Sunday, September 02, 2007

A Blanket Boycott of Israel??

This article by an Israeli Trotskyist is dated, but still relevant.



By Yossi Schwartz in Israel
Thursday, 31 May 2007

Following the war in Lebanon where the Israeli army failed in spite of its barbaric actions, and the new more recent barbaric attacks on Gaza which are aimed at bringing down the Palestinian elected government, many honest people around the word who are aware of what is going on in the Occupied Territories, want to support the struggle against Israeli oppression.

This is the background to the growing movement to "boycott Israel". This Wednesday Britain's University and College Union (UCU) voted to promote a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, protesting Israel's policy on the Palestinians. The vote was preceded by a heated discussion in which Israel was repeatedly referred to as an apartheid state, engaging in crimes against humanity in the occupied territories. The motion was approved by a 158 to 99 vote, and called for freezing European funding for Israeli academic institutions, while condemning "Israeli academia's cooperation with the occupation.

The movement to boycott Israel is not limited to Britain. Last year the largest union in Canada the Ontario division of Canada's largest union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) voted to support the international campaign that is boycotting Israel over its treatment of Palestinians.

Now we are informed that South Africa's largest trade union, the Congress of South African Trade Unions also seeks to boycott Israel. The president of the Congress of COSATU, Willy Madisha, announced the launching of the campaign last week in Johannesburg, calling on the government to boycott all Israeli goods and cease all diplomatic relations with Israel after its attacks on Palestinian leaders.

"The best way to have Israel comply with United Nations resolutions is to pressure it by a diplomatic boycott such as the one imposed on apartheid South Africa," Madisha said. COSATU belongs to a recently-formed coalition of organizations operating under the banner "End The Occupation". This runs contrary to South Africa's official stance, and to President Thabo Mbeki's decision to strengthen trade ties with Israel. Mbeki, who heads the ANC ruling party, even appeared as a guest at Israel's Independence Day celebrations in Durban last month.

The Campaign organizers intend to picket outside selected stores selling Israeli goods.

The supporters of the Israeli ruling class are very upset of course and are try to accuse the growing International movement in support of the boycott of being Anti-Semitic. Israel's ambassador to Britain, Zvi Hefetz, responded to the UCU's resolution by saying that the resolution was offensive to Britain's Jewish community. "Its slanted phrasing reeks of ignorance," he added. Adrian Fronda, a senior mathematics lecturer who had joined the union solely to vote against the boycott, was less diplomatic. "I came here to oppose the prevalent anti-Semitism we see all around us here," he said. Israeli Education Minister Yuli Tamir condemned the British union's decision, saying she would address the British education minister on the matter, and the chairman of the Committee of University Heads, Professor Moshe Kaveh, called on British scientists to continue conducting joint projects with Israeli scientists.

The supporters of the Israeli ruling class are the last ones who can complain about boycott. Last year the Israeli liberal journalist Gidon Levi, in his article titled "With a little help from the outside", pointing out to their cynicism replied to them:

"The laugh of fate: The state waging a broad international campaign for a boycott is simultaneously waging a parallel campaign, no less determined, against a boycott. A boycott that seriously harms the lives of millions of people is legitimate in its eyes because it is directed against those defined as its enemies, while a boycott that is liable to hurt its academic ivory tower is illegitimate in its eyes only because it is aimed against itself. This is a moral double standard. Why is the boycott campaign against the Palestinian Authority, including blocking essential economic aid and boycotting leaders elected in democratic and legal elections, a permissible measure in Israel's eyes and the boycott of its universities is forbidden?

"Israel cannot claim the boycott weapon is illegitimate. It makes extensive use of this weapon itself, and its victims are suffering under severe conditions of deprivation, from Rafah to Jenin. In the past, Israel called upon the world to boycott Yasser Arafat, and now it is calling for a boycott of the Hamas government - and via this government, all of the Palestinians in the territories. And Israel does not regard this as an ethical problem. Tens of thousands have not received their salaries for four months due to the boycott, but when there is a call to boycott Israeli universities, the boycott suddenly becomes an illegitimate weapon." (Gidon Levi, Haaretz, June 4, 2005)

The supporters of the oppression of the Palestinian are trying to hide the role of the Israeli academic institutions in helping the Israeli war machine and propaganda. Most academics and intellectuals in Israel have never condemned the Nakba - the massive dispossession and ethnic cleansing campaign carried out by Zionists around 1948, transforming close to 800,000 Palestinians into refugees. Nor are they supporting the right of return of the refugees. Nor have they condemned Israeli boycotting of other countries like Cuba for instance. Israeli universities - all government controlled - have not only been complicit in justification of various aspects of the occupation, but have also directly participated in acts of robbery of the occupied Palestinians.

The Hebrew University has been engaged in expropriating lands and expelling their Palestinian owners in occupied East Jerusalem. Tel Aviv University (TAU) refuses to date to acknowledge the fact that it sits on top of an ethnically cleansed Palestinian village. Some of TAU's departments are also organically linked to the military and intelligence establishment.

Bar Ilan University not only operates a campus on the illegal colony of Ariel near Nablus, but has also awarded Ariel Sharon an honorary doctorate for his role in the March 2002 reoccupation of Palestinian cities, which witnessed atrocities in Jenin and Nablus as well as the destruction and indiscriminate killings in all the major Palestinian cities and refugee camps in the West bank. Ben Gurion University has supported in various ways the discrimination of the Bedouins in the Negev.

Haifa University not only employs one of the most racist academics in Israel, Professor Arnon Sofer, who relentlessly and influentially provides academic justification for ethnically cleansing Palestinians - including citizens of Israel but the University has itself sponsored a wide campaign attempting to cover up a Zionist massacre in the Palestinian village of Tantura, near Haifa, during the Nakba, and went through motions to fire, discredit or silence Professor Ilan Pappe and one of his students for daring to reveal the facts about this massacre.

The political question however is not about whether boycotting the Israeli ruling class and its academics servants or particular departments of the universities is justified on moral grounds - this is obvious. This however, is not the same as boycotting all the academic institutions that will hurt all the students and teachers.

The real question we should be discussing is what is the programme and perspective that will end the occupation and the repression. What will end the misery of the masses?

Those who advocate the boycott of Israel as their strategy refer to the boycott of the Apartheid regime in South Africa as their model. They claim that it was the international boycott of South Africa that brought down the Apartheid regime. That is totally false! What brought down the Apartheid regime was the mobilisation of the black masses of South Africa. In particular the organisation of the working class into massive trade unions, eventually leading to the formation of COSATU, combined with a wave of strike action and mass mobilisation is what forced the hated, white capitalist class to look for a way out of the impasse they were facing. That is what forced them to bring to an end the hated Apartheid laws and the regime that went with them. If this mass movement had not developed the boycott would not have brought an end to the Apartheid regime.

However, the fall of the Apartheid regime was not the end of the story! Anyone who is familiar with the history of South Africa knows that the revolutionary struggle of the black masses was eventually betrayed and instead of overthrowing the capitalist system that gave birth to the Apartheid regime, as was possible in 1994, the outcome of this heroic struggle of the workers and poor ended with a counter-revolution in democratic clothing. The reformist leadership of the ANC and the SACP saved the capitalist ruling class and their bourgeois state.

The gulf of inequality between the poor and the wealthy is as great or greater today than it was under white minority rule, although a slight redistribution has taken place, but only to the benefit of a thin layer of blacks brought into government and onto corporate boards. For the broad masses, conditions have grown increasingly desperate, with nearly one third of the population unemployed and a quarter infected with the HIV virus. While these conditions are justified as the "legacy of apartheid," they are also the legacy of a power transfer that kept capitalism intact, an outcome that was realized in part through the boycott campaign.

The boycott movement that many people around the world supported, but that was led by liberals and reformists with a wrong perspective, in the end played into the hands of the ruling class of South Africa. The same wrong perspective is being offered today.

The reason this movement is growing today 40 years after the 1967 war has nothing to do with the "newly" discovered evils of the Israeli occupation on the part of the likes of Jimmy Carter and imperialist politicians like him. It has to do with the failure of Israel as the major local power as a tool of imperialist control of the Middle East.

Following the UCU's resolution the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) issued the following statement. (PACBI, May 30, 2007) In spite of its length we reproduce it word for word.

"The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) salutes the historic decision by the University and College Union (UCU) Congress today to support motions that endorse the logic of academic boycott against Israel, in response to the complicity of the Israeli academy in perpetuating Israel's illegal military occupation and apartheid system.

"Academic boycott has been advocated in the past as an effective tool in resisting injustice. In the 1920s, Mahatma Gandhi called for boycotting British-run academic institutions, to increase Indian self-reliance and also to protest the role of those institutions in maintaining British colonial domination over India. In the 1950s, the African National Congress (ANC) called for a comprehensive boycott of the entire South African academy, as a means to further isolate the apartheid regime. To their credit, British academics were among the very first to adopt the latter boycott. Moral consistency makes it imperative to hold Israel to the same standards.

"Israel is now widely recognized as a state that actually practices apartheid, as evidenced in recent declarations by international figures from Jimmy Carter and UN Special Rapporteur on human rights Prof. John Dugard to Archbishop Desmond Tutu and South African government minister Ronnie Kasrils, among many others. During the ongoing occupation of Palestinian land, Israel's policies have included house demolitions; Jews-only colonies and roads; uprooting hundreds of thousands of trees; indiscriminate killings of Palestinian civilians, particularly children; relentless theft of land and water resources; and denying millions of their freedom of movement by slicing up the occupied Palestinian territory into Bantustans - some entirely caged by walls, fences and hundreds of roadblocks.

"Throughout forty years of Israeli military occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Israeli academics have duly continued to serve in the occupation army, thereby participating in, or at least witnessing, crimes committed on a daily basis against the civilian population of Palestine. No Israeli academic institution, association, or union has ever publicly opposed Israel's occupation and colonization, its system of racial discrimination against its own Palestinian citizens, or its obstinate denial of the internationally-sanctioned rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties. Furthermore, the Israeli academy has been in direct or indirect collusion with the military-intelligence establishment, providing it with ‘academic' research services to sustain its oppression.

"This courageous and morally laudable decision by the UCU to apply effective pressure against Israel in the pursuit of justice and genuine peace is only the latest measure adopted by an international community that can no longer tolerate Israel's impunity in trashing human rights principles and international law. In the last few months alone, groups heeding - to various degrees - Palestinian calls for boycott and effective pressure against Israel have included the British National Union of Journalists (NUJ); Aosdana, the Irish state-sponsored academy of artists; Congress Of South African Trade Unions (COSATU); and prominent British and international architects led by Architects for Peace and Justice in Palestine (APJP).

"Once again, the taboo has been shattered. It has now become more legitimate than ever to denounce Israel's oppressive policies and to hold the state and all its complicit institutions accountable for human rights abuses, war crimes, and the longest military occupation in modern history. The Israeli academy will no longer be able to enjoy international recognition, cooperation, and generous support while remaining an accessory to crimes committed against the Palestinians.

"Palestinians are now more confident than ever that international civil society is indeed capable of shouldering the moral responsibility of standing up to injustice and demanding freedom, self-determination, and unmitigated equality for all."
This is an utterly reformist perspective that seeks a solution to the Palestinian national question within the confines of the imperialist order and capitalism, the economic foundation of the imperialist order. This is the perspective of Mahatma Gandhi, who served British imperialism in India and whose perspective led to the partition of India while helping to block the mass movement in India from overthrowing the capitalist system. This is the perspective of the imperialist politicians, of the former president of American imperialism, Jimmy Carter, the perspective of the leadership of the ANC that now that they are in power have close ties with the Israeli ruling class.

It is not by mere chance that the resolution does not deal concretely with the question of how the refugees would return. Palestinian refugees who will never be allowed to return as long as Israel remains capitalist and the imperialist order continues. It ignores the fact that the only power that can overthrow the Israeli capitalist ruling class and offer a genuine solution to the refugee question among other questions is the working class struggling for a socialist transformation of society.

As Marxists we support trade unions in other countries that come out in defence of the right to self-determination of the Palestinians. However, we would ask one thing of our brothers and sisters around the world. They should word their protest resolutions and develop their activities in such a way as to differentiate between the rulers of Israel and the workers and the poor who also live here.

Many academics in Israel do indeed oppose the occupation. The average Israeli worker is not the one to be blamed for the reactionary ruling class and politicians who run Israel. It would be much better to formulate resolutions and actions clearly aimed against the Zionist ruling class and its interests, to organize a workers' boycott of Israeli military equipment that is sold to reactionary regimes around the world.

Israel is not one reactionary bloc, as many people on the left unfortunately believe. It is a class society. There are Jewish capitalists and Jewish workers. The Jewish bosses exploit the Jewish workers. There are class antagonisms. Yes, it is true that these are blurred by the national question. But is it not obvious that it is in the interests of the Israeli bourgeoisie to make the Jewish workers of Israel feel that they can only protect their interests through "national unity"? This means oppressing another people, the Palestinians.

It is the duty of genuine Marxists to work to break down this false unity. The same Israeli ruling class that oppresses the Palestinians is also cutting pensions for Jewish workers, increasing fees for Jewish students, sacking Jewish workers. So long as this situation is maintained, the workers in Israel will never really be free. It is in the interests of the Jewish workers to transform capitalist society, and their only real allies in this struggle are their Arab sisters and brothers, the workers in the Occupied Territories and beyond.

Unlike the whites in South Africa, Israel is a relatively new nation. It is a nation that oppresses another nation. Marx pointed out that a nation that oppresses another nation can never be free itself.

In spite of all this, however, sooner or later class contradictions will prevail in Israel. There is an ideological stranglehold at the moment, and the politics of the Labour Party right-wing bureaucracy is an important contributing factor in maintaining the present status quo. But the workers of Israel have no other choice. Poverty and unemployment are growing. There are constant attacks on their living standards. The objective situation will push the workers of Israel into struggle. If they want a better future they must struggle for a new society, namely socialism.

We do not believe that the struggle against the oppression of the Palestinian people will find a solution either in the creation of a Palestinian mini-state, or in the creation of a bourgeois state for all the people who live in this country. For almost 60 years, the national question has appeared to many to be the axis of the Middle East conflict. However, the bitter experience with the existing nationalist movements, all of which have proven politically bankrupt, everywhere, has shown - as Trotsky explained already in the "Permanent Revolution" - the organic incapacity of the national bourgeoisie to establish genuine independence from imperialism or lay the foundations for economic development capable of improving the life of the masses of the workers and oppressed. This is the task of the workers once the class takes power.

The idea behind indiscriminate boycott of all Israelis regardless of their social class is wrong. Israel is a capitalist state, which means it is founded on the exploitation of the working class. While characterizing these workers as "colonialists" may satisfy those venting their frustration and moral outrage, it does not provide the basis for a revolutionary perspective.

The conditions that presently exist in Israel are the product of a complex historical development. The lack of a socialist consciousness among the Israeli workers is the product of the betrayal of the international working class by Stalinism, Social Democracy and, of course, the bourgeois nationalist movements in the Arab world as well.

Today the Israeli army is killing innocent people in Gaza but the Qassams are falling not on the Israeli generals or the capitalists in Israel but on the working people of Sderot. This is not an accident but the result of the belief that all Israelis are one reactionary bloc.

Those who advocate boycott of indiscriminate boycotting of all Israelis as a strategy should be asked: why should the boycott be limited only to Israeli academics for instance? Why should it not include US and British academics, given that Washington and London have long supplied the money, and bombs to Israel to be used to kill Palestinians, and that both governments are responsible for crimes even worse than those carried out by Israel?

The reason the left reformists advocate the strategy of indiscriminate boycotting of all Israelis regarding of class, is to be found in the lack of authority of the ideas of Marxism among the new generation. The legacy of decades of Stalinism has been to undermine the influence and prestige of genuine Marxism.

What we are witnessing at this stage in the West is the strong influence of petty bourgeois ideas, which unfortunately have even penetrated the workers' movement, especially its upper layers. The middle class intellectuals who are "leading " the masses have introduced all kinds of alien ideas and prejudices into the Labour movement. The defenders of these ideas imagine that they represent "new" ways of thinking that have overcome the "old" and "irrelevant " ideas of Marxism. In reality they are simply repeating the ideas of the "True Socialists" whom Marx and Engels already answered over 150 years ago in the Communist Manifesto.

It is an elementary duty of the Marxists to initiate, support and encourage each and every protest against imperialism, especially to support the most militant forms of mass protest. But our fundamental aim is to involve the masses at every stage in every country including in Israel.

For this reason we call for a trade union based, workers' boycott of all the shipment and transporting of all military hardware and weaponry from and to Israel. The ports, trains and trucks must not be allowed to be used for the war effort of the Israel ruling class. The dockworkers', the railway workers', the truck drivers' unions must be called upon in every country to use such a boycott systematically. This however is very different than boycotting all the Israeli academics, and very different from boycotting all Israelis regardless of class.RENEGADE EYE

299 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 299 of 299
Anonymous said...

Fuck this, I'm bored.
Check you later bitches! You clearly need the time.

Terry,

See you later comrade. lol

Anonymous said...

Miss Beamish has to check with Google and Wikipedia first, or probably her supervisor at AIPAC.

John's still smoking cock. They like that kind of thing on the right, a la Larry Craig. it's the repression! lol.

EVIDENCE, NOT THE WORD OF BEAMISH THE BRAINLESS. OR, ARE YOU JUST GOING TO COPY AND PASTE LEGAL DEFINITIONS WITHOUT CONTEXT?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Terry Clathmop,

It's got nothing to do with tour obsession with international law.

When the definitions of terrorism we both agreed upon use the words "unlawful" and "criminal," to what body of laws are they referring to? The Terry Clathmop User's Guide? Or international law?

Anonymous said...

THE SAME BODY OF LAW THAT THE US ADHERES TO. OH, THAT WOULD BE NONE.

FALSE PREMISE.

AND YET AGAIN WE ARE NOT IN A COURT OF LAW. THIS IS A DISCUSSION, NOT A COURT CASE. CAN YOU PLEASE WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND THIS CONCEPT?

Shouting over.

We agree on the definitions. Granted. But that was not the basis of our discussion. You are picking at threads.

You made statements regarding Quana Massacre of 2006. I simply want secondary sources to validate these statements.

This is not a fucking court case. I courteously carried out what you asked on two occasions. You haven't even considered any of it. As such it is an insult and a waste of my time.

I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO CONSIDER YOUR ARGUE IF YOU WOULD LAY IT ON THE TABLE WITHOUT RESORTING TO RHETORICAL WORDPLAY OR TRYING TO PRESUME HOW THE INTERNATIONAL COURTS WOULD APPROACH SUCH A CASE.

This is Ren's blog. Understand? I;m not a lawyer and neither I suspect are you. there is no judge, nor jury, nothing. Since the conditions of an international are not available to us, let us discuss this like human beings.

It's quite simple. I provide my points. You provide yours. We argue and try to synthesize an agreement. That is a real debate.

This is not debate. You are behaving like a lobbyist and a propagandist.

Please, behave like a human being.

I'm another human.

"Hello? How are you? This is what I think. What do you think?"

It's an amazing process yet you've failed to engage in the debate?!

I am more than willing. Do you want to debate, or continuing crying wolf?

Anonymous said...

Come on Beamish! This is getting boring and quite pathetic. We've both wasted quite a lot of time getting nowhere.

I'm not going to participate in some mock show trial for Israel. Honestly, that's just bizarre.

Do you want to DEBATE or not?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Terry Clathmop,

I don't have a copy of the Terry Clathmop User's Guide, but waterboarding you in the definitions you agreed upon seems to have made the floors of Ren's blog quite spotless. Except for the tear drops you keep splashing every where.

I certainly do want to debate an example of alleged Israeli terrorism, in the context of the event, in accordance with the definitions of "terrorism" we've agreed upon.

Obviously, since I've already wasted the better part of the weekend here waiting for you to decide if "Israel is a terrorist state" is your premise or your conclusion, and multiple, charitable requests for you construct a logical argument for your position have been met with schoolyard "Beamish is a poopiehead" banter, what is the point of asking you to reveal any skill at rational discourse?

After all, you've already said that you're a leftist.

Case closed.

I look forward to mopping the floor with you again.

Get uppity soon, will ya?

Anonymous said...

Miss Beamish,

Ditto - you slow witted prick.

I don't have a copy of the Beamish User's Guide either, but waterboarding you in the definitions you agreed upon seems to have made the floors of Ren's blog quite spotless. Except for the tear drops you keep splashing every where.

What did you say on record? "Please don't..." Little weasel.

I also want to debate an example of alleged Israeli terrorism, in the context of the event, in accordance with the definitions of "terrorism" we've agreed upon. But, despite numerous requests you have failed to provide references, citations, sources or any kind of evidence whatsoever.

Obviously, since I've already wasted the better part of the weekend here waiting for you to decide if "Israel is NOT a terrorist state" is your premise or your conclusion, and multiple, charitable requests for you construct a logical argument for your position have been met with schoolyard "thumping skin-headed fucktard," banter, coupled with accusations of antisemitism when your defeat was inevitable.

Limited. Arrogant. Deluded. Immoral. Weak. This is Beamish.

What is the point of continually asking you to reveal any skill at rational discourse?

After all, you've already said that you're on the right.

Case closed, Miss Beamish. You're a prick who thinks way too much of himself.

I look forward to mopping the floor with you anytime as I just have done.

Get uppity soon, will you, Miss Beamish the Bitch? I think not.

Anytime, any place. You've just demonstrated your ineptitude and displayed your true motivations.

I HOPE EVERYONE HERE REALISES THAT YOU ARE AN AIPAC LOBBYIST WHOSE ONLY PURPOSE IS SPREAD DISINFORMATION SO THAT YOU CAN SIPHON MORE FUNDS FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FOR THE ISRAELI MILITARY MACHINE.

$100 BILLION AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS AND COUNTING.

THAT WAS MY PURPOSE AND I HAVE BEEN A COMPLETE SUCCESS!

LET THE READER DECIDE BEAMISH. YOU'VE ALREADY FUCKED UP.

Night, night, Princess. It was good destroying you.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Terry Clathmop,

You forgot to mention my Straussian decoder ring and its built-in communications relay that keeps me connected to the Zionist Occupied Government forbidden palace and kosher delicatessen in the sub-subbasement of the Mt. Palomar "Observatory."

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Renegade Eye,

You mentioned once that your blog attracts intelligent leftists.

When?

Anonymous said...

Ok Princess. Whatever you say. Try to ridicule it. YOU WORK FOR AIPAC. Is your psyche cracking because of the defeat? Is that raging homo breaking through? Go for it! Come out of the closet. You can move to San Fransisco and 'play soldiers'. FJ might join you.

Prick.

In fact your last response is merely a dim witted pricks attempt at getting out of the situation because he can't win and he's no place left to hide. That's all.

You are transparent, Miss Beamish. Anyone with half a brain, even half of yours, can see the subtext in our discourse.

There is no substance to your argument.

You quote Wikipedia without reference and claim it as your own (plagiarism).

It takes you a fucking hour to write a few paragraphs! When your pressed for time, all that verbal voodoo falls away.

You've been fucked up, bitch slapped and made to heel, like a good little weasel. I've never met anyone as contemptuous as you. You are a disgrace to the United States, a disgrace to the Israeli people and a disgrace to our species. May you linger in your shit for ever more.

You're a fucking mess. Let the readers decide. NOT YOU AND NOT ME.

Not so clever now are you, little Miss Beamish? Weak, wounded little Miss Beamish. I'm sure you'll find comfort in that secret stash of gay military porn that you have.

At least I've learned that the American right is composed of dipshits. No wonder Bush got into power! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Anonymous said...

Renegade,

You mentioned that your blog attracts intelligent right-wingers that enjoy debating?

Where are they?

Anonymous said...

Yep, my last comment was correct! Little Miss Beamish has run out of the building with her knickers in a twist. (Probably straight towards the box labelled 'Marine Porn' for stress relief)

CASE CLOSED. AIPAC EXPOSED.

I predict that once I've left, he will return to stab me in the back. (You know you will, Princess) Guaranteed. Watch the treachery.

Peace everyone: even Sonia and FJ. But, fuck you Miss Beamish, you little weasel.

qui audet adipiscitur

liberal white boy said...

Israel slaughters terrorist children playing tag. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/899694.html

Anonymous said...

Beamish the Weasel has started removing comments because he knows that he has messed up! Told yous o. This guy is rotten to the core.

It's a good job that I've been copying the discussion isn't it, Princess?

Evidence:

This post has been removed by the author.

Posted by Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat | 08 September, 2007 04:50

Scroll up and see for yourselves.

Caught you out again, Princess.

Anonymous said...

LWB,

Interesting article. I took the time to read it. It's a terrible situation on both sides for ordinary citizens. There needs to be a diplomatic solution that is recognized and upheld by both parties. It's been achieved in Ireland.

It's the children! How these right wing pricks can find it amusing (or necessary) is beyond me.

Miss Beamish the Weasel won't be interested unless it's been ratified by the international courts, or it's on the AIPAC list of approved texts.

Anonymous said...

Terry,

Hey man. I came back to see whats going on. Same load of shit coming from them. Still no evidence or any sign of answers of some sort.

Waste of time really.

Bitchmish and bumboy,

You really do have NO case at all to put forward, do you?

If this was a boxing match, the ref would have stopped the fight. You are unable to defend yourself, let alone mount an attack. You're on the floor, all fucked up. Crying "please don't... please don't....". As you have done ON RECORD!

Little bitches!

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Beamish the Weasel has started removing comments because he knows that he has messed up! Told yous o. This guy is rotten to the core.

Oh, wow. Now Terry Clathmop wants the man Ren himself to swab the decks with his facile LoBrowist troll.

Renegade Eye,

Your integrity as a blog discussion host has just been challenged by the chatty mop for Mumia.

Down in the memory hole of your email cache of blog comments should be the comment I addressed to Frolix22 at 08 September, 2007 04:50, which I withdrew, as well as its duplicate post I made at two minutes later 08 September, 2007 04:52, with a small addition (the wisecrack about Terry Clothmop's "Magnum Dopus") and an excision of an incompleted sentence I missed previewing and removing before posting.

My bad. I made a typo and fixed it. The content of my removed post and its replacement did not change in any significant way.

Correct, Ren?

As a suggestion, you might consider running the mopped up mockingbird out of your blog [again] so he can return to spamming conservative blogs with his 2 year old (and stale) sock puppet pedophilia show, and return a level of decorum to your blog that welcomes honest debate. You know whom I'm referring to.

Anonymous said...

Bitchmish,

Attempting to get renegade to remove us? You've really fucked up there. I have never spammed a computer in my life. Ren already knows what I think about that, but you didn't know that did you? I don't need to lower myself to that tactic. I think it's a sign of defeat. As I've already told Ren. He has told me people from your side of the fence threaten to spam him all the time. You really fucked up again, didn't you, sweetheart?

Anonymous said...

Mr Beamish,

Let me be serious for a moment. About the jibes at your sexuality. It really does not matter to me that you are Gay. Seriously, I wouldn't want you to think that. I have a few Gay friends at work. I think it's awful the way you suppress your true self. That can't be good for you, but I understand why? It must be difficult in the fascist circles you run in. Again, seriously, consider this. On the left you would be accepted for who you really are. You could be as Gay as you like. Freedom. Escape from the closet, forever.

Sounds good, eh, sweetheart?

Anonymous said...

Come be a socialist. It's OK to be Gay! Be proud of yourself!

Anonymous said...

Princess Beamish the Weasel,

I stated at 12:57:
"I predict that once I've left, he will return to stab me in the back. (You know you will, Princess) Guaranteed. Watch the treachery."

And look what happened. The Weasel did does that! Pretending to leave whilst lurking in the background, editing entries, waiting for us to leave. You scumbag. I really can't believe people like you exist. You're not even a real person; you're an fragile ego - the veritable WEASAL.

Another range of interesting, yet equally bizarre syntactical structures. It's as though you have a stutter in your fingers, Weasel. An example:

"Your integrity as a blog discussion host has just been challenged by the chatty mop for Mumia."

I see that you offering Ren a veiled threat and again presupposing grandeur through categorical assertions. "Your integrity as a blog discussion host HAS just been challenged." says Lord Weasel, the definer of all existential knowledge. Unfortunately, as already stated you have presupposed this information, but you have removed yourself from the clause making it agentless and thus implying authority. In reality, the suitable composition would begin "In my opinion...." Perhaps this phrase is alien to you?

The little Weasel has also our good host in his nefarious schemes:

'Ren himself to swab the decks with his facile LoBrowist troll.'

As if you've drawn our good host into your puerile narrative? Is there anything you won't do? Any depths to which you will not sink?

I'll take the sting out of your tail immediately. little Weasel.

REN: If I'm lowering the standard of debate on your blog and you wish me to leave then please drop me a line at the usual place and I will respect your wishes immediately. Similarly, if Princess Weasel can in any way affect your life or the running of your blog, then I will do the same. Please accept my proposal and let me know which you prefer. I wouldn't want you to be under Princess Weasel's cosh as she wields it well and appears quite unscrupulous in the pursuit of personal glory.

Of course, now that I have ascertained that Princess is an AIPAC employer, the little beast must get of my rid influence immediately, or his little 'project' is under threat. I notice you have several blogs Weasel so that you can disperse propaganda effectively. It's a shakey cover Princess and you're a bit 'slow' on the uptake.

I will abide by Ren's decision but you are not getting away that easily. We will be meeting often and I'm sure, Mr Weasel, that you will be making lots of new friends in the future.


'My bad. I made a typo and fixed it. The content of my removed post and its replacement did not change in any significant way.'

That's fine Princess! It's just always preferable to point out every little slime trail that one such as yourself leaves. In keeping with your bizarre attempts at literary allusion, we would have to name you Iago, the villain of the piece, or perhaps Caliban to symbolize that monstrous sexual repression that will explode one day. I suppose even, your character is even less redeeming than the lowest of literary villains. Perhaps you are more akin to the Kafka's beetle - a worthless shell of a man, trapped by his own nature.

And so we meet another bizarre arrangement of our good old English language: 'the mopped up mockingbird'. Okay, Mr Weasel, whatever you say: it's your mind.

Further misrepresentation is also noted. I apparently spend my time 'spamming conservative blogs' which is untrue. I was demanding an answer - the Weasel thinks it spamming. But, what else would a Weasel say?

The rabbit hole plunges deeper! I also have a '2 year old (and stale) sock puppet pedophilia show'. So really Princess, you've just fallen through the cess pit. You can't crawl any lower really after insulting comments about antisemitism, you now associate me with paedophilia (which, by the way, your vast intellect can't even spell correctly). Yet, I'm the one engaged in petty discourse, am I? I'm the one who is 'lobrow' - actually 'low brow', dip shit, just like you - the one who is lowering the standard.

Ans so the Weasel caps off his altogether puerile, over-inflated, purple-prose ridden bile, with a rephrasing of the veiled threat in his opening statement. Again Princess Weasel takes the high ground and defines the popularity of this blog. He believes it will 'return a level of decorum to your blog that welcomes honest debate. You know whom I'm referring to.'

Honest debate, he says. This is the Weasel who is allergic to honesty as he has demonstrated.

Another pathetic, reductive argument from a pathetic, reductive soul. Where is your bravado, Princess. You really don't like the taste of your medicine, do you?

Anonymous said...

Come on pretty. Where are you? Here, little weasel.

Anonymous said...

TO EVERYONE:

One more thing - as I'm a better man/woman than Princess Weasel - I'd like to apologize for some of my vulgar comments over the past 24 hours.

I apologise profoundly to SONIA. After reading over my comments I realise that, although I still strongly disagree, I had no right to be so aggressive or so abusive. I'd prefer to openly discuss the 'race hate' issue; slamming you down is not a suitable response. I am sorry.

I apologise to all the decent folk who have had to put up with this. Sorry to Ren as well.

But Weasel, to you, I meant every single word. You're a worthless prick. The single, most detestable, human on planet Earth.

You see Weasel - a little dignity and the ability to admit my wrongdoings.

Anonymous said...

Weasal,

I've got it! You've just discovered alliteration (in the Encyclopedia Britannica - duh) and you're in such a rush to employ it that you end up constructing lame phrases.

(M)op for (M)umia
(M)opped up (M)ockingbird
(s)tale (s)ock [p]uppet [p]edophilia (s)how

Keep writing Weasel, so that I can unravel your fractured psyche. You know I've been right on so much so far and you're constant mutilation of our language is remarkable.

REN - I await your response, unless of course, shit-for-brains says something else.

Anonymous said...

Renegade,

I would just like to echo Terry. If you want me to leave, just ask. This is your house and I'll respect that. Peace!

Frank Partisan said...

This post generated more comments, than any previous post.

It was difficult to referee.

Frolix was interesting, about shared values. In any discourse such as this one the arguments generally take place within a framework of basic moral concepts and broadly shared values. If one party in the debate makes it clear they are actually abandoning one or more of those core values then there is pretty much nothing that one party can say to the other which can gain any traction. The debate breaks free from the anchor provided by those broadly shared values.

I'm going to have to do a Venezuela post soon.

Terry and cla are different people.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Renegade Eye,

You know what's extremely hilarious to me about all of this?

On other leftist political forums I visit I often get called a "Trotskyite" or a "Neocon" bashers trying to mask their anti-Semitism.

The "AIPAC employee" epithet is a new one to me, but it still has the same slimey vibe.

Then again, it came towards the end of a long string of meaningless slanders and "monkeyshit flinging" from Terry and Cla, who were apparently moved to senseless hostility by the mere questioning of their beliefs.

The deer-in-the-headlights behavior foisted by these two when challenged on the logical defensibility of their point of view is remarkably indistinguishable from the sock puppeteer / blog stalker that decided to begin spamming everyone on Beakerkin's blogroll around two years ago after a similar ass-whoopin'. Jesus, they're still crying about it.

Regardless. I can't keep comment moderation turned off at my blog because of that jerk and his strange hobby. Whatever letter you sent him got him to scale back his attacks, and I appreciate it.

I can't disrespect you too much. You persuaded a blithering idiot blog spammer to shut down for a while on behalf of many people leftist and rightist.

If you say I am mistaken in presuming "Terry" and "Cla" are yet more sock puppets of this serial spammer, I believe you.

If you say I am mistaken in assuming that Terry and Cla sre the same person, I believe you.

(No wonder it's so clean in here. I used two mops....)

Terrydee and Terrydum,

What does Molasses Swamp taste like?

Anonymous said...

"I agreed with Frolix22 until he rolled up all fetal position and began sucking his thumb. I suppose it was the agreement that unwarranted accusations of anti-Semitism should be avoided that really did him in."

What an extraordinary characterisation of the situation. I can only assume that you have simply given up.

On a final note, I find your routine resort to barbs and hostility quite amusing, an apparent attempt to turn every single debate into a childish shouting match.

Anonymous said...

That said, I really cannot see there is anything further to gain for any party in this... 'discussion'. I suppose that means I am giving up too.

Frank Partisan said...

Frolix: With Beamish's last remarks about Terry and cla, it'll probably generate 100 more comments.

It used to meaner here.

You were on the high road.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Frolix22,

You're the wise one, I think. You bugged out well before Terry and Cla constructed their kaleidoscope of stupidity and anti-Semitism. I mistook your prudence for cowardice when you wouldn't get up to bat on my first question about an example of allegedly Israeli terrorism. Again, I found the answer to my followup question entirely plausible, even without an answer to the first.

I don't think the discussion ever really got started. Once Terry and Cla went screwball thinking they were in a live chatroom with me instead of providing an example of Israeli terrorism, I figured it was safe to go watch opening day NFL football. Sure enough, every time I stepped away from the television and back to the computer, the discussion was still where it was when I left it, with Terry and Cla giving us a grand tour of their favorite logical fallacies to commit instead of presenting a logical argument for calling Israel a terrorist state by the agreed definitions as I asked.

What little progress this "discussion" was ever going to make was pretty much terminated when Terry and Cla decided to finally reveal they favorite fallacy is bifurcation. They didn't actually agree with the agreed upon definitions of terrorism after all, because of all of the references to "unlawful" and "criminal" that must be wedded to a body of laws that would apply in context to whatever incident they were going to cite.

It was pretty pathetic.

High five on spotting their game before I did. Much time could have been saved if only Terry and Cla would have stated that he calls Israel a terrorist state because he wants to insult them, rather than describe anything they do with an applicable term. It's ad hominem all the way with those chumps.

Next they'll call Israel gay, I'm sure.

Anonymous said...

Mr bitchmish,

You are quite the hypocrit. You're the one with no facts or anything else for that matter. Any reader can see link after link provided by us and NOTHING provided by you. You've failed to answer anything and have no relevant infomation whatsoever.

As I said, you're quite the hypocrit.

How have you "mopped the floor" with us? It would take some form of answer involing secondary evidence, facts, links, something, anything! You've done nothing but fall short of the mark, every time!

I have no plan to call anyone else Gay. Just you because you clearly are. I don't care that you are anyway, but you are Gay. Anyone can see that from looking at your site, sweetheart.

Anonymous said...

REN,

Thanks Ren! That's a very balanced conclusion. We will stick around and keep things interesting. Someone need to keep the Weasel on its lead. Please do a post on Venezuela, or even Cuba. That will be fun!

CLA,

My alleged doppleganger! Haha. Only the Weasel thinks he has the authority to define our identities. What a prick! Have you heard the Weasel squeaking again. I think we've rattled it's cage. Watch the Weasel dance to the tune of the Socialista.


PRINCESS BEAMISH THE WEASEL,

Have you read this post or does your extreme egocentrism prevent you from distinguishing between reality and your own internal fantasy?

Are you still prancing around in your gimp outfit, fetishising over ballistic missiles, whilst pretending to be an international defence lawyer? How pathetic.

Your responses are reminiscent of the mouthy schoolboy who challenges the pack and runs away to teacher claiming injustice. The we'd get at the school gates.

You sling around so many false accusations, non-evidenced assertions and blatant falsifications, that you have amassed a collection of contradictions and errors, as well as deeper insight into your disturbed psyche.

You're a weasel and it's on the record for all to see. Keep it coming, little man! You really, truly are the lowest of the low - the most unscrupulous piece of slime that's ever from dripped a slugs belly.

No integrity. No morality. No dignity. This is Princess Beamish the Weasel. In our colloquial tongue we would call you a 'scrotum', a 'muppet', or a 'bitch'. Please stay out of Britain, unless you like laying down with the fishes. If you would like to visit, let us know, we'd happily 'collect' you from the airport.

One day that will be your true name all across cyberspace. No matter where you go, the crowds will throw rotten fruit and shout: "Look, it's Princess Beamish the Weasel! Hide your wallets, lock your doors, the weasel is in town!"

You are pathetic, Princess. Get your head out of Wikipedia and go and read some real books.

You are not worth any more of my time, really. I hope you choke on that vomit you believe to be discourse. Every comment you make increases your distinction as a grade A prick. Keep talking Princess.

EVIDENCE Weasel - or shut the fuck up.

The same with AIPAC - stop behaving exactly like an AIPAC lobbyist and perhaps I won't think you are an AIPAC lobbyist! Unfortunately, I've met your insidious kind before and I can only conclude that your ARE AN AIPAC LOBBYIST. You STILL have to explain why this is antisemitic? But you just can't explain yourself on any point can you.

Thank you though because you have pushed me further to the left and you have increased my prejudice against certain sections of the American public. Deep down I always believed that everyone has a good heart, but you have disproved this assertion. I really didn't know that scum like you actually existed. You are the cancer that is destroying that good country. I hope a true patriot blows your fucking head off one day.

Continue to rot, my VANQUISHED foe.

Princess Weasel - the most pathetic example of humanity! Bring it on, O Great Bag of Stale Wind.

Welcome to to the real world, bitch.

Anonymous said...

'Next they'll call Israel gay, I'm sure.'


AND I MAKE LOW BROW COMMENTS DO I SHIT-FOR-BRAINS?

NO, ISRAEL IS NOT GAY. BUT YOU ARE DEFINITELY GAY. GOOD LUCK TO YOU.

Anonymous said...

FROLIX:

The Weasel seems to think that you agree with him! He's a real spin doctor - a bit like a warped Aleister Campbell.

I do agree with you completely. Wish I'd stayed on the highroad too. Save me a spot up there, I'm climbing back up...

Anonymous said...

AIPAC employee = Antisemitism

Oh do explain Bitchmish. Or, are you going to weasel your way out of that, like with every other answer we've asked for.

Between you crying "please don't...please don't" and running to Ren, trying to get us booted. It's clear for all to see. YOU HAVE BEEN WHOOPED!

We were watching for a while, before we started kicking your ass. You loved it here, didn't you? We'd seen your fact-less argumentative technique doing rather well.?! Must have been the mixture of that, plus your enormous ego. Anyway, as I've said before, we look around the net, looking for people like you.

We know what you do and we know where you do it. You're going to be seeing a lot of me, sweetheart.

We've already found you on at least 5 other sites. Doing all your fact-less, attitude inflated tricks. And that leads me to my next point. How could you be on so many sites, making so many comments, if it's not your paid profession. It takes you about an hour to write anything of decent length. That can be seen from yesterday, when we tried to have LIVE debate(not spamming). All this can't leave you any time spare to work anywhere, except AIPAC.

So, tell your bosses at AIPAC to suck my dick and get some better lobbyists. Also, tell all the Jewish people that I love them and that Zionists blacken their good name.

See you soon bitch! Who knows where?

Anonymous said...

Frolix22,

You're right. The debate ended a long time ago. Sorry if all that shit slinging got a little boring for you. It's just, people like him need beating on whatever level they drag you to. But, again I apologize to you.

Renegade,

I'm glad you found us. Hope you still are too. lol

I like it here, it's great!

A post on Venezuela? Surely you know what to expect from us. That's very clever Ren. I think you like a little conflict really.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

"You're gay, you're dumb, come to England and we'll kill you for all the reactionary idiocy you made us type on the internet" isn't evidence that Israel is a terrorist state either, Terry. But, whatever.

No red card. Molasses Swamp. Candyland.

Yawn.

Anonymous said...

Still no evidence to claim Israel isn't a terrorist state then, Bitchmish? Based on the numerous sources we HAVE provided to suggest that it is.

Wriggle weasel wriggle!

Anonymous said...

Did you say something Weasel? All I hear is shit trickling down your chin...

Go play in the swamp with the rest of the vermin.

STILL NO EVIDENCE BLABBER MOUTH?

ps. We don't kill people in England. It's illegal.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Cla,

Still no evidence to claim Israel isn't a terrorist state then, Bitchmish? Based on the numerous sources we HAVE provided to suggest that it is.

What's your definition of "terrorism?"

Anonymous said...

Mr Bitchmish,

For fucks sake, you thick bastard!

The same definition we had from the beginning. The definition that we pointed out. The definition of the UN, remember. We've already made our argument and how it qualifies in our view. What are you not getting? Seriously, still no come back at all from you. Why don't you just stop the bullshit?

For the last time, ANSWER or say NOTHING! EVIDENCE or NOTHING!

You don't have to agree. Just demonstrate why not.

We have provided you with our accounts, that in our opinion, conform to what the UN describes as a terrorist state or terrorists attacks.

For the love of God, is that clear?

Anonymous said...

I'm just repeating myself over and over. To no response. This is a pointless debate.

Anonymous said...

Terry,


Put a fork in him, he's done!

Anonymous said...

PRINCESS BEAMISH THE WEASEL:

Did you know that you can scroll back through this 'conversation' and read the definitions for terrorism that I have already provided? You could also read the evidence I have already provided and provide some of your own in response so that we can continue this debate. You see, so far, you have provided NO EVIDENCE other than your opinion.

Not too bright are you, Weasel?

CLA:
He's full of shit mate. Not worth the time. He doesn't understand our objections. He doesn't want to understand. He doesn't want to debate. He only wants to disinform and bully those who are not quite as literate.

All that matters to the Weasel is his public image, his ego and his commitment to AIPAC.

You see he doesn't understand that we were getting somewhere until he failed to substantiate his claims about the Quana massacre. He gave only his opinion in response. I did as he asked but he failed to extend me the same courtesy. I asked for validation and it descended into a shit fight with Princess Beamish prancing around quoting Wikipedia and demanding that I present MORE evidence, all the time refusing to supply a single reference or exterior source to validate his statements.

It's a waste of time, Cla. He's just a scumbag. That's why he's called Weasel. You can imagine what the pricks like in reality, can't you? What a mess of a man.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Cla,

It isn't pointless debate if you actually do agree with the UN definition. "Terrorism" is quite definitely a legal term in the context used bt the UN, so the case must be made that an incident or action Israel is legally responsible for meets that term under international law.

Israel was at war with Hezbollah.

The Qana "massacre" citation given must be placed in the context of international laws governing the acceptable conduct of warfare and the protected status of non-combatants.

Hezbollah removed the protected status of Qana when they turned Qana into a rocket base to further commit the war crimes of launching rockets at civilian residential areas in Israel.

3:1:28 removes legal responsibility for the protected status of the civilian population of Qana from Israel and places it upon Hezbollah because of its trasnformation of Qana into a legitimate military target by its launching of rocket attacks from it intentionally at Israeli civilians.

The other "citations" given were opinions and polemics. Some of these finally do get around to mentioning some incidents, most are slapped down by 3:1:28 as well.

You're trying to use a legal term to make a moral equivalence argument. An emotional argument.

You need to redefine "terrorism" more effectively. The UN definition doesn't work for your argument.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Or work to redefine international law.

Anonymous said...

That's quite simple Mr Beamish. Did they kill any Hezbollah? Or just innocent civilians? You expect me to think that was a mistake? Israel has missiles that could hit me in the face, Beamish. That was making a point by Israel. That's one more point of debate. The civilians were not at war, were they, Beamish?

Look again through Terry's comment were he shows you definition of terrorism. You can't honestly deny it meets the criteria.

Many more links to more examples as well, don't forget, Mr Beamish. Have you checked them all?

More to come too. I've warned you many times already. I know you won't listen, but, what the hell. I'm quite sure you can't win this debate, try as you might. You're well behind already on evidence.

Admirable effort on this point though. AT least you tried. It'll take more from you to win this point, never mind all the others here and the ones to come. Good luck!

Anonymous said...

Mr Beamish,

At last, well done. That's all I wanted 50 insults ago.

Your legal positioning is correct and accepted. Thank you.

However, the definition I gave and that we have agreed upon above is from the FBI not the UN.

The UN is actually still deciding on a definition for terrorism as the old one was made in 1937. A.P. Schmid from the UN Crime Branch defines terrorism as simply:

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

This is my PERSONAL definition of terror, but obviously it has not been ratified before the courts.

As the FBI states:
'There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism.'

To clarify: I never intended to make a legal argument, the basis of which is based quite rightly on international law, but this law is not absolute, definitive, or the precedent for defining humanity or settling a debate. Such laws, although international, favour the global elite and are not enforced across the board. Similarly, a debate can be held in many ways. If only lawyers were allowed to debate then we'd all be in a mess.

You know as well as I do that by engaging in this form of discourse it is possible to argue endlessly about any issue. That's what lobbyists do.

I want to know your real opinions, and where these opinions came from, not legal frameworks.

However, I will admit that, if this discussion is based on legality, then it will be very difficult to prove without a doubt that Israel is a terrorist state because there is no absolute definition for terrorism. I can admit this. Saying that, I do believe that the law is inadequate with regards many things. Justice is not blind, as we both know.

If Scmid's definition is ratified then Israel could well be charged as a terrorist state for other events such as some of the operations carried out by Unit 101 and the Mossad, which I have not stated.

But, I do not believe that the argument then resorts to morality or emotion. As I have already stated I am not qualified to debate the legalities of Israel. I entered into and wish to have an academic debate not a mock court case.

I would like you to provide me with a source that explains your statements about the Quana massacre, Hizbollah attacks and the houses collapsing.

Anonymous said...

"Hezbollah removed the protected status of Qana when they turned Qana into a rocket base to further commit the war crimes of launching rockets at civilian residential areas in Israel."

Thats just bollocks, Mr Beamish. You think the civilians agreed to that?

Anonymous said...

Also, if the attack was intensional, as I suspect. Is that not terrorism?

You skipped that point I made completely.

FBI - UN. My mistake.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Israel really just invading them anyway. I mean really, "they fire rockets at us everyday", is all you hear from Israel. You never see it. Seen many Israeli missile attacks though. Seen Hizbollah defend their land from it. Successfully. Thats not attacking. And dose not make it war. They're being invaded. That dose not really meet your UN criteria, dose it?

Anonymous said...

A further point Mr Beamish: you must then accept, by your argument, that Hizbollah is not a terrorist group either as it is operating under conditions of war??? Hamas and Fatah too???

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Terry,

The FBI would not have jurisdiction in the Qana incident. International law does.

A further point Mr Beamish: you must then accept, by your argument, that Hizbollah is not a terrorist group either as it is operating under conditions of war??? Hamas and Fatah too???

Hizbollah, Hamas, and Fatah intermingle their forces amongst civilians (a violation of the 4th GC 3:1:28) and are thusly responsible for the collateral damage brought upon the civilian population. These terrorist groups also intentionally target civilians in Israel.

Israel does not intentionally target civilians. It is required by international law to make as reasonable a distinction between combatant and civilian as can be done, but that same protocol places responsibility for maintaining protected status of civilians on the party to the conflict which has them "in their hands."

Tell me what problems you have with this argument, which to me seems to answer your other citations quite concisely. I really don't care to be browbeaten by further citations that show no clear violation of international law. Perhaps Hezbollah should sign the Geneva Conventions and begin acting by them.

Cla,

Don't be silly. Hezbollah had crossed into Israel (invasion), kidnapped some IDF soldiers for ransom (war crime) and began lobbing rockets at Israel's civilian homes (war crime) before their inept PM Olmert gave the order for a counterstrike. History only happens the way it did. No revisions, please.

Anonymous said...

Mr Beamish,

It would be nice of you to respond to this.

"These terrorist groups also intentionally target civilians in Israel."

I believe Israel intentionally targeted civilians in Qana!

"History only happens the way it did. No revisions, please."

According to who? You? You again bring no evidence.

"No revisions, please."

But thats what you're doing, Mr Beamish.

Anonymous said...

I think it's easy to see who is doing the invading, Mr Beamish. You need more proof of that, Mr Beamish. To prove your point.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Cla,

If you want to continue to gainsay for the hell of it, go ahead. I'm not playing.

Israel was criticized roundly for a "disproportionate" response to Hezbollah's launching of this war.

Let me know when you're ready wish to discuss events which occured on our planet.

Anonymous said...

'The FBI would not have jurisdiction in the Qana incident. International law does.'

I agree which is I why I cited the UN's ambiguous definition. As I also said: there is no standard definition for the word terrorism. Which definition do you think is suitable?

'Hizbollah, Hamas, and Fatah intermingle their forces amongst civilians'
Could you please provide evidence to support this claim?

'Israel does not intentionally target civilians.'
But, Israel does! Come on!

'no clear violation of international law'
Can you provide evidence? It's a bit weak to just refuse. The citation you provided is not acceptable. It's a hackneyed right-wing site. Please use something neutral.

We are getting somewhere here Mr Beamish. I just can't accept your opinion because you "say so". Do you get my point?

I'm glad that you agree the response was 'disproportionate'.

Anonymous said...

Taken from the UN Economic and Social Council, 2004:

2. The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon ended in May 2000. During the occupation, Israeli forces committed grave violations of the human rights of civilians in Lebanon. These violations include violations of the guarantees of the right to life under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and other instruments; the protection of civilians from attack guaranteed under humanitarian law including the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Protocols Additional; the prohibition against torture under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and other instruments; and the prohibition against genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

3. In 2002 this Commission adopted by consensus a resolution calling on the international community to give due attention to the right to a remedy, and in particular, in appropriate cases to receive restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights . E/CN/.4/RES/2002/44 The Committee should call on Israel to make reparations to the victims, and to the families of non-surviving victims, for its acts in egregious violation of the above-cited conventions.

4. Any state that violates a treaty obligation is required to make good the losses it has occasioned. As the International Court of Justice has explained, treaties function against the background of the law of state responsibility. Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment,¶ 152, September 25, 1997.

Available at:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/c2a9efb804d4155685256e5a006d2c41!OpenDocument

Please respond.

Anonymous said...

REUTERS NEWS AGENCY:

The U.N. Security Council on Sunday unanimously adopted a statement deploring the attack and asked U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to report within a week "on the circumstances of this tragic incident."

Israel has called Qana a hub of Hizbollah activity, which some Lebanese sources have disputed.

Human Rights Watch said Israel had said the military targeted the house because Hizbollah fighters had fired rockets from the area. The group said its own researchers who visited Qana on July 31 did not find any destroyed military equipment in or near the home.

"Rescue workers recovered no bodies of apparent Hizbollah fighters from inside or near the building," Human Rights Watch said.
Available at:
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060802/3/2nycw.html

Please respond.

Anonymous said...

Mr Beamish,

Do answer. Any of our points. Just pick one.

Your last comment to me, was your worst yet.

I asked you a few questions, that again go unanswered.

If the Qana attacks were intentional, is that not a terrorist attack?

The point you make about "act of war".

By your way of thinking then, all Hizbollah terrorist attacks on Israel are merely "acts of war" too.

Our difference of opinion is thus: I condemn both, as acts of terrorism. You think Israels is not? Again Mr Beamish, I say, support your claim. Evidence, Mr Beamish. EVIDENCE.

Anonymous said...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Never has been, never will be.

I wonder if these dolts know what a counterfire battery is or how it works. Probably not.

Best I scoot now that I've shot. ciao.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Farmer John,

I wonder if these dolts know what a counterfire battery is or how it works. Probably not.

These emotive fools think fuel tanks are phallic symbols. I doubt they'd sit still for a technical discussion.

They haven't so far.

Terry,

Israel allegedly had a "disproportionate" response to what?

What was Israel responding to?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Cla,

26% of the rockets Hezbollah fired at Israeli cities hit civilian targets in the 2006 war. The remaining 74% were either shot down or missed their targets in the civilian areas they were aimed at.

What percentage of the bombs dropped by Israel in response to Hezbollah's attack - complete with Nasrallah rejecting calls for cease fire and threatening further rocket attacks on Israeli cities - hit civilian targets rather than combatant?

Which side claims they want to stop terrorist attacks, and which side wants to "eradicate the Jews?"

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Terry,

Your previous source made claims that Hezbollah fired no rockets from Qana "that day." How about the day before?

4th GC 3:1:28-30 cover this nicely.

If you're trying to show evidence of Israeli "war crime," I'm going to need more than your say so.

A citation of the Geneva Protocols Israel allegedly broke would be nice.

Chop chop.

Anonymous said...

One incident versus thousands of daily rocket attacks against civilians. Needle vs haystack... I wonder where the terrorists are hiding?

Anonymous said...

Farmer John:
Put that horse cock back in your mouth and roll over. That's a good boy.

Beamish is a semi-worthy opponent, you're just a typical Yank dipshit with a big mouth and no brains. It's best you stay quiet as your existence is simply arbitrary.

The terrorists are hiding in Washington. It's called the White House. You put them there.

Beamish:
You're shit slinging again Princess Beamish. Is the Weasel making its return?

You shouldn't mention the phallus, matey! Don't get me started on that one again. It seems to be a touchy subject for you.

Don't worry about it though, loads of people are gay. You don't need to be ashamed. You should stand proud and wave that multi-coloured flag. Yell from the rooftops: "I am Beamish. I am gay. I am Proud." Then you could fire off a few rounds and gut a rabbit.

Stop shit-slinging, or you'll get pummeled again.

Let's begin...

You're like a broken record!!! Could you please read through this post! I'm so sick of repeating myself!!! I'll number my statements so that you can keep track. I realise you're a little slow, but I'll help you. We can do this together!

1. We are not at the Hague. You are not an international defense lawyer. Neither am I. Get your head around it.

2. We are on a blog?! The highest level of debate we can hope to achieve is an academic debate.

3. The truth is not absolute. The law is not absolute. You are not absolute.

4. There is no formal ratified definition for terrorism.

5. The United States has made a mockery of international law, the Geneva convention and the United Nations. They're becoming worthless and legality is not the basis of this argument.

6. Could you please provide evidence to support the numerous statements you have made. very little has been forthcoming other than your opinion.

7. Evidence.

8. You understand?

9. Chop chop...

Anonymous said...

'One incident versus thousands of daily rocket attacks against civilians.'

Now Hillbilly John, that is very, very stupid. (Was it the lobotomy?) Don't suppose you have evidence either?

Martians are attacking London each day. Honest. Fox News says so...

Durgh...

Anonymous said...

OPERATION WRATH OF GOD: The Mossad carried out revenge attacks against alleged members of Black September.

1. VICTIM ONE
October 16th, 1972: Palestinian Abdel Wael Zwaiter shot 12 times in his apartment building in Rome.

2. VICTIM TWO
December 8th, 1972: Dr. Mahmoud Hamshari, died in hospital after Mossad bombed the telephone in his apartment.

3. VICTIM THREE
January 24th, 1973: Hussein Al Bashir killed by a bomb placed under his bed.

4. VICTIM FOUR
April 6th 1973: Dr. Basil Al-Kubaissi shot 12 times by Israeli agents whilst returning home.

- OPERATION SPRING OF YOUTH: Mossad agents and IDF Special Forces covertly entered Beirut and Sidon, killing an estimated 100 alleged members of the PLO and 3 civilians including an Italian female.

5. VICTIM FIVE
April 11th 1973: Zaiad Muchasi blown up in his hotel room in Athens.

6. VICTIM SIX
June 28th, 1973: Mohammad Boudia, murdered by a landmine beneath his car seat.

7. VICTIM SEVEN
July 21st, 1973: Ahmed Bouchiki, a Moroccan waiter, shot repeatedly whilst walking with his pregnant wife, because agents confused him with Ali Hassan Salameh, the alleged leader of Black September. Five agents were caught and convicted of murder by Norway.

8. VICTIM EIGHT
July 27th, 1979: Zuheir Mohsen gunned down in France.


READ - JUSTIFY - EXPLAIN - SUBSTANTIATE

Anonymous said...

So you concede that the Pseudostinians are terrorist thugs. The question in your mind seems to be whether the State of Israel has ever intentionally performed one single act of "terrorism". I think the burden of proving "intent" is yours. And accidents don't count. And neither does assassinating members of terrorist organizations like Black September.

The Israeli's have the moral high ground. The Pseudostinians are toads at the bottom of a moral morass.

Nothing proclaims a concession more loudly than obsenities. I accept. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Hillbilly John:

You're welcome. Glad you like the taste of horse cock. Keep sucking it up until the Rapture arrives (durgh) you dumb fuck.

Done a bit of research you see and discovered that you and Beamish are crazy christians. All your credibility has just disappeared! I understand you completely now. You're all wrapped up in that holy land bullshit. Crazy.


1. So you concede that the Pseudostinians are terrorist thugs.

No. Try reading my statements for once.

'Pseudostinians' is a racist slur. I think I'll refer to you as 'pseudoamericans' then, seen as you're all colonial immigrants. What if Europe funds Mexico to create a Mayan homeland along the west coast? All you Pseudoamericans can just leave. There are plenty of white European countries. That's not your land, it's the holy land for many indigenous tribes, just like Israel.

(That's how absurd your argument is!)


2.The question in your mind seems to be whether the State of Israel has ever intentionally performed one single act of "terrorism". I think the burden of proving "intent" is yours.

Nope. Are you a mind reader? Nope. Are you absolute? Nope. Pseudoamerican arrogance - serious superiority complex.


3. And accidents don't count.

= Pseudoamerican Arrogance. Says who? You?


4. And neither does assassinating members of terrorist organizations like Black September.

Alleged members of Black September and only according to Israel and brainwashed Pseudoamericans.

So you justify illegal revenge attacks? Where's your international law gone now? Should the alleged bombers not have stood trial? Bit of a contradiction - if the law works for Israel that's fine, if the law doesn't, then just ignore it. Ooops! I sense hyprocrisy. I smell bullshit.


5. The Israeli's have the moral high ground. The Pseudostinians are toads at the bottom of a moral morass.

That's because you're an uncultured, ignorant, racist, Pseudoamerican prick. What does your pathetic statement actually contribute?


6. Nothing proclaims a concession more loudly than obsenities [YOU MEAN OBSCENITIES].

Opinions, opinions, opinions.


EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE...

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E

Anonymous said...

Hillbilly John the Pseudoamerican:

Unions are part of the labour movement, a facet of Socialism.


Larry:

You are correct. I've used the term incorrectly for sure, as I suspected.

We call ourselves New Socialists, or 21st Century Socialists, (capitalised like Orwell) and we believe in Social Democracy, which you quite rightly defined. I think Stalinism was abhorrent as I keep trying to explain to Sonia!

I also think Capitalism is an economic system, not a political or ideological position, as some seem to believe.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Anonymous said...

WRONG THREAD AGAIN! PLEASE IGNORE...

REN, COME TO WORDPRESS!

Anonymous said...

Farmer John,

Your last comment has amazed me!

Until then, I had no idea such a level of stupidity, even existed.

Anything could be CLAIMED as an accident. How fucking easy is that? Nice bit of evidence, Dickhead!

You're not fit to be here. Really, you should just stick to incest and bestiality.

My regards to your horse...

Anonymous said...

Mr Beamish,

I'm going to remain civil with you, even though you lowered the tone, again.

Mr Beamish, your argument remains the same in a few sites I've seen. You are on numerous sites, making the same arguments and comments.

Nowhere have you proved any evidence or anything, other than your opinion. Not just here, but all the other sites too. That Mr Beamish, simply, will not do.

You time and again provide nothing but opinions, always just your own. NOT GOOD ENOUGH! EVIDENCE NEEDED!

This is pointless! You make it so!

Look again, MORE from Terry and FUCK ALL from you!

I'm not going to bother anymore. Or, maybe just to provide the other sites for all to see.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Cla,

Don't bother attempting to continue the civil discussion if you, like Terry, can not:

1. Show Israel has intentionally violated any international laws as per the 4th Geneva Conventions protocols

2. Stick to agreement on the stated definitions of terrorism (which rely upon law)

3. Stick to agreement that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization as per the definition of terrorism via it's violations of the Geneva Conventions concerning perfidy and indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

---

Terry,

In order of what's worth responding to:

1. We are not at the Hague. You are not an international defense lawyer. Neither am I. Get your head around it.

You are not an international prosecutor. You employ legal terms like "terrorism" as pejoratives, not charges under international law.

2. We are on a blog?! The highest level of debate we can hope to achieve is an academic debate.

An academic debate would stick to outlining a definition of terrorism to appeal to, and make a case from there, rather than gainsaying and casting mealymouth ad hominem attacks at those who disagree with you on academic grounds that concretely rest upon the definition of terrorism agreed upon.

3. The truth is not absolute. The law is not absolute. You are not absolute.

There goes your claim of being "commited to truth," out the window with your meaningless insults of "fascist" and "gay."

This is a philosophical difference. I believe "truth" is that which can be tested and verified. You believe "truth" is whatever you you think you can get away with saying until someone knocks you on your ass, intellectually or physically.

4. There is no formal ratified definition for terrorism.

There were tentatively agreed upon definitions of "terrorism" in this discussion, until your house of cards was demolished. You're not an effective debater.

5. The United States has made a mockery of international law, the Geneva convention and the United Nations. They're becoming worthless and legality is not the basis of this argument.

More opinion. "Wah! International law doesn't say what Terry wants it to say! Wah!"

I think we're done here. I am.

Anonymous said...

Mr Beamish and Farmer John:

Dribbling shit to yourself again, Weasel? You're useless.

Anyone can read through this 'debate' and come to their own conclusions. Your opinions have little effect and it is thankful that you have no influence in academic circles, or in the world at large.

I have come to the conclusion, after researching your presence in cyberspace, that you are both fundamental christians, by whatever denomination you pledge your allegiance.

Unfortunately, I will not debate with religious fundamentalists. This does though explain your lack of evidence, your righteousness, your confusion of opinion with fact and your recurrent gullibility, given that your entire ideology is founded on fantasy, without evidence. A house can't be built unless it first has stable foundations.

You both fluctuate between ad hominen attacks and syllogistic reasoning, not to mention sheer arrogance, contradiction, misinference and recurent hypocrisy. It's impossible to have a reasonable debate with a reasonless opponent, as it is impossible to discuss quantum theory with a chimpanzee.

So, this debate is over. The war is not. My only failure was not realising that I was dealing with religious fundamentalists in the first place. I will not condone, engage, support or tolerate religious extremism in any form, including your group, who I believe are as dangerous as any fundamental Islamist.

This debate IS over. I accept victory, thank you, and now I leave the stage. Please continue to dance like pantomime clowns. I'd laugh if you weren't so dangerous.

Au revoir.

ps. Come knock me physically on my arse anytime, little Princess. You'll be decimated as you were verbally. We don't need guns, we have fists. You obviously know nothing about British culture. We're in Manchester matey - you're always welcome to come try.

Anonymous said...

Gee, did the INNOCENT victim's of Pseudostinian Terror bombings get a trial?

Where's your international law gone now?

Good question! LOL!

Anonymous said...

ps - It doesn't take a mindreader to figure out that the Pseudostinians aren't following international law or what their intentions are, does it. (rhetorical question)

Even a hillbilly could do it.

Anonymous said...

Farmer John,

Finished sucking that horse cock then. At least long enough to come out with that shit.

You just say things anyway, for the hell of it. Even if they are really stupid. You never really qualify responding to. You're just an idiot, a moron, someone of intellectual deficiency. A fucking Evangelist too!

Keep fucking and sucking your horse, waiting for the Rapture.

I hope the whole wrath of God thing is true, because you're all fucked!

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Terry,

Your conclusions from your "research into my presence in cyberspace" is as empty-handed as your quest for an Israeli violation of international law.

I'm nominally a Christian, far from fundamentalist. I think Farmer John is a deist.

What's the point of "researching my presence in cyberspace?" What's my presence in cyberspace got to do with the observable fact you lack a rational, coherent, and most importantly, defensible reason to call Israel a terrorist state.

I can truly imagine you trying to organize a boycott of Israel down at the docks.

Au revoir!

(Manchester? Is that the sissy part of England that speaks French?)

Anonymous said...

Mr Beamish and Farmer John:

Dribbling shit to yourself again, Weasel? You're useless.

Yes, Manchester is full of sissy's and we all speak French?! What a prick you've just made of yourself?! Ignorant, arrogant pseudoamerican.

Not bothered reading the rest. Yawn....

Anyone can read through this 'debate' and come to their own conclusions. Your opinions have little effect and it is thankful that you have no influence in academic circles, or in the world at large.

I have come to the conclusion, after researching your presence in cyberspace, that you are both fundamental christians, by whatever denomination you pledge your allegiance.

Unfortunately, I will not debate with religious fundamentalists. This does though explain your lack of evidence, your righteousness, your confusion of opinion with fact and your recurrent gullibility, given that your entire ideology is founded on fantasy, without evidence. A house can't be built unless it first has stable foundations.

You both fluctuate between ad hominen attacks and syllogistic reasoning, not to mention sheer arrogance, contradiction, misinference and recurent hypocrisy. It's impossible to have a reasonable debate with a reasonless opponent, as it is impossible to discuss quantum theory with a chimpanzee.

So, this debate is over. The war is not. My only failure was not realising that I was dealing with religious fundamentalists in the first place. I will not condone, engage, support or tolerate religious extremism in any form, including your group, who I believe are as dangerous as any fundamental Islamist.

This debate IS over. I accept victory, thank you, and now I leave the stage. Please continue to dance like pantomime clowns. I'd laugh if you weren't so dangerous.

Au revoir.

Anonymous said...

Tete di merd! I speak French?!

Anonymous said...

A house can't be built unless it first has stable foundations.

Oh, it can be built all right, laddy. But just like your argument, it soon sinks into the swamp.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Cla,

You promised that Terry was bringing a devastating argument.

Were you lying?

Anonymous said...

Farmer Fuckwitt,

Your horses cock soon sinks into your mouth.

I do enjoy "your level" of debate. This is great fun.

Finish off Black Beauty into your mouth, there's a good boy. Don't forget to chug!

Do you want to debate about "angels"? LOL! I've seen that debate with you and Mr Beamish. LOL!

Anonymous said...

OPERATION WRATH OF GOD: The Mossad carried out revenge attacks against alleged members of Black September.

1. VICTIM ONE
October 16th, 1972: Palestinian Abdel Wael Zwaiter shot 12 times in his apartment building in Rome.

2. VICTIM TWO
December 8th, 1972: Dr. Mahmoud Hamshari, died in hospital after Mossad bombed the telephone in his apartment.

3. VICTIM THREE
January 24th, 1973: Hussein Al Bashir killed by a bomb placed under his bed.

4. VICTIM FOUR
April 6th 1973: Dr. Basil Al-Kubaissi shot 12 times by Israeli agents whilst returning home.

- OPERATION SPRING OF YOUTH: Mossad agents and IDF Special Forces covertly entered Beirut and Sidon, killing an estimated 100 alleged members of the PLO and 3 civilians including an Italian female.

5. VICTIM FIVE
April 11th 1973: Zaiad Muchasi blown up in his hotel room in Athens.

6. VICTIM SIX
June 28th, 1973: Mohammad Boudia, murdered by a landmine beneath his car seat.

7. VICTIM SEVEN
July 21st, 1973: Ahmed Bouchiki, a Moroccan waiter, shot repeatedly whilst walking with his pregnant wife, because agents confused him with Ali Hassan Salameh, the alleged leader of Black September. Five agents were caught and convicted of murder by Norway.

8. VICTIM EIGHT
July 27th, 1979: Zuheir Mohsen gunned down in France.

Anonymous said...

Terry,

I like this point so much, I though I'd post it again.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

"...killing an estimated 100 alleged members of the PLO and 3 civilians..."

How do we know it wasn't 100 members of the PLO and an estimated 3 alleged civilians? Or 100 estimated PLO members, 2 alleged civilians, and 1 nobody knew how to catagorize?

Rubes. Is this an estimated body count, or an alleged one?

You can't get any more retarded than Terry's and Cla's class. Oh how grade school oppresses you.

Anonymous said...

Terry,

Another intellectual comment from Mr Beamish, I see. LOL!

That's as bad as FarmerFuckwitts "accidents don't count". And now we give you "How do we know...". LOL!

Whatever next? "I don't think so..", "Maybe it didn't...".

Is it just me Terry, or can the infomation on Mossad Terrorist Attacks, be found everywhere? Any simple search will find the same.

Anonymous said...

Cla:

All the information is available. This is a useless argument. Beamish thinks he's a defence lawyer at the Hague, not a user on a blog site! Talk about a superiority complex.

They won't check anything Cla. They don't want to debate. The Israel issue is embedded into their sinister religious ideology. It's pointless and there's nothing to gain.

I'm glad you checked them out. Told you they where nutballs. I read that conversation about angels too.

Christians filled with hatred and full of vitriol. That's just a huge, whopping contradiction. Didn't Jesus say LOVE thy neighbour? And I'm not even a Christian! lol. The hypocrisy.

How can you have a decent debate with individuals who have serious mental health issues? It's a shame really. I think it's down to living in a bubble and being exposed to so much fallacy. These guys are 'proper' middle American rednecks. They remind me of the yokels in Deliverance - FJ's probably sat on a porch right now, playing the banjo and flirting with his mother.

With Beamish though, he seems quite literate, despite being cognitively challenged, and that'll cost money in the US. My guess is he's a little middle class shit stain, who spent all daddy's money at college.

That's why he's sat in front of his computer chatting shit and he's not in the middle east fighting for what he claims to believe in. Says it all.

I just can't continue to debate with religious extremists, especially when they're mentally ill.

Angels? WTF??

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

I see Terry and Cla still need directions to the high road.

I'm wondering how these feebs are going to convince anyone down at the docks that Israel is a "terrorist state" to be boycotted.

"Well, Israel is a terrorist state because your mom blows goats!"

All that's missing is the Beavis and Butthead laugh.

Anonymous said...

Huh..., huh...., Cool!

Beavis and Butthead are great. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Terry,

We "need directions to the high road". LOL

I haven't slaged Mr Beamish, for ages. He has, since I stopped. LOL!

I suppose the readers can see that for themselfs too. If I'm going to be accused of that, I may as well do it again.

Anonymous said...

CLA:

Remember: I'll take the high road and you take the low road. I'll be in Scotland before ye...

lol.

He's just having a tantrum because we caught him discussing angels and praising Jehovah. As you would if you were a walking contradiction. Even the Texans think he's a prick and that's saying something. lol.

He has a mental illness. Perhaps, we shouldn't tease him, but try and find him some help? I'm sure Professor Dawkins would oblige. lol.

Beamish's world view is completely opposed to ours because we've visited the real world; Beamish has only heard about it on TV. Let him keep babbling. And to think he's an alleged 'christian'! When did Jesus advise war, hatred and racism? He seems to have missed the point entirely!

I just can't debate with religious extremists. I wish I'd noticed that sooner and not wasted my time.

Anonymous said...

Terry,

They can't call themselves Christians and believe what they say. Not enough compassion, acceptance, forgiveness, or any other acts of kindness. How are they Christian? Good Samaritan? The hypocrisy!

To easy to win this argument too.

Didn't Jesus throw traders out of the temple? Quite a socialist act, I think.

Anonymous said...

Good point!

Anonymous said...

As always, there's truth in this polemic. At bottom, however, it's economistic nonsense.

First, it's a red herring. It's a polemic against a blanket boycott of Israel, which is not the position of the UCU or many on the left. A boycott of Israeli institutions and goods is not the same thing as a boycott of Israelis.

Second, the key issue with the national question is the difference between oppressor and exploited. Other may say it's outdated, but I still think it's correct to view Israel as a colonial settler state with a labour aristocracy that benefits materials from the exclusion and exploitation of Arab labour. Yossi writes of the boycott of universities as equally impacting on students and teachers. However, Israeli universities are not pluralist, inclusive, non-sectarian or in any way neutral. They are largely mechanisms that reinforce and reproduce Zionist dominance.

Third, the UCU does not claim that the boycott ended apartheid. Again, that's a red herring. That would be as simplistic as Yossi's claim that it was trade union struggle that ended apartheid.

Fourth, in itself the boycott is neither a reformist more revolutionary strategy. Boycotts can be ways of making solidarity and raising consciousness, as well as materially weakening the oppressor. The UCU debate, for example, has opened up the debates excellently.

Fifth, Yossi's opposition to the boycott is maximalist: his criticism is that the boycott campaigners do not spell out the need for socialism. He calls for a workers' boycott of Israel's arms trade, which modestly resembles a transitional demand, as if this in any way poses the question of socialism any better than the UCU campaign, which is more able to gain momentum and thus change consciousness.

There are some criticisms of the boycott campaign: principally that it also needs to be better used as a tool to educate Jews and Israelis about the need for solidarity. That is a difficult task, and one that Yossi seems not to be priorisiting.

Frank Partisan said...

Anonymous: Thank you for your post. You don't need to be anonymous here.

I think a boycott of a university, will hurt leftists and workers. In addition it strikes at attacking academic freedom.

I think the left should join working class based groups in Israel, and build a base.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 299 of 299   Newer› Newest»