BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 04:48 AM

Ok, I'll make it as simple as possible. Just show me where anyone high up in in any US administration has ever declared that automatically vetoing resolutions criticising Israel is the official government policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 09:29 PM

Erm.........policy does not equate to "law" or "constitution", but keep on trying to misrepresent, it only serves to confirm your dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 08:21 PM

some sections

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 08:20 PM

Something for bobad and Keith to chew over: the US has abstained on at least 20 UN resolutions criticising Israel and has even supported a handful. You can find a list of them on sethfrantzman.com. There is no US policy stating that anti-Israel UN resolutions must be vetoed. Implying or stating that Obama has gone against US policy in failing to use the veto is a downright lie. There is no such policy. There is outrage in some actions of the community for sure, as well as in Israel, against that move. But there has not been the slightest suggestion from anyone that Obama is in breach of the constitution or the law. Except from Keith. Still, as we know, Keith is right and the rest of the planet just makes up shit. As for Obama "going against the will of the people" in failing to support those SETTLEMENTS, prove it! I have till I die!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:32 PM

It's a simple thing to ask of such an ardent Israel supporter such as yourself, surely. Where is it written down in law or constitution that the US must always veto UN resolutions that criticise Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:24 PM

Lol!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:15 PM

Stick to the point. I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 07:09 PM

Ah yes, Shaw trying the old misrepresentation gambit which is getting pretty old by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:50 PM

Stick to the point. Show me the policy, written into US law, or the constitution, that all UN votes criticising Israel must be vetoed. That's all I ask. Show me that Obama acted unconstitutionally. Come along now. I'm sure you can do better than an ancient quote from an ambassador.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:45 PM

Since when have ambassadors been owners of policy, bobad?

Owners??????

They are the conveyors of government policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:23 PM

Well I'm not going to argue with you whether abstaining is "failing to use the vote."

Vote, veto, tomayto, tomato. Not my finest hour but the point holds.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:19 PM

Since when have ambassadors been owners of policy, bobad? Can you show me where the US constitution dictates that each and every UN resolution criticising Israel must be vetoed? Simple enough question.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:15 PM

" US did not vote. The issue is that they failed to use the veto."

Well I'm not going to argue with you whether abstaining is "failing to use the vote." In fact, on this occasion it proved to be a rather devastating use/non-use of a vote. Take your pick. The effect was awesome! 😂

"US public opinion overwhelmingly favours Israel over the Palestinians, and US Jews feel betrayed over the withholding of the veto."

Correct, though you forgot to say SOME US Jews. And don't start bandying numbers because neither you nor I knows how many on each side. But this is irrelevant anyway. The vote was nothing to do with how many favour Jews over Palestinians. The vote was confined to condemnation of the settlements. Nothing else. You have no evidence that a majority of US citizens, whether they favour Israel or not, think that the settlement expansion is fair. The NYT link suggests that it's probably the other way round. It is perfectly possible to strongly dislike the Palestinians yet condemn Israel for taking their land for settlements. I really am trying to couch this in the simplest possible terms for you, Keith. But on and on you go, tunnel vision, blinkers on, hands clasped over ears. You can't face the truth. You're not addressing this, Keith. You keep on repeating things that we already know. Something wrong upstairs, Keith.

"I was right and you were wrong."

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 05:43 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 04:10 PM

Er, what "change of policy" on Israel would that be, then?

U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright 1994:

"We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as 'occupied Palestinian territory.' In the view of my Government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty, a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories. As agreed between them, those negotiations will begin not later than two years after the implementation of the Declaration of Principles."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:41 PM

Sweet Jesu, will the professor EVER grow up.

You are not in school now professor, for gods sake start acting like an adult.




Aplogies to those true Christians out there for the use of such language, I'm not even a christian

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:38 PM

OR FROM AN ISRAELI
INTERESTING ARTICLE on LAND STEALING FROM JEWISH INTELLECTUAL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:32 PM

Steve,
You claimed that the president went against the will of the people IN A UN VOTE WHICH CONDEMNED ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS.

US did not vote. The issue is that they failed to use the veto.
US public opinion overwhelmingly favours Israel over the Palestinians, and US Jews feel betrayed over the withholding of the veto.
I was right and you were wrong.
If I have lied, quote it.
Good luck with that Steve!

Jim,
What about the dozen s or so linked one I've put up over the years Keith - made up?

Just propaganda sites. nothing reputable.
It is an uncorroborated claim by one man, so of course it is not accepted and you will not find it in on any reputable site.

Never mind that the one man did have an agenda, and did not make the claim until after BG's death some twenty years later!

Your reliance on such uncorroborated claims shows how weak, or non-existent, your case is.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:07 PM

"No examples of people of anybody quoting it then - thought not."
What about the dozen s or so linked one I've put up over the years Keith - made up?
This is a one man band of your making - nobody disputes it was said - not anywhere
TRY THIS FOR SIZE IF YOU DON'T MIND JEWS WHO ARE CRITICAL OF ISRAEL
Now - any evidence from you?
No?
Thought not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 01:05 PM

Lie upon lie upon lie, Keith. You claimed that the president went against the will of the people IN A UN VOTE WHICH CONDEMNED ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS. We have demonstrated to you that not only is there no good evidence that the people of the US are IN FAVOUR OF ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS but that, if anything, they are more likely in general to be OPPOSED TO THOSE SETTLEMENTS. I don't give a stuff about all your "proof" that they are "against the Palestinians." We know that already. Go and teach your granny to suck eggs why don't you. You are trying to use that to cover up your original lie, that he went against "the will of the people" in failing to veto a resolution CRITICISING ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS.

Once again, let me remind you, as you claim to espouse democracy (I'm beginning to have my doubts), that, in democracies, prime ministers and presidents are not, in any case, elected as delegates to slavishly "follow the will of the people." You appear to have a very shaky grasp of the reasons we have elections. That could be an honest defect in your education. Lying as you have been doing in order to "win" at all costs is far less excusable.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 12:10 PM

Jim,

No examples of people of anybody calling this man a liar then - thought not

No. He is just completely ignored and his unlikely quote never quoted by any historian or reputable commentator.


No examples of people of anybody quoting it then - thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 12:06 PM

Steve,
"On survey after survey, American Jews are opposed to Jewish settlement expansion. They tend to favor a two-state solution and their political identities are liberal or moderate," he said.

Completely irrelevant to my claim Steve.
My claim was about the will of the people on supporting Israel or supporting the Palestinians.
Not "Apart from the settlements" supporting Israel or supporting the Palestinians.

Guardian, " 59% of Americans say their sympathies lie more with Israel, as opposed to just 13% who say their sympathies are more with the Palestinians."

2015 CNN/ORC poll,
Thinking about the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the Middle East, please tell me whether, in general, you think America should be...?  (CNN/ORC, February 2015)
A strong supporter of Israel
27%
A supporter of Israel
26%
A supporter of the Palestinians
8%
A strong supporter of the Palestinians
3%

My point proved. I was right and you were wrong.

What do American Jews feel about Obama not using the UN veto to protect Israel over the settlement issue?

From your link Steve,
"But for others, even those who support a two-state solution and object to Israeli settlement policy, the decision by the United States not to shield Israel at the United Nations — which is widely viewed among many American Jews as hostile to Israel — was a mistake. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, a Democrat with a large Jewish constituency, called the Security Council action unnecessary and inappropriate,"

"Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish movement in North America, said it was "a miscalculation in our minds. I think a majority of American Jews would agree, no matter how one feels about settlements, that the idea that the U.N. is an honest broker when it comes to Israel is laughable."
For Shira Greenberg, a public school teacher in Florida, Mr. Obama's rebuke of Mr. Netanyahu confirmed her worst assumptions about the president. "Throughout the whole Obama administration, people were trying to guess where he stood," she said after morning services at her conservative synagogue on Thursday. "At this point, it's pretty clear."
And at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, a large and politically divided congregation, Rabbi David Wolpe said Mr. Obama had "pulled the rug out from under people who said the president's intentions toward Israel was positive and strong."
The public display of rancor is unsettling. "Nobody in the community can be happy when you have this public spat between the prime minister and the president, and the kind of language the prime minister has been using about the president," said Daniel C. Kurtzer, who has served as the United States ambassador to both Israel and Egypt.
David Zwiebel, the executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, which represents ultra-Orthodox Jews, said that there is a general sense among Orthodox Jews, who tend to be more conservative, "that the outgoing administration is outgoing and should be outgoing, and it's time for an approach that is more openly supportive of Israel."

So, I was right that the will of the American people is pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. That may not be true of a majority of Jews but even they denounce Obama's withholding of the veto.

As ever, I was right and you were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 11:48 AM

Correction to my last post lest the historian nitpickers besiege me: the army was not involved in the Battle of Cable Street, just the police, 6000 of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 11:44 AM

No examples of people of anybody calling this man a liar then - thought not
Made up Keith shit then?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 11:20 AM

Jim, it is an uncorroborated claim by one man, so of course it is not accepted and you will not find it in on any reputable site.

Never mind that the one man did have an agenda, and did not make the claim until after BG's death some twenty years later!

Your reliance on such uncorroborated claims shows how weak, or non-existent, your case is.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:25 AM

Israel has new embarked on censoring its own history - it began with the withdrawal access to many of Ben Gurion's papers
Wonder how they'll deal with the fact that Netunyahu has been cautioned by the police for illegally accepting money
Interesting days!!
How are we doing with those denials of Ben Gurion's statement Keith?   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 06:08 AM

A classically-confected non sequitur here from struggling Keith:

"The settlements have been the main issue of contention by the Palestinians for years.
Numerous polls have shown clearly that US public opinion is strongly against the Palestinians."

From Greg's NYT link:

Steven M. Cohen, a research professor at Hebrew Union College and a consultant to a recent Pew study of American Jews, said that Mr. Kerry's speech represents the viewpoints of most American Jews. "On survey after survey, American Jews are opposed to Jewish settlement expansion. They tend to favor a two-state solution and their political identities are liberal or moderate," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/american-jews-john-kerry-israel.html

Reminds me of a quote from John Seymour's book that I've had occasion to mention twice in 24 hours, Bring Me My Bow:

The average English working man at the start of Hitler's war might not have had much time for the Jews but by God he was not going to see them being herded into the gas chambers.

Working people in east London might have been "against the Jews" but they came out in force to see off the army and police who were protecting the Blackshirts. You can be "against the Palestinians" but you can at the same time be revolted by the way they have their good land forcibly usurped for someone else's luxury villages. Your world view is simplistic, distorted and delusional, Keith, but the only person you're deluding is yourself. I doubt that even your fellow far-right travellers here aren't fooled.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 05:06 AM

"Yes they do. "
No they don't - produce a single disclaimer Keith
This is, to borrow your own phrase, "made up Keith shit"
If anybody, apart from you, disputes it, produce than doing so.
Mad as a bag of cats
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 17 - 04:56 AM

Jim,
Nobody disputes that Ben Gurion said what he said - only you

Yes they do. You will not find that quote on any reputable site.

Steve,
1. The will of the US people apropos of settlements has not been tested by plebiscite but what evidence there is suggests that they disapprove in large numbers, very likely by a sizeable majority, of Israel's settlement expansion.

The settlements have been the main issue of contention by the Palestinians for years.
Numerous polls have shown clearly that US public opinion is strongly against the Palestinians.
Once again, I was right and you were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 01:46 PM

We are getting classic Keith wriggling and squirming in this thread. He will never admit the truth. What a way to run your life.

1. The will of the US people apropos of settlements has not been tested by plebiscite but what evidence there is suggests that they disapprove in large numbers, very likely by a sizeable majority, of Israel's settlement expansion. See Greg's link.

2. In any case, presidents are not elected to carry out "the will of the people" (as if there is any such thing) like sheep. They are leaders, there to lead, expected to be far more expert in foreign affairs and with far more access to intelligence than ordinary citizens and to have far more detailed dealings with foreign leaders. They are not delegates. President Obama is not Pontius Pilate. We call this "democracy," Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:54 PM

"Goldman was a critic of the Israeli government and therefor Ben-Gurion according to your own link."
So what - so are millions of other Jews - then and now - does that make them all liars as you have always claimed?
Nobody disputes that Ben Gurion said what he said - only you
Some apologist have said he meant something else - YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE IN MY EXPERIANCE TO HAVE CLAIMED HE TOLD LIES - LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANYBODY, IF NOT, YOU ARE MAKING THINGS UP TO DEFEND ISRAEL - NOTHING NEW THERE
I ask again - who else has accused this veteran Zionist of lying
Failure to answer is answer itself - none - it is all your own work.
And you were given a dozen or so more quotes from Israeli establishment figures - can we assume you challenge none of them?
And you call me a fanatic - you are insane.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:44 PM

Progress at last ............ Sadiq Khan has now gone from Pakistani to Muslim ................

although I suspect both are terms of derision in some twisted minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:39 PM

1500.
Greg, sanity is the opposite of madness (insanity).
Clear now?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:35 PM

Keith, and the sooner you accept it the better it will be for your sanity.

Sanity? Errrr...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:28 PM

You lied in your teeth when you said that Obama was going against the will of the people in abstaining from a vote which was on SETTLEMENTS.


No. I said that failing to use the veto was against the will of the people.
He no longer cares about the will of the people, but when he did he used the veto on the issue of settlements and everything else to do with Israel.

The poll results show that the Palestinians have little support among the American people. What makes you think they support them over settlements? The hard evidence is that they do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:19 PM

Jim,
Goldman was a critic of the Israeli government and therefor Ben-Gurion according to your own link.
His claim contradicts every known statement by Ben Gurion on the subject.
He alone claims that Ben-Gurion said it, and he waited twenty years until BG was safely dead to claim it.

If your case relies on such "evidence" it is too weak to even consider.

Compare that with your disbelief that anti-Semitism is a serious problem for Labour.
I quoted publicly made statements from the Deputy Leader of the Party, the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, the (Labour, Muslim) Mayor of London, the entire NEC and others saying it is, yet you deny it!!!

Why do you believe your man without question but refuse to believe all those??

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:13 PM

Keith, old bean, the UN resolution that you took exception to was about SETTLEMENTS. Greg's information on people's attitudes was about SETTLEMENTS. You lied in your teeth when you said that Obama was going against the will of the people in abstaining from a vote which was on SETTLEMENTS. Stop trying to pretend otherwise to in order to shift the goalposts to make it about Israel in general. None of us are trying to pretend that the people of the US don't support Israel. Even I support Israel, Keith. But I do not support the existence or expansion of SETTLEMENTS. I know this is the sort of thing you always do, but you really have lost this round, Keith, and the sooner you accept it the better it will be for your sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:06 PM

"Who? How"
You know bloody well who - you dishonest little man
Nahum Goldman - the man you have been calling a liar over the "stolen land" quote
Is there not a shred of honesty and self-respect in you
You call him a liar, suggest he is an enemy of Israel and say he made up the quote
This really is a single handed exercise on your part - there is not a shred of evidence to back your fanatical claims up
You are mad
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 12:00 PM

Guardian 2012.
"Americans line up solidly behind President Obama in their support for Israel"
(So now he does not need their votes he has betrayed them)
"A new poll from CNN/ORC demonstrates that the president represents the majority position in the US: 57% of Americans believe that Israel is justified in "taking military action against Hamas and the Palestinians in the area known as Gaza", while only 25% feel it is unjustified.
Americans side evenly more heavily with Israel on the broader issue of the Israeli/Palestinian issue at large: 59% of Americans say their sympathies lie more with Israel, as opposed to just 13% who say their sympathies are more with the Palestinians.
There are some who argue that President Obama and the American government are either too supportive or not supportive enough of Israel, but the polling says Obama is striking the right balance. A Pew Research poll from earlier this year found that 46% of Americans believe US support for Israel is "about right"; 22% say America is too supportive, and a nearly equal percentage, 20%, say America is not supportive enough."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/19/us-public-opinion-israel-palestine-gaza

So I did not lie Steve.
As ever, I was right and you were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 11:50 AM

This is from the Jewish Virtual Library, but I am sure you will not dispute the poll figures given.
OK Greg?
OK Steve?

The best indication of Americans' attitude toward Israel is found in the response to the most consistently asked question about the Middle East: "In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Arab nations?" The organization that has conducted the most surveys is Gallup. In the most recent poll, reported by Gallup in February 2016, 62% sympathized with Israel, just below 2013's all-time high of 64%. This exceeds the level of support (56%) Israel enjoyed after the 1967 war, when many people mistakenly believe that Israel was overwhelmingly popular. Meanwhile, only 15% expressed support for the Palestinians.
In recent years Gallup has noted that many Americans have moved from "no preference" into the pro-Israeli column. Even when support for Israel dips, as occurred during Operation Protective Edge (July 8-August 26, 2014), when the NBC/WSJ and Pew polls found a decline in support to 46% and 51%, respectively, support for the Palestinians does not increase (it was 14% in both polls). Moreover, support for Israel inevitably bounces back as evident from the 2015 polls.
In 87 Gallup polls going back to 1967, Israel has had the support of an average of 48% of the American people compared to 12% for the Arab states/Palestinians. The results are similar (48%-12%) when all 251 polls asking similar questions are included. Americans have slightly more sympathy for the Palestinians than for the Arab states, but the results of polls asking respondents to choose between Israel and the Palestinians have not differed significantly from the other surveys.
Overall, support for Israel has been on the upswing since 1967. In the 1970s, the average level of support for Israel was 44%, in the 1980s and 1990s, it was 47%, including the record highs during the Gulf War. Since 2000, support for Israel is averaging 53%. In the 46 polls conducted during President Obama's term from multiple sources, support for Israel has soared to an average 55%, continuing an upward trend since the 1980s, while sympathy for the Palestinians has sunk to 12%, continuing a downward spiral that also began in the 1980s. On average, in all polls, Israel is favored by more than 4 to 1.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 11:41 AM

Jim,
Now you are calling him a liar

Who? How?

Steve, if it is not the will of the people, why has every administration done it on every occasion since Israel began?
Explain why it is a lie to say that.
There is nothing in Greg's post that suggests otherwise.

I do not lie Steve. You lie about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 10:21 AM

Cheers, Greg. So you lied, Keith. You keep asking us to show that you lie. Well there you are, old son. "Will of the people" my arse. Unsubstantiated, uncalled for, unjustified, unsupportable, untrue. A great big Keith porky! Yee-hah! Keith's made-up shit! You lose!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 09:54 AM

The "will of the people" in the US apropos of Israel has never been tested...

There is some pretty good preliminary data, Steve- see 30 Dec 16 - 10:13 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 09:51 AM

"I pointed out that even if true he was just giving the Arab view."
Now you are calling him a liar - do you have anybody else making such a claim - no thought not !!!
Mad as a ****** hatter
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 08:57 AM

Labour Party's position in the polls is now so "awful" that even Corbyn's oldest and most loyal supporter has turned against him.

Et tu McCluskey?
Yes mate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38487571

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 08:52 AM

Jim,
When you first put this up, you claimed it was said in a broadcast speech!

I pointed out that even if true he was just giving the Arab view.
I also pointed out that it was the claim of one person only, and not made until twenty years after the supposed event!
He was an "adversary" of Ben-Gurion and even your own link says "he was a critic of official Israeli policies."

So a most unreliable source, and what we know for a fact that Ben-Gurion said contradicts Goldman's unlikely claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 08:27 AM

Keith
Your attitude to this historical statement has now reached the stage of historical insanity
When I first put it up you accepted it but tried to give it a different meaning to what he actually said – he was paraphrasing what the Arabs would say.
Now, you are calling a leading Zionist, totally respected by modern Israel and an undisputed leading light in Zionism – a liar.
Your defence of this shower of murderous thugs has driven you mad.
Who elsew calls this man a liar
Feckin' mad!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 07:26 AM

Steve,
I know how annoyed you must feel as an apologist for that rotten regime in Israel.

I am not. All I have ever done is to put their side of the story.
What is your objection to that?
Is it because their version is much more believable than the propaganda you spout, and is indeed believed by all decent democratic governments?
They may not approve the settlements, but they know there are no massacres, atrocities or war crimes.

There is no policy in either party's constitution that states that all UN resolutions concerning criticism of Israel must be vetoed.

No. They have just always done it.
Why? Because the people would kick them out of office if they did not.
Why else would they?

. Things didn't go your way so you set about demonising perfectly legitimate government actions and calling the president you now hate a dead duck

I do not hate Obama at all. A good man. Dead or lame duck is a term usually applied to outgoing Presidents.
Perfectly legitimate? Not illegal maybe. Previous Presidents have worked hard for a smooth handover not because they are legally obliged to, but for the good of the country.
Obama chooses to behave differently.

It's about time you stopped making things up as you go along

I have made nothing up, and I do not lie.
Unless you can quote an example, you are back to smears and personal abuse. That really is "disgraceful and disreputable."

Jim,
- you have the documented statement from an impeccable source

Not true Jim. He was no friend of Ben-Gurion. He was an opponent.
He is the only person in the world who claims to have heard it, but only twenty years later!

It is a completely unconfirmed claim by one man with a grudge, and it is contradicted by all confirmed statements.

If that is the kind of "evidence" you rely on, it proves you have no case.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 06:26 AM

"No. It is widely used by enemies of Israel to falsely represent Israeli history, as you have just done again."
Prove it Keith - you have the documented statement from an impeccable source
""he(Goldman) was a profound critic of official Israeli policies.""
He was for the Jewish people not the Isreali regime - so he is a liar.
That seems to be how it works for your twisted mind.
All you give in return are denials
Every statement I put up is sources - all sum up the Israeli regime's attitude to the Palestinians, you choose to deny one and ignore the rest.
" You have to trawl the dregs of the internet to find anything at all."
The "dregs" include Jews, Israelis and their press - you expose your dedicated bigotry and antisemitism every time you post
The importance is not a single statement but the overall attitude.
Not playing that game any more.
Maybe you have decides to come out of the closet for the new Year and totally abandon you pretence of concern for the Jewish People!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 05:53 AM

More lies. The "will of the people" in the US apropos of Israel has never been tested via plebiscite so don't talk gibberish. There is no policy in either party's constitution that states that all UN resolutions concerning criticism of Israel must be vetoed. In abstaining in the vote the US representatives at the UN were in breach neither of any official US government policy nor of any express Democratic Party policy. Neither the US at the UN nor Obama has put a foot wrong constitutionally. Things didn't go your way so you set about demonising perfectly legitimate government actions and calling the president you now hate a dead duck. Too bad. It's about time you stopped making things up as you go along. People like you bring this forum into disrepute by persistently lying so that we have to keep correcting you instead of getting on with civil debate. Your behaviour is disgraceful and disreputable.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 17 - 05:03 AM

Steve,
I should also like to remind you that the US did not vote in favour of the UN resolution.

No need to remind me of anything. I should like to remind you that the policy of every Democrat and Republican administrations for the last 70 years has been to use the veto to protect Israel because that is the will of the people. This dead duck President has shown his contempt for the people who disobeyed his voting instructions and whose vote he no longer needs.

Until then he has the same full mandate to carry out whatever legal acts a US president is entitled to carry out as he has had for the last eight years. President-elect Trump's mandate does not kick in until his inauguration. That's the way it works.


No it is not. All previous outgoing Presidents have worked with their replacement for a smooth handover, for the sake of the nation.
No previous President has behaved like this.

Jim,
It is a well known quote, widely available and the source, which I have also linked to, is impeccable.

No. It is widely used by enemies of Israel to falsely represent Israeli history, as you have just done again.

Only one person in the world claims to have heard him say it, so it is not authenticated at all, and it contradicts what he said in authenticated statements.
Goldman kept quiet about it for twenty years until Ben-Gurion was safely dead. That is why no respectable publications give it any credence at all. Just anti Israel propaganda sites.
From your link,
"he(Goldman) was a profound critic of official Israeli policies."

Your reliance on such discredited evidence shows just how weak your case is. You have to trawl the dregs of the internet to find anything at all.