Israel and Apartheid

Mira Bar Hillel

Friday 13 December 2013


The lame excuses made up by Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu for failing to go to Nelson Mandela’s memorial on Tuesday have raised eyebrows and wry smiles all over the world. Having insisted on a £150,000 refit of the plane he and his wife took for the five-hour flight to Lady Thatcher’s funeral in London earlier this year, the trip to Johannesburg would, he claimed, be “too costly”. This from a man who spends thousands a year – from the public purse - on pistachio ice-cream and scented candles.

However, it is quite possible that Mr Netanyahu may have been less than ecstatically welcomed in the new South Africa anyway, following revelations that the country’s apartheid regime was the Israeli defense industry’s biggest customer and sponsor.

For many years it was virtually a capital offence to use the word “apartheid” as an analogy to policies of the Israeli government in the Occupied Territories. In 2007 my friend Danny Rubenstein, the venerated Arab Affairs analyst of Haaretz newspaper, was invited by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain to address an event. On his way he stopped to address a UN committee in Brussels, and used the word “apartheid” to describe Israel’s attitude towards the Palestinians.

In response, he was unceremoniously dumped by the ZFGB and left high and dry in a B&B in Golders Green on a Friday night. He was eventually rescued by the New Fund for Israel and invited to a crowded gathering in a North London Reform synagogue.

But while Rubenstein was mainly concerned to warn the audience of the dangers of Israel following in the footsteps of the Afrikaaners, his interviewer – and most of the questioners - kept harping on what was constantly, if coyly, referred to as “the A-word”.

Yet it now emerges that for decades Israel supported the “A-word” regime and its military with advanced weapon systems at a time when Western sanctions meant no one else would. According to Haaretz editor Aluf Benn, the cooperation reached its peak in the late 1980s, the twilight of the apartheid regime.

In the summer of 1988, Benn says, Israel reportedly sold South Africa 60 Kfir combat planes in a hushed-up deal worth $1.7 billion. The planes were upgraded and renamed Atlas Cheetah and Israel’s involvement was played down because the US was party to the sanctions regime, according to Haaretz.

Israel joined the international sanctions in 1987 but said it would honour existing contracts so the deal went ahead anyway. A few weeks later, the Israelis launched the first Ofek reconnaissance satellite which Benn claims could only have been developed with South African funding. And only in 1991 was the US able to force the Israeli government to stop selling SA short and midrange missiles.

Maps which were only revealed in the past few days show how the Israelis plan to create bantustans for the Nomadic Bedouin in its southern Negev region. Tens of thousands of them would be forced into ghettoes to make way for new Jewish towns and military zones. A-word, anyone?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israel-and-apartheid-confused-you-will-be-9001321.html

The Israeli Government has got away with too much for too long. I got a communication from some Israeli peace protesters I am in touch with about Netanyahu's excuse for not going to Nelson Mandela's memorial. They had just heard about all this.

F****** bastard.

To be honest, he could have just said "i don't want to go" which to me is perfectly acceptable.

But he's polite, which is even better.

We've all made excuses not to go and be somewhere, meet somebody etc.

BigAndy9 wrote:To be honest, he could have just said "i don't want to go" which to me is perfectly acceptable.

But he's polite, which is even better.

We've all made excuses not to go and be somewhere, meet somebody etc.

yes politeness , I doubt very much that he would have resorted to foulmouthed abuse in his reasons for non-attendance.

that was a bit crude sexy, not what I expected from you.

Crude, but truthful and correct.   My Israeli friends agree, he is a total bastard and not to be trusted under any circumstances.

nicko wrote:that was a bit crude sexy, not what I expected from you.

Its the truth though Nicko. No point in putting it nicely.

Sassy wrote:For many years it was virtually a capital offence to use the word “apartheid” as an analogy to policies of the Israeli government in the Occupied Territories. In 2007 my friend Danny Rubenstein, the venerated Arab Affairs analyst of Haaretz newspaper, was invited by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain to address an event. On his way he stopped to address a UN committee in Brussels, and used the word “apartheid” to describe Israel’s attitude towards the Palestinians.

In response, he was unceremoniously dumped by the ZFGB and left high and dry in a B&B in Golders Green on a Friday night. He was eventually rescued by the New Fund for Israel and invited to a crowded gathering in a North London Reform synagogue.

He was abandoned.  Hilarious.  Didn't anyone ever tell him to get the return ticket in advance?

Cambridge wrote:

Sassy wrote:For many years it was virtually a capital offence to use the word “apartheid” as an analogy to policies of the Israeli government in the Occupied Territories. In 2007 my friend Danny Rubenstein, the venerated Arab Affairs analyst of Haaretz newspaper, was invited by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain to address an event. On his way he stopped to address a UN committee in Brussels, and used the word “apartheid” to describe Israel’s attitude towards the Palestinians.

In response, he was unceremoniously dumped by the ZFGB and left high and dry in a B&B in Golders Green on a Friday night. He was eventually rescued by the New Fund for Israel and invited to a crowded gathering in a North London Reform synagogue.

He was abandoned.  Hilarious.  Didn't anyone ever tell him to get the return ticket in advance?

Hello Quill,

Did anyone say that he didn't have a return ticket.   He was left high and dry for the night he was supposed to have given the talk, but then the New London Synagogue wanted to listen.

Same point, Sassy.  Who goes on a guest lecture stint without such things fully covered in advance?  Where did he put his luggage?  Where did he take a shower after his flight? Things like that. It just seems kinda strange.  

Anyway, that's the thought that came to me.

? In the Bed and Breakfast he was booked into. He wasn't going on a guest lecture stint, he'd been asked to do the one event, and booked into the B&B, would have traveled back afterwards. That's where he would have had a shower, that's where he would have left his luggage. You tend to have motels, we have B&Bs.

Lecture? Event? Same conditions apply.

They have B&Bs too, in the US. Once you are in, you are in. It's a prepaid room, regardless. How does one (a third-party no less) take a room away from someone once is is bought and paid for? The only way that could happen is if he didn't have his paid-for room in hand before he went. Live and learn.

Do read it again, they didn't take the room away, they just didn't want him to speak after all, so he spoke somewhere else. Live and learn, oh, and maybe read lol

It's very simple, sassy. He went and didn't have ticket and billet in hand. And if he went on his own, it's nothing more than someone failing to think ahead.

Live and learn.

It doesn't say that, please point out where you think it does?

Ask and you shall receive:

OP article wrote:In response, he was unceremoniously dumped by the ZFGB and left high and dry in a B&B in Golders Green on a Friday night. He was eventually rescued by the New Fund for Israel and invited to a crowded gathering in a North London Reform synagogue.

Apparently he didn't secure ticket and billet if he "was left high and dry."

More important is the question of whether freedom of speech should not trump these laws, favoured in Europe, to ban certain terms of political and hate speech. What do you think, Sassy?

Oh my word, talk about reading things that aren't there.

In response, he was unceremoniously dumped by the ZFGB and left high and dry in a B&B in Golders Green on a Friday night.

Left high and dry on a Friday night, means he had no-one to give his talk to on the Friday night and was sat in the B&B until he was asked to give his talk somewhere else.   Why on earth would you think it means he didn't have a ticket, and it specifically says 'in a B&B'.

What hate speech.   He said that Israel had been helping the apartheid regime in S.Africa.   It had.

Sassy wrote:Oh my word, talk about reading things that aren't there.

In response, he was unceremoniously dumped by the ZFGB and left high and dry in a B&B in Golders Green on a Friday night.

Left high and dry on a Friday night, means he had no-one to give his talk to on the Friday night and was sat in the B&B until he was asked to give his talk somewhere else.   Why on earth would you think it means he didn't have a ticket, and it specifically says 'in a B&B'.

So, it's a figure of speech you are claiming. He wasn't really left "high and dry" then. Then what's the fuss? He got a free trip.

Sassy wrote:What hate speech.   He said that Israel had been helping the apartheid regime in S.Africa.   It had.

Inflammato·ry language, then.

Cambridge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Oh my word, talk about reading things that aren't there.

In response, he was unceremoniously dumped by the ZFGB and left high and dry in a B&B in Golders Green on a Friday night.

Left high and dry on a Friday night, means he had no-one to give his talk to on the Friday night and was sat in the B&B until he was asked to give his talk somewhere else.   Why on earth would you think it means he didn't have a ticket, and it specifically says 'in a B&B'.

So, it's a figure of speech you are claiming.  He wasn't really left "high and dry" then.  Then what's the fuss?  He got a free trip.

Sassy wrote:What hate speech.   He said that Israel had been helping the apartheid regime in S.Africa.   It had.

Inflammato·ry language, then.  

How can telling the truth be illammatory language? They helped the Apartheid regime.

Now I know English and American is different, but Left high and dry on a friday night, means the same in both. He was left without something to do for that particular night. And you know thats what it means. So no evidence of no ticket, no evidence of no billet, in fact evidence for billet. Live and learn.

Sassy wrote:He was left without something to do for that particular night.   And you know thats what it means.

I always carry a good book for such occasions. Or, maybe he could ask the concierge for a good sushi restaurant. It's not the end of the world for plans to change.

Did anyone say it was? The point was Zionist Federation of Great Britain didn't want to know the nasty things that Israel had been getting up to, New Fund for Israel and North London Reform synagogue did, because they are not Zionist and have no illusions about what their government is capable of.

I suspect there was disagreement over those so-called "nasty things" and, yes, that is a bit intolerant, but so am I about listening to Republicans and Conservatives.

If I have the option of watching faux news or a rerun of Lost in Translation, you know where I'm going to be. I love Scarlett Johansson; I despise Darrell Issa.

No disagreement, they are checkable facts, Israel assisted the Apartheid regime.

Yet it now emerges that for decades Israel supported the “A-word” regime and its military with advanced weapon systems at a time when Western sanctions meant no one else would. According to Haaretz editor Aluf Benn, the cooperation reached its peak in the late 1980s, the twilight of the apartheid regime.

In the summer of 1988, Benn says, Israel reportedly sold South Africa 60 Kfir combat planes in a hushed-up deal worth $1.7 billion. The planes were upgraded and renamed Atlas Cheetah and Israel’s involvement was played down because the US was party to the sanctions regime, according to Haaretz.

All checkable, all true. So when other countries were refusing to sell them arms because of apartheid, Israeli was, and not just any old arms.

Now, I'd really like to know, as something who is against racial prejudice, how does that sit with you?

Come on Quill, racial prejudice is something you are really against, you must have a view on it, or is it too difficult a question?

Sassy wrote:Come on Quill, racial prejudice is something you are really against, you must have a view on it, or is it too difficult a question?

Well yeah, and I'm so glad it turned out the way it did. Don't forget, it was when the US entered the boycott when things began to happen with SA.

I really didn't mean to make a derogatory comment about your friend. I thought in your OP you were saying he was left on a street corner in the rain...really. My only thought was, 'How did he get himself in that position?'

As the story unfolds, I think I at least understand his unpopularity with said Jews. John Shaar, a former professor of mine, once wrote a worthy essay about how political rhetoric is not necessary, even when making a valid political argument. It has a unique shock novelty, but it also has substantial 'turn-off' value.

I submit that this is what your friend ran into on that lonely night.

Now Quill, you completely avoided the point.   I can understand why, because it must be quite uncomfortable for you.

Firstly, how can it be classed as 'rhetoric' when it is the truth that many Jewish people didn't know, and that the Jewish people of the New Fund for Israel and the New London Reform Synagogue were very shocked to hear about.

Secondly, you avoided the main point.   You obviously agreed with the sanctions on South Africa because of apartheid and, quite rightly, you don't like racial prejudice.   You are a supporter of Israel.  Now you know that Israel were breaking the sanctions that the USA helped to set up, and were actively supporting South Africa and the apartheid system.   So how do you do both, or don't you?   Do you decide to be a hypercrite about the fighting of apartheid and overlook the fact that Israel supported it?    Quite a dilemma isn't it?

Sassy wrote:Now Quill, you completely avoided the point.   I can understand why, because it must be quite uncomfortable for you.

Firstly, how can it be classed as 'rhetoric' when it is the truth that many Jewish people didn't know, and that the Jewish people of the New Fund for Israel and the New London Reform Synagogue were very shocked to hear about.

Simple, sweetie.  Words convey information (truth/false: up, down, inside, outside, hot, cold--all manner of description) and they convey speech acts (Ouch, yes, no, you asshole, fuck you, I will accept your offer, etc.).  As you can see from the examples, speech acts can convey more of the insult because they derive directly from the impulse of the speaker.  Obviously Sassy, "Israeli Apartheid" is a speech act.  It is not information, by which to judge truth or falsity.  It is an insult.  DUH!

Sassy wrote:Secondly, you avoided the main point.   You obviously agreed with the sanctions on South Africa because of apartheid and, quite rightly, you don't like racial prejudice.   You are a supporter of Israel.  Now you know that Israel were breaking the sanctions that the USA helped to set up, and were actively supporting South Africa and the apartheid system.   So how do you do both, or don't you?   Do you decide to be a hypercrite about the fighting of apartheid and overlook the fact that Israel supported it?    Quite a dilemma isn't it?

Didn't we agree at one time that the US supported the Shah?  Weren't you informed many times over that I support what the American Democrats do in the main, but I don't support Republicans in the least.  In fact, I reject most of the American RW.   But the overriding reality is, I don't make judgments categorically.  Rather, I point out what is correct, in my opinion, and what I believe is incorrect in any given situation.

Now, you have never bothered to learn what I like, or maybe dislike about Israel.  Once you learned that I like Jews and I like and support Israel, it was Katie bar the door for you.  You have never stopped to have an intelligent, non-accusatory discussion with me about this subject in over a year.

Your background--and those in your family--so colour your opinions that it foretells your position on anything having to do with discussions about Muslims, Jews and Christians.  We never differ or even discuss things we might agree on, because you only look for things you know we can disagree on.  Even if I explain that to you in the given moment, you are in such full-battle mode that you pick through the pieces in order to find only the things over which to argue.

You are intolerant of any kind of rational discussion.

(There now...for the hundredth time I have explained our relationship to you.  You have brought down a whole website with that intolerance of yours.  This one, praise allah, is not yours to bring down.  Ben--thank god--is an American and understands rational debate and tolerance for the other's viewpoint.)

That said...back to the subject: it is intolerant of you to create a false equivalency between truth and insulting language.  They have nothing to do with each other.  It is intolerant of you not to see that see that your friend's language contained the same intolerance.  And, it would be nice if you stopped occasionally to have a rational discussion.

Cheers and lov, hon.
xxx

You know, you really need to read things more closely. 'Israeli Apartheid' was never mentioned. What was said was that Israeli sold arms to an apartheid regime, which it did and has been proved.

My background Quill, which you thought was muslim and you were corrected, is White British mostly, with a greatgrandmother from Malta, and I have found recently, a great, great grandfather who was Jewish. Lets not go into the other website, because it has already been established you had a great deal to do with it honey bun.

Rational discussion, I would love one, but when you get a difficult question, you come up with stuff like the above to avoid it. So let's try again shall we.

How do you rationalise your support for Israel, when the fact has been established that they were breaking US sanctions and selling arms to S.Africa to uphold apartheid and racism.

Then, would you like to point out the insulting language, and when you can't find it, grovel a bit lol

Good afternoon Sassy.

Now Sass my girl you ain't gonna believe this but I support your stance regarding Israel.(See wonders will never cease).I'll not engage in discussion regarding your opening post as I don't know anything about it but generally I am against Israeli policy regarding their treatment of the Palestinians

Infact in my opinion just about all of the trouble in the Middle East is the fault of the Yankee government,the UK government & the Israelis in general.

And as much as the muslims get on my nerves I believe that they have been harassed for too many years by the west & the jews which in turn has caused the muslims to kick off,which is understandable.

And for those of you who know me & know my bad feelings towards muslims,don't panic as I haven't turned & I still think they are nutters stuck in the 7th century.But we in the west with the jews have wound them up for no good reason.

Actually Shady, have noticed that in your posts before. I have also noticed that on more than one occasion you have had views that were rather more left wing than right.

I agree, there are muslim countries that are stuck in a previous century, there are muslim countries that aren't, but the West and what we and Israel have done has really not helped. I say Israel rather than jews, because I know many jewish people who violently disagree with what their governments have done in their name, the same as so many of us disagree with what our governments have done abroad.

Sassy wrote:Actually Shady, have noticed that in your posts before.   I have also noticed that on more than one occasion you have had views that were rather more left wing than right.

I agree, there are muslim countries that are stuck in a previous century, there are muslim countries that aren't, but the West and what we and Israel have done has really not helped.   I say Israel rather than jews, because I know many jewish people who violently disagree with what their governments have done in their name, the same as so many of us disagree with what our governments have done abroad.  

Sassy,Sassy,Sassy.......you've cut me in half.You've burnt me at the stake.......You've drained my life's blood..Oh Sassy.

ME!! A left winger? What are you doing to me girl?

It's funny isn't it? Because here you are saying that I have some left wing views while nut job Didge is accusing me of being an extremist because I believe that we in the UK are at war with islam.Now whether you agree with my 'war'view,it's a bit extreme labeling me an extremist isn't it? Well I reckon it is....but there you go.When I think about it,there's an 85 year old woman up the road who also thinks that the UK is at war with islam & she makes cakes for the village hall.And well,,,she don't really look like an extremist,all 5 foot nothing of her & she wears a wooly hat with a bobble.

As opposed to being left or right wing I feel that my views are fair ones.That's all.

I don't think we are at war with Islam Shady, we are at war with Islamic extremists, the same as we are at war with Irish extremists. Maybe you should chose you words more carefully.

Anyway, as Quill hasn't got the bottle to reply to my point, I guess this will probably end here. No balls.

I've seen you give some quite LW views, but then again, you don't think the police can do any wrong LOL

Sassy wrote:I don't think we are at war with Islam Shady, we are at war with Islamic extremists, the same as we are at war with Irish extremists.   Maybe you should chose you words more carefully.

Anyway, as Quill hasn't got the bottle to reply to my point, I guess this will probably end here.   No balls.

I've seen you give some quite LW views, but then again, you don't think the police can do any wrong LOL

Well Sassy with regards to the police actually I do think think they do wrong from time to time.But the thing with the police is they are damned if they do & damned if they don't.

And as a fully fledged pirate,I can sympathize with the old Bill because sometimes in my job I'm damned if I do & damned if I don't.

Also believe it or not,I really do like kittens.

Yea, with or without sauce lol

Sassy wrote:Yea, with or without sauce lol

  

Quill says he hasn't replied to this because of my 'incivility'   

I'll leave it to others to read and form their own opinions as its pretty obvious why.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:Now Quill, you completely avoided the point.   I can understand why, because it must be quite uncomfortable for you.

Firstly, how can it be classed as 'rhetoric' when it is the truth that many Jewish people didn't know, and that the Jewish people of the New Fund for Israel and the New London Reform Synagogue were very shocked to hear about.

Simple, sweetie.  Words convey information (truth/false: up, down, inside, outside, hot, cold--all manner of description) and they convey speech acts (Ouch, yes, no, you asshole, fuck you, I will accept your offer, etc.).  As you can see from the examples, speech acts can convey more of the insult because they derive directly from the impulse of the speaker.  Obviously Sassy, "Israeli Apartheid" is a speech act.  It is not information, by which to judge truth or falsity.  It is an insult.  DUH!

Sassy wrote:Secondly, you avoided the main point.   You obviously agreed with the sanctions on South Africa because of apartheid and, quite rightly, you don't like racial prejudice.   You are a supporter of Israel.  Now you know that Israel were breaking the sanctions that the USA helped to set up, and were actively supporting South Africa and the apartheid system.   So how do you do both, or don't you?   Do you decide to be a hypercrite about the fighting of apartheid and overlook the fact that Israel supported it?    Quite a dilemma isn't it?

Didn't we agree at one time that the US supported the Shah?  Weren't you informed many times over that I support what the American Democrats do in the main, but I don't support Republicans in the least.  In fact, I reject most of the American RW.   But the overriding reality is, I don't make judgments categorically.  Rather, I point out what is correct, in my opinion, and what I believe is incorrect in any given situation.

Now, you have never bothered to learn what I like, or maybe dislike about Israel.  Once you learned that I like Jews and I like and support Israel, it was Katie bar the door for you.  You have never stopped to have an intelligent, non-accusatory discussion with me about this subject in over a year.

Your background--and those in your family--so colour your opinions that it foretells your position on anything having to do with discussions about Muslims, Jews and Christians.  We never differ or even discuss things we might agree on, because you only look for things you know we can disagree on.  Even if I explain that to you in the given moment, you are in such full-battle mode that you pick through the pieces in order to find only the things over which to argue.

You are intolerant of any kind of rational discussion.

(There now...for the hundredth time I have explained our relationship to you.  You have brought down a whole website with that intolerance of yours.  This one, praise allah, is not yours to bring down.  Ben--thank god--is an American and understands rational debate and tolerance for the other's viewpoint.)

That said...back to the subject: it is intolerant of you to create a false equivalency between truth and insulting language.  They have nothing to do with each other.  It is intolerant of you not to see that see that your friend's language contained the same intolerance.  And, it would be nice if you stopped occasionally to have a rational discussion.

Cheers and lov, hon.
xxx

Quill, if you find it difficult to conduct a debate with a woman who has strong opinions that you find challenging and difficult to deal with to the extent that you have to launch into a tirade of nonsense that is nothing more than riddles then just man up and admit it.

As far as I can see you have been asked to make clear your own personal position in relation to some aspects of this debate and it looks like you replies are sadly lacking in that respect.

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Simple, sweetie.  Words convey information (truth/false: up, down, inside, outside, hot, cold--all manner of description) and they convey speech acts (Ouch, yes, no, you asshole, fuck you, I will accept your offer, etc.).  As you can see from the examples, speech acts can convey more of the insult because they derive directly from the impulse of the speaker.  Obviously Sassy, "Israeli Apartheid" is a speech act.  It is not information, by which to judge truth or falsity.  It is an insult.  DUH!



Didn't we agree at one time that the US supported the Shah?  Weren't you informed many times over that I support what the American Democrats do in the main, but I don't support Republicans in the least.  In fact, I reject most of the American RW.   But the overriding reality is, I don't make judgments categorically.  Rather, I point out what is correct, in my opinion, and what I believe is incorrect in any given situation.

Now, you have never bothered to learn what I like, or maybe dislike about Israel.  Once you learned that I like Jews and I like and support Israel, it was Katie bar the door for you.  You have never stopped to have an intelligent, non-accusatory discussion with me about this subject in over a year.

Your background--and those in your family--so colour your opinions that it foretells your position on anything having to do with discussions about Muslims, Jews and Christians.  We never differ or even discuss things we might agree on, because you only look for things you know we can disagree on.  Even if I explain that to you in the given moment, you are in such full-battle mode that you pick through the pieces in order to find only the things over which to argue.

You are intolerant of any kind of rational discussion.

(There now...for the hundredth time I have explained our relationship to you.  You have brought down a whole website with that intolerance of yours.  This one, praise allah, is not yours to bring down.  Ben--thank god--is an American and understands rational debate and tolerance for the other's viewpoint.)

That said...back to the subject: it is intolerant of you to create a false equivalency between truth and insulting language.  They have nothing to do with each other.  It is intolerant of you not to see that see that your friend's language contained the same intolerance.  And, it would be nice if you stopped occasionally to have a rational discussion.

Cheers and lov, hon.
xxx

Quill, if you find it difficult to conduct a debate with a woman who has strong opinions that you find challenging and difficult to deal with to the extent that you have to launch into a tirade of nonsense that is nothing more than riddles then just man up and admit it.

As far as I can see you have been asked to make clear your own personal position in relation to some aspects of this debate and it looks like you replies are sadly lacking in that respect.

OMG...here we go with the same old gang.  Usually they play the Muslim card, but now they want to play the sexist card.  Doesn't it get a little boring for you guys to play to cliches?  Why don't you people, for once, try rational thought?  Try ignoring Psychology Today, and think for yourselves for once.

I keep winning these debates because I address the point, and do not try to appear to be erudite and over-intellectual. Get real. Come down to earth. "Opinions that you find challenging," indeed. What other back porch junk psychology can you offer?

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Quill, if you find it difficult to conduct a debate with a woman who has strong opinions that you find challenging and difficult to deal with to the extent that you have to launch into a tirade of nonsense that is nothing more than riddles then just man up and admit it.

As far as I can see you have been asked to make clear your own personal position in relation to some aspects of this debate and it looks like you replies are sadly lacking in that respect.

OMG...here we go with the same old gang.  Usually they play the Muslim card, but now they want to play the sexist card.  Doesn't it get a little boring for you guys to play to cliches?  Why don't you people, for once, try rational thought?  Try ignoring Psychology Today, and think for yourselves for once.

I keep winning these debates because I address the point, and do not try to appear to be erudite and  over-intellectual.  Get real.  Come down to earth.  "Opinions that you find challenging," indeed.  What other back porch junk psychology can you offer?

I thought you wanted a rational discussion?   With your last two posts all your are offering is extremely bad diversionary tactics, and by avoiding the question yet and attacking the poster instead, the only place you have won any debate Quill, is in your head.   So shall we try again, like grown ups?

We are NOT discussing the Palestine question, but Israels support of S.African apartheid.

You are a very vocal opponent of racism, which is to be admired.   One of its worst for forms of it was the S.African apartheid system.   Because of this, an embargo was placed on selling arms to it, because it was known that those arms would be used against the coloured population.   So far, so good.

You are also a very great supporter of Israel.

Israel, it has now been established was breaking that embargo, and selling arms to the S. African apartheid regime:

Yet it now emerges that for decades Israel supported the “A-word” regime and its military with advanced weapon systems at a time when Western sanctions meant no one else would. According to Haaretz editor Aluf Benn, the cooperation reached its peak in the late 1980s, the twilight of the apartheid regime.

In the summer of 1988, Benn says, Israel reportedly sold South Africa 60 Kfir combat planes in a hushed-up deal worth $1.7 billion. The planes were upgraded and renamed Atlas Cheetah and Israel’s involvement was played down because the US was party to the sanctions regime, according to Haaretz.

Israel joined the international sanctions in 1987 but said it would honour existing contracts so the deal went ahead anyway. A few weeks later, the Israelis launched the first Ofek reconnaissance satellite which Benn claims could only have been developed with South African funding. And only in 1991 was the US able to force the Israeli government to stop selling SA short and midrange missiles.


So, how do you rationalise the two, when it has now been established that a country you very vocally support, was selling arms, breaking an embargo, to support apartheid?

And this time, do you think you could possibly stick to the point.

Shady wrote:Good afternoon Sassy.

Now Sass my girl you ain't gonna believe this but I support your stance regarding Israel.(See wonders will never cease).I'll not engage in discussion regarding your opening post as I don't know anything about it but generally I am against Israeli policy regarding their treatment of the Palestinians

Infact in my opinion just about all of the trouble in the Middle East is the fault of the Yankee government,the UK government & the Israelis in general.

And as much as the muslims get on my nerves I believe that they have been harassed for too many years by the west & the jews which in turn has caused the muslims to kick off,which is understandable.

And for those of you who know me & know my bad feelings towards muslims,don't panic as I haven't turned & I still think they are nutters stuck in the 7th century.But we in the west with the jews have wound them up for no good reason.

Are you serious?

Funnily enough, I think he is.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Shady wrote:Good afternoon Sassy.

Now Sass my girl you ain't gonna believe this but I support your stance regarding Israel.(See wonders will never cease).I'll not engage in discussion regarding your opening post as I don't know anything about it but generally I am against Israeli policy regarding their treatment of the Palestinians

Infact in my opinion just about all of the trouble in the Middle East is the fault of the Yankee government,the UK government & the Israelis in general.

And as much as the muslims get on my nerves I believe that they have been harassed for too many years by the west & the jews which in turn has caused the muslims to kick off,which is understandable.

And for those of you who know me & know my bad feelings towards muslims,don't panic as I haven't turned & I still think they are nutters stuck in the 7th century.But we in the west with the jews have wound them up for no good reason.

Are you serious?

Good afternoon S&M.

Yes I am absolutely serious & I have said words along these lines many times in the past on the several sites that you & me have frequented.......The problem was that you never took in what I was saying & you threw s--t at me.So I threw it back.

Additionally S&M,it has not escaped my notice that you & me have similar views on many topics & I tried to get that fact across to you.But you didn't want to listen.

One of the best & funniest things I heard said in recent years was when that nutjob president Ahmedinejad (spelt incorrectly I know)said that the jews should be moved to Alaska.I can't remember the full text of the rant but I imagine that you get the gist of it.

Shady wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:


Are you serious?

Good afternoon S&M.

Yes I am absolutely serious & I have said words along these lines many times in the past on the several sites that you & me have frequented.......The problem was that you never took in what I was saying & you threw s--t at me.So I threw it back.

Additionally S&M,it has not escaped my notice that you & me have similar views on many topics & I tried to get that fact across to you.But you didn't want to listen.

One of the best & funniest things I heard said in recent years was when that nutjob president Ahmedinejad (spelt incorrectly I know)said that the jews should be moved to Alaska.I can't remember the full text of the rant but I imagine that you get the gist of it.

Good Evening Shady

Now now Shady thats not really true is it. I was always civil with you but you were nasty back anyway i dont hold grudges and forgive rather easily.  :D

Sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

OMG...here we go with the same old gang.  Usually they play the Muslim card, but now they want to play the sexist card.  Doesn't it get a little boring for you guys to play to cliches?  Why don't you people, for once, try rational thought?  Try ignoring Psychology Today, and think for yourselves for once.

I keep winning these debates because I address the point, and do not try to appear to be erudite and  over-intellectual.  Get real.  Come down to earth.  "Opinions that you find challenging," indeed.  What other back porch junk psychology can you offer?

I thought you wanted a rational discussion?   With your last two posts all your are offering is extremely bad diversionary tactics, and by avoiding the question yet and attacking the poster instead, the only place you have won any debate Quill, is in your head.   So shall we try again, like grown ups?

Once again, I find myself saying: Sassy, this is not about me. Stick to the subject.

Sassy wrote:We are NOT discussing the Palestine question, but Israels support of S.African apartheid.

You are a very vocal opponent of racism, which is to be admired.   One of its worst for forms of it was the S.African apartheid system.   Because of this, an embargo was placed on selling arms to it, because it was known that those arms would be used against the coloured population.   So far, so good.

You are also a very great supporter of Israel.

Israel, it has now been established was breaking that embargo, and selling arms to the S. African apartheid regime:

Yet it now emerges that for decades Israel supported the “A-word” regime and its military with advanced weapon systems at a time when Western sanctions meant no one else would. According to Haaretz editor Aluf Benn, the cooperation reached its peak in the late 1980s, the twilight of the apartheid regime.

In the summer of 1988, Benn says, Israel reportedly sold South Africa 60 Kfir combat planes in a hushed-up deal worth $1.7 billion. The planes were upgraded and renamed Atlas Cheetah and Israel’s involvement was played down because the US was party to the sanctions regime, according to Haaretz.

Israel joined the international sanctions in 1987 but said it would honour existing contracts so the deal went ahead anyway. A few weeks later, the Israelis launched the first Ofek reconnaissance satellite which Benn claims could only have been developed with South African funding. And only in 1991 was the US able to force the Israeli government to stop selling SA short and midrange missiles.


So, how do you rationalise the two, when it has now been established that a country you very vocally support, was selling arms, breaking an embargo, to support apartheid?

And this time, do you think you could possibly stick to the point.

I don't know what that last comment means. However, I do recognize duplicity. I have told you I have many diverse opinions about Israel, however we can never discuss them because you are always in 'attack mode' about the subject. You misread me from the beginning, and then come back with that misunderstood opinion of me in the end. Am I to be responsible for your lack of attention to details? I don't think so.

I am going to give a gold star to Shady.
Actually on Topic, well thought out, Brilliant.

anyway i dont hold grudges and forgive rather easily.  

I hope so Sexy

@quill
you are posting rubbish, please be on topic and actaully read peoples post rather than trying to twist them.  You have not posted anything but attacks in this thread and not given your opinion once. I dont give a FUCK if you have said it on other forums. You haven't said them here so how are we to know? All I see is Someone being a Dickhead.

veya_victaous wrote:I am going to give a gold star to Shady.
Actually on Topic, well thought out, Brilliant.

anyway i dont hold grudges and forgive rather easily.  

I hope so Sexy

@quill
you are posting rubbish, please be on topic and actaully read peoples post rather than trying to twist them.  You have not posted anything but attacks in this thread and not given your opinion once. I dont give a FUCK if you have said it on other forums. You haven't said them here so how are we to know? All I see is Someone being a Dickhead.

And I don't give a fuck about you. All we see is your obsession about your penises. You are a worthless troublemaker. Get the fuck outta of here,

And if you don't like it terrorist, we can always go elsewhere.

sexy,is that your daughters picture on your posts?

Original Quill wrote:And if you don't like it terrorist, we can always go elsewhere.

LOLZ   ://?roflmao?/:  
please do  :/pwn://: 

seriously u think we want u here? you cant even add intelligent input to any debate.

I don't mind Shady and Andy at least they have a brain (even if I do disagree with several of their points) and they can follow a fucking thread rather than just trying to attack a poster they have had arguments with in the past on board that is CLOSED because some small dicked wannbe macho closet faggots needed to get their jollies out expressing their rage on the internet, like big men because their lives are actually so fucking sad and they are forced to suck it all day by people smarter more educated and better paid them themselves.

Actually it is more like half a dozen one and six the other Veya.
Thus many are trying to stir the pot which is silly and should just debate the points in hand.

The reality here is I am all for both Israel and Palestine to be recognised as nations and that both should find peace. This will always be difficult due to Zionism and Hamas who both keep the conflict going. You can spend days going over who has done wrongs but in both Israel and Palestine there are those wishing for the conflict to continue. There is no point going down that road, if anything is to be learnt from what Mandela when he was freed is to apply the same with this problem, move on from the past and work with those who were once your enemy to bring forth an era of peace