#To csteele and Danielle

csteele is simply lying his head off to you Danielle and all OLO readers when he wrote on 2 July:

"Your problem my dear is that I took virtually point for point the time line given by the Israeli Policy Forum, an institution you rightly labelled as laudable, yet you said I was embarrassing myself."

csteele is certainly embarrassing himself - and much more.

There is no such time line on Israel Policy Forum. It happens to be on
Israel Forum Watch - 3 March 2007 - which is an anti-Israel web site.

You can view the timeline at:

http://israelforumwatch.blogspot.com.au/2007/03/syrian-shelling-from-golan-heights-1949.html

Perhaps cteele might like to confess - now that he has been caught out.

Now my confession - I incorrectly confused the two sites in my post and wrongly attributed csteele's steal of the time line to "Israel Policy Forum" - instead of "Israel Forum Watch"

It was in that context that I described "Israeli Policy Forum" as "anti-Israel" - which it clearly is not.

csteele also said of Israeli Policy Forum:

"I went to them precisely because they had strong Jewish credentials. I used my own words as there were one or two pieces from their time line I was uncomfortable with but in checking everything else they seemed to be right on the money.

Calling them anti-Israel is reprehensible on your part. Just because they don't have your jaundiced and myopic world view doesn't mean you can insult them in that manner and you should think about apologising."

I apologise for calling "Israel Policy Forum" anti-Israel - because I intended it to apply to "Israel Forum Watch"

But what is csteele going to do about the litany of lies, deceit and misrepresentation he has been engaging in with you Danielle and the gratuitous and insulting remarks about you that have been made by him?

Might I quote his own words addressed to you Danielle - back to him:

"Actually the central issue right at this very moment is enjoying your response to getting caught with your pants down."

Let's hear your response csteele.

David,

I tried unsuccessfully to access the Six-Day War article as stated being on “Israel Policy Forum.”

Now I understand the reason why it did not appear. Thank you for clarifying this for me.

Given the site, steele's “regurgitation” being off, sounded very odd.

You had ably addressed the points. However, the reason for any conflict is central to it, the reason d'etre.

Lol! Ouch.

OLO can be a real cure for hubris.

Right, first things first my apologies to both Danielle and Mr Singer.

I am a big fan of the Huffington Post which is where I have enjoyed the writings of Peter Joseph, the president of the Israeli Policy Forum.

After Mr Singer's time-line post I typed in “syrian shelling golan heights tractor israel policy forum” (actually I tried “syrian shelling golan heights tractor antony loewenstein” first) and the second result after the Wikipedia entry for Golan Heights was Israel Forum Watch: Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967.

I did not do the proper due diligence and check the source was indeed the Israeli Policy Forum.

Was is even more unforgivable is, as mentioned earlier, there were a couple of things I was uneasy about that I chose not to include, and even that did not prompt me to double check I was on the right site.

I was too keen on setting up Mr Singer for a fall when he, as I predicted, lambasted my post and I would then reveal it was from the IPF.

Eagerness to score a point is often a vice.

I apologise.

To csteele

Your apology is not worth the paper it is written on.

You continue to lie - offering this excuse to justify your deceitful behaviour;

"After Mr Singer's time-line post I typed in “syrian shelling golan heights tractor israel policy forum” (actually I tried “syrian shelling golan heights tractor antony loewenstein” first) and the second result after the Wikipedia entry for Golan Heights was Israel Forum Watch: Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967.

I did not do the proper due diligence and check the source was indeed the Israeli Policy Forum."

Here is what you actually saw when you did your search:

"Golan Heights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_HeightsOn 19 June 1967, the Israeli cabinet voted to return the Golan to Syria in ..... it without compensation on the grounds that "it was contrary to Syrian policy to ... In April 1967, after Syria heavily shelled Israeli villages from the Golan Heights, Israel shot ..... The archaeological site includes excavations of the city's forum, the small ...

Israel Forum Watch: Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967
israelforumwatch.blogspot.com/.../syrian-shelling-from-golan-height...3 Mar 2007 – IsraelForum.com; 24-Hour Vilification, Apologetics and Hate from a Fanatically ... Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967 .... The UNSTO chief-of-staff commented on the Syrian policy towards Israel in the DMZ, ... In December, Israeli tractors began ploughing Arab-owned land in the DMZ. Syrian ..."

When you clicked on to the Israel Forum Watch site - you saw this:

"Israel Forum Watch
IsraelForum.com; 24-Hour Vilification, Apologetics and Hate from a Fanatically Pro-Israel Viewpoint

SATURDAY, MARCH 03, 2007
Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967
Discussions of the origins of the conflict are generally resolved with the standard IsraelForum retort – they started it."

The site was clearly identified as an anti-Israel site - which is why you used it.

Israel Policy Forum is not an anti-Israel site - as you have acknowledged.

You have lost all credibility.

Trying to lie your way out of your predicament has now become par for the course.

Your pants are still down - and it is not a pretty sight.

Dear Mr Singer,

Apologies should be delivered without ifs but or maybes. I endeavoured to do just that and in the spirit of that apology I did not refer to you calling me a liar.

Please do not mistake me refraining to mention it as any concession you would get away with it a second time. I'm sure you will agree I have been very nice to you up till this point, I have treated you with the respect you have deserved, some might argue more so.

The Israel Forum Watch is not an Israeli hate site. What it does is attempt to address the '24 hour Vilification, Apologetics and Hate' coming from fanatics such as yourself. This is entirely consistent with the Israel Policy Forum who have taken issue with your type in the past.

MJ Rosenberg then Director of Policy at the Israel Policy Forum wrote in the Huffington Post about the efforts of fanatics such as yourself to stymie the appointment of Chas Freeman by Obama.

“But here's the thing. Why is it that these people who are so concerned about China all of a sudden have never demonstrated concern about Palestinian human rights. I mean, there was just a terrible war in Gaza in which 1300 Palestinians were killed, a third of them children. Did any of the "get Freeman" crowd protest this violation of human rights? Just asking.”

“Of course, we all know that even the fiercest human rights activists in Washington tend to draw the line when it comes to Palestinians.”

“If I'm wrong, tell me. But I look at the list of those fiercely fighting Freeman and I find not one who spoke up about human rights in Gaza.”

Both the Israel Policy Forum and the Israel Forum Watch should be applauded for their efforts to counter the hate and propaganda you and like minded fanatics have been shovelling. While I am permitted I will continue to do my best here on OLO to you.

Expect me every time you attempt more to distribute more poison.

To csteele

Your latest post accusing me of being a "fanatic" is just another example of semantic skullduggery and has been used by you as a smokescreen to draw attention away from your own confession of having engaged in unconscionable conduct.

I reject your claim entirely.

Smearing me by innuendo by using an article written in 2009 by someone other than myself in which I am not even mentioned - is just another example of the kind of unconscionable conduct you are prepared to engage in.

You have the gall to state:

"I'm sure you will agree I have been very nice to you up till this point, I have treated you with the respect you have deserved, some might argue more so."

Really?

This is what you have said about me in your posts to this one article:

1. "Here is a bloke who runs a 'jordanispalestine' blog and has been so adverse to the term 'Palestinian' alone that it became an running joke."

2. "He hath no shame."

3. "David, wrong, another myopic response."

4. "Just because they don't have your jaundiced and myopic world view doesn't mean you can insult them in that manner and you should think about apologising."

5. " I hold their time line in far more esteem than your own I'm afraid"

Finally - why do you continue to refuse to answer these questions I have specifically addressed to you on two occasions following your first post:

"Do you know the term "Palestinians" does not include Jews,non-Arab Christians and any other secular non- Arab citizens?

If you do - how can you object to my use of the term "Palestinian Arabs" to clarify and identify who the "Palestinians" are?"

Answering these two questions will be a far more constructive use of your time and my time than doing everything you can to avoid answering them.

Those pants of yours are still flopping around your ankles. Hitch them up so you can get to your computer and post your answers.