#Yuyutsu

Thank you for clarifying you were unaware of Leibowitz's 1993 interview in the Independent.

Whoever posted that tape twenty years after Leibowitz's death probably did so intending to denigrate Israel and hoodwink people like yourself.

Would love to give that person the opportunity to answer the same question.

#armchair critic

You state:
"You do exactly the same thing you're accusing Yuyutsu of.
You neglect to insert facts when it doesn't suit your narrative.
How could one forget to mention "Judea Declares War On Germany"?"

More distortions and lies by you:

1. I didn't accuse #Yuyutsu of anything. I asked him whether his failure to refer to the Leibowitz interview was due to ignorance or deliberate concealment.

He has responded by acknowledging he was not aware of the interview.

2. In the same vein I asked you the following question:
"Pity you have immediately blotted your copybook with this throwaway unsubstantiated statement:
"Regarding BDS, this is a legitimate non-violent protest movement and its hypocritical for them to scream anti-Semitic hate speech when Jews themselves used and provoked Hitler with prior to WWII."

Can you direct me to any links to support this statement"

You responded in part by providing the link to headlines reading "Judea declares war on Germany"

I responded:
"The links you provided contain nothing to support your statement"

I did however ask you the following further question:

"By the way - I note the newspaper headlines refer to "Judea" in the link you provided.

Wasn't that the name of a substantial part of the West Bank for 3000 years before the Arabs changed it to "West Bank" in 1950? It has now become "Occupied Palestinian Territory" where Jews cannot live and the European Union requires products made by Jews to be specially labelled."

That is another question you left unanswered.

Goebbels would be really proud of you. Twisting something you raised into something I had forgotten to mention is quite extraordinary.

It would be nice to think you would have the integrity and decency to apologise and retract your latest comments - but you have neither.

#Toni Lavis

Thanks for dumping that bucket of pure hatred and invective on me.

Why should I respond to you - especially in relation to your general and unsubstantiated allegations?

Take this doozy:
"your objectionable practice of uncritically accepting any and all policies proposed by the Israeli government no matter how shite they are"

Strange that I have been advocating for Israel and Jordan to negotiate Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza for the last 40 years to "end the occupation".

Is "ending the occupation" the Arabs' real aim or is "ending Israel's existence as the Jewish National Home of the Jewish people" the real aim?

If the former - this conflict could have been resolved in 1922, 1937, 1947, between 1948 and 1967, in 2000/1 and 2008.

No doubt the European Union, Facebook, Twitter YouTube and Microsoft had hate-filled people like you in mind with this press release:

"European Commission - Press release
European Commission and IT Companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech

Brussels, 31 May 2016

The Commission together with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft (“the IT companies”) today unveil a code of conduct that includes a series of commitments to combat the spread of illegal hate speech online in Europe.

The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. They share, together with other platforms and social media companies, a collective responsibility and pride in promoting and facilitating freedom of expression throughout the online world. However, the Commission and the IT Companies recognise that the spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms."

Read more at:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm

This is great news following the Security Council decision discussed in my article.

Dear David,

<<Whoever posted that tape twenty years after Leibowitz's death probably did so intending to denigrate Israel and hoodwink people like yourself.>>

This is a possibility, among others, which I wouldn't discard.

<<Would love to give that person the opportunity to answer the same question.>>

The poster could well be a miscreant, but [unless you believe that Leibowitz's interview was faked] it makes no difference as to Leibowitz's claims that there are Jewish Nazis in existence.

Unless your claim is that "Yes, there were indeed Jewish Nazis in 1982 (when Leibowitz first made this claim), but by 1993 and ever since they all disappeared and none were left".

Can you tell us where they are now? Have they all just turned into Arab-loving peacenicks perchance? Are you saying that today there are no longer any Jews who would, if they could get away with it, torture and exterminate all Arabs, men women and children?

In my view, some of them not only still exist, but are even members of the present Israeli government. No I'm not referring to Mr. Netanyahu himself as there is a fine line between genuine concern for Israel's security and hatred for its own sake, but to some of his colleagues on the far right.

We regret the anti-Semitic education in Palestinian schools, the derogatory songs and ugly pictures of Jews, but we often forget that some sectors of the Israeli society teach Jewish children similar things about Arabs: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ynet.co.il%2Farticles%2F0%2C7340%2CL-1877130%2C00.html

//Thanks for dumping that bucket of pure hatred and invective on me.//

Well don't be a c$#t then Dave.

//Strange that I have been advocating for Israel and Jordan to negotiate Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza for the last 40 years to "end the occupation".//

That's nice Dave.

When did I say anything 'Arabs' or 'the occupation'? Do you have any more red herrings you'd like to (unsuccessfully) attempt to use to distract from the discussion at hand? Might as well get them out of your system now.

I think you'll find I'm not so easily distracted as Armchair Critic. This may come as a shock to you Dave, but I don't care about some stupid squabble half a world away over who owns which bit of land. I don't have a dog in that fight.

This is not about what Israelis do on their patch of turf/other people's patch of turf (circle as appropriate).

This is about your support for an internet censorship regime which is downright dangerous. As far as you're concerned, data security and privacy are of absolutely no consequence as long as it achieves the goal of censoring the internet to your satisfaction. The ends do not always justify the means, Dave.

But rather than address any of the hard questions about why your right not to be offended trumps my right to privacy and security you simply trivialised them as being 'mischievous' and ignored them, and sought to weasel your way out of a discussion THAT YOU STARTED by turning it into yet another discussion about anti-Semitism where you are on firmer ground because no reasonable person supports anti-Semitism.

Try to forget about your persecution complex for the five minutes it will take to explain to me why I - and everybody else - should have to sacrifice our security and privacy to censor online hate speech the way you want it censored, when there already exist perfectly adequate methods to deal with online hate speech. Please note that just because these existing measures don't facilitate you getting cheap thrills by suing people, it does not follow that they are inadequate.

//No doubt the European Union, Facebook, Twitter YouTube and Microsoft had hate-filled people like you in mind with this press release://

That seems unlikely, Dave. The EU and companies as big as the ones listed can presumably hire lawyers sufficiently competent to know that calling a c$%t a c&%t does not constitute illegal hate speech. It's not even defamatory speech, just 'vulgar abuse'. Even if you could get your way people will still be able to call a c#$t a c^&t online and nothing could be done about it. The best way to avoid being called a c#$t is, as it always has been, to not be a c%&t.

#Toni Lavis

Tut,tut,tut Toni

Toni - version 1
"Why don't you just crawl back under your rock and cease and desist from your objectionable practice of uncritically accepting any and all policies proposed by the Israeli government no matter how shite they are, and from attempting to defend"

Toni version 2
"When did I say anything 'Arabs' or 'the occupation'? Do you have any more red herrings you'd like to (unsuccessfully) attempt to use to distract from the discussion at hand? Might as well get them out of your system now."

Toni version 3
"This may come as a shock to you Dave, but I don't care about some stupid squabble half a world away over who owns which bit of land. I don't have a dog in that fight.

This is not about what Israelis do on their patch of turf/other people's patch of turf (circle as appropriate)."

Will the real Toni on matters Israel stand up?

On freedom of speech - I have my opinion - you have yours.

I thought we had reached a reasonable compromise when you agreed you could live with some (but not all) web sites containing the following statement:
"We unfortunately receive abusive, offensive and racist messages on a routine basis. What can we say? There are a lot of jerks out there. We'll reject any offensive posts we receive but in this crazy new world of the internet, requiring everyone who posts on our website to entrust us with sensitive personal details presents such a manifest risk to their privacy and security that we cannot, in good conscience, condone it. So if you're the sort of person who is likely to be deeply upset by reading the posts of people who like to maintain their privacy we suggest you go elsewhere since not being allowed to play in our sandbox can hardly be called a hardship."

You subsequently backtracked claiming:
"Any perceived agreement is in your imagination." - notwithstanding you had clearly stated:
"I don't mind if some websites do it, I can just avoid those websites."

Tut,tut,tut again Toni