All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Sixties Fan]

[ Who is influencing all of these Media, to avoid printing or talking about what has happened? Why is it just another Jew? ]

CBC Ignores Murder of Prominent American-Israeli by Palestinian Terrorist | Honest Reporting Canada

 

[Sixties Fan]

Watch: Terror attack in Jerusalem foiled

 

[Sixties Fan]

State Department terrorism report mentions "martyr payments" for the first time ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

In much of the Israeli media, this was the story of the murder of Ari Fuld; the story of a brave and devoted son, brother, husband, father and teacher who was murdered in cold blood and taken away from his loving family way too soon.

But in much of the international media, this is the story that was told:

Middle East Monitor: “Israeli settler stabbed near illegal settlement.”
Associated Press: “A Palestinian assailant on Sunday fatally stabbed an Israeli settler outside a busy mall in the West Bank.”
Reuters: “A Palestinian fatally stabbed an American-born Jewish settler in the occupied West Bank…”

And so it went, on and on. Settler. Settler. Settler.

Settler. That is what the international media apparently thinks is most important in this terrible story, followed closely by the idea that Fuld was stabbed in the “occupied West Bank” or near an “illegal settlement.”

These descriptions and headlines not only dehumanize the victim by casting him as a faceless “settler,” but also seek to rationalize the murder itself; as if murdering in cold blood a Jew in Judea is somehow less despicable than murdering a Jew in Tel-Aviv, Herzliya, New York or Paris.

Read more: Community | Ari Fuld Was Not A ‘Settler’ — He Was An Innocent Victim Of Terror

(full article online)

Community | Ari Fuld Was Not A ‘Settler’ — He Was An Innocent Victim Of Terror

 

[Sixties Fan]

What is ‘left-wing antisemitism’? Where is it manifested? What is to be done about it? There are three difficulties, three confusions and obfuscations that stand in the way of rational discussion of what we mean by ‘left-wing antisemitism’.

The first is that left-wing antisemitism knows itself by another and more self-righteous name, ‘anti-Zionism’. Often, your left-wing antisemite sincerely believes that he or she is only an anti-Zionist, only a just if severe critic of Israel.

The second is that talk of left-wing antisemitism to a left-wing antisemite normally evokes indignant, sincere, and just denial of something else! ‘No, I’m not a racist! How dare you call me a racist?’

No, indeed, apart from an atypical crackpot here and there, left-wing antisemites are not racist. But there was antisemitism before there was late-19th and 20th century anti-Jewish racism. And there is still antisemitism of different sorts, long after disgust with Hitler-style racism, and overt racism of any sort, became part of the mental and emotional furniture of all half-way decent people, and perhaps especially of left-wing people.

Left-wingers are people who by instinct and conviction side with the oppressed, the outcasts, those deprived of human rights, with the working-class and the labour movement. We naturally side against the police, the military, and the powerful capitalist states, including our ‘own’. We are socially tolerant; in contrast to ‘hang ’em, flog ’em, build more jails’ people; we look to changing social conditions rather than to punishment to deal with crime – we are people who want to be Marxists and socialists, and consistent democrats. Confused some such people may be, racists they are not. We are not saying that left-wing antisemites are racists.

The third source of confusion and obfuscation is the objection: ‘You say I’m an antisemite because I denounce Israel. I’m not anti-Jewish when I denounce Israel, but anti-Zionist.’ And sometimes, at this point, you get the addition: ‘By the way, I am myself Jewish.’

The objector continues: Israel deserves criticism. Even the harshest criticism of Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and of Israel’s long-term treatment of the Palestinians, is pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. To equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism is just crude and hysterical Zionist apologetics.

(full article online)

What is Left antisemitism?

 

[P F Tinmore]

What is ‘left-wing antisemitism’? Where is it manifested? What is to be done about it? There are three difficulties, three confusions and obfuscations that stand in the way of rational discussion of what we mean by ‘left-wing antisemitism’.

The first is that left-wing antisemitism knows itself by another and more self-righteous name, ‘anti-Zionism’. Often, your left-wing antisemite sincerely believes that he or she is only an anti-Zionist, only a just if severe critic of Israel.

The second is that talk of left-wing antisemitism to a left-wing antisemite normally evokes indignant, sincere, and just denial of something else! ‘No, I’m not a racist! How dare you call me a racist?’

No, indeed, apart from an atypical crackpot here and there, left-wing antisemites are not racist. But there was antisemitism before there was late-19th and 20th century anti-Jewish racism. And there is still antisemitism of different sorts, long after disgust with Hitler-style racism, and overt racism of any sort, became part of the mental and emotional furniture of all half-way decent people, and perhaps especially of left-wing people.

Left-wingers are people who by instinct and conviction side with the oppressed, the outcasts, those deprived of human rights, with the working-class and the labour movement. We naturally side against the police, the military, and the powerful capitalist states, including our ‘own’. We are socially tolerant; in contrast to ‘hang ’em, flog ’em, build more jails’ people; we look to changing social conditions rather than to punishment to deal with crime – we are people who want to be Marxists and socialists, and consistent democrats. Confused some such people may be, racists they are not. We are not saying that left-wing antisemites are racists.

The third source of confusion and obfuscation is the objection: ‘You say I’m an antisemite because I denounce Israel. I’m not anti-Jewish when I denounce Israel, but anti-Zionist.’ And sometimes, at this point, you get the addition: ‘By the way, I am myself Jewish.’

The objector continues: Israel deserves criticism. Even the harshest criticism of Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and of Israel’s long-term treatment of the Palestinians, is pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. To equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism is just crude and hysterical Zionist apologetics.

(full article online)

What is Left antisemitism?

This guy adds a new dimension to the term "all wet."

Every decade or two when Israel's back is against the wall diplomatically, it drags out the old new anti Semite card. It has done this 4 or 5 times now.

Israel is not a person nor is it a religion. Israel is a political entity that can and does violate international law. Pointing out these violations and suggesting solutions has nothing to do with Jews and is not anti Semitism.

Israel has a huge campaign whose only purpose is to shut people up. That, in itself, is a violation of people's free expression.

 

[MJB12741]

What is ‘left-wing antisemitism’? Where is it manifested? What is to be done about it? There are three difficulties, three confusions and obfuscations that stand in the way of rational discussion of what we mean by ‘left-wing antisemitism’.

The first is that left-wing antisemitism knows itself by another and more self-righteous name, ‘anti-Zionism’. Often, your left-wing antisemite sincerely believes that he or she is only an anti-Zionist, only a just if severe critic of Israel.

The second is that talk of left-wing antisemitism to a left-wing antisemite normally evokes indignant, sincere, and just denial of something else! ‘No, I’m not a racist! How dare you call me a racist?’

No, indeed, apart from an atypical crackpot here and there, left-wing antisemites are not racist. But there was antisemitism before there was late-19th and 20th century anti-Jewish racism. And there is still antisemitism of different sorts, long after disgust with Hitler-style racism, and overt racism of any sort, became part of the mental and emotional furniture of all half-way decent people, and perhaps especially of left-wing people.

Left-wingers are people who by instinct and conviction side with the oppressed, the outcasts, those deprived of human rights, with the working-class and the labour movement. We naturally side against the police, the military, and the powerful capitalist states, including our ‘own’. We are socially tolerant; in contrast to ‘hang ’em, flog ’em, build more jails’ people; we look to changing social conditions rather than to punishment to deal with crime – we are people who want to be Marxists and socialists, and consistent democrats. Confused some such people may be, racists they are not. We are not saying that left-wing antisemites are racists.

The third source of confusion and obfuscation is the objection: ‘You say I’m an antisemite because I denounce Israel. I’m not anti-Jewish when I denounce Israel, but anti-Zionist.’ And sometimes, at this point, you get the addition: ‘By the way, I am myself Jewish.’

The objector continues: Israel deserves criticism. Even the harshest criticism of Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and of Israel’s long-term treatment of the Palestinians, is pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. To equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism is just crude and hysterical Zionist apologetics.

(full article online)

What is Left antisemitism?

This guy adds a new dimension to the term "all wet."

Every decade or two when Israel's back is against the wall diplomatically, it drags out the old new anti Semite card. It has done this 4 or 5 times now.

Israel is not a person nor is it a religion. Israel is a political entity that can and does violate international law. Pointing out these violations and suggesting solutions has nothing to do with Jews and is not anti Semitism.

Israel has a huge campaign whose only purpose is to shut people up. That, in itself, is a violation of people's free expression.

Oh now I get it. "Israel violates international law." But the acts of Hamas & Fatah are exemplary examples of adhering to international law that Israel & the rest of the world should learn from. Ya gotta love Tinmore. Heh Heh!

 

[rylah]

What is ‘left-wing antisemitism’? Where is it manifested? What is to be done about it? There are three difficulties, three confusions and obfuscations that stand in the way of rational discussion of what we mean by ‘left-wing antisemitism’.

The first is that left-wing antisemitism knows itself by another and more self-righteous name, ‘anti-Zionism’. Often, your left-wing antisemite sincerely believes that he or she is only an anti-Zionist, only a just if severe critic of Israel.

The second is that talk of left-wing antisemitism to a left-wing antisemite normally evokes indignant, sincere, and just denial of something else! ‘No, I’m not a racist! How dare you call me a racist?’

No, indeed, apart from an atypical crackpot here and there, left-wing antisemites are not racist. But there was antisemitism before there was late-19th and 20th century anti-Jewish racism. And there is still antisemitism of different sorts, long after disgust with Hitler-style racism, and overt racism of any sort, became part of the mental and emotional furniture of all half-way decent people, and perhaps especially of left-wing people.

Left-wingers are people who by instinct and conviction side with the oppressed, the outcasts, those deprived of human rights, with the working-class and the labour movement. We naturally side against the police, the military, and the powerful capitalist states, including our ‘own’. We are socially tolerant; in contrast to ‘hang ’em, flog ’em, build more jails’ people; we look to changing social conditions rather than to punishment to deal with crime – we are people who want to be Marxists and socialists, and consistent democrats. Confused some such people may be, racists they are not. We are not saying that left-wing antisemites are racists.

The third source of confusion and obfuscation is the objection: ‘You say I’m an antisemite because I denounce Israel. I’m not anti-Jewish when I denounce Israel, but anti-Zionist.’ And sometimes, at this point, you get the addition: ‘By the way, I am myself Jewish.’

The objector continues: Israel deserves criticism. Even the harshest criticism of Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and of Israel’s long-term treatment of the Palestinians, is pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. To equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism is just crude and hysterical Zionist apologetics.

(full article online)

What is Left antisemitism?

This guy adds a new dimension to the term "all wet."

Every decade or two when Israel's back is against the wall diplomatically, it drags out the old new anti Semite card. It has done this 4 or 5 times now.

Israel is not a person nor is it a religion. Israel is a political entity that can and does violate international law. Pointing out these violations and suggesting solutions has nothing to do with Jews and is not anti Semitism.

Israel has a huge campaign whose only purpose is to shut people up. That, in itself, is a violation of people's free expression.

It's pretty simple - when the Jewish nation is singled out for normal conduct - it's antisemitism
When You go into long diatribes inventing excuses why Jewish people do't deserve self determination - it's antisemitism.

When someone is so reluctant to condemn the racist bigotry, and looks for excuses in repeating the same antisemitic conspiracies that were used for the annihilation of Jews in Europe - what is it?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Abbas's Book 'The Road To Oslo': The Signing Of The Oslo Accords Was Delayed Until The PLO Was Named The Official Signatory For The Palestinian Side

 

[P F Tinmore]

It's pretty simple - when the Jewish nation is singled out for normal conduct - it's antisemitism

Israel singles itself out by being the only country occupying Palestine.

The occupation is the point. The religion is irrelevant. There is nothing anti Semitic about opposing occupation.

 

[Sixties Fan]

"Peace forum" in Egypt shows that there will never be peace ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[member]

And still some wonder why there is no peace between Israel & the Palestinians.

Report: Abbas says Israel-Hamas deal 'over my dead body'

". . .According to the report, the Fatah official told Channel 10 that Abbas was furious with the Egyptians for mediating the agreement, which the PA chief referred to as “treachery and defiance against the leadership.The official also claimed that Abbas acknowledged that the supposed reconciliation process between his party and Hamas was disintegrating. Abbas made his position on the ceasefire clear when he said:


“An agreement between Hamas and Israel, over my dead body!”


Among Abbas’ complaints with regard to any future agreement involving Hamas is the illegitimacy of the terror group’s rule over the Gaza Strip, which was achieved via a violent coup through which the PA was ousted from the coastal enclave.


Regardless of Abbas’ comments, senior Hamas officials claimed that the ceasefire agreement could be concluded in the near future, after a break in negotiations due to the Eid al-Adha holiday.




With Hamas officials issuing statements regarding the terror group’s intention to maintain its arsenal and militaristic capabilities, and their contention that prisoner exchanges would be addressed separately, the ultimate fate of the ceasefire remains to be seen..."


"...Hamas official . . .terror group's intention"


that's nice of the reporter --- trying to humanize "the terror group ." ...maybe he was at a loss for words......it should have been "Hamass terrorist" not Hamass official -- since when do terrorists garner official titles like "official?" a terrorist is a terrorist. can't understand why the press ALWAYS uses ridiculous titles like spokesperson, or official to identify a particular TERRORIST MEMBER speaking on behalf of their TERRORIST GROUP.

oh sorry...........did reporter mean this hamass official..?




or..was it this "official."






oh, he meant them.....


ok, got it .....what an "official" looks like.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Among Abbas’ complaints with regard to any future agreement involving Hamas is the illegitimacy of the terror group’s rule over the Gaza Strip, which was achieved via a violent coup through which the PA was ousted from the coastal enclave.

One of the biggest lies of our time.

 

[Sixties Fan]

While most people don’t know it, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not the first time the US was involved in fighting terror in the Middle East. In 1801, the United States launched its first war in the Middle East. Known today as the First Barbary War, it shares many things in common with Israel’s current conundrum concerning the Gaza Strip, and may offer some interesting insights into a possible strategy for dealing with the Palestinian Arabs.

In 1801, the North African Coast or the Barbary Coast, as it was known, was a hub of piracy. Nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, the coast which today covered the modern countries of Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, and Algeria was controlled by de facto independent governors known as Beys and Bashaws, whose economies were based on slave trade in non-Muslim men captured at sea.

Western Christan States continually fought unending wars with the Barbary States, never attaining a decisive victory. The Europeans despaired over what seemed to be an unending conflict and capitulated to the local rulers, agreeing to pay tribute to them to ward off the pirate attacks. This strategy only pushed the Barbary States to raise the price of “peace” almost yearly.

This shares much in common with the Gaza Strip, where every ceasefire after every war comes with a higher price than the previous one. In 2014 the ceasefire agreement called for extending Gaza’s fishing zone to six miles off the coast, today it will cost a seaport and airport, and tomorrow you can bet it will cost even more.

Under Thomas Jefferson, the Americans finally had enough. Believing in the concept of free trade on the high seas and no longer interested in paying ever growing tribute payments to the Barbary rulers, The United States sent a naval taskforce to blockade the city of Tripoli.


Sound familiar? Just like in Gaza, The Americans regularly bombarded the city and prevented the entrance of goods and people, and yet this only seemed to increase the local inhabitants' resolve to fight.

What did the Americans do to force the Tripoltians to surrender? They threatened to switch the leadership.

In 1804, an American army officer and diplomat to the Barbary States named William Eaton led the United States’ first foreign land invasion in its history. Landing in Egypt, Eaton, with a handful of US marines, built a mercenary army to support the claim of one Hamet Karamanli, the brother of Tripoli’s ruler Yusef Karamanli to the throne of Tripoli. The Americans led the force in a 500-mile march to Libya and captured the city of Derna from Yusef’s forces. Facing a legitimate challenge to his rule, suddenly Yusef was a lot more open to a possible peace treaty. Within a couple of weeks, the Tripoltain ruler agreed to a revolutionary new treaty, in which the United States became the first Christian nation to not have to pay yearly tribute to a Barbary State for peace.

(full article online)

Lessons from a forgotten war

 

[Sixties Fan]

Syria shoots down a Russian plane and Israel is blamed? But of course. (Poster) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Palestinians aren't the Founding Father or Ghandi or Martin Luther King. They have a autonomous state which is recognized by most countries in the world, a state that has failed - not because of Israel but because their leaders are not interested in building a state, or in securing rights, or in freedom. If they had wanted those things - things that Beinart believes axiomatically they want - they would have a state now. They would have accepted one of the many peace plans that Israel agreed to. They would have actually rescinded support for terror, which Arafat promised to do back in 1993. Beinart still believes Arafat's lies and he still pretends that the Intifada never happened.

Any how, exactly, is the "right of return" a prerequisite to Palestinian rights to live in a state of their own? How exactly are the 1967 lines a prerequisite to peace? How is their capital being in Jerusalem a prerequisite to peace and their acquisition of actual human rights - the types of human rights that are actually codified somewhere, not what they claim they are?

Do I have to point out to Beinart that if UNRWA would cut out all Jordanian citizens from its welfare, its budget would be reduced by 40% and there would be no crisis? And that the evil Trump and Kushner want to give Jordan the money directly to educate and provide healthcare to their own citizens, as they should? Or does he pretend that 2 million Jordanian citizens deserve special attention and for the world to fund them, forever - or until Israel is destroyed by "return" which is the very basis of UNRWA's reason for existence and what it teaches in its schools?


(full article online)

If Peter Beinart is so smart, why is it so easy to point out his lies? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians aren't the Founding Father or Ghandi or Martin Luther King. They have a autonomous state which is recognized by most countries in the world, a state that has failed - not because of Israel but because their leaders are not interested in building a state, or in securing rights, or in freedom. If they had wanted those things - things that Beinart believes axiomatically they want - they would have a state now. They would have accepted one of the many peace plans that Israel agreed to. They would have actually rescinded support for terror, which Arafat promised to do back in 1993. Beinart still believes Arafat's lies and he still pretends that the Intifada never happened.

Any how, exactly, is the "right of return" a prerequisite to Palestinian rights to live in a state of their own? How exactly are the 1967 lines a prerequisite to peace? How is their capital being in Jerusalem a prerequisite to peace and their acquisition of actual human rights - the types of human rights that are actually codified somewhere, not what they claim they are?

Do I have to point out to Beinart that if UNRWA would cut out all Jordanian citizens from its welfare, its budget would be reduced by 40% and there would be no crisis? And that the evil Trump and Kushner want to give Jordan the money directly to educate and provide healthcare to their own citizens, as they should? Or does he pretend that 2 million Jordanian citizens deserve special attention and for the world to fund them, forever - or until Israel is destroyed by "return" which is the very basis of UNRWA's reason for existence and what it teaches in its schools?


(full article online)

If Peter Beinart is so smart, why is it so easy to point out his lies? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Interesting that the Palestinians do not mention creating a state.

 

[Hollie]

The Palestinians aren't the Founding Father or Ghandi or Martin Luther King. They have a autonomous state which is recognized by most countries in the world, a state that has failed - not because of Israel but because their leaders are not interested in building a state, or in securing rights, or in freedom. If they had wanted those things - things that Beinart believes axiomatically they want - they would have a state now. They would have accepted one of the many peace plans that Israel agreed to. They would have actually rescinded support for terror, which Arafat promised to do back in 1993. Beinart still believes Arafat's lies and he still pretends that the Intifada never happened.

Any how, exactly, is the "right of return" a prerequisite to Palestinian rights to live in a state of their own? How exactly are the 1967 lines a prerequisite to peace? How is their capital being in Jerusalem a prerequisite to peace and their acquisition of actual human rights - the types of human rights that are actually codified somewhere, not what they claim they are?

Do I have to point out to Beinart that if UNRWA would cut out all Jordanian citizens from its welfare, its budget would be reduced by 40% and there would be no crisis? And that the evil Trump and Kushner want to give Jordan the money directly to educate and provide healthcare to their own citizens, as they should? Or does he pretend that 2 million Jordanian citizens deserve special attention and for the world to fund them, forever - or until Israel is destroyed by "return" which is the very basis of UNRWA's reason for existence and what it teaches in its schools?


(full article online)

If Peter Beinart is so smart, why is it so easy to point out his lies? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Interesting that the Palestinians co not mention creating a state.

Pretty typical that you're wrong.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians aren't the Founding Father or Ghandi or Martin Luther King. They have a autonomous state which is recognized by most countries in the world, a state that has failed - not because of Israel but because their leaders are not interested in building a state, or in securing rights, or in freedom. If they had wanted those things - things that Beinart believes axiomatically they want - they would have a state now. They would have accepted one of the many peace plans that Israel agreed to. They would have actually rescinded support for terror, which Arafat promised to do back in 1993. Beinart still believes Arafat's lies and he still pretends that the Intifada never happened.

Any how, exactly, is the "right of return" a prerequisite to Palestinian rights to live in a state of their own? How exactly are the 1967 lines a prerequisite to peace? How is their capital being in Jerusalem a prerequisite to peace and their acquisition of actual human rights - the types of human rights that are actually codified somewhere, not what they claim they are?

Do I have to point out to Beinart that if UNRWA would cut out all Jordanian citizens from its welfare, its budget would be reduced by 40% and there would be no crisis? And that the evil Trump and Kushner want to give Jordan the money directly to educate and provide healthcare to their own citizens, as they should? Or does he pretend that 2 million Jordanian citizens deserve special attention and for the world to fund them, forever - or until Israel is destroyed by "return" which is the very basis of UNRWA's reason for existence and what it teaches in its schools?


(full article online)

If Peter Beinart is so smart, why is it so easy to point out his lies? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Interesting that the Palestinians co not mention creating a state.

Pretty typical that you're wrong.

Link?

 

[Hollie]

The Palestinians aren't the Founding Father or Ghandi or Martin Luther King. They have a autonomous state which is recognized by most countries in the world, a state that has failed - not because of Israel but because their leaders are not interested in building a state, or in securing rights, or in freedom. If they had wanted those things - things that Beinart believes axiomatically they want - they would have a state now. They would have accepted one of the many peace plans that Israel agreed to. They would have actually rescinded support for terror, which Arafat promised to do back in 1993. Beinart still believes Arafat's lies and he still pretends that the Intifada never happened.

Any how, exactly, is the "right of return" a prerequisite to Palestinian rights to live in a state of their own? How exactly are the 1967 lines a prerequisite to peace? How is their capital being in Jerusalem a prerequisite to peace and their acquisition of actual human rights - the types of human rights that are actually codified somewhere, not what they claim they are?

Do I have to point out to Beinart that if UNRWA would cut out all Jordanian citizens from its welfare, its budget would be reduced by 40% and there would be no crisis? And that the evil Trump and Kushner want to give Jordan the money directly to educate and provide healthcare to their own citizens, as they should? Or does he pretend that 2 million Jordanian citizens deserve special attention and for the world to fund them, forever - or until Israel is destroyed by "return" which is the very basis of UNRWA's reason for existence and what it teaches in its schools?


(full article online)

If Peter Beinart is so smart, why is it so easy to point out his lies? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Interesting that the Palestinians co not mention creating a state.

Pretty typical that you're wrong.

Link?

Indeed.

CNN.com - Abbas presses statehood referendum - Jun 5, 2006