Israel and Apartheid

by Guest Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

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.

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:00 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:
Oh bless you Didge!

On that note of total stupidity I'll go and prepare the tea, laughing so much at the inane post!

More insults (rest my case again Ben), oh well, I am all for helping the Bedouin, as seen you want them left in destitution.

And again Gelico you are wrong as the Israeli government has tried to help them and they keep hindering any help.

The long-standing legal disputes between the state of Israel and the Muslim Arab Bedouin minority regarding landownership in the southern Negev Desert seems to be the usual story of David and Goliath in majority and minority relations in the Middle East. The relationship between Israel and its Bedouin community, however, is more universal and also more particular than most cases. It is universal because it touches on the difficult interactions between a modern welfare state and a patriarchal traditional society that insists on retaining its traditions, and particular because it has to do with very specific Bedouin nomadic tribal traditions of landownership.

The universal idea of liberal multiculturalism speaks to the equal value of traditions and the need to respect them, even when they are vastly different from those of the majority. What should a country do, however, when its laws clash with the traditions of some of its inhabitants? Where should lines be drawn?

Israel, like all countries, has laws regulating proof of ownership for dwellings. The Bedouin, nomadic tribes, have developed their own oral traditions of recording “landownership.” The lands in question were never officially registered or recognized as privately owned during the Ottoman Empire or the British mandate, which controlled the area before the establishment of Israel. They, therefore, were not recognized by Israeli law as privately owned lands after the creation of the state.

Israel has, for decades, tried to negotiate with the Bedouin to reconcile tribes' oral claims of landownership into a recognized modern framework. I, myself, can attest to the impossible complexity of the issue. As a member of the Knesset, serving on its Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, I was often approached by Bedouin constituents to appeal to the state on their behalf. Over the last three years, against the backdrop of the Goldberg report, on the Bedouin land issue, and as the Prawer-Begin bill moved forward in addressing the relocation of Bedouin settlements, I sat with Bedouin in their villages, pouring over maps and trying to understand how to help their cause. The more questions I asked, the more complicated I recognized the situation to be.

The tribal traditions of landownership are nearly impossible, if not truly impossible, to untangle. Even though a village might sit on a vast expanse of land, and within the village itself there might be large swaths of empty land, no villager would agree to allocate certain tracts for public purposes, such as schools or community centers, for the Bedouin communities. The reason is because in their oral tradition, which is not recorded by hand, these tracts are known to belong to another part of the tribe. If it were to be allocated for public purposes, a blood feud would erupt.

In my experience, the only thing the different Bedouin leaders could agree on is that the state of Israel should allocate public lands from its own inventory to them. Not only could they not agree on what areas to allocate, and where services were actually needed, Bedouin leaders were also unable to reach consensus on the building of roads, electricity grids, and other public infrastructure that required allocations of land. Thus, the question remains: How far should a modern state tolerate local traditions? At what point should the state say, enough is enough, and use its coercive powers to override traditions, in this case so Bedouin villages get schools, electricity, water and other services? How far should the state go in accepting undocumented claims of landownership based on local traditions, when no other citizen can claim private ownership on the same basis?

Another example of such a dilemma is the tradition of polygamy among the Bedouin tribes. As in other developed countries, polygamy is outlawed in Israel, but the Bedouin have found ways to circumvent the law and continue their polygamous tradition. One such maneuver is to get married and then divorced. A Bedouin man will marry a very young woman, and she will bear several children. He will then divorce her. Since there is no law forbidding ex-spouses from living next to (or with) each other or doing whatever they want with each other, the ex-wife will continue to live next to her former husband and bear even more children with him. Moreover, now that she's a single mother, she will receive welfare support for herself and the children. Her ex-husband will then marry a new woman and have children with her, only to divorce her later, and so on. All of this is perfectly legal and in addition to perpetuating polygamy, puts the Israeli state, health services and the liberal ideology of multiculturalism in the position of aiding and abetting it.

Before passing judgment, one must ask how far a liberal multicultural society should go in tolerating values of different communities and traditions when those values are intolerant and destructive to the communities. The question is not simple. Just as all married women deserve to live in an equal union, children are deserving of nearby schools, and mothers and fathers are deserving of nearby clinics and places of work. After decades of legal disputes, the state of Israel, through the Prawer-Begin Plan, is trying to finally put the Bedouin communities on a path of state-recognized landownership that would allow them to live properly and own assets that they can then use toward their own development. The plan is far from perfect, but it is far reaching. No modern state can fully and completely accept the local traditions of its minorities, especially when it is detrimental to the welfare of the community. At some point, a limit has to be set.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/contents/articles/originals/2013/12/prawer-bill-israeli-bedouin-multiculturalism-minority.html##ixzz2obI8YJM6

That was written by Dr. Einat Wilf

She was chair of the Education Committee and member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the 18th Knesset, has a BA in government and fine arts from Harvard University, an MBA from INSEAD in France and a PhD in political science from the University of Cambridge.
Previously, she served as a senior fellow with the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a foreign policy advisor to then-vice prime minister Shimon Peres and a strategic consultant with McKinsey & Company.

Oh well, so much for a independent analysis then.

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:03 pm

I'm perfectly sure that the people of Palestine know exactly what the coloured population of S.Africa felt, the S.African envoy to Israel agreed.

Yep, I'll keep you posted when Israel moves Zionist Israeli's onto the Bedouin land and provides them with all of the services they want.

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:03 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

More insults (rest my case again Ben), oh well, I am all for helping the Bedouin, as seen you want them left in destitution.

And again Gelico you are wrong as the Israeli government has tried to help them and they keep hindering any help.

The long-standing legal disputes between the state of Israel and the Muslim Arab Bedouin minority regarding landownership in the southern Negev Desert seems to be the usual story of David and Goliath in majority and minority relations in the Middle East. The relationship between Israel and its Bedouin community, however, is more universal and also more particular than most cases. It is universal because it touches on the difficult interactions between a modern welfare state and a patriarchal traditional society that insists on retaining its traditions, and particular because it has to do with very specific Bedouin nomadic tribal traditions of landownership.

The universal idea of liberal multiculturalism speaks to the equal value of traditions and the need to respect them, even when they are vastly different from those of the majority. What should a country do, however, when its laws clash with the traditions of some of its inhabitants? Where should lines be drawn?

Israel, like all countries, has laws regulating proof of ownership for dwellings. The Bedouin, nomadic tribes, have developed their own oral traditions of recording “landownership.” The lands in question were never officially registered or recognized as privately owned during the Ottoman Empire or the British mandate, which controlled the area before the establishment of Israel. They, therefore, were not recognized by Israeli law as privately owned lands after the creation of the state.

Israel has, for decades, tried to negotiate with the Bedouin to reconcile tribes' oral claims of landownership into a recognized modern framework. I, myself, can attest to the impossible complexity of the issue. As a member of the Knesset, serving on its Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, I was often approached by Bedouin constituents to appeal to the state on their behalf. Over the last three years, against the backdrop of the Goldberg report, on the Bedouin land issue, and as the Prawer-Begin bill moved forward in addressing the relocation of Bedouin settlements, I sat with Bedouin in their villages, pouring over maps and trying to understand how to help their cause. The more questions I asked, the more complicated I recognized the situation to be.

The tribal traditions of landownership are nearly impossible, if not truly impossible, to untangle. Even though a village might sit on a vast expanse of land, and within the village itself there might be large swaths of empty land, no villager would agree to allocate certain tracts for public purposes, such as schools or community centers, for the Bedouin communities. The reason is because in their oral tradition, which is not recorded by hand, these tracts are known to belong to another part of the tribe. If it were to be allocated for public purposes, a blood feud would erupt.

In my experience, the only thing the different Bedouin leaders could agree on is that the state of Israel should allocate public lands from its own inventory to them. Not only could they not agree on what areas to allocate, and where services were actually needed, Bedouin leaders were also unable to reach consensus on the building of roads, electricity grids, and other public infrastructure that required allocations of land. Thus, the question remains: How far should a modern state tolerate local traditions? At what point should the state say, enough is enough, and use its coercive powers to override traditions, in this case so Bedouin villages get schools, electricity, water and other services? How far should the state go in accepting undocumented claims of landownership based on local traditions, when no other citizen can claim private ownership on the same basis?

Another example of such a dilemma is the tradition of polygamy among the Bedouin tribes. As in other developed countries, polygamy is outlawed in Israel, but the Bedouin have found ways to circumvent the law and continue their polygamous tradition. One such maneuver is to get married and then divorced. A Bedouin man will marry a very young woman, and she will bear several children. He will then divorce her. Since there is no law forbidding ex-spouses from living next to (or with) each other or doing whatever they want with each other, the ex-wife will continue to live next to her former husband and bear even more children with him. Moreover, now that she's a single mother, she will receive welfare support for herself and the children. Her ex-husband will then marry a new woman and have children with her, only to divorce her later, and so on. All of this is perfectly legal and in addition to perpetuating polygamy, puts the Israeli state, health services and the liberal ideology of multiculturalism in the position of aiding and abetting it.

Before passing judgment, one must ask how far a liberal multicultural society should go in tolerating values of different communities and traditions when those values are intolerant and destructive to the communities. The question is not simple. Just as all married women deserve to live in an equal union, children are deserving of nearby schools, and mothers and fathers are deserving of nearby clinics and places of work. After decades of legal disputes, the state of Israel, through the Prawer-Begin Plan, is trying to finally put the Bedouin communities on a path of state-recognized landownership that would allow them to live properly and own assets that they can then use toward their own development. The plan is far from perfect, but it is far reaching. No modern state can fully and completely accept the local traditions of its minorities, especially when it is detrimental to the welfare of the community. At some point, a limit has to be set.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/contents/articles/originals/2013/12/prawer-bill-israeli-bedouin-multiculturalism-minority.html##ixzz2obI8YJM6

That was written by Dr. Einat Wilf

She was chair of the Education Committee and member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the 18th Knesset, has a BA in government and fine arts from Harvard University, an MBA from INSEAD in France and a PhD in political science from the University of Cambridge.
Previously, she served as a senior fellow with the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a foreign policy advisor to then-vice prime minister Shimon Peres and a strategic consultant with McKinsey & Company.

Oh well, so much for a independent analysis then.

Which means she has worked closer to this than any of us and what about my article from the Professor, I suppose you have an excuse for that also.

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:03 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

More insults (rest my case again Ben), oh well, I am all for helping the Bedouin, as seen you want them left in destitution.

And again Gelico you are wrong as the Israeli government has tried to help them and they keep hindering any help.

The long-standing legal disputes between the state of Israel and the Muslim Arab Bedouin minority regarding landownership in the southern Negev Desert seems to be the usual story of David and Goliath in majority and minority relations in the Middle East. The relationship between Israel and its Bedouin community, however, is more universal and also more particular than most cases. It is universal because it touches on the difficult interactions between a modern welfare state and a patriarchal traditional society that insists on retaining its traditions, and particular because it has to do with very specific Bedouin nomadic tribal traditions of landownership.

The universal idea of liberal multiculturalism speaks to the equal value of traditions and the need to respect them, even when they are vastly different from those of the majority. What should a country do, however, when its laws clash with the traditions of some of its inhabitants? Where should lines be drawn?

Israel, like all countries, has laws regulating proof of ownership for dwellings. The Bedouin, nomadic tribes, have developed their own oral traditions of recording “landownership.” The lands in question were never officially registered or recognized as privately owned during the Ottoman Empire or the British mandate, which controlled the area before the establishment of Israel. They, therefore, were not recognized by Israeli law as privately owned lands after the creation of the state.

Israel has, for decades, tried to negotiate with the Bedouin to reconcile tribes' oral claims of landownership into a recognized modern framework. I, myself, can attest to the impossible complexity of the issue. As a member of the Knesset, serving on its Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, I was often approached by Bedouin constituents to appeal to the state on their behalf. Over the last three years, against the backdrop of the Goldberg report, on the Bedouin land issue, and as the Prawer-Begin bill moved forward in addressing the relocation of Bedouin settlements, I sat with Bedouin in their villages, pouring over maps and trying to understand how to help their cause. The more questions I asked, the more complicated I recognized the situation to be.

The tribal traditions of landownership are nearly impossible, if not truly impossible, to untangle. Even though a village might sit on a vast expanse of land, and within the village itself there might be large swaths of empty land, no villager would agree to allocate certain tracts for public purposes, such as schools or community centers, for the Bedouin communities. The reason is because in their oral tradition, which is not recorded by hand, these tracts are known to belong to another part of the tribe. If it were to be allocated for public purposes, a blood feud would erupt.

In my experience, the only thing the different Bedouin leaders could agree on is that the state of Israel should allocate public lands from its own inventory to them. Not only could they not agree on what areas to allocate, and where services were actually needed, Bedouin leaders were also unable to reach consensus on the building of roads, electricity grids, and other public infrastructure that required allocations of land. Thus, the question remains: How far should a modern state tolerate local traditions? At what point should the state say, enough is enough, and use its coercive powers to override traditions, in this case so Bedouin villages get schools, electricity, water and other services? How far should the state go in accepting undocumented claims of landownership based on local traditions, when no other citizen can claim private ownership on the same basis?

Another example of such a dilemma is the tradition of polygamy among the Bedouin tribes. As in other developed countries, polygamy is outlawed in Israel, but the Bedouin have found ways to circumvent the law and continue their polygamous tradition. One such maneuver is to get married and then divorced. A Bedouin man will marry a very young woman, and she will bear several children. He will then divorce her. Since there is no law forbidding ex-spouses from living next to (or with) each other or doing whatever they want with each other, the ex-wife will continue to live next to her former husband and bear even more children with him. Moreover, now that she's a single mother, she will receive welfare support for herself and the children. Her ex-husband will then marry a new woman and have children with her, only to divorce her later, and so on. All of this is perfectly legal and in addition to perpetuating polygamy, puts the Israeli state, health services and the liberal ideology of multiculturalism in the position of aiding and abetting it.

Before passing judgment, one must ask how far a liberal multicultural society should go in tolerating values of different communities and traditions when those values are intolerant and destructive to the communities. The question is not simple. Just as all married women deserve to live in an equal union, children are deserving of nearby schools, and mothers and fathers are deserving of nearby clinics and places of work. After decades of legal disputes, the state of Israel, through the Prawer-Begin Plan, is trying to finally put the Bedouin communities on a path of state-recognized landownership that would allow them to live properly and own assets that they can then use toward their own development. The plan is far from perfect, but it is far reaching. No modern state can fully and completely accept the local traditions of its minorities, especially when it is detrimental to the welfare of the community. At some point, a limit has to be set.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/contents/articles/originals/2013/12/prawer-bill-israeli-bedouin-multiculturalism-minority.html##ixzz2obI8YJM6

That was written by Dr. Einat Wilf

She was chair of the Education Committee and member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the 18th Knesset, has a BA in government and fine arts from Harvard University, an MBA from INSEAD in France and a PhD in political science from the University of Cambridge.
Previously, she served as a senior fellow with the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a foreign policy advisor to then-vice prime minister Shimon Peres and a strategic consultant with McKinsey & Company.

Oh well, so much for a independent analysis then.

Oh terribly independent lol

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:04 pm

As independent as yours sassy;

://?roflmao?/:

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:04 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

No I didn't and you all you are doing here is trying to smear someone with whom you are having a debate with and you are doing it because you lost the argument, lost the plot and lost control. It's a common tactic used by people who's argument is exposed as wrong and boy do you fit the bill exactly.
Your meltdown came right on the back of a post made that the the relocation plans were indeed going ahead whilst you were telling anyone who would listen that they had been shelved. You blew the nut, blew a gasket and that's when the lying claims started. It's all there in black and white.
I hope the latest release of the Life and Times of Walter Mitty was in your stocking - you remind me so much of him

Rock on laddie.

://?roflmao?/:

Lost the debate, hardly, you get for pages left dumbstruck without an answer when I used the method of the way forward being as Mandela did with reconciliation, and as far as I am concerned you lied, just because Ben and other lefties agree with you does not mean you did not Irn.
So no meltdown either, as seen I have been debating my points of and as seen you are proving my point to Ben with all your goading comments as well, quite amusing since I like debating a wee bonny lad!

Smear campaign Didge. No other words to describe it I'm afraid. Your lie claim has been independently reviewed and found to be false.

Tough luck, it was a good try but it has backfired on you big time.

You're just entertainment now.

Laughing

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:06 pm

Sassy wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

That was written by Dr. Einat Wilf

She was chair of the Education Committee and member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the 18th Knesset, has a BA in government and fine arts from Harvard University, an MBA from INSEAD in France and a PhD in political science from the University of Cambridge.
Previously, she served as a senior fellow with the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a foreign policy advisor to then-vice prime minister Shimon Peres and a strategic consultant with McKinsey & Company.

Oh well, so much for a independent analysis then.

Oh terribly independent lol

It's real cracker right enough. Did you have a nice Christmas? By the looks of what's been going on here and on other threads someone obviously didn't. Shame really - it can be lonely at Christmas

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:06 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

://?roflmao?/:

Lost the debate, hardly, you get for pages left dumbstruck without an answer when I used the method of the way forward being as Mandela did with reconciliation, and as far as I am concerned you lied, just because Ben and other lefties agree with you does not mean you did not Irn.
So no meltdown either, as seen I have been debating my points of and as seen you are proving my point to Ben with all your goading comments as well, quite amusing since I like debating a wee bonny lad!

Smear campaign Didge. No other words to describe it I'm afraid. Your lie claim has been independently reviewed and found to be false.

Tough luck, it was a good try but it has backfired on you big time.

You're just entertainment now.

No smear you lied buddy, simple as that and claiming you gave some reasonable explanation, only after I stated you had not!

So nothing backfired dear chap and all you are posting is about me and proving my point to Ben, so please continue and off nothing to the debate.

So easy for me really after running you around circles on reconciliation

:D

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:08 pm

Ben has already told you he has looked at it and you are the liar for saying Irn lied. Pathetic

The only circles you are running round in are ever decreasing ones.

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:10 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Smear campaign Didge. No other words to describe it I'm afraid. Your lie claim has been independently reviewed and found to be false.

Tough luck, it was a good try but it has backfired on you big time.

You're just entertainment now.

No smear you lied buddy, simple as that and claiming you gave some reasonable explanation, only after I stated you had not!

So nothing backfired dear chap and all you are posting is about me and proving my point to Ben, so please continue and off nothing to the debate.

So easy for me really after running you around circles on reconciliation

:D

It's a smear without any foundation whatsover. It's a poor debating tactic Didge and so easy to expose.

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:10 pm

Sassy wrote:Ben has already told you he has looked at it and you are the liar for saying Irn lied. Pathetic

Ben maybe Admin and that is it it does not mean he is right does it sassy, people make mistakes and as seen here I proved to him you also continue to try and goad.
Irn lied, simple as that and I proved it so, even Ben had to back track on the point that Irn had said nothing until I said he had not said anything.

I love this.

Now you can say what you like, I stick by my position

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:11 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No smear you lied buddy, simple as that and claiming you gave some reasonable explanation, only after I stated you had not!

So nothing backfired dear chap and all you are posting is about me and proving my point to Ben, so please continue and off nothing to the debate.

So easy for me really after running you around circles on reconciliation

:D

It's a smear without any foundation whatsover. It's a poor debating tactic Didge and so easy to expose.

Being as you are as culpable with goading I really think that is just comical and you lied.

:D

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:11 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Oh terribly independent lol

It's real cracker right enough. Did you have a nice Christmas? By the looks of what's been going on here and on other threads someone obviously didn't. Shame really - it can be lonely at Christmas

LOL, yes it was lovely and very cheap. Grandaughter suggested we did away with the turkey etc and gave the money to the Tressell Trust, which we happily agreed to. Late rising, Eggs Benedict for late breakfast and help yourself nibbles for the rest of the day. Going to do it again, no fuss, no bother and it helped someone else.

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:13 pm

Sassy wrote:Ben has already told you he has looked at it and you are the liar for saying Irn lied. Pathetic

The only circles you are running round in are ever decreasing ones.

He's clutching at straws with the lie accusation which came after the relocation plan was shown to be proceeding. Lost the plot, lost control and you now see the result.

Smear the poster - plain as the nose on your face.

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:14 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

It's a smear without any foundation whatsover. It's a poor debating tactic Didge and so easy to expose.

Being as you are as culpable with goading I really think that is just comical and you lied.

:D

Christ, now I'm accused of goading. Another addition to the smear accusation.

It just gets worse lol

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:15 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Sassy wrote:Ben has already told you he has looked at it and you are the liar for saying Irn lied. Pathetic

The only circles you are running round in are ever decreasing ones.

He's clutching at straws with the lie accusation which came after the relocation plan was shown to be proceeding. Lost the plot, lost control and you now see the result.

Smear the poster - plain as the nose on your face.

:D Never laughed so much the plan has been stopped, but after reading more into this, the plan makes sense and they would be daft not to adopt it the Bedouin.
So on all fronts no losing of plots and it seems now Irn you have no wish to debate the points and just continue you to poorly claim you did not lie, facts are facts buddy!

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:15 pm

Yep, very sad.

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:16 pm

I'm quite happy for him to say I goad him, I do, on purpose, debating with him is like being sucked into a time warp where intelligence went out the window.

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:16 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:Ben has already told you he has looked at it and you are the liar for saying Irn lied. Pathetic

Ben maybe Admin and that is it it does not mean he is right does it sassy, people make mistakes and as seen here I proved to him you also continue to try and goad.
Irn lied, simple as that and I proved it so, even Ben had to back track on the point that Irn had said nothing until I said he had not said anything.

I love this.

Now you can say what you like, I stick by my position

More smears - it never stops lol

Got the name if the Iranian delegate on the committee yet?

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:16 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

You did lie Irn and all can see so being as there is no reasons behind why you think it was wrong for him not to go other than stating you think it is shameful. I suggest you take some lessons in decency Irn and this is nothing personal, just stop telling porkies. I think you just don't like being caught out, that is your issue, not mine, as don't make claims to saying something, when you have not. I think more than anything this thread had nothing to do with anything about Mandela but once again a platform to promote a vie to bash Israel, as seen little debate has been had on the actual issue!

Enjoy your Chritsmas, maybe Santa has gotten you Pinocchio.

:D

No I didn't and you all you are doing here is trying to smear someone with whom you are having a debate with and you are doing it because you lost the argument, lost the plot and lost control. It's a common tactic used by people who's argument is exposed as wrong and boy do you fit the bill exactly.
Your meltdown came right on the back of a post made that the the relocation plans were indeed going ahead whilst you were telling anyone who would listen that they had been shelved. You blew the nut, blew a gasket and that's when the lying claims started. It's all there in black and white.
I hope the latest release of the Life and Times of Walter Mitty was in your stocking - you remind me so much of him

Rock on laddie.

All goading

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:17 pm

Name of Iranian Delegate?

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:17 pm

Sassy wrote:I'm quite happy for him to say I goad him, I do, on purpose, debating with him is like being sucked into a time warp where intelligence went out the window.

Hilarious, there you go Ben, from the horses own mouth!

:D

I did tell you who was the real culprit!

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:18 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Ben maybe Admin and that is it it does not mean he is right does it sassy, people make mistakes and as seen here I proved to him you also continue to try and goad.
Irn lied, simple as that and I proved it so, even Ben had to back track on the point that Irn had said nothing until I said he had not said anything.

I love this.

Now you can say what you like, I stick by my position

More smears - it never stops lol

Got the name if the Iranian delegate on the committee yet?

Delegrate to what?

You have me wondering what on earth you are going on about now, after losing.??

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:21 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

More smears - it never stops lol

Got the name if the Iranian delegate on the committee yet?

Delegrate to what?

You have me wondering what on earth you are going on about now, after losing.??

1. You said Iran was on the UN delegation. (that really did make you look exceptionally stupid)

2. I have no trouble with goading you, I don't think you warrant anything else, Irn on the other hand tries to talk to you nicely and intelligently. I think thats a waste of time, but he was the one you complained to Ben about, not me.

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:22 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

No I didn't and you all you are doing here is trying to smear someone with whom you are having a debate with and you are doing it because you lost the argument, lost the plot and lost control. It's a common tactic used by people who's argument is exposed as wrong and boy do you fit the bill exactly.
Your meltdown came right on the back of a post made that the the relocation plans were indeed going ahead whilst you were telling anyone who would listen that they had been shelved. You blew the nut, blew a gasket and that's when the lying claims started. It's all there in black and white.
I hope the latest release of the Life and Times of Walter Mitty was in your stocking - you remind me so much of him

Rock on laddie.

All goading

That's a reaction to you false accusation that I lied but here you are now pleading that you are a victim.

It's hilarious and here you are going wah wah wah they're goading me.

Laughing

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:24 pm

Sassy wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Delegrate to what?

You have me wondering what on earth you are going on about now, after losing.??

1. You said Iran was on the UN delegation. (that really did make you look exceptionally stupid)

2. I have no trouble with goading you, I don't think you warrant anything else, Irn on the other hand tries to talk to you nicely and intelligently. I think thats a waste of time, but he was the one you complained to Ben about, not me.

I don;t mind you goading because that is all you can do sassy, which some forums have found to their cost.

So it was not Iran but Saudi, happy with my error:

China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia elected to U.N. Human Rights Council

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/us-un-rights-council-idUSBRE9AB19E20131112

I think that just made my point on the UN even more valid with those on the human rights council, quite appalling really,

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:25 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

All goading
That's a reaction to you false accusation that I lied but here you are now pleading that you are a victim.

It's hilarious and here you are going wah wah wah they're goading me.

lol am not a victim as your wit is useless Irn, just pointing out you were poorly trying to!

:D

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:25 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

More smears - it never stops lol

Got the name if the Iranian delegate on the committee yet?

Delegrate to what?

You have me wondering what on earth you are going on about now, after losing.??

You said Iran had a delegate on the committee. I'm asking who told you that? Simple really.

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:27 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Delegrate to what?

You have me wondering what on earth you are going on about now, after losing.??

You said Iran had a delegate on the committee. I'm asking who told you that? Simple really.

Yes I know I did, I was wrong, it was even worse, it was Saudi!

Making my point on the UN very valid, anything else, or iis this desperation all you have left, me being wrong on which nation that has a Theocracy?

lol!

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:27 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

He's clutching at straws with the lie accusation which came after the relocation plan was shown to be proceeding. Lost the plot, lost control and you now see the result.

Smear the poster - plain as the nose on your face.

:D Never laughed so much the plan has been stopped, but after reading more into this, the plan makes sense and they would be daft not to adopt it the Bedouin.
So on all fronts no losing of plots and it seems now Irn you have no wish to debate the points and just continue you to poorly claim you did not lie, facts are facts buddy!

OK, good for the goose and all that.

Didge, you are a total LIAR, because you know that isn't the truth, because at least 3 TIMES its been shown to you that it has been reinstated.

LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:28 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

1. You said Iran was on the UN delegation. (that really did make you look exceptionally stupid)

2. I have no trouble with goading you, I don't think you warrant anything else, Irn on the other hand tries to talk to you nicely and intelligently. I think thats a waste of time, but he was the one you complained to Ben about, not me.

I don;t mind you goading because that is all you can do sassy, which some forums have found to their cost.

So it was not Iran but Saudi, happy with my error:

China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia elected to U.N. Human Rights Council

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/us-un-rights-council-idUSBRE9AB19E20131112

I think that just made my point on the UN even more valid with those on the human rights council, quite appalling really,

Just another error in not carrying out proper research. One of many isn't it lol

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:29 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

No I didn't and you all you are doing here is trying to smear someone with whom you are having a debate with and you are doing it because you lost the argument, lost the plot and lost control. It's a common tactic used by people who's argument is exposed as wrong and boy do you fit the bill exactly.
Your meltdown came right on the back of a post made that the the relocation plans were indeed going ahead whilst you were telling anyone who would listen that they had been shelved. You blew the nut, blew a gasket and that's when the lying claims started. It's all there in black and white.
I hope the latest release of the Life and Times of Walter Mitty was in your stocking - you remind me so much of him

Rock on laddie.

All goading

Oh for goodness sake Didge, it's everyone else bit you is it?...you called Irn a liar when it was proven he was not, stop labelling everyone who does not agree with you as 'goaders' ...

It's no goad going around in circles. Laughing

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:30 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
That's a reaction to you false accusation that I lied but here you are now pleading that you are a victim.

It's hilarious and here you are going wah wah wah they're goading me.

lol am not a victim as your wit is useless Irn, just pointing out you were poorly trying to!

:D

Well stop crying like a wee bairn then.

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:31 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

I don;t mind you goading because that is all you can do sassy, which some forums have found to their cost.

So it was not Iran but Saudi, happy with my error:

China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia elected to U.N. Human Rights Council

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/us-un-rights-council-idUSBRE9AB19E20131112

I think that just made my point on the UN even more valid with those on the human rights council, quite appalling really,

Just another error in not carrying out proper research. One of many isn't it lol

The error makes little difference to my point I was making on the UN not being able to talke as seen from the countries included.

Seriously Irn, if this is all you have some small moral victory, enjoy it buddy as that is all you have had on here with this one error.

:D

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:32 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

I don;t mind you goading because that is all you can do sassy, which some forums have found to their cost.

So it was not Iran but Saudi, happy with my error:

China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia elected to U.N. Human Rights Council

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/us-un-rights-council-idUSBRE9AB19E20131112

I think that just made my point on the UN even more valid with those on the human rights council, quite appalling really,

Just another error in not carrying out proper research. One of many isn't it lol

..I said words to those effects to Didge earlier Irn!

I myself won't offer debate on a certain subject if I don't know much about it...Didge should take heed. Twisted Evil

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:32 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

lol am not a victim as your wit is useless Irn, just pointing out you were poorly trying to!

:D

Well stop crying like a wee bairn then.

://?roflmao?/:
://?roflmao?/:

Dear me, the wee lad has had a sense of humour failure

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:34 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Just another error in not carrying out proper research. One of many isn't it lol

The error makes little difference to my point I was making on the UN not being able to talke as seen from the countries included.

Seriously Irn, if this is all you have some small moral victory, enjoy it buddy as that is all you have had on here with this one error.

:D

..straight out of a film that one, I hope your not trying to sound too cool Didge!! Laughing

Back on topic, I'll let you on with it...

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:35 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Just another error in not carrying out proper research. One of many isn't it lol

The error makes little difference to my point I was making on the UN not being able to talke as seen from the countries included.

Seriously Irn, if this is all you have some small moral victory, enjoy it buddy as that is all you have had on here with this one error.

:D

No you have already admitted to an earlier error and boy did you not made an even bigger one in calling me a liar and it's come right back and bit you on the arse lol

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:37 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Just another error in not carrying out proper research. One of many isn't it lol

..I said words to those effects to Didge earlier Irn!

I myself won't offer debate on a certain subject if I don't know much about it...Didge should take heed.

I'm sure you did JD but he won't listen - he never does.

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:37 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

The error makes little difference to my point I was making on the UN not being able to talke as seen from the countries included.

Seriously Irn, if this is all you have some small moral victory, enjoy it buddy as that is all you have had on here with this one error.

:D

No you have already admitted to an earlier error and boy did you not made an even bigger one in calling me a liar and it's come right back and bit you on the arse lol

You are a liar, just caught Sassy and joy doing the same now too on syaing I wish people to starve, when I never have, is a trait of the left I guess.

Oh well seems like the left are a tad upset after losing the debate, think I shall just enjoy laughing at anything else posted.

lol!

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:41 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

No you have already admitted to an earlier error and boy did you not made an even bigger one in calling me a liar and it's come right back and bit you on the arse lol

You are a liar, just caught Sassy and joy doing the same now too on syaing I wish people to starve, when I never have, is a trait of the left I guess.

Oh well seems like the left are a tad upset after losing the debate, think I shall just enjoy laughing at anything else posted.

Now everyone that confronts you are just liars so that'll be that then

Priceless Laughing

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:42 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

You are a liar, just caught Sassy and joy doing the same now too on syaing I wish people to starve, when I never have, is a trait of the left I guess.

Oh well seems like the left are a tad upset after losing the debate, think I shall just enjoy laughing at anything else posted.

Now everyone that confronts you are just liars so that'll be that then

Priceless

...isn't it just ?!! Laughing

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:45 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Now everyone that confronts you are just liars so that'll be that then

Priceless

...isn't it just ?!!

And I think you will find if he reads the thread concerned, I've just put that one to bed as well.

by Irn Bru Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:48 pm

Sassy wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

...isn't it just ?!!

And I think you will find if he reads the thread concerned, I've just put that one to bed as well.

No further debate can take place here. It's over when someone just claims that the others contributing are just liars.

No point

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:50 pm

Agreed, let him rant on.

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:56 pm

Excuses now that a debate has to stop over this.

Biggest copout to date

:D

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:59 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Excuses now that a debate has to stop over this.

Biggest copout to date

:D

...oh right, good grief lad. Rolling Eyes

by Ben Reilly Thu Dec 26, 2013 9:28 pm

Typical right-wing debate tactic -- tie everybody up with checking the most miniscule, inconsequential, unimportant parts of the debate when you're trying to defend an undefendable position. It's like resorting to mocking poor grammar -- you have no real retort, so you have to district people into arguing about something else.

Then, when everybody's sick of your bullshit, declare yourself the winner :D

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 9:33 pm

Oh how right you are! Or is that left lol

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 9:38 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Typical right-wing debate tactic -- tie everybody up with checking the most miniscule, inconsequential, unimportant parts of the debate when you're trying to defend an undefendable position. It's like resorting to mocking poor grammar -- you have no real retort, so you have to district people into arguing about something else.

Then, when everybody's sick of your bullshit, declare yourself the winner :D

lol I went back to the debate until Irn jumped in crying and as seen I debated the points showing the claim of apartheid was nonsense, I only say the winner as I know it winds them up dear Ben!

So maybe you can show my posts where I am wrong am happy to debate them to show otherwise

by Sponsored content