Academy of anti-Semitism

National Post ^ | July 15 2002 | Robert Fulford

[Zionist Conspirator]

Hi ZC! Good to see you posting again.

Thanks, but I can never spend too much time here without my blood pressure going through the roof. I may have to take my leave for a while again. It seems the Nazis who ran like rats after "9/11" are back for more to claim the right as their private property.

Isn't it amazing how hatred of Israel can bring together anti-capitalists and anarcho-capitalists, chr*stians and freethinkers, Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians? It's like magic, isn't it?

Listen, whenever I'm not around and these b******s are posing as disinterested critics of Israel, find them on their own boards and post their garbage here to send the dishonest little `Amaleqite benei kelavot packing. Here they're not anti-Semites; among themselves Newsweek is "Jewsweek" and television is the "one-eyed Jew."

`Amaleq and 'Edom seem to have no qualms about dishonesty, that allegedly "Jewish" trait. Oh well. Like grandfather, like grandson.

[AppyPappy]

Israel won their land in several wars, much like the US. Are you giving up your house to the Indians?

[E Rocc]

I rely on the official position of the Conference of High Contracting Parties To the Fourth Geneva Convention held on July 15th, 1999:

No. You rely on The participating High Contracting Parties. That is not all the parties, and specifically excludes those who refused to participate in the conference and/or the position statement.

Precisely two nations did not participate: the US and Israel. I suspect Clinton was trolling for Gore-votes.

In the Mitchell Committee Report (which has been specifically endorsed as US policy by President Bush), the settlements are specifically stated to be a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. That means the only signatory nation that does not have that opinion is Israel.

-Eric

[jpl]

Answer the question in post #42.

[jpl]

My apologies monkeyshine, that was supposed to be addressed to faintpraise, not to you.

[malakhi]

Thanks, but I can never spend too much time here without my blood pressure going through the roof

Can't blame you; I absent myself from these threads from time to time for precisely the same reason. I did find the link to your website, and am going to check it out.

BTW, there is a real internet site known as Jewsweek!

[Zionist Conspirator]

BTW, there is a real internet site known as Jewsweek!

In the words of Johnny Carson, "I did not know that."

I may owe Larry an apology on that single matter. I was unaware such a site existed and assumed that it was just the "true conservative" (or anarcho-libertarian) way of taking a jab at `Am HaBechirah.

However, Liberty Lobby Larry is still a piece of crap here under false pretenses.

[monkeyshine]

So what? It does not change the fact that it is not an impartial trier of fact. It's a political body and their decisions they make are purely political.

I do not know what the Mitchell report says, but it is not an official policy statement of the United States government. The Unites States does not regard settlements as "illegal".

Moreover, please address the patent double standard as to why it is that Palestine must be Judenrein while Israel must allow Palestinians to return? Certainly you are aware that Jews were evicted from the west bank and Jerusalem after 1948. Prior to 1948 Jews could settle anywhere on that land, and prior to the creation of Transjordan, Jews could settle there, too. Why now is all this land forbidden to Jewish settlement, and why is that OK with the UN and others apologists for Islamism?

[E Rocc]

I do not know what the Mitchell report says, but it is not an official policy statement of the United States government. The Unites States does not regard settlements as "illegal".

Check the text of President Bush's "anti-Arafat" speech. He specifically endorsed the findings of the Mitchell Committee with respect to the settlements.

Moreover, please address the patent double standard as to why it is that Palestine must be Judenrein while Israel must allow Palestinians to return? Certainly you are aware that Jews were evicted from the west bank and Jerusalem after 1948. Prior to 1948 Jews could settle anywhere on that land, and prior to the creation of Transjordan, Jews could settle there, too. Why now is all this land forbidden to Jewish settlement, and why is that OK with the UN and others apologists for Islamism?

The Palestinian Authority has backed off on its demand for the "right of return". I would expect that in a final peace deal, Israel would demand, quite fairly, that Jews be treated in Palestine at least as well as Arabs are currently treated in Israel. That would not, of course, include special access roads, water perogatives, special status vis a vis the police, and the right to Arabrein communities of their own.

-Eric

[Radix]

I would not defend apartheid, but I would defend an accurate presentation of Historical facts. You might want to consider some research in to just who was in South Africa first