a modus vivendi for the two peoples to co-exist as neighbors in one state or two.

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by dexterm

[gamini]

On 3/17/2017 at 3:41 PM, Jingthing said:

Distance themselves from supporting Netanyahu and right wing factions or distance themselves from core principles of Zionism, the right of Israel to exist and defend itself? Be more explicit if you're going to post something as inflammatory as what you just did. 
Dude, I don't think you get what most Jews get.

There will always be Jew haters in the world, from the left and the right.

Currently in the USA there is a spike in Jew hatred from the right inspired by white nationalist alt right faction of trumpism.

In Europe, it's mostly been from the left.

There is no reason for antisemitism. You offensively provide one.  Congratulations -- join the crowd through history playing that game and perhaps you'll better understand why the vast majority of Jews in the world support the existence of Israel and the right to defend it. 

his remarks are not inflamatory or anti semetic as you claim. we naturally support the right of Israel to exist. Being anti the present governmenmts treatment of palestinians we find utterly deploable. Some of my closest friends are Jewish and they all deplore the behaviour of  of the present Israeli government. One of them, an Israeli soldier was jailed for refusing to kill protesting palenstinain civilians and another is a christian European who had his home and property confiscated because he was a christian!.

[Jingthing]

18 minutes ago, gamini said:

his remarks are not inflamatory or anti semetic as you claim. we naturally support the right of Israel to exist. Being anti the present governmenmts treatment of palestinians we find utterly deploable. Some of my closest friends are Jewish and they all deplore the behaviour of  of the present Israeli government. One of them, an Israeli soldier was jailed for refusing to kill protesting palenstinain civilians and another is a christian European who had his home and property confiscated because he was a christian!.

Dude, who is we? You don't represent every person that claims to be anti-Zionist. All I'm saying is that people should clarify more specifically what they mean when they say anti-Zionist. In my experience, a very large portion of people that identify as anti-Zionist oppose the right of Israel to exist in any borders. We hear from such people daily here. 

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

You seem to have a strange obsession with making one of the point raised, among a whole lot of posts, and make it into a focal issue that supposedly "proves" something. Not only this, but it also seems you've managed to convince yourself that you speak for others ("tell us", "explain to us"). Let me break it to you. There is no "us", and you do not represent anyone. Other than in your mind, perhaps.

 

As pointed out on previous posts (and numerous topics), my positions tend to be pragmatic, rather than absolute. Moderate rather than fanatical. While aware that these concepts are alien to your thinking, let's try once more. Discrimination can be observed in various situations, can be manifested in different ways, and can be present at different levels. Not every instance of discrimination can be described as exhibiting the the worst associated issues. Rather, it is a matter of degrees. Apparently, you do not recognize anything related to Israel as being otherwise than a black and white issue. Can't say that's much of an argument.

 

Officially annexing a territory and denying the population citizenship (or a reasonable path to achieving one), will, IMO, amount to a fundamental change compared to the current situation. It will imply not a change of degree, but a change of paradigm.

 

 

In the same manner, refusing to acknowledge that the views presented in the "report" (or for that matter, your own views) are not objective indisputable truths, but subjective interpretations, is not very convincing. Pointing out that things can be perceived in a different manner has nothing to do with semantics, but rather an apparently futile attempt to inject a measure of realism into this "discussion".

 

And speaking of realism, the authors usage of whichever benchmark is neither universally accepted or necessarily compelling. Like it or not, their legal interpretation is not seen as accurate or balanced by all and sundry. Certainly not by "most rational people", which again, you do not represent nor speak for. As a matter of fact, previous writings and views aired by the same authors were rejected on similar grounds. That you would ignore their positions being controversial, and attempt to present them as mainstream is just one more example of the dishonest "debate" culture practiced. The assertion that such views are being rejected solely by Israel and the present US administration, is objectively false. Not only that, it ignores that the fact  of the  "report" being commissioned and supported by a specific group of nations, with a long standing agenda. Denouncing one, ignoring the other, same old double standards.

 

Twist it to your little heart's desire, but the East Jerusalem Palestinians were not denied residence rights as claimed. This is not a defense of Israel's policies on this front, which I find wrong and questionable, but again - hanging on to facts rather than trusting the likes of your creative rhetoric. As far as I am aware, the clause about proof Israel being "center of life" relates to all resident status permits, not solely East Jerusalem Palestinians. And again, not sure how this figures in other countries (example, maintaining a Thai resident status without residing in Thailand). The recent court decision seems a step in the right direction there.

 

The authors did not "prove" anything, but presented view based on a legal interpretation. That is not "proof". Especially not for those unwilling to blindly ignore the authors previous writings and views, or the identity of the commissioning body. If a similar report was to be published by a pro-Israeli body, written by pro-Israeli authors, and arriving at contradicting conclusions, you'd be at the forefront of those denouncing it. But as usual, this is applied in a one-sided manner only. I am not deflecting anything when referring to the authors widely known positions. Anyone commissioning a "report" from then would have been aware of what form it would wear long before it was done. Rather, the deflections and misdirection lie with claiming that these ought to be ignored, and the "report" taken at face value.

 

The "report" point of origin can be found in the authors previous writing. Denying or ignoring it will not change documented facts. If one follows the rhetoric, conclusions and recommendations included in their recent manifesto, the bottom line remains the same - an end to Israel. That this conforms to your  views and wishes is nothing new, as well.

 

I did not "take it as a given that there must naturally be a Jewish state". That's you implying things. I refer to what is, while you are the one busy trying to undermine Israel's legitimacy and existence while denying being opposed to its existence. Israel is a fact, like it or not. It's existence and legitimacy is not widely disputed as your seek to paint. Not everyone is on-board the extreme views bus your ride. In the same manner of dishonest rhetoric, I did not accept the views presented in the "report", hence no intention of addressing an faux argument using them as agreed upon facts. Also, I tend to treat things in rather more pragmatic manner, and while acknowledging realistic constraints. The one obsessed with ideals, abstract concepts and rigid definitions is yourself. 

 

Denying that the "report" includes conclusions and recommendations as to courses of action is either dishonest or inane. The same goes for ignoring the body of previous writings by the authors, which includes the similar views and then-some. This "report" has nothing to do with "change". At least not in any agreeable, mediating or problem solving manner. It is about further antagonism and confrontation. It is about creating defining a "right" and a "wrong" parties using preconceived bias and agenda. It is not about finding ways to improve things in a sustainable manner, but rather promotes radical upheavals, while exhibiting a wilful disconnect from their implications.

 

[Morch]

On 3/18/2017 at 9:51 PM, joecoolfrog said:

Despite not always being in agreement with all you say I like many of your posts. You appear to understand both sides of the story which is a rare commodity when discussing Israel.

In truth there will always be conflict whilst a minority of zealots and fundamentalists ( of either persuasion ) hold sway , this sadly is the case at the moment.

 

Thanks.

And that's pretty much a good observation, with regard to zealots and fundamentalists. As often happens, their voices are also the loudest ones, and therefore tend to dominate headlines and discourse. This in turn promotes these views seen as "truths" or as the only game in town.

[KC 71]

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[dexterm]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

You seem to have a strange obsession with making one of the point raised, among a whole lot of posts, and make it into a focal issue that supposedly "proves" something. Not only this, but it also seems you've managed to convince yourself that you speak for others ("tell us", "explain to us"). Let me break it to you. There is no "us", and you do not represent anyone. Other than in your mind, perhaps.

 

As pointed out on previous posts (and numerous topics), my positions tend to be pragmatic, rather than absolute. Moderate rather than fanatical. While aware that these concepts are alien to your thinking, let's try once more. Discrimination can be observed in various situations, can be manifested in different ways, and can be present at different levels. Not every instance of discrimination can be described as exhibiting the the worst associated issues. Rather, it is a matter of degrees. Apparently, you do not recognize anything related to Israel as being otherwise than a black and white issue. Can't say that's much of an argument.

 

Officially annexing a territory and denying the population citizenship (or a reasonable path to achieving one), will, IMO, amount to a fundamental change compared to the current situation. It will imply not a change of degree, but a change of paradigm.

 

 

In the same manner, refusing to acknowledge that the views presented in the "report" (or for that matter, your own views) are not objective indisputable truths, but subjective interpretations, is not very convincing. Pointing out that things can be perceived in a different manner has nothing to do with semantics, but rather an apparently futile attempt to inject a measure of realism into this "discussion".

 

And speaking of realism, the authors usage of whichever benchmark is neither universally accepted or necessarily compelling. Like it or not, their legal interpretation is not seen as accurate or balanced by all and sundry. Certainly not by "most rational people", which again, you do not represent nor speak for. As a matter of fact, previous writings and views aired by the same authors were rejected on similar grounds. That you would ignore their positions being controversial, and attempt to present them as mainstream is just one more example of the dishonest "debate" culture practiced. The assertion that such views are being rejected solely by Israel and the present US administration, is objectively false. Not only that, it ignores that the fact  of the  "report" being commissioned and supported by a specific group of nations, with a long standing agenda. Denouncing one, ignoring the other, same old double standards.

 

Twist it to your little heart's desire, but the East Jerusalem Palestinians were not denied residence rights as claimed. This is not a defense of Israel's policies on this front, which I find wrong and questionable, but again - hanging on to facts rather than trusting the likes of your creative rhetoric. As far as I am aware, the clause about proof Israel being "center of life" relates to all resident status permits, not solely East Jerusalem Palestinians. And again, not sure how this figures in other countries (example, maintaining a Thai resident status without residing in Thailand). The recent court decision seems a step in the right direction there.

 

The authors did not "prove" anything, but presented view based on a legal interpretation. That is not "proof". Especially not for those unwilling to blindly ignore the authors previous writings and views, or the identity of the commissioning body. If a similar report was to be published by a pro-Israeli body, written by pro-Israeli authors, and arriving at contradicting conclusions, you'd be at the forefront of those denouncing it. But as usual, this is applied in a one-sided manner only. I am not deflecting anything when referring to the authors widely known positions. Anyone commissioning a "report" from then would have been aware of what form it would wear long before it was done. Rather, the deflections and misdirection lie with claiming that these ought to be ignored, and the "report" taken at face value.

 

The "report" point of origin can be found in the authors previous writing. Denying or ignoring it will not change documented facts. If one follows the rhetoric, conclusions and recommendations included in their recent manifesto, the bottom line remains the same - an end to Israel. That this conforms to your  views and wishes is nothing new, as well.

 

I did not "take it as a given that there must naturally be a Jewish state". That's you implying things. I refer to what is, while you are the one busy trying to undermine Israel's legitimacy and existence while denying being opposed to its existence. Israel is a fact, like it or not. It's existence and legitimacy is not widely disputed as your seek to paint. Not everyone is on-board the extreme views bus your ride. In the same manner of dishonest rhetoric, I did not accept the views presented in the "report", hence no intention of addressing an faux argument using them as agreed upon facts. Also, I tend to treat things in rather more pragmatic manner, and while acknowledging realistic constraints. The one obsessed with ideals, abstract concepts and rigid definitions is yourself. 

 

Denying that the "report" includes conclusions and recommendations as to courses of action is either dishonest or inane. The same goes for ignoring the body of previous writings by the authors, which includes the similar views and then-some. This "report" has nothing to do with "change". At least not in any agreeable, mediating or problem solving manner. It is about further antagonism and confrontation. It is about creating defining a "right" and a "wrong" parties using preconceived bias and agenda. It is not about finding ways to improve things in a sustainable manner, but rather promotes radical upheavals, while exhibiting a wilful disconnect from their implications.

 

The usual sarcastic preamble, then gallons of very warm air, that does not actually say very much.Here's a prime example...

>>Officially annexing a territory and denying the population citizenship (or a reasonable path to achieving one), will, IMO, amount to a fundamental change compared to the current situation. It will imply not a change of degree, but a change of paradigm.

...please explain what that gobbledegook means to a Palestinian who has just lost his residency in a city where he was born because he has been absent studying or working for more than 6 months or even 6 years on the whim of an Israeli official?

 

>>The authors did not "prove" anything, but presented view based on a legal interpretation. That is not "proof". Especially not for those unwilling to blindly ignore the authors previous writings and views, or the identity of the commissioning body. If a similar report was to be published by a pro-Israeli body, written by pro-Israeli authors, and arriving at contradicting conclusions, you'd be at the forefront of those denouncing it.
..what I would do is address the issues raised by any authors pro Israeli or otherwise and examine the facts presented, not sweep them under the carpet as biased as you do.

 

The report relies for its definition of apartheid primarily on article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973 aka the Apartheid Convention):
"inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."
https://archive.is/ATxuu

Can you identify which part of this definition you disagree with, or perhaps suggest alternative words or phrases?

 

I will omit for now the systematic oppression (we have read plenty of that on TV), and deal primarily with the domination.

 

Can you actually address some of the issues raised in the report?

 

Israel can only remain a Jewish state if it has a Jewish majority. The report outlines how Israel manages artificially to achieve this majority.

 

1. Israel allows unlimited Jewish immigration and automatic citizenship to anyone who can prove they have a Jewish grandmother? or has converted by marriage or choice, even though they may never have set eyes on the place before. Need not even be religious.
...do you think this is right? Could Israel have an immigration policy based on merit not racism?
 
2. But restricts the same right to Palestinians by different sets of rules:
i) Israeli Palestinians cannot enjoy family reunification or marry (to live together in Israel) non Jews from the West Bank or Gaza or a list of other Muslim countries (supposedly for security but really dog whistle racism to prevent Palestinian numbers increasing).
..do you think these marriage laws represent discrimination against Israeli citizens of a particular race or religion?

 

ii) West Bank and Gazan Palestinian refugees are not allowed to return to their ancestral homes within Israel, even though they still have the documentation and keys to their homes, and in contravention of the Geneva Convention.
..do you approve of this law?

 

iii) Palestinian outside Palestine, some in refugee camps in surrounding countries after being ethnically cleansed in 1948 and 1967, are not allowed even to live in the occupied West Bank, let alone Israel, again in contravention of the Geneva Convention.
...do you think this is just?

 

But to change this deliberate apartheid demographic engineering would be the end of the predominantly Jewish state, Zionist apologists complain.

 

Maybe they should ask themselves this: 
If the state of Israel cannot allow refugees to return to their homes, imposes military law on one racial group while a few yards away in a Jewish only settlement it grants Israeli civil law to residents; if it isolates one group of its own citizens on dog whistle racial grounds by refusing them the right to marry whomsoever they wish and to enjoy family reunification, and forbids them to even protest against the history that brought all this about (the Nakba Law and the Basic Law) then maybe just maybe Israel does not deserve to continue to exist in its present format.

 

And of course that's the tip of the iceberg. Israel does much worse things than that.

 

At last a UN report has enunciated these malpractices and the systematic 4 pronged way they are used to maintain Jewish racial dominance over Palestinians. IMO that is apartheid.

[Morch]

@dexterm

 

Yeah, well...being a zealot, it may be too much to expect you will regard a more complex point of view with anything but disdain. Somehow, you seem to imagine that the only legitimate way to discuss things is by using a yes-no, either-or reasoning . Allow me to reiterate for the umpteenth time - I do not share this immature approach, and reject the usual attempt to foist the contrived framework on the discussion.

 

The pathetic attempts to disregard any argument or point of view which do not conform to your binary framework by denigrating it as "hot air", or "not saying much", indicates either an inability to comprehend a more complex take on things, or intentionally rejecting it as it threatens the simplistic presentation favored.

Asking what something means to a directly effected person, is rather rich coming from someone continuously pushing forward
"ideas", "solution" and "visions" bereft of exactly such considerations. Similar disregard is exhibited whenever Israelis are adversely effected by Palestinian actions. I have offered an explanation as to how I see things in terms of policy - if you wish to engage in faux indignation and emotive dramatics, that is totally up to you.

And no, counter to your self-congratulating perception, discrediting information and point of view solely on the grounds of the source's supposed affiliation is something prevalent in your posts. Pull the other one. You have even managed to do so on this topic and the parallel one.

 

There is no obligation nor any good reason to treat the "report" as objective, or to take it at face value. Not without explaining why the affiliations and long held positions of the authors and the commissioning body ought to be ignored. No such explanation was provided, although the very same was applied with regard to rejections of the "report".

 

The way your arguments are framed demands that one address the "report" as legitimate and objective. As such, it amounts to little more than begging the question. No intention of falling for that one or playing your games.

 

There is no need to address the "report" when it comes to the rest of your post. The "issues" raised are not new, and have featured on these topics many a time. Each and every one of them was referred to ad nauseam, hence their dishonest presentation as being unanswered is yet another dodgy rhetorical ploy. There is no conceivably honest way that you can claim I haven't addressed them, or that my related views do not appear on this forum.

 

To sum things, in relation to every "issue" raised, the main difference would be my point of view not conforming to the loaded framework insisted upon. Most of my thoughts on these issues diverge from your simplistic either-or, if-A-then-B formulations. Obviously, as such answers cannot be handled under your contrived "reasoning", the easy way out is taken, by denigrating them as "hot air", and "not saying much". This is, again, more indicative of a zealot's thinking, rather than attempting to try relating to a more comprehensive, if complex, point of view.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

@dexterm

 

Yeah, well...being a zealot, it may be too much to expect you will regard a more complex point of view with anything but disdain. Somehow, you seem to imagine that the only legitimate way to discuss things is by using a yes-no, either-or reasoning . Allow me to reiterate for the umpteenth time - I do not share this immature approach, and reject the usual attempt to foist the contrived framework on the discussion.

 

The pathetic attempts to disregard any argument or point of view which do not conform to your binary framework by denigrating it as "hot air", or "not saying much", indicates either an inability to comprehend a more complex take on things, or intentionally rejecting it as it threatens the simplistic presentation favored.

Asking what something means to a directly effected person, is rather rich coming from someone continuously pushing forward
"ideas", "solution" and "visions" bereft of exactly such considerations. Similar disregard is exhibited whenever Israelis are adversely effected by Palestinian actions. I have offered an explanation as to how I see things in terms of policy - if you wish to engage in faux indignation and emotive dramatics, that is totally up to you.

And no, counter to your self-congratulating perception, discrediting information and point of view solely on the grounds of the source's supposed affiliation is something prevalent in your posts. Pull the other one. You have even managed to do so on this topic and the parallel one.

 

There is no obligation nor any good reason to treat the "report" as objective, or to take it at face value. Not without explaining why the affiliations and long held positions of the authors and the commissioning body ought to be ignored. No such explanation was provided, although the very same was applied with regard to rejections of the "report".

 

The way your arguments are framed demands that one address the "report" as legitimate and objective. As such, it amounts to little more than begging the question. No intention of falling for that one or playing your games.

 

There is no need to address the "report" when it comes to the rest of your post. The "issues" raised are not new, and have featured on these topics many a time. Each and every one of them was referred to ad nauseam, hence their dishonest presentation as being unanswered is yet another dodgy rhetorical ploy. There is no conceivably honest way that you can claim I haven't addressed them, or that my related views do not appear on this forum.

 

To sum things, in relation to every "issue" raised, the main difference would be my point of view not conforming to the loaded framework insisted upon. Most of my thoughts on these issues diverge from your simplistic either-or, if-A-then-B formulations. Obviously, as such answers cannot be handled under your contrived "reasoning", the easy way out is taken, by denigrating them as "hot air", and "not saying much". This is, again, more indicative of a zealot's thinking, rather than attempting to try relating to a more comprehensive, if complex, point of view.

I don't know how anyone can write so much in this entire thread, be super critical of the OP report without addressing a single one of the issues in it, apart from peripheral obfuscation over a point raised by me about the tenuous residency rights of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, the city they were born in.

Quite a feat.

 

No doubt the topic will crop up again, and critics of Israeli apartheid will now have a reference point for Israel's systematic oppression in its application of apartheid and demographic engineering to maintain dominance over Palestinians.

[Morch]

It's quite easy if one doesn't insist on taking the "report" at face value, and treat it is objective - bearing in mind the identity and affiliation of those associated with it. Something which you and the instant like clickers practice on most topics, when it suits. How can someone keep a straight face while pulling this one off, now that's a good question.

 

There was on obfuscation is response to the point alluded to, rather an your standing unwillingness to engage in any way which does not conform to advancing the narrative you support.

 

And I see you found a couple of new catchphrases, so yeah...no doubt they will feature for a year or so. Whether or not they apply.

[Saladin]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

I don't know how anyone can write so much in this entire thread, be super critical of the OP report without addressing a single one of the issues in it, apart from peripheral obfuscation over a point raised by me about the tenuous residency rights of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, the city they were born in.

Quite a feat.

 

No doubt the topic will crop up again, and critics of Israeli apartheid will now have a reference point for Israel's systematic oppression in its application of apartheid and demographic engineering to maintain dominance over Palestinians.

I support the existence of Israel too but within the borders that the UN agreed to. I do not support the land grabs and the behaviour of the Netanyahu Mob. That is not being antisemitic. I'm with you DEXTERM. I have no idea what 

 

31 minutes ago, Morch said:

It's quite easy if one doesn't insist on taking the "report" at face value, and treat it is objective - bearing in mind the identity and affiliation of those associated with it. Something which you and the instant like clickers practice on most topics, when it suits. How can someone keep a straight face while pulling this one off, now that's a good question.

 

There was on obfuscation is response to the point alluded to, rather an your standing unwillingness to engage in any way which does not conform to advancing the narrative you support.

 

And I see you found a couple of new catchphrases, so yeah...no doubt they will feature for a year or so. Whether or not they apply.

 

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

I don't know how anyone can write so much in this entire thread, be super critical of the OP report without addressing a single one of the issues in it, apart from peripheral obfuscation over a point raised by me about the tenuous residency rights of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, the city they were born in.

Quite a feat.

 

No doubt the topic will crop up again, and critics of Israeli apartheid will now have a reference point for Israel's systematic oppression in its application of apartheid and demographic engineering to maintain dominance over Palestinians.

I'm with you Dexterm 100%. I have no idea what Morch is all about

[Jingthing]

I would agree that supporting the original. 1948 borders is not antisemitic. Who here ever said that? Other things that are not antisemitic include planning to open a unicorn meat production plant and also putting up Putin for president of Bolivia.

 

Back to the real world ...

 

In other words if you're negotiating for the contra Israel side and your final no give demand is the 1948 borders you may as well save the transport fare and stay home and Netflix and chill.

 

 

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

It's quite easy if one doesn't insist on taking the "report" at face value, and treat it is objective - bearing in mind the identity and affiliation of those associated with it. Something which you and the instant like clickers practice on most topics, when it suits. How can someone keep a straight face while pulling this one off, now that's a good question.

 

There was on obfuscation is response to the point alluded to, rather an your standing unwillingness to engage in any way which does not conform to advancing the narrative you support.

 

And I see you found a couple of new catchphrases, so yeah...no doubt they will feature for a year or so. Whether or not they apply.

It's very disappointing that you won't address any of the issues raised in the OP report. How Israel can manage to remain a Jewish or democratic (but not both) State is quite an important question.

 

When Israeli apologists justify the oppression of Palestinians with  pseudo history, the perfect Israeli narrative myths, black is white Israelis are the victims, Ghengis Khan might is right to the victor the spoils or even fanatical religious God given right stuff, I take all that baloney with a pinch of salt...imagine the cholesterol!

 

I was genuinely interested to know how an erudite, eloquent Zionist (who admits the occupation is illegal and an obstacle to peace) can justify Israel's demographic engineering. I recall viewing Simon Schama's History of the Jews and his approach to Zionism. Although he poured scorn on some of the rabid settlers' views, he honestly told viewers he was a Zionist himself. As a Jew himself he had a sincere affinity to Israel/Palestine. I can understand the Jewish desire for a feeling of security after millenia of persecution, but I just wish the Zionists had achieved their haven (not necessarily a Jewish State) with a bit more sensitivity, generosity and magnanimity towards the Palestinian residents who were already living there when the European colonizers arrived...such as ask to be invited first.

 

Well, the dilemma continues, but I feel the endgame is within sight during the next decade if not sooner.

 

I am curious how Trump proposes to resolve the conflict, but I am not too hopeful. I sort of feel the situation will get worse before it gets better, probably in the form of annexation and full blown apartheid.

[Morch]

55 minutes ago, Saladin said:

I support the existence of Israel too but within the borders that the UN agreed to. I do not support the land grabs and the behaviour of the Netanyahu Mob. That is not being antisemitic. I'm with you DEXTERM. I have no idea what 

 

 

I'm with you Dexterm 100%. I have no idea what Morch is all about

The "report" goes beyond denouncing Israel's policies with regard to occupation, though. It also incorporates elements which, if materialized, would spell out the disintegration of Israel. This stands in contradiction to your first sentence.

 

Criticizing the Israeli government policies is not necessarily antisemitic, and this wasn't even claimed. Another tired old straw man. That some of the criticism expressed does bear antisemitic tones is a fact. At least on my part, this is commented upon only in obvious cases. Not sure if this was referring to a specific post or just an off-mark generalization.

 

If you are "100% with Dexterm", then that too stands in contradiction to your first sentence. Dexterm's ultimate position supports a scenario in which Israel disintegrates as well.

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, dexterm said:

It's very disappointing that you won't address any of the issues raised in the OP report. How Israel can manage to remain a Jewish or democratic (but not both) State is quite an important question.

 

When Israeli apologists justify the oppression of Palestinians with  pseudo history, the perfect Israeli narrative myths, black is white Israelis are the victims, Ghengis Khan might is right to the victor the spoils or even fanatical religious God given right stuff, I take all that baloney with a pinch of salt...imagine the cholesterol!

 

I was genuinely interested to know how an erudite, eloquent Zionist (who admits the occupation is illegal and an obstacle to peace) can justify Israel's demographic engineering. I recall viewing Simon Schama's History of the Jews and his approach to Zionism. Although he poured scorn on some of the rabid settlers' views, he honestly told viewers he was a Zionist himself. As a Jew himself he had a sincere affinity to Israel/Palestine. I can understand the Jewish desire for a feeling of security after millenia of persecution, but I just wish the Zionists had achieved their haven (not necessarily a Jewish State) with a bit more sensitivity, generosity and magnanimity towards the Palestinian residents who were already living there when the European colonizers arrived...such as ask to be invited first.

 

Well, the dilemma continues, but I feel the endgame is within sight during the next decade if not sooner.

 

I am curious how Trump proposes to resolve the conflict, but I am not too hopeful. I sort of feel the situation will get worse before it gets better, probably in the form of annexation and full blown apartheid.

 

 

Whereas, obviously, you see no problems ignoring any issues relating to the affiliation and open bias of the "report"' commissioning body and its authors. Full marks for the usual double standards shtick.

 

And on we go with the denigrating generalizations - most of which could be directly applied to your posts, in reverse. The apologist stance, the pseudo history accounts, the adopted narrative, the black and white views, and the attribution of an imaginary single political thought to the people in general. Talk about not having a pinch of self awareness.

 

What you refuse to accept, is that in the real world, things do not fully conform to your pseudo-ideological stance, to the faux ideals or to the mock-definitions and dreamed up concepts. Most people do not exist or operate in a black and white world. That's only a projection you adhere to.

 

If one was to follow up on your predictions, there would have been a couple of additional wars by now, an actual genocide of the Palestinian people (or possibly a mass expulsion). None of these actually happened. Don't let reality put you down.

[Saladin]

As it should be abundantly clear to anybody by now that Israel has no intention of giving the Palestinians a fair deal and their own viable State, the One State solution might be the only way to go. See this (proposed by Gaddafi of all people)  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html

[dexterm]

The OP report's definition of apartheid based on international law is 
"inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."
https://archive.is/ATxuu

 

To help members visualize how Israel achieves the domination, view this..

 

Divide and conquer Palestinians..put them in separate boxes, so that they can never challenge the apartheid system created by the artificial Jewish majority in the so called Jewish State.
https://972mag.com/visualizing-occupation-divide-and-conquer/51479/

 

and to help you understand Israeli apartheid's inhuman acts and systematic oppression in concrete ways that Palestinians are treated differently as a separate racial group, view some of these..and they are just the tip of the iceberg..

 

Freedom of movement
https://972mag.com/visualizing-occupation-freedom-of-movement/45605/

Separate roads..Palestinians get the dirt tracks; Israelis get the superhighways

http://visualizingpalestine.org/visuals/segregated-roads-west-bank

Checkpoints
http://visualizingpalestine.org/visuals/checkpoint-births

Torture and imprisonment of Palestinian children
https://972mag.com/visualizing-occupation-children-under-israels-legal-regime/58973/

MP stunned by military trials of children
http://jfjfp.com/?p=90943

ID system
http://visualizingpalestine.org/visuals/identity-crisis-the-israeli-id-system

water resources
http://visualizingpalestine.org/visuals/west-bank-water

Continued ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Their homes demolished, but building permits galore if you are an Israeli Jew.
https://972mag.com/visualizing-occupation-ethnic-cleansing/43860/

The apartheid situation in Jerusalem
http://www.ampalestine.org/node/2761

 

And I couldn't agree more with Israel's oldest running newspaper...

 

It's Time to Admit It. Israeli Policy Is What It Is: Apartheid
I used to be one of those people who took issue with the label of apartheid as applied to Israel. Not anymore.
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/1.671538

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Saladin said:

As it should be abundantly clear to anybody by now that Israel has no intention of giving the Palestinians a fair deal and their own viable State, the One State solution might be the only way to go. See this (proposed by Gaddafi of all people)  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html

 

All that's abundantly clear from the above is that certain members have strong opinions rather than informed views. Without ignoring criticism of Israel, there is nothing which addresses the other sides inability or unwillingness to act in a manner promoting a peaceful resolution. And with all due respect to those promoting a one-state solution, slogans are not a proper replacement for addressing the obvious problems inherent in such proposals.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

As expected in this time of year, all the old links (which have all been discussed, and several debunked) will be rehashed, along with the seasonal amped up rhetoric.

 

It would be pointless to attempt to offer yet another thorough discussion of your post, or all of the familiar links attached. Like the websites most are drawn from, your views seem to be afflicted with a sort of tunnel vision, which rejects out of hand any reference to context, actions and positions by the Palestinian side or comparisons to similar practices globally, which do not necessarily paint the situation as unique.

 

A good example of how such a tunnel vision works can be seen in the last link offered. This is presented as the support for the general argument, but as usual, fails to mentions other views appearing in writing by the same author -

 

Rethinking Israel Boycotts, Thanks to the New York Mosque

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bradley-burston/rethinking-israel-boycott_b_669177.html

 

What Does 'Death to Israel' Mean to You?
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/what-does-death-to-israel-mean-to-you-1.393497

 

Obviously, his point of view does not conform with your extreme positions, and nor does it necessarily even represent the official point of view of the newspaper in question. Just another failed attempt to co-opt views by dishonest and partial presentation.

[dexterm]

19 hours ago, Morch said:

The "report" goes beyond denouncing Israel's policies with regard to occupation, though. It also incorporates elements which, if materialized, would spell out the disintegration of Israel. This stands in contradiction to your first sentence.

 

Criticizing the Israeli government policies is not necessarily antisemitic, and this wasn't even claimed. Another tired old straw man. That some of the criticism expressed does bear antisemitic tones is a fact. At least on my part, this is commented upon only in obvious cases. Not sure if this was referring to a specific post or just an off-mark generalization.

 

If you are "100% with Dexterm", then that too stands in contradiction to your first sentence. Dexterm's ultimate position supports a scenario in which Israel disintegrates as well.

Wrong! Dexterm's ultimate position supports a scenario in which Israel the hateful racist supremacist ideology of Zionism disintegrates as well.

[dexterm]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

As expected in this time of year, all the old links (which have all been discussed, and several debunked) will be rehashed, along with the seasonal amped up rhetoric.

 

It would be pointless to attempt to offer yet another thorough discussion of your post, or all of the familiar links attached. Like the websites most are drawn from, your views seem to be afflicted with a sort of tunnel vision, which rejects out of hand any reference to context, actions and positions by the Palestinian side or comparisons to similar practices globally, which do not necessarily paint the situation as unique.

 

A good example of how such a tunnel vision works can be seen in the last link offered. This is presented as the support for the general argument, but as usual, fails to mentions other views appearing in writing by the same author -

 

Rethinking Israel Boycotts, Thanks to the New York Mosque

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bradley-burston/rethinking-israel-boycott_b_669177.html

 

What Does 'Death to Israel' Mean to You?
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/what-does-death-to-israel-mean-to-you-1.393497

 

Obviously, his point of view does not conform with your extreme positions, and nor does it necessarily even represent the official point of view of the newspaper in question. Just another failed attempt to co-opt views by dishonest and partial presentation.

Page 4 of the thread and I have yet to see you address a single issue in the OP report.

 

Just the usual tactic: deny, deflect, obfuscate, besmirch.

 

deny... "several debunked"..be interesting to hear about the ones you regard as not debunked.
deflect...trying to blame Palestinians
obfuscate...introducing off topic quotes, and saying its all been discussed before.
besmirch...derogatory digs at me, and dismissing the authors of the report as biased without responding to a single point raised.