UN criticises Israel's move to withhold Palestinian cash

The closure of the main cargo terminal between Israel and the Gaza Strip for more than two weeks has cost the Palestinian economy about US$7 million and is creating a shortage of basic goods and health supplies, according to a UN report.

Israel closed the Karni crossing, the main outlet for Palestinian exports, on January 15 citing intelligence warnings of a planned Palestinian attack.

Under a November agreement, reached under pressure from the United States, Israel agreed that Karni would remain open unless it came under a specific threat. If Karni was shut, cargo was to be diverted to the Erez crossing in northern Gaza, the main passage for Palestinian laborers who cross into Israel each day, according to the agreement.

The IDF said it closed the crossing after work on a smuggling tunnel that was to run underneath it was discovered on the Palestinian side. Palestinian Interior Ministry spokesman Tawfik Abu Khoussa said Palestinian forces inspected the area for possible tunnels and uncovered nothing.

by Anisa Abd el Fattah
(Saturday February 25 2006)

"...it seems unfortunately, that Israel has convinced the US Secretary of State that the US should be complicit in Israel’s ongoing war of attrition, and genocide against the Palestinian people."

Israel has said that it will not do business with a Palestinian Authority that is led by Hamas, because they claim that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Now Israel has also threatened Iran with legal opposition to Iran’s offer to help the PA. They also opposed Russia’s overtures, prior to Rice taking off to the Middle East to dissuade Arab governments from offering any assistance. Does it seem strange to anyone that Rice, and her friends in Israel, seem to be pushing the Palestinians away from the West and into the hands of the Eastern powers, and those deemed potential enemies of the US, such as China, Russia, and also Iran? I say this, not to offend any of these countries, only to highlight the absurdity, hypocrisy and absolute counterproductive nature of the present US policy in respect to the PA. This attempt to align Palestine with these nations, while also threatening to prevent any financial assistance from these countries from reaching the PA, is not only ridiculous, but should raise red flags, (no pun intended) and no small amount of curiosity as to the true intent of the US in respect to the PA and the future of the Palestinian people. This realignment, which essentially removes Palestine from the patronage and interest of the Arab nation/states is perhaps aimed at tarnishing the PA as a Russian influenced, Iranian controlled, and Chinese dominated Eastern entity, while preserving the illusion that Israel is European, Western, and the United State’s only friend and true ally in the region. It would also sever the emotional, and other ties, including shared economic and security interests that are the cause for official Arab support for the PA.

Israel is very preoccupied with its image in the US and Europe, since these are the primary sponsors of its criminal enterprise in Palestine. This, along with creating the illusion that the PA is, and should be aligned with potential US enemies, also makes an even stronger case in support of Israel’s position that the PA should not be of any interest to the US, nor the recipient of US diplomatic support, or financial aide. In fact, it seems unfortunately, that Israel has convinced the US Secretary of State that the US should be complicit in Israel’s ongoing war of attrition, and genocide against the Palestinian people.

The terrorism tag that the Israeli lobby, Bill Clinton and the US Congress inflicted upon Hamas is very easy to exploit as a cause for the war of attrition that is being carried out against the Palestinian people. It will be very interesting to see how Rice will continue to make the argument that Hamas is a terrorist organization without eventually having to own up to the truth and reality that Israel is a terrorist pariah state that has drained the US not only of billions of US taxpayer dollars, but is also the single cause for the loss of life of more than 2000 US soldiers and Marines, and more than 300,000 Iraqi civilians in a war that was fought for Israel, and to the detriment of the United States and the rest of the entire world, against a people who had nothing to do with 9/11, and who had no WMD. That is not to mention the number of Palestinians who have been brutally killed by Zionists since 1948 when Israel first began its war of attrition against Palestine.
There is no getting around the fact that President Clinton, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, declared by Executive order that Hamas is a terrorist organization because it began a military resistance to Israel’s’ illegal occupation. Yet, we must consider that it did so only after New Yorker, Baruch Goldstein, facilitated by the Israeli army, entered a mosque in Hebron, and murdered the people inside, shooting them from behind as they kneeled in prayer. The US paid no reparations, and neither did Israel. Neither the EU, or the US, or anyone did anything to punish Israel, or to prevent such an atrocity from happening again. No one sought to protect the lives of the Palestinian people. Later, the Israeli government issued a permit for the settlers to build a monument honoring Goldstein as a hero for what he had done, and no one protested. Why didn’t the US threaten to withhold aid from Israel for using US taxpayer money to build a monument to a murderer, and a terrorist? Why has the US turned its head to Israel’s nuclear weapons program? Hamas has never met the criteria for the terrorist designation it received, whereas Israel does meet those criteria. Hamas was not subject to US scrutiny in respect to its right to self-defense, since God endows its right to self-defense, and it is protected by the Geneva Conventions.

In the now discredited Global terrorism report that was used as the official pretext for Clinton’s executive order, among the necessary crimes was carrying out acts of terrorism against the US, US citizens and property. Israel has killed numerous American citizens in acts of terrorism, including Rachel Corrie. It destroyed the USS Liberty, a US submarine, and has carried out other illegal and evil acts against US interests, including causing the deaths of more than 2000 US military personnel in Iraq. Israel has violated every relevant international law that exists, and continues to ignore more than 100 UN resolutions aimed at ending the occupation, while also having an illegal nuclear weapons program. The question we must ask ourselves now, is whether Hamas acted outside the law when Hamas took up resistance against Israel, and if so, is Israel acting outside the law when it commits acts of terrorism against Palestine, and when it kills US citizens, spies on our country, and people, and attempts to rob US citizens of our Constitutional rights through subversion of our laws, and blackmail of our elected officials. If Hamas is a terrorist organization for fighting to defend Palestinian life, is the US terrorist for invading Iraq, which posed absolutely no threat to US security? We had better get on the right side of the law before the International Court is forced to consider such questions. Another question the Court might one day consider is whether or not it is criminal to initiate a war of attrition against a people, who by definition of the law, are a protected people, who are living under a brutal, criminal and illegal occupation. Are nations who play along in this great feat of deception and immoral genocide equally as guilty as the initiator?

In judging Hamas in respect to Clinton’s Executive order, we must also keep in mind that Hamas received this designation during Jack Abramoff’s reign in Washington DC. It’s no longer a secret that Jerry Falwell and Benjamin Netanyahu were attempting to blackmail Clinton to end his insistence that Israel give up more of the land it has illegally confiscated from the Palestinian people. Perhaps this explains why a US President would resort to violating the Fourth Geneva Conventions to make terrorist out of a people who are in direct conflict with Jack Abramoff, Netanyahu, and Falwell, creating a legal pretense upon which to carry out genocide against these people through war, and starvation, and psychological distress without international condemnation.

Now, in a knee jerk reaction to the mere word “Hamas” Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has taken off on a Middle East tour to convince Arab governments that they should join the war of attrition against the Palestinians. This war has included land confiscation, destruction of trees and farms, poisoning of livestock, targeted assassinations, check point closures, and an illegal wall barrier designed to further confiscate land, and to cut off Palestinian access to roads and even water. The UN deemed it a humanitarian crisis. It is a war of attrition; a genocide that has to date, by the grace of God, failed to eliminate the Palestinian people. Within the context of new population reports that say the Palestinians are reproducing faster and in greater numbers than the Israelis; perhaps Hamas’ election has become a convenient cause for measures that are actually designed to accelerate the war, and drastically decrease the numbers of living and any future Palestinians. Rice commented before a Senate sub-committee that the US will not end humanitarian aide to the Palestinians and are in the process of organizing an immunization campaign for the Palestinian people. How can we avoid entertaining the suspicion that such a statement raise, considering the children in Libya that contracted HIV/AIDS through a Western sponsored immunization program, and the number of women in the Muslim world who have suffered spontaneous abortions after being immunized, and others who have complained of sterilization?

Americans, as we seek to understand why our country supports such obviously wicked attempts to accelerate and intensify Palestinian suffering and genocide against these people, must keep in mind Rice’s relationship with Ariel Sharon, the Christian wrong, and other neo-con and Zionist interests operating in the US. These people represent the same institutions, and ideologies that brought us chattel slavery, economic isolation and impoverishment of Africa and Latin America, war and genocide against Native Americans, White and Jewish Supremacism, terrorism, and also the war on terrorism that has turned out, by nearly everyone’s estimation, to actually be an ideological war against Islam, Muslims and Arabs.

The Palestine/Israel conflict should concern us all. It is where the battle between good and evil, and the future of our world is being waged. Will the world be a place that is ruled arbitrarily, crippled morally by an asymmetrical morality and coerced through brute force, state sponsored terrorism and fear? Or will we be a world of people who live according to laws that are enforced equally and equitably, with the intent to achieve and to preserve justice, peace and prosperity for all people? Rice is dragging the US into the Zionist vision of the world’s future under racist Zionist rule, which will we, the world’s people, including the American people, accept?

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/27446

"Oh", he says sarcastically," a refreshing alternatice to Big Oil funded Mainstream American media. Now we get Big Oil funded Maisnteam Arab media. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss"

"I actually think that by now, Palestinians have developed some sort of national identity, and to maintain harmony, the West Bank and Gaza should be given back, with East Jerusalem, out of fairness to all religions, being an international city."

The national identity unfortunately is based on hatred of the "Zionist entity." And the next generation has been so indoctrinated with hate that I fear they are already lost.

And I think most Americans and quite a few Israelis agree with you. This is similar to what was proposed at Camp David.
" The U.S. plan offered by Clinton and endorsed by Barak would have given the Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank and full control of the Gaza Strip, with a land-link between the two; Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements as a result. In exchange for the three percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state, and refugees would have the right of return to the Palestinian state, and would receive reparations from a $30 billion international fund collected to compensate them. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places, and would be given desalinization plants to ensure them adequate water. The only concessions Arafat had to make was Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years"

Its -5 and snowing in Maine, CM. You know what I'm thinking.

"I actually think that by now, Palestinians have developed some sort of national identity, and to maintain harmony, the West Bank and Gaza should be given back, with East Jerusalem, out of fairness to all religions, being an international city."

I know you mean well, CM, but Israel invaded West Jerusalem, occupied it, and clearly considers it unambiguous Israeli territory, and is now doing the same with East Jerusalem. It's commendable that you want to roll that back, but if Israel can't be expected to forfeit West Jerusalem to 'international city' status, why do you think it's reasonable to require this of the Palestinians for East Jerusalem? Like virtually all zionist ideas about what is "reasonable" and "fair," it's a very asymmetric proposal. This sort of thing is why Palestinians feel Israel can't negotiate in good faith, so why make believe?

Also, if you really feel Gaza and West Bank should be restored to their pre-'67 extent, then we're essentially in agreement about what Israel needs to do, but also this should make you as jaundiced as any anti-zionist as to Israel's good faith, because if there's one thing zionist ACTIONS (_not_words_; see map below) have made clear over the past 58 years, it's their determination to erode and ultimately dissolve Palestinian control of their own territory and absorb it into Israel. That's the BAD FAITH message conveyed by every zionist on this board who says "but JORDAN is 'Palestine'; it's UNFAIR for them to have anything west of the Dead Sea." How would you react to that sentiment if you were a West Bank Palestinian? You don't think they know? You know perfectly well how prevalent this attitude is, and yet on the other hand you acknowledge the fairness -- no, the *necessity* -- of returning Palestine to its pre-'67 status. Logically and ethically, this should cause you to break ranks and take a long hard look at zionism today, cuz I'm telling you, you're at odds with it. That's what conscience calls for. I'll agree the situation is polychromatic, but this dissonance you're into here is tantamount to "black is white and white is black and blue is orange and pink is aqua and..."

No.

That's called D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N. It's carrying dualism and ambiguity to the point where nothing means anything anymore, so therefore everything-means-whatever-I-want-it-to-mean-at-any-given-moment. That's the exact universe of weirdness your friends here inhabit. They open a door onto it almost every time they express an opinion. If this is how zionism commands you to think (and it is), you need to run for your life.

"This is similar to what was proposed at Camp David."

Jerusalem was always a Jewish city. Under Jordan, access to the Temple Wall and to the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, where Jews have been burying their dead for 2,500 years was cut off. Grave stones were used for pavement. 58 Jerusalem synagogues were destroyed. East Jerusalem became "Judenrein" under Jordan.

Under the partition plan, Jerusalem was to be an international City. Under Camp David, East Jerusalem was to be the capital of the new Palestinian county.

The map TW has shown is misleading. See:
http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm
(From Dennis Ross' book)

"One of the most important mythologies and one of the revisionisms that has emerged is that in the end what was offered to the Palestinians was something that no Palestinian could have accepted. A mythology developed that the Palestinians were offered a state that couldn't have been viable, territories that were totally divided and surrounded, settlements interspersed throughout the Palestinian territories, no independent border with Jordan as an example in the West Bank, and something that by definition no Palestinian could accept.

For the first time, I present maps that compare what the Palestinians were offered with what Arafat says he was offered.

Arafat says he was offered cantons, small, isolated Palestinian islands, completely divided up by Israeli roads and settlements and surrounded by the Israelis — completely untrue. He says he wasn’t even offered 90 percent of the West Bank — completely untrue. "

http://www.cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/5000#1

http://www.aaiusa.org/news/must_read11_22_02.htm

While 50 percent of Arab-Americans agreed that a majority of Jewish-Americans think that Palestinians have a right to live in a secure and independent state of their own, the actual level of Jewish-American support for this position is 85 percent.

Majorities in our communities -- 94 percent of Arab-Americans and 87 percent of Jewish-Americans -- think that it's "very important" or "somewhat important" to work with each other to achieve a peace in which Palestinians and Israelis have the right to live in their own states.

Noam Chomsky for one has exposed him as a biased observer

Meanwhile his maps don't contradict mine as dramatically as you would like, i.e. the IDEA communicated by mine is not open to question.

Camp David was how many years ago? And meanwhile the construction of settlements and the disintegration of Palestinian territory has continued apace. You're avoiding this point as well.

Finally, Camp David is irrelevant anyway -- you can't keep claiming Arafat scuttled it and then pretend otherwise -- so why do you keep waving it around?

This is how you try to wriggle around everything. It's the 'rathole' game again

Jerusalem is a city where Jews have lived. It's also a city where Arabs have lived. Even Tia acknowledged (and gave a link to a jewishvirtuallibrary.org page documenting) that Jews were in the minority there prior to 1840. How does this lead to Jews having some special exclusive right to the place? Because Jewish tradition and scripture say so? This is a microcosm of your psychology toward Israel as a whole, and it's no more rational than any of it.

"It's carrying dualism and ambiguity to the point where nothing means anything anymore, so therefore everything-means-whatever-I-want-it-to-mean-at-any-given-moment."

Camp David is irrelevant anyway....

It is relevant in that the entire burden for the peace process cannot rest entirely on Isreal. Both sides need to show a willingnss to make sacrifices and to compromise.

It is the same reason the history of the region, going back to the Peel commission and the Partition plan are relevant. It shows that Israel has always been willing to accept an independent Palestinian state in the area, and that Israel has always been willing to trade "land for peace"

No it wasn't:

http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/jerusalem/jerutime.html

(snip)

ca. 1004 King David captures Jerusalem from the Jebusites. Makes Jerusalem the capital. (As some scholars point out, King David did not found Jerusalem, but conquered an already-inhabited city that had been in existence for 2,000 years.)

(snip)

Now his appetite for breaking the records of his own historical lies has been stoked. "Israel invaded West Jerusalem, occupied it, and clearly considers it unambiguous Israeli territory". Little did CM expect this clown to try this ruse in response to her political candor.

Now that a Zionist interlocutor has expressed willingness to concede E. Jerusalem -- the truly controversial part of the city -- for the purpose of internationalization, Total Weaselry isn't content and covets the rest, overlooking the fact that virtually all references to Jerusalem as being up for int'l status have actually alluded to the holy sites -- located in the eastern part alone. This T.W. clown is advocating symmetry as a ruse to deprive the Jewish side of their part of the city.

In comparison to his newest lie, T.W.'s strategic ignorance of the real stances of the far-leftist Zionists (e.g. Yahad) re restoring Israeli land control to pre-'67 dimensions is nothing surprising. Just like JA and "nessie" to name two, Total Weaselry posits Zionists are a homogenic bunch marching in lockstep and Zionism a uni-layered set of concepts. Needless to say he considers it a necessity for Israel not to transfer all land control of Judea-Samaria to the Palis, but to cede the remainder of the territory west of the Jordan to them too.

"virtually all references to Jerusalem as being up for int'l status have actually alluded to the holy sites"

Oh, really? And this includes the 'international city' as designated by the U.N. from 1948 to 1967? I'll be damned, I never knew the ancient holy sites were so gigantic, they're like 10 miles across! Wow, the temple Mount must be like fukkin Mauna Loa or sumpin!

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Playtown/8876/palestine/M0103_1b.jpg

"Total Weaselry posits Zionists are a homogenic bunch marching in lockstep and Zionism a uni-layered set of concepts"

That's a good point. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying the expressed positions of different zionist political camps. HOWEVER. "A homogenic bunch marching in lockstep" IS a good way to characterize the Israeli government and its very coherent policies, and when dissident zionists meekly go along with them out of "solidarity," they support them by default and IN EFFECT become so many political ciphers marching in unison. I don't know how prevalent this is over there in Boobyhatchistan, but here in the U.S. a kind of herd instinct is clearly discernible. It is unusual to see Jews criticize Israeli policy in any way in mixed company. There is a clear ethic that Israel must be supported unconditionally and staunchly defended from non-Jewish criticism ("what Israel does is nobody else's business") so backing whatever shitty team you got becomes the paramount priority, and then *in effect* you end up uniting behind an archetypal fascist asshole like Sharon, even if you happen to personally hate his guts. All this is on display every day here. Therefore, while your LIP SERVICE may not deserve my over-simplification, your political behavior under this solidarity ethic DOES

Sane interlocutor:
virtually all references to Jerusalem as being up for int'l status have actually alluded to the holy sites

"Oh, really? And this includes the 'international city' as designated by the U.N. from 1948 to 1967? I'll be damned, I never knew the ancient holy sites were so gigantic, they're like 10 miles across!

Uh-huh, just too convenient for you to fail to notice the word "virtually" before rushing to spoute off.

Sane interlocutor:
Total Weaselry posits Zionists are a homogenic bunch marching in lockstep and Zionism a uni-layered set of concepts

"That's a good point. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying the expressed positions of different zionist political camps. HOWEVER. "A homogenic bunch marching in lockstep" IS a good way to characterize the Israeli government and its very coherent policies, and when dissident zionists meekly go along with them out of "solidarity," they support them by default and IN EFFECT become so many political ciphers marching in unison."

Oversimplifying wouldn't be merely putting it mildly, it's a wrong choice of semantics altogether. We often find polar (or nearly polar) differences of opinion between far right and far left Zionist parties.
Furthermore, I don't find the implication that the Israeli government's policies are very coherent compelling. I do find therein phenomena like policy ambiguities and different voices eminating from the same body as it were.

"Therefore, while your LIP SERVICE may not deserve my over-simplification, your political behavior under this solidarity ethic DOES"

See CM's retort above.

Oh, we really can't manage without the obligatory fascist label being attached to Sharon can we. It's the ambience, you see.

"You have yet to answer my question. Why is it that Muslims who moved to Jerusalem in 1946 have more of a right to the land than Jews from the 1800's?"

No, I have addressed this over and over, you're just being willfully dense. The Arabs had a clear numerical majority in the area from long before 1880 right up to Nakba. Whatever the percentages were for Arab immigration 1880 to 1947, the percentages for Jewish immigration were even higher, and jacked up higher still after 1948 when Jews finally became the majority. Therefore whatever population-based argument you can use to deny the Arab claim to that land becomes even more potent when applied to the post-1880 zionist influx. This analysis is straightforward and impartial within the frame of this immigration numbers game you always want to get into. It only gets murked up when your brain is jammed in this mode where Jewish immigrants are somehow magically "natives" while Arab immigrants are "foreigners"...

It's a basic symptom of your entire mentality toward Israel.

NOW HEAR THIS: Jews do not have special magical moral/legal rights over other groups. No, not even in Israel/Palestine. Who lived where 2,000 years ago carries legal weight only in the minds of religious/political maniacs. Yes, I know this idea is hard for you, but TRY

"Also, what do you expect the Israeli Jews to do now?"

I have no problem with Israel staying where it is so long as 1) the '67 borders are restored and 2) the zionists quit being desperate political lunatics and monstrous lebensraum bigots. If Israel can not meet these conditions, however, well...

from another thread:
Israel and zionism have become malignancies on the global body politic, posing threats that just keep getting more ominous and deadly. A 95% human majority agrees with me on this, that's why Israel keeps getting creamed in UNGA votes. The tentacles of apocalyptic zionist realpolitik have unfurled into our own government now, with zionist-aligned fascists unveiling a New American Empire including a virtual domestic dictatorship. There is absolutely no question that fanatical zionists are prominent among the primary architects of this. Hey, Israel has to survive, even if this means everywhere else on earth becomes a living hell, right? Looking at it from a different angle, 9-11 gave this country's WASP-heavy dictator class the perfect pretext for applying the experimental findings from their fascist laboratory in the Middle East, a.k.a. "Israel," to the US as a whole. Again, this has Leo Strauss' fingerprints all over it. Superficially, this program resembles an *ideological* annexation of the US by Israel, and it enormously multiplies the threats posed to the world by apocalyptic zionist and zionesque ideology.

You don't have to go to Israel, Tia. It's coming to YOU.

If this is what Israel's continuing existence means, I say it has to GO. I don't think that's "bias", I think it's totally lucid

Nessie's solution [a single secular universalist state] is a good one. The two-state solution was also good -- back before Israel (deliberately) eroded Palestinian holdings to the point where it ceased to make sense.

Almost any change of course away from the one Israel has monomaniacally pursued for the past 58 years would be a positive development.

But I have no reason whatsoever, based on the record of the past 58 years, to believe zionists will undertake such a change. The true obstacles here lie not with the Palestinians but with your own bigot mania. You have AAAAAAALLLLLLL the power. They have none. The way you insist on blaming *every* impasse on them is just a vivid symptom of your own criminal psychopathology.

~~~~~~~~~~~
So you see it's not that I "expect so much more out of the Jews," it's that ZIONIST MANIAC Jews are fucking the whole world up WAY MORE than any other party in the Middle East. No don't start with pointing at "Moslem terrorism," they're a reaction to YOU

"Do you know just HOW MUCH of a majority Muslims had?"

Jeeeeeeezuss, how many times do I have to put this goddam table on here?? You mean you still haven't followed this link yet? Or does that facultative amnesia thing kick in every time you see it?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/demograhics.html

A 90% majority right through the 1800s isn't "overwhelming?" What on earth does it take? Then after 1900 this 10:1 ratio falls, but this reflects exactly the immigration differential I talked about

"Also, did not develop Jerusalem very much."

Look, this is 'manifest destiny' reasoning. Yeah, it is. It's bigoted and self-serving.

"...making [Jerusalem] an International City would be the fair solution."

Okay, this is the jumping-through-ratholes/inventing-issues game again. When did I say Jerusalem should not be an international city? I DIDN'T. I took issue with West Jerusalem being left out of the international city while Palestine is expected to bite the whole bullet on this. I don't think that's fair, and attaching arbitrary unfair conditions to things is not the way to hammer out lasting agreements. Obviously, Jerusalem should be an international city. If this just means the holy sites, fine, but that's not what you mean, is it? If it means all of East Jerusalem, then there should be an equivalent forfeiture on the Israeli side. Is there a problem with including West Jerusalem in the international city? What is it? It can't be that you're being possessive petulant babies, could it? And you don't think the Palestinians have every bit as much right to dig their heels in on Jerusalem? Man, you're such impenetrably self-centered FUCKHEADS! And they know it too. That's why they've totally lost patience.

"Make two states, good border control for security of both sides, and wait for things to cool off a bit more."

Fine, agreed

"Funny, we were talking about Zionists...nice generalization, there."

Oh, now that's a low-down trick. This is what I said:
"It is unusual to see JEWS criticize Israeli policy in any way in mixed company."


"I'M NOT TIA"

Okay, what part of "from another thread" and "~~~~~~~~~~~" do you not understand?

re: you have all the power, they have none: "Nice black and white revert to standard leftist love the underdogs assume extremes."

Look, I'm sorry if you don't want to believe it, but it's true. Everything they're doing including the terrorism is stuff Israel's political leadership has pushed them to do because THEY WANT THEM TO DO IT. It's what keeps the pretexts fully stoked for doing what the Jabotinskyites have obviously wanted to do ever since the Balfour Agreement, which is grab it ALL. You don't think this is how elite politicians think, CM? Well I'm telling you flat out: this is ABSOLUTELY how elite politicians think. They're inhuman.