BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 05:52 PM

So, to take me on to page 30 in this discussion, can I ask why it is OK for Obama to have a go at the British Labour party yet, when he refuses to veto a resolution about Israel, he is breaking 'an unwritten rule'?

Just wondering like...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 06:19 PM

It is interesting that Kerry's principles for a peace agreement are pretty much what has been proposed several times and soundly rejected by the "Palestinian" leadership:

Kerry did not break new ground it is not possible for us to recognize a Jewish state

Riyad al-Maliki, "Palestinian" foreign minister.


Kerry's principles are not something we could agree with

Mustafa Barghouti, PLO Executive Committee member.

The Obama administration is totally clueless about the "Palestinian" leadership demands for statehood.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 06:28 PM

There is no unwritten rule. Obama acted properly within his powers as the elected president. The US electorate did not reject Clinton. Two of Keith's delusions. You loved it when the popular vote won the referendum, Keith. You won't accept that Clinton won the popular vote by a country mile though, will you, Keith? Where's Teribus with his sauce for the goose when you need him? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 06:30 PM

So tell us in words (of one syllable if you like) what those objectionable principles are, bobad.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 04:56 AM

All the "peace proposals" that have been rejected by the Palestinians have entailed maintaining the situation where land stolen by Israel remains in Israeli hands and those millions of exiles stay exiled.
There has never been a situation in modern history where those driven out by invaders should remain exiled and those who drove them out should retain their property.
Registered Palestinian refugees are calculated at 5 million; those not registered are incalculable.
No sensible Government would accept that position
SOME ****** AGREEMENT!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 07:48 AM

Dave,
So, to take me on to page 30 in this discussion, can I ask why it is OK for Obama to have a go at the British Labour party yet, when he refuses to veto a resolution about Israel, he is breaking 'an unwritten rule'?
Just wondering like...

He was expressing his personal opinions about Labour and making comparisons with his own Party. Anyone is entitled to do that.

The other thing was a dramatic and contentious change in US government policy from an outgoing President with no mandate to make such a change.

UK government has criticised the old administration over this.

"Theresa May rebukes US for 'inappropriate' attack on Israel "

"We do not… believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex," Mrs May's spokesman said.
"And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/29/theresa-may-rebukes-us-attack-israel/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 07:53 AM

Steve,
The US electorate did not reject Clinton.

Under the rules and the system accepted by all parties, Clinton lost the US election and Brexit won the UK referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 07:55 AM

Fairy nuff. Still looks to me like stuff the Obama does that fits in with tarring the Labour party as bad is deemed acceptable yet when he does something that the US should have done years ago he is demonised. But, as you know, that is just a whim from an empty head...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 08:21 AM

Of course Israel has not stolen any land from anybody that is just your typical anti-Semitic trope.

Shimon Klein nails the reasons why there is no peace agreement and none forthcoming in the foreseeable future:

Kerry failed to enlarge on the reasons why negotiations failed.There are no partners for peace negotiations. The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas has its hands tied by Hamas, who is against any form of negotiation with Israel. They view Israel as occupied territory since its establishment. If Abbas signs a peace treaty with Israel it will be "off with his head" as in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland,

Apart from that, all that Abbas can do is to utter hostile rhetoric against Israel on its intransigence. By doing this, he can drum up support against Israel and thus save his own skin by not signing any peace treaty with Israel.

Meanwhile both Hamas and the PA are raking in the cash from foreign donations for the Palestinians into their leaderships' foreign bank accounts. They plead poverty blaming Israel for its intransigence and lack of progress while they themselves are becoming wealthy under the occupation. This is their livelihood. The eternal negotiator since the Madrid Conference of 1991, Saeb Erekat, is a professional negotiator and not doing badly out of it financially.

John Kerry seems to be devoid of reality and this reflects in his departure speech. He said the right things that are true and really indisputable. He condemned terror in general terms as if it's the settlements that promote it.

Even if there were no settlements in the occupied territory as was the case prior to the June 1967 War, an excuse will be found as it was then to destroy Israel. The problem between Israel and the Palestinians is existential. One needs to read the hate propaganda against Israel even before the Six Day War of 1967 to understand that. The Palestinian education system is full of anti-Israel hate as well as being anti-Semitic. The conflict is not only about land but about religion as well. In this respect, Daesh and Hamas share similar goals. It is unfortunate that Kerry did not touch on this subject in his speech as it really is the root course of the conflict. The settlements in the occupied territories is an added factor of course but the basic hate for Israel even existed before the occupation.

Conflicts in the Middle East

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 08:25 AM

Err, Keith, US presidents are elected for a full four-year term. Obama is the president and Trump is not. He will not be the "outgoing president" until Trump is inaugurated. There has been no change of policy. It is not written down anywhere that the US has a policy of automatically vetoing resolutions on Israel. Tradition does not equal policy does not equal mandate and we should applaud Obama for recognising that. Takes courage, actually. There is no express mandate to treat Israel in the same way whatever happens. The trouble with you, Keith, is that you cheerfully embrace democracy when things are going your way but when things look a little adverse, though no less democratic, you come out with a pack of lies. Sour grapes with knobs on sums you up nicely.

So Farage won the popular vote. Can't argue with that statistic. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million. Hardly the "rejection" you lyingly claimed in earlier posts. Can't argue with that statistic. She was nobbled by an electoral college system that sorely needs sorting out. Let's hear you arguing with that. And a bit less of your "rules are rules" guff. It's a debating forum, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 08:55 AM

"Of course Israel has not stolen any land from anybody that is just your typical anti-Semitic trope."
Then the Father of Israel was an antisemite
"I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?
David Ben Gurion
Ben Gurion also insisted that the Jews did not wish to drive the Arabs from their land
We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.
The mindless repetition of "antisemitism" doesn't get away from the fact that the Arab lands have been reduced to little more than ghettos
Israel continues to steal land and ETHNICALLY CLEANSE the Palestinians and Bedouins and in order to do so, their regimes have turned Israel into a FASCIST STATE
They have done more to dewstroy the Jewish dream than the Nazis could ever have done.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 09:06 AM

Thanks Steve, but I was aware of the peculiar US system of changing administrations.
It gives the opportunity for an outgoing president to do something that his people do not want because he will never need their votes again.
It is just that, up until now, none ever has taken advantage of that window of un-mandated opportunity.
As you say, it is only an unwritten rule that has been violated.

Sadly, a new precedent has been set and I fear what Trump may do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 09:14 AM

Jim,
Your Ben Gurion quote is unlikely to be true, as you well know because I have explained it to you many times before.
It is dishonest to post it as if it was accepted.

"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural, we have taken their country." In fact, according to Nahum Goldmann, Ben-Gurion allegedly said this to him. Goldmann was an adversary of Ben-Gurion, and he came out with this alleged quote, verbatim, in his book published two decades later (The Jewish Paradox, 1978), five years after Ben-Gurion died. There was no recording of the quote, and Ben-Gurion was no longer around to dispute it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 09:28 AM

You're right Keith, that's the kind of lie Jew haters cling to to justify their hatred, right up there with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 10:17 AM

"Your Ben Gurion quote is unlikely to be true,"
Going to break a N Y resolution Keith
Prove it
There, that's an end to it
He said theuy stole the land
The maps say they stole the land
Human rights organisations say they stole the land
Jews say they stole the land
The United Nations has now been able to say they stole the land now the U.S. veto has been removed
They stole the land - simple as that
"that's the kind of lie Jew haters.... "
Personally, I'd rather take their word rather than a pair of rabid, anti-Semitic, serial atrocity deniers any day.
Why not try a New Year resolution yourself and show a little common sense, compassion and humanity, instead of supporting mass murder and ethnic cleansing by a fascist state?
Jim Carroll
Too much to expect at this stage, I suppose

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 10:48 AM

"It is just that, up until now, none ever has taken advantage of that window of un-mandated opportunity."

Obama is the current president and he has the same mandate as he's had for the last eight years. This really isn't hard to grasp, Keith.

"As you say, it is only an unwritten rule that has been violated."

Don't lie, please. I said that there is no unwritten rule. 30 Dec, 06.28pm. Nothing has been violated. You are behaving in an extremely undemocratic way. You are making up rules that do not exist in the US constitution because you disagree with the US's refusing to hold back from criticising the Israeli regime. Sour grapes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 11:22 AM

Waste of time Steve - if it puts Israel in a bad light it is either a lie or wrong
Don't you understand the David Irving school of history?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 11:30 AM

SOURCE of DAVID BEN GURION QUOTE - a rabid antisemitic Jew Hating Anti Israel liar, no doubt!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM

Some more examples of not stealing land - lies or anti-semitism or what?
Jim Carroll

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
-- Moshe Dayan, April 1969, Ha'aretz; quoted in Edward Said, 'Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims', Social Text, Volume 1, 1979, 7-58.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971                
                
"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)                
                
"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple."
-- Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.
                
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"....
-- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.        
                 
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 12:39 PM

"Waste of time Steve - if it puts Israel in a bad light it is either a lie or wrong
Don't you understand the David Irving school of history?"

Damn. Sorry, Jim, I forgot. Must be the fug of all this festive cheer. 🍷🍷🍷😉

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 12:51 PM

'Sall right Steve
Helps to digest all the stodgy Christmas pud.
God Jul!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 12:55 PM

The anti Israel hate sites are full of them as Carroll well knows.

Fake Zionist Quotes

Exposing Fake Zionist Quotes

More Falsified Ben Gurion Quotes

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 01:52 PM

Yeah - read them all - none of those people said any of them things - all made up
All the quotes are well known and sourced - none are challenged in any of the links, all the links are untraceable but obviously pro Israeli regime at a time when Israel is spending billions on propaganda
Who is a girl to believe?
Is that the best you could com up with?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 02:04 PM

Jim,
Going to break a N Y resolution Keith
Prove it
There, that's an end to it
He said theuy stole the land

What is the evidence that he said it Jim?
Only the word of someone, who was no friend of his, that he once said it to him alone, with no other witness, and he never mentioned it for twenty years, by which time Ben-Gurion was dead and could not deny it.

On the strength of that you assert that it was a fact and post it without any reservation or disclaimer.
You are a dishonest man Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 02:10 PM

Steve,
Obama is the current president and he has the same mandate as he's had for the last eight years. This really isn't hard to grasp, Keith.

I grasp it Steve, but his Party just lost the election.
He has no genuine mandate from the people any more.
Just a technicality.
Why has he always used the veto to protect Israel for the last eight years and only changed that policy now?
Because he will never need the people's vote again so up them.
Revenge served cold.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 03:05 PM

"What is the evidence that he said it Jim?"
It is a well known quote, widely available and the source, which I have also linked to, is impeccable.
It is dishonest to question it (you have actually denied it in the past) without proof - if it is inaccurate it is your job to disprove it.
Now what are you saying - he didn't say it, he didn't mean it - it has been made up by a leading Zionist - what?
Now - your proof - or do we have to take the word of the Israelis again - I have no reason to disbelieve it to be genuine - why do you question it ?
Once more you call me dishonest, yet you provide no proof of anything you claim and you admit you are only putting the other side - the claims of a war criminal.
You are going to end this year as you began it - defending atrocities and lying
Nothing new under the sun.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 03:53 PM

It seems to me that the Democrats are making as much mischief as possible before they are turfed out of office, leaving a huge mess for Mr Trump to inherit.

The allegations regarding Russia and the change of policy on Israel are designed for that purpose and no other.

This is the man who met Mr Trump after the election and promised to do everything he could to make the change over as easy as possible.
"It's just the American way".......aye right!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 04:08 PM

Obama was elected to be president until the next president is inaugurated. That is some weeks away. 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. All the rest is the politics of democracy, Keith, which you purport to be a staunch defender of. I'm really happy to be able to explain this extremely elementary stuff to you, Keith, really I am. I should also like to remind you that the US did not vote in favour of the UN resolution. Gosh, I know how annoyed you must feel as an apologist for that rotten regime in Israel. But, in this case, in spite of your whingeing, no-one has done anything wrong. So tuff titty, Keith.

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Dec 16 - 06:55 PM

Trump IS a huge mess, Ake - he could start by cleaning himself up, as well as his his cabinet of reprobates.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 17 - 04:16 AM

Nice to have Trump described as a victim
A new Year brings something new
A guid New Year to nearly all of you
Jim Carroll

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.

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:39 PM

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