""Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 05:38 AM

""Keith A thinks that if the accusation is disputed you must look at both sides of the argument.
That is because Keith A is not a prejudiced bigot.""

Keith A has been asked numerous times to look at both sides of the argument.

To which Keith A has repeatedly responded that Israel is innocent, Israel is right, Israel treats its minorities well and Israel always acts in self defence.

Keith A has never acknowledged that there ARE two sides to the argument.

Keith A has reacted in a one sided, bigotted manner, ignored evidence presented, belittled and denigrated every evidential source other than the Israeli government, even when the source was Israeli soldiers, Israeli human rights organisations and Israeli political opposition.

Keith A has not produced one single piece of hard evidence for his stance, and consistently relied on "Israel refute this"....WELL, THEY WOULD WOULDN'T THEY!.

Is this catalogue of deeply entrenched bias a picture of the balanced and fair minded individual that Keith A loudly proclaims himself to be?

In my opinion NO! IT IS NOT!

Don T.""

Post completely ignored by Keith A, who HAS no answer, because his bias is revealed in almost everything he says.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

""Subject: RE: BS: Israel condemned by UN
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 06:13 AM

""The one with the Regev quote was this one, May 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/may/09/bedouin-land-culture-israel-resettlement"" (the guest in question was Keith)

Thank you guest, I was aware of that.

Jim's post however was in two parts, and I was referring to what came before the above.

Typical of Keith to use his trademark cherry pick to answer the point that enables him to dodge the issue, rather than the one which was actually made.

Ir still remains the case that there was an eight year gap between the publication of the report on that TOXIC (it really is toxic Keith) site and Regev's sudden desire to move the Bedouins, in spite of which, the Bedouins are still there.

I suspect that they will be the last to be evacuated and that most of them will be placed in the poorest townships, with high crime levels, as has been reported.

The fact is that they are farmers with the capacity to supply food to the nation, while sustaining themselves without government aid

They have been reduced to penury by government refusal to acknowledge their long established tenure of that land, as evidenced by the "non recognition" of their villages and the fencing off of their grazing to reduce their livestock and wreck their financial independence.

Lastly, of course, the Bedouin were already in residence in that area when the decision to locate a toxic site there was made.

Don T.""

Yet another awkward post ignored completely by "fair minded Keith", who vigorously insisted that he always answers posts honestly (another hollow laugh) and never ignores them.

Almost twelve hours after the posting of the second one, he has yet to acknowledge the existence of either, or to answer either honestly, or dishonestly.

Perhaps because he is only able to do the latter?

Don T.