BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:32 AM

No - I'm going by the fact that he (whoever he is) has come no nearer to providing either description nor numbers of this elusive "antisemitism"
His Wiki entry includes accusations of smears against Labour figures like Peter Hain, and past support for The Conras
He is a right-wing conspiracy blogger whose Wili entry includes
"Peter Hain[edit]
Staines has been credited with being the first blogger to "take the scalp" of a serving British minister, following the resignation for a period of well over a year of Peter Hain from the offices of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Secretary of State for Wales in January 2008.[44][45][46]
Smeargate affair[edit]
Over the weekend of 11–12 April 2009, Staines exposed in his blog that a series of e-mails had been prepared by Damian McBride, a political adviser working at 10 Downing Street, smearing a number of Conservative MPs which had been sent to Derek Draper for consideration for publication on the Red Rag blogsite.[47] This led to the resignation of McBride and expressions of regret to the MPs concerned from the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.[48] Staines provided copies of these emails to the News of the World and The Sunday Times and states that, contrary to the comments of his detractors, he did not receive any payments for this.[49]
His success in the McBride affair has occasioned serious criticism from him of the UK lobby correspondent system, which he believes has succumbed to the ethos of political spin.[50]
Leveson Inquiry[edit]
Main article: Leveson Inquiry
In late November 2011, Staines posted on his Guido Fawkes blog the Leveson Inquiry pre-submission of former journalist and Labour Party spin-doctor Alastair Campbell. All pre-submissions are given under strict and full confidentiality, and all core participants – including victims, the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service – are also signatories. Staines stated that he had obtained the submission legally. Lord Justice Leveson immediately called him to the inquiry to make a statement under cross-examination.[51]
Staines gave written evidence denying any fault or breach of the Inquiry Act, when at the start of his oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry Alastair Campbell admitted sending his evidence to "two or three journalists" and some friends, the order for Staines to appear was quietly dropped.[citation needed]
In late December 2011, Staines was invited to give further evidence.[52]"
He is a right-wing conspiracy theorist with a long record of smearing politicians - not teh feller to eith buy a used car from or take home to meet your mother
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:33 AM

Three things, bobad. First, I didn't defend Tunesmith. He's stating facts and has yet to propose a Jewish conspiracy, but he's making me feel uneasy. I thought I'd made that clear. He can speak for himself. Second, I asked you to tell me which remarks were antisemitic, with reasons. Shouldn't be hard for you as you're so quick to jump on these things. Third, you've shilly-shallied around since I asked you and you have still failed to answer. You can't, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:41 AM

Fawkes merely exposed the comments.
You may not recognise the anti-Semitism but you have proved to be no judge of it.
The Labour Party found it sufficiently bad to suspend him for six months because of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:47 AM

Tunesmith, from the definition now adopted by British police and law,

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:47 AM

Tunesmith, The Guardian is not owned by a Jewish businessman. It is owned by the Scott Trust which has no specific links with Judaism. Perhaps, coincidentally you may hope, the Guardian has probably been the national paper most accused of anti-Israel bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 11:55 AM

Fawkes did not "merely expose the comments." He wrapped them up in a tirade of negative and sensational headlines. Don't lie any more, please. You are trying it on with the wrong person. As for my being no judge of antisemitism, that conclusion is based purely on your own biased opinion and is unsupportable. And if you mention "the whole of the bloody NEC seeing a serious issue," one more time, you clown, I'll hurl the whole contents of this box of 144 ping-pong balls at my telly one at a time.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 12:40 PM

Fawkes did not "merely expose the comments." He wrapped them up in a tirade of negative and sensational headlines.

So ignore all that shit. Ilyas Aziz's tweets were considered anti-Semitic by your Party, and serious enough to suspend him for six months.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 12:50 PM

Keith posted the following the following definition now adopted by British police and law,

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

Well, now, that is very worrying and sinister! Talk about a gag on free speech.

Now, in the UK, Jewish businessmen do control the media ( well almost all of it) in the sense that they own almost all of the media.

And, there is no doubt that the media help - in a big way - to shape public opinion in the UK.

I think a person would have to be very naive to believe that the people who own - ie. control - the media would not have some say - i.e. a big say - in the editorial output.

It seems crazy to me that an almost total monopoly of Jewish owned newspapers is allowed in the UK!

Particularly, as previouslt stated - the Jewish population of the UK stands at 0.5%

Finally, when British Prime Ministers are fearful of getting on the wrong side of a newspaper owner, we should all be very concerned!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:00 PM

Nope. You lied. You said he "merely exposed the comments." No he didn't. One glance at the offending page on his site reveals that he wrapped up the tweets in a torrent of abusive, biased, multicoloured, sensationalist headlines that make the Sun and Mail look positively demure by comparison. The trouble with you, Keith, is that nothing you ever say on this site can ever be relied on to have been honestly and straightforwardly delivered. Before you make any more miserable attempts to take this any further via intelligence-insulting diversions, please explain why you said that he had "merely exposed the comments." Why did you need to say that, Keith? What's wrong with you? I've told you not to lie to me. You are choosing the wrong person to do that to.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:00 PM

We've been through this Keith
Whather it is Antisemitic or not is a moot point, particularly regarding it's source being from a Jewish writer.
Iven if it were - that makes two out of how many members.
I'm sure if you dig around you might find others - the fact that there are antisemites in every section of society has never been disputed
You seem to be subjecting us to drip-drip-drip water torture
There is not a majoor problem, none of those claiming there is have ever come up with a serious problem
This particular lifeboat is long sunk.
If Israel continues to blame the Jews for their crimes and you talk about Jewish pacts of silence in Parliament, you are going to have to come up with more than two examples to make anything resembling a case
Keep on trying though - it helps lighten the tedium
HOW SERIOUS WAS THIS?
IS THIS NOT APPEASING ANTISEMITISM?
IS IT ONLY ANTISEMITISM THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:13 PM

My last post was aimed at Keith, Tunesmith.

You're being pretty brave using that approach here, Tunesmith. I don't see any Jewish conspiracy to take over the media, though there is in general a pro-Israel bias in more outlets than not. There are powerful pro-Israel lobby groups, especially in political parties, which by no means consist of Jews exclusively, which make sure that anti-Israel sentiment gets shot down. It's worse in the US, by the way. Disproportionateness in representation within institutions is endemic in this country - top politicians/public schools spring to mind. Mind how you step with this one!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:31 PM

Mind how you step with this one!

That's it, get Shaw to teach you his personal definition of anti-Semitism and the right euphemisms to use to try and hide your true intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:36 PM

And Keith, Shaw is just being his precious self and once again trying to misrepresent. Aziz's twitter posts are there to see and clearly anti-Semitic to anyone but perhaps him and his fellow travelers. He's just trying to obfuscate (as usual) by making the messenger the issue, a tactic favoured by him and Carroll when they are presented with irrefutable evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:50 PM

And here's a Facebook post by another one who was suspended by the party for anti-Semitism: Salim Mulla

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 01:58 PM

And yet another: Shah Hussain

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 02:10 PM

A couple more gems from Cllr Mullah:

believes Israel responsible for Sandy Hook school massacre

Zionist Jews are a disgrace to humanity

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 02:16 PM

I think I asked this question some time back but don't recall if there was ever a response. It seems to be generally agreed that there is a specific law about antisemitism. It is also well known that hate speech, including that against Jews, is a crime in this country. If any of the quotes given have broken that law then, surely, the people who made them would be under arrest and banged to rights for hate crime. How come they are not?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 02:30 PM

Good question DtG, maybe you should ask it of your local government rep. Maybe it's because a clear definition had not been in place at the time these statements were made but now that there is one anti-Semites are more circumspect with their wording, like in Shaw's advice to Tunesmith.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:06 PM

Stop flailing around, bobad. You may lose your focus but I won't lose mine. So tell me: which of those remarks are antisemitic and why? Tell me which ones and why and I'll tell you why they are not. There's nothing "irrefutable" except in your own head. Try to regain your cool, stop trolling, answer the question straightforwardly and honestly, or just give up. So, with icy coolness, tell me which remarks were antisemitic. And tell me why. I'll tell you straightforwardly and unemotionally why they are not. Nothing to be scared of. I'm a big fluffy bunny, you know. Not a scurrying little snappy dog, as you appear to want to show yourself to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:19 PM

Sorry Shaw you won't suck me into your pathetic little game of "it's not anti-Semitic by my definition". The fact that it is irrefutably anti-Semitic by the definition accepted by your country, your political party, your police forces and the 31 countries who adopted it is good enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:40 PM

Well, I can't get over the fact that there is a law which states that it is illegal to say that Jewish businessmen control the media.

Well, it can't be a unlawful to say that Jewish businessmen own most of the media in the UK... because that is a fact.

But do they control the editorial content?

Well, have a read of the following:

"In evidence to a House of Lords select committee in 2007, Murdoch even said that he acted like "a traditional proprietor" in regard to the Sun and the News of the World by "exercising control on major issues, such as which party to back in a general election or policy on Europe."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 03:47 PM

You may find this thread useful to you, Tunesmith. The link in the opening post is thought provoking and some of the posts following can be a bit of an eye opener to attitudes as well!

Mistrust the press

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 04:08 PM

Rupert Murdoch Jewish?????

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:09 PM

Nothing irrefutable about the fact that 31 countries have been leaned on to accept a particular "definition," one with a very murky history of excessive Israeli-regime influence. There are over 170 other countries, you know. When you tell me which remarks are antisemitic and why, and when I tell you why they're not, what you'll get from me is my unvarnished, measured opinion. You won't get me appealing to authority which is always, ALWAYS the first and last resort of you and Keith. Not a game, bobad. Are you in double-figure evasive posts yet since I first asked you this morning to tell me which remarks were antisemitic and why? Focus, don't spit!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:16 PM

Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish. Comment is free but facts are sacred.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:20 PM

"One" referred to the definition, not to one of the 31 countries, to be clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 05:55 PM

31 countries have been leaned on to accept a particular "definition,"

Here we go again, tell us by whom have they been leaned on why don't you. Oh, and do provide some evidence on who has done the leaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 07:39 PM

Hmm. How odd that you should demand information from me whereas you can't comply, despite almost ten spluttering posts from you, with my simple request to point out which of those tweets were antisemitic and why. Are you scared that big ol' Stevieboy is coming to get you?😂😂😂

But I'm a nice chap really, so here you have it. Your sacred "definition" is derived closely from the long-discredited EUMC definition that was quietly ditched by the EU, never having been officially adopted at all, in 2013. The body that spawned that definition was "advised" almost exclusively by pro-Israel lobby groups. There was no balance. Look it up, why don't you? I've quoted it several times before but people like you and Keith with ears of cloth won't have picked it up. Go on, have a look, even though you know you won't like what you find. You want to regale us with a "definition" drawn up by a body unduly influenced by a bunch of partisans? Great! Personally, I'd prefer to have a definition drawn up by a neutral body with no axes to grind. Christ, how odd does that make me!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 17 - 08:39 PM

So it comes down to, as always, that nebulous, all powerful Jewish lobby that controls governments, owns the media and runs the banks does it? Thought so.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Tunesmith
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 01:48 AM

Oh dear, Murdoch is clearly Jewish via his mother's line.
Steve, do a bit more research, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 03:04 AM

Can't find any trace of that, Tunesmith. I'm honestly not that bothered, but I have looked into it. If you think I'm wrong, please elaborate. .

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 03:43 AM

Tunesmith - 04 Jan 17 - 08:31 AM

"The British press is the main obstacle to Labour - and Jeremy - being elected!
Now the British national press is totally owned by Jewish businessmen.

An anti-Semitic post from Tunesmith according to the IHRA Working definition of Anti-Semitism adopted formally and recognised by the UK Government:

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

On even a cursory examination Tunesmith's post is also factually incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 04:10 AM

Keith Rupert Murdoch:

"Australian Jews.... Hmmmm. Give us a minute here. Billionaire mogul Rubert Murdoch, maybe?

Well, it depends on who you believe. According to some out there, Rubert's great-great-grandmother, Caroline Jemima Sherson, was Jewish. But considering that research found that the young Jemima was baptized before she was one year old, we highly doubt those first-mentioned sources." - Source: Jew or Not Jew Website. Their Verdict Rupert Murdoch: Not a Jew

Hope that clears that one up once and for all.

And yes DtG perhaps those who flagrantly ignore the IHRA Working Definition should be reported to the police...... Perhaps tireless fighter against anti-Semitism Jim Carroll could take care of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 04:35 AM

"And yes DtG perhaps those who flagrantly ignore the IHRA Working Definition should be reported to the police"
Does that include all those who accuse The Jewish People of being responsible for the atrocities of the Israeli regime by suggesting that criticism of Israel is "antisemitic"?
That, I believe is a breach of one of the items in the definition.
So far we have had a very much pick--'n-mix approach by supporters of the regime.
The Israeli regime has accused Jewish opposition to its policies as being by "self-hating" or "self-loathing Jews" - the very term is antisemitic by nature.
It is also classic fascism - placing the acrtions of the state ovr the opinions and wishes of the people.
Nearer to home, as far as this forum is concerned, we have the suggestion that there is a Jewish pact of silence in Parliament which has kept the details of the claimed antisemitism of the Labour Party from the eyes of the public 'for the love of the party'.
Claims of Jewish plots where one of of the weapons used to send six million Jews to their deaths.
Would we really like a member of this forum reported to the police?
This discussion has taken an extremely nasty and dangerous turn.
I don't know how many Jews make up our financial establishment, I don't care and I never have.
Discussing the beliefs and nationalities of those who exploit us should never be part of these debates - it is totally irrelevant - our businesses and financial institutions are now international and multi-cultural and have been for a long time.
Please leave it out.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 05:59 AM

If my great-great anybody was Jewish, native Australian or Chinese I doubt that I would know and I definitely wouldn't give a fig. I have a feeling that I'm not descended from that race of aliens on Saturn because they have seven legs and I only have two (at last count). Yes I do think that conspiracy theories about Jews taking over banks, businesses and the media are antisemitic and, like Jim, I have never subscribed to them. Anyway, Tunesmith, I can't find anything about Murdoch being of Jewish descent, and I really don't care one way or the other. Whatever else he is, he's a complete twat. That's all I need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 07:26 AM

Jim,
suggesting that criticism of Israel is "antisemitic"?

No-one here has ever done that Jim. What is your point?

The Israeli regime has accused Jewish opposition to its policies as being by "self-hating" or "self-loathing Jews" - the very term is antisemitic by nature.

Ridiculous. Of course they don't. The opposition parties and free media constantly criticise its policies.

as far as this forum is concerned, we have the suggestion that there is a Jewish pact of silence in Parliament which has kept the details of the claimed antisemitism of the Labour Party from the eyes of the public 'for the love of the party'.

Are you sure? I never saw it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 03:12 PM

Looking back down through the thread I am amazed that none of those so keen to praise the adoption of UNSCR 2334 see that in it the UN's support and promotion of a "Two State Solution" which means recognition by PNA and Hamas of the Sovereign State of Israel. We all know that that is not going to happen. UNSCR 2334 does not solely constrain the Israeli Government it also makes demands and imposes constraints on the Arabs of Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 17 - 03:15 PM

It maintains the status quo regarding refugees and land already lost.
No responsible government would ever agree to that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 02:48 AM

No refugee camps in Israel Jim.

Egyptians and Jordanians, latterly "Palestinians" saw fit to herd fellow Arabs, "Palestinians" at that, into camps in 1948 on "Palestinian" land and make sure they stayed there in poverty and a state of hopelessness.

I also think IIRC that there was some mention of 4th June 1967 "borders" in UNSCR 2334, as well as restraint, control and negotiation. One of Steve Shaw's contentions has been that Israel has never had to negotiate because of it's alliance with the USA, well one perception now might be that that has changed and that Israel is being forced to negotiate, the Arabs of "Palestine" and by that I mean their leaders however will not as they have no interest in negotiation and their backers will not permit them to. Any negotiation will be seen as a betrayal.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 04:18 AM

"No refugee camps in Israel Jim."
Who said there was?
Not me.
Doesn't alter the fact that, thanks to Israeli predatory land-grabbing, Palestinians make up the largest group of deposed refugees on the planet and their continuing action stands to add to that figure, should they be allowed to continue further.
The Egyptians and Jordanians, not a particularly wealthy people, "saw fit" to give some of these refugees shelter - as you rightly say, Israel never saw fit to extend that hand of charity to those they made homeless.
Having stolen the land, it would have been ludicrous for them to have done so.
As Golda Meir put it so succinctly on several occasions:
"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
"There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed."
Golda Meir Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 04:37 AM

thanks to Israeli predatory land-grabbing,

They only occupied land taken while fighting off predatory land grabbers!
And they have given almost all of it back in return for peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 05:02 AM

Golda Meir was right on both counts - The "Palestinians" were invented by Yasser Arafat - Purely technically the Jews of Palestine are as much "Palestinians" as the Arabs of Palestine.

The Jews did not build or create refugee camps, what they did do was accept and take in over 820,000 Jews from Arab countries and allowed them to assimilate into the fabric of the Jewish State of Israel to become full citizens with a full stake in the future of THEIR country.

In 1947 the Arabs of Palestine had a choice - they chose war and they lost. They have consistently chosen war ever since and they have equally consistently lost. At some point THEY must wake up to the fact that they have to accept the consequences of and bear responsibilities of THEIR actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 05:24 AM

"Predictions by the Treasury ahead of the Brexit vote have been brought into question by a study which says that leaving the European Union will halve net migration, give British workers a pay rise and help to solve the housing crisis.

The report from the Centre for Business Research at the University of Cambridge examined the possible future scenarios following the referendum decision to leave the EU."

Didn't Akenaton mention something similar - months ago? Carney has admitted that the Bank of England got it wrong as did the Treasury under George Osborne's prompting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 05:28 AM

"Golda Meir was right on both counts -"
Arabs have occupied that land for millenia
" they chose war and they lost."
So we shouldhave deposed the entire Geman nation in 1945
Don't be more stupid than you have already shown you are.
No conquering people ahs the right to depose those they have conquered.
The stealing of land is still happening - that's what the UN condemnation is about.
"And they have given almost all of it back in return for peace."
January is a bit early for cuckoos, isn't it?
im Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 05:55 AM

If "Palestinians" are an invention then what are "Israelis?"

The fact is, Teribus, whether you like it or not, successive Israeli regimes have worked inexorably AGAINST a two-state solution, making it near-impossible to envisage an Arab state with contiguous land, by annexing large parcels of the West Bank for settlements. Negotiation means giving way to some extent. Compromise. The Palestinians may seem to you to be uninterested in a two-state solution, but that is because they know that compromise is never on the table. All talks have been a sham. Settlement land will remain settlement land. Why would Israel give any back, let alone stop taking even more? No need when you have the US behind you unconditionally. The abstention from the resolution, hardly unprecedented as I've shown, is no more than a mild warning shot across the bows. The US will never stop the military aid to Israel. AIPAC and co. will see to that. Israel only gives land back either in return for a sell-out to the West, as with Egypt, or because it's a basket case, as with Gaza. And the latter was hardly "giving it back" with good grace, was it? Seem to remember that they sent in the bulldozers first, then blockaded the whole place...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 06:19 AM

"They have consistently chosen war "
To defend their land from usurpation and the right for those driven into exile to return.
It takes a great deal of courage to continue for an impoverished State with a poorly armed untrained and ill equipped army,to fight a well armed (to the extent of nuclear) nation permanently protected from war crime charges by U.s. vetoes, for the right of access to what is theirs by birth and heritage.
It takes no courage at all to continue to oppress that State.
David and Goliath writ large
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 07:16 AM

Steve Shaw:

"The fact is, Teribus, whether you like it or not, successive Israeli regimes have worked inexorably AGAINST a two-state solution"

The fact is, Shaw, whether you like it or not, since the Khartoum Conference of 1967 the Arabs of the region, and in saying that I mean their so-called leaders, have never had any intention, or interest, in pursuing anything that would deliver a "Two State Solution".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 07:37 AM

The Israelis ahve refused to return land and refused to consider refugees returning
How can any "so called leadership" consider such an illegal position that entails such a situation?
The fact that you refuse to respond to this makes it clear that you are aware of that fact.
Whatever the Arab leadership is like, it is imminently preferable to one adopting an ethnich cleansing policy and attempting to set up an
APARTHEID STATE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 08:13 AM

If anyone thinks that the "Palestinian" leadership have any desire to negotiate for an independent homeland for the Arabs in Judea and Samaria they are seriously deluded. One only has to read the constitution of Fatah to see what their true goals are. The Israeli leadership is 100% correct when they say that there is no partner to negotiate with.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 17 - 08:28 AM

10 4x4's!

D