#cteele

You state:

"Now I asked you to respond to the proposition that the Israeli government had engaged in the same moral equivalence you accused Abbas of by claiming a just response to the killings was to announce another 500 illegal homes were to be built on Palestinian land.

You had three options, one to answer it, two to ignore it and three to both ignore it and attack me. My money was on the third and you have not disappointed calling me one of 'Arab brainwashing'(s) 'greatest successes'."

My answer:

I thought I had answered your claim by making it abundantly clear there was no moral equivalence between
1.Abbas equating murder of a Jewish family as a just response to vandalising olive trees and
2.Israel's response to resume building in the West Bank following the Fogel family massacre.

Israel learned to its bitter anguish that its decision to reduce building activity in the West Bank did not save the Fogel family from being murdered. Their murder was due to pure Jew hatred. In those circumstances there was no reason to pursue that policy any further since it could not be seen to be contributing to a more peaceful and secure environment for Jews living in the West Bank.

In other words the settlements issue has always been a furphy. As I pointed out Jew hatred and murder of Jews was rife between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived in the West Bank.

Jew hatred is regrettably an unending hatred - incapable of ever being extinguished.

David,

You are a good lawyer and you do your job well.

It is true that even the worse criminial is entitled to a solicitor for legal defence. If you were Hitler's solicitor, he would probably be acquitted on the grounds of insanity or something, you would surely be able to find the right article, then return home in the evening with professional satisfaction.

I am not a lawyer and I suspect neither are most (if any) of the other OLO members. I just wonder why you are attempting to exercise your legal skills here among the lay rather than in a proper court of law, with competent prosecutors and judges.

I admit it can be quite fun to detect all these typos and ambiguities, but it is common knowledge that it never was, nor currently is, the INTENTION of the united-nations to allow the Jews to misbehave as they currently do in the west-bank and Eastern-Jerusalem.

It is also common knowledge that the hard-core Jewish settlers and their supporters are not an innocent party who just want to build homes for their families. It is well known that they would not stop short of bringing their "Messiah" who will enforce a fierce and bloody Talmudic-law based dictatorial regime over Israel and its surrounding areas.

I agree that the Arabs leaders are both stupid and care not for the suffering of their own people, but why are the Israeli leaders trying to compete with them over those "merits"?

"Israel learned to its bitter anguish that its decision to reduce building activity in the West Bank did not save the Fogel family from being murdered"

It did not save Japan from tsunami either, nor did it cause that tsunami. It is given that Japan is situated in the pacific ring-of-fire and prone to earthquakes, while Israel is situated in the middle-east and prone to Muslim madness, just as here in Australia we are prone to fires and floods. It is time for Israel to base its decisions on its own good rather than on mirroring what Arabs do or don't.

#Yuyutsu

You state:
"I am not a lawyer and I suspect neither are most (if any) of the other OLO members. I just wonder why you are attempting to exercise your legal skills here among the lay rather than in a proper court of law, with competent prosecutors and judges."

My answer:
Because you constantly keep saying the Jewish settlements are illegal. Whilst you keep mouthing this inanity I will continue to point out the true legal position.

You state:
"It is common knowledge that it never was, nor currently is, the INTENTION of the united-nations to allow the Jews to misbehave as they currently do in the west-bank and Eastern-Jerusalem."

My comment:
The 1947 UN Partition Plan did call for partition and for an Arab state to be formed - which included the West Bank and Gaza and part of what is now Israel( but not Jerusalem). But the Arabs rejected the UN Plan and went for the jugular - all of western Palestine - in 1948 - and were defeated - losing in the fight a lot of territory assigned to the Arabs in UN Plan.

Trying to recreate 1947 in the differently changed circumstances of 2011 has not - and cannot happen. Trying to recreate in 2011 what was rejected between 1948-1967 is also a non-starter.

The Roadmap is dead. A new way and a new plan are desperately needed if further suffering and bloodshed is to be avoided.

What has a brutal, deliberate and barbaric act of slaughtering five people by a vile murderer have to do with an act of God that wreaked such havoc and death on tens of thousands in Japan?

I can only shake my head in amazement at your clouded and flawed thought processes that could lead you to make such a stupid comment.

Of course Israel will base its decisions on what is best for it. It has a Government that has to make these judgment calls all the time. If the electorate don't agree they will get tossed out. Its called democracy

Dear David,

I have known a few bullies in my time and this is how they tend to argue. If their argument is exposed as flawed, without substance, or just plain hypocritical then they seek to surreptitiously change it.

You answered my post with;

“I thought I had answered your claim by making it abundantly clear there was no moral equivalence between
1.Abbas equating murder of a Jewish family as a just response to vandalising olive trees and
2.Israel's response to resume building in the West Bank following the Fogel family massacre.”

No you hadn't.

Besides the question wasn't about the moral equivalence between vandalising olive trees and the resumption of building in the West Bank, rather it was about land disputes and the murders.

I had asked why your statement;

“Abbas’s attempt to justify some kind of moral equivalence between land disputes and the murder of Jewish civilians must be categorically rejected by President Obama.”

Could not have just as easily read;
“The Israeli government's attempt to justify some kind of moral equivalence between land disputes and the murder of Jewish civilians must be categorically rejected by President Obama.” ?

I feel to call this a 'clever' lawyering trick would be overly generous, to me it was just a clumsy attempt to misdirect.

Dear forum reader,

It is interesting to take note of David's language, particularly in his posts. I have in the past pointed out his almost pathological avoidance of the word 'Palestinians' when referring to Palestinians. They are invariably 'Arabs'. Although a little more generous with the word 'Israeli' more often than not 'Jew' is used.

It is effective because even I find myself using the said nomenclature at times.

Here is what we got in the last 120 words he used to answer my post;
...pure Jew hatred...Jews living in the West Bank.. Jew hatred... murder of Jews...not one Jew lived in the West Bank...Jew hatred.

Yet surely this is about Israelis and Palestinians, so why the concerted effort to couch the conflict in these emotive terms? I would think it is because 'Jew hater' and 'Jew murderer' push immediate buttons in so many of us who remain overwhelmed by the tragedy of the Holocaust. It equates an occupied and oppressed people with the Nazis, designed to strip away any potential sympathy.

In my opinion this is a misuse that serves to dilute the legacy of what the Jewish people endured last century. It would be my hope David is a little more circumspect in the future and if he isn't that OLO find someone else to put the case for Israel.

C.Steele, to expect the Singer to be able to see the situation in a balanced way is an unreal expectation.

The Singer is a Jew, one who believes that he is one of the Children of God. As such, he believes he has special rights and that his people have special rights and that God gave them these rights which sets them apart from the rest of us mugs and allows them to do whatever they like which includes stealing land from others, occupying them, humiliating them, killing them, starving them, etc.

His Jewish propaganda on OLO is irksome and he uses all his legal skills to try to baffle people who don't have legal training. But thankfully they can spot a religious conman when they see one.

With Singer, I find the best thing to do is to ignore him.