Vittorio Arrigoni murdered in Gaza by Palestinian terrorists - because he was gay?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2011 4:48 PM GMT
    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/18/michael-ross-gazas-death-sentence-for-a-well-meaning-naif

    It’s hard to see anything but irony in the murder of Vittorio Arrigoni, the naïve Italian “activist” who had the misfortune of not keeping up to date with which terrorist entities in Gaza suffer western sympathizers as propagandists, and which ones do not.

    Arrigoni’s initial step on his long trail of misfortune was hooking up with the “International Solidarity Movement” (ISM). The ISM is a dubious organization essentially populated by better-fed versions of John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban” captured in Afghanistan after the attacks of 9/11. Like John Walker Lindh, Arrigoni demonstrated at the cost of his life, that ISM members are hypocritical tourists in a conflict they don’t really understand. As with many left-wing organizations dedicated to the industry of grievance politics, the ISM uses the slogans of peace, human rights, anti-racism, and nonviolence to support a cause that uses terrorism and advocates genocide. Despite Hamas’ cynical attempt to use the Arrigoni murder as a means to portray themselves as “moderates”, at its core, Hamas is hyper-violent, racist, sexist and homophobic. ISM makes much of its “nonviolent methods” but what they really mean is “non-violence in support of terrorism”.

    When it comes to hating Israel, the ISM is apparently ready to make a lot of compromises. It must have seemed very disconcerting for Arrigoni to be kidnapped, beaten, blind-folded, video-taped and given the Daniel Pearl treatment (minus the beheading) by the very people he had devoted much of his short-lived adult life to while engaged in “Palestinian solidarity”.

    There’s irony heaped upon irony here as the ISM, like Hamas, fully supports a one-state solution with the effective replacement of Israel with an Arab state ostensibly populated by returning Palestinians. That this state should be run by an Iranian-sponsored terrorist movement that has no compunction about suicide bombing buses, restaurants, and shopping malls and indiscriminately lobbing rockets and missiles on civilian targets is also lost on the hapless ISM leadership. Unfortunately, ISM indoctrination classes don’t include explaining that Israel is a microcosm of the civilized world’s struggle against a murderous ideology be it Palestinian nationalist Islamism or al-Qaeda’s transnational nihilism. What ISM indoctrination classes do entail however, is cooking up all kinds of schemes that will enable ISM “activists” to illicitly gain entry to Israel so they can hook up with their Hamas sponsors in Gaza.

    The biggest irony of this whole incident (and I mean aside from the fact that Hamas has to contend with Islamist terror in its own jurisdiction), is that various news organizations are falling all over themselves to explain that it wasn’t Hamas that killed Arrigoni but a Salafist al Qaeda splinter group as if the two have no Palestinian connection at all. The subtext of not blaming Palestinians implies that Israel is to blame for Arrigoni’s death and this has been part of the news spin since the story broke.

    The ideologues over at the ISM (and more than a few news editors) might be interested to know that the origins of the Salafi offshoot that murdered Vittorio Arrigoni and his friends in Hamas can both trace their roots to the Muslim Brotherhood – the progenitor for modern Islamic terrorism.

    The only difference between the two is that Hamas realizes that it needs westerners to fill the role of what Lenin termed, “useful idiots” while al Qaeda could care less about propaganda and whether a bunch of misguided 20-somethings support their cause or not.

    I don’t buy into Arrigoni being called a “peace activist”. When he chose to pal around with Hamas, he chose to be a single-state solution supporter of terrorism and radical Islam. Like many of the ISM tourists in Gaza, he could have chosen to stay in his own country and work for human rights, anti-racism, and poverty relief which are all readily available on his own doorstep.

    I suppose there is one more irony to be considered in this whole bizarre incident; members of the ISM won’t have time to worry about the Palestinians. They’ll be too busy watching out for their own misguided backsides. It must be no fun to be the target of Islamist terror. Maybe they’ll wind up asking Israel to protect them?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2011 4:50 PM GMT
    I disagree with the columnist. Beyond the ironies, this murder is a tragedy and senseless loss of life.

    vittorio_Arrigoni_AP110414025293_244x183
    Vittorio Arrigoni
    4 February 1975 – 15 April 2011
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2011 6:16 PM GMT
    I guess it's safer being an armchair humanitarian.

    Speaking of which, and going way off topic, there was four days ago a call for all RJ "Humanitarians, Activists, [and] Social Justice advocates" (http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1498817) regarding the plight of abducted, undereducated and malnourished children, victims of Africa's 25 year war, which as of this posting remains completely ignored as if their lives count for less, suggesting perhaps that those that use "zionist" as a dirty word may well be making "humanitarian" one as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2011 9:40 PM GMT
    Eagermuscle> those that use "zionist" as a dirty word may well be making "humanitarian" one as well.

    The eerie silence there (excluding DCEric), as here, confirms that.
  • madeinisrael

    Posts: 43

    Apr 22, 2011 10:08 AM GMT
    http://www.youtube.com/user/myisraelHE
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 05, 2011 2:47 PM GMT
    From the Economist (30 April 2011, p. 50):
    With civil dissent quahed by Hamas, Salafists are seeking violent outlets for expression. Two Salafists suspected of Mr. Arrigoni's murder were killed in a shoot-out after a Hamas raid on their hideout in central Gaza on April 18th. One group has waved a letter from Osama bin Laden as proof of its clout. And after Hamas recently captured the Salafists' guiding figure, Abu Walid al-Maqdisi, another group of Salafists declared that foreigners in Gaza were fair game for kidnapping.

    Well, at least they won't be getting any more letters from bin Laden.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 05, 2011 3:12 PM GMT
    Israeli Terrorists have killed about 6000 Palestinians since the year 2000, 1500 of them were children, some were killed by a bullet to the head by Israeli SNIPERS, some were killed by Israel's ADF and some were killed by ZIONIST FANATIC SETTLERS.

    The Irony of these terrible Israeli killings of Palestinians Children, then when revenge groups crop up they are being labeled as Terrorists by the same Israeli's, seems to be lost of LEERON (C4). Strange how LEERON avoids discussing these facts while bringing up a few instances of Palestinians doing some killing as Terrorists.

    So now according to LEERON are we to believe that if Zionist led Israel murders palestinians at a rate of nearly 6 to 1, thats not terrorism and no reason for Palestinians to seek revenge, RIGHT ? DUH !!! Shit happens when you kill a groups children !!!!


    (I do not condone this group killing Mr Arrigoni)
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3382

    Jun 19, 2016 6:27 AM GMT
    His murderers accused him of "spreading corruption" .

    If you don't know what that means, see this thread:

    Newsweek: HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4188753
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2016 2:43 PM GMT
    Were Vittorio Arrigoni executed for being gay, he would be the only person ever executed in Gaza for this reason (not by Hamas, which condemned the murder in no uncertain terms, but by Salafist enemies of Hamas who share the same ideology as Saudi Arabia).

    Beyond a few unverified YouTube comments (which the propaganda site 'Israellycool' ran with as "evidence") there is no reason to assume Arrigoni was executed for being gay. His status as a foreign hostage, and the desire to send a message to the elected government, suffice.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3382

    Jun 19, 2016 5:09 PM GMT
    Because Hamas, unlike Saudi Arabia, is a bastion of liberal thought and Gaza is a haven for gays. NOT.

    Hamas Commander, Accused of Theft and Gay Sex, Is Killed by His Own
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/world/middleeast/hamas-commander-mahmoud-ishtiwi-killed-palestine.html?_r=0

    he was accused of moral turpitude, by which Hamas meant homosexuality

    Hint: the punishment for "theft" is NOT death, yet he was executed by Hamas.

    One can debate if Hamas is less extremist than the Salafists, but that's like debating if the KKK is less extremist than the neo-nazis.

    Hamas also at times prevents the Salafists (and other groups) from firing rockets on Israel. Not because they think it's wrong, but because they want to be in control of when that happens. They are competitors.

    According to the nonsense philosophy spouted by AyaTrolLiar founcer, he should support the Salafists' right to fire rockets on Israel because that's a god given right of the Palestinians and Israelis/Jews need to be punished and murdered:

    AyaTrolLiar founcer [now posting as JTheM] blurted
    the Palestinians have every right to kill you.


    And that "right" extends not just to murdering Israeli Jews (and Americans), but to killing Gazans in the effort to murder Jews:

    Amnesty: Palestinian rockets killed more Gazans in 2014 war
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/palestinian-rockets-killed-gaza-civilians-during-war-amnesty-094310033.html?ref=gs
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2016 9:22 PM GMT
    Very Ugly Pervert> Because Hamas, unlike Saudi Arabia, is a bastion of liberal thought and Gaza is a haven for gays. NOT.

    Kindred perverts supported the colonial French in Algeria and the Soviets in Afghanistan because the FLN and Mujahedeen were "terrorists" who didn't believe in gay and women's rights.

    Very Ugly Pervert> One can debate if Hamas is less extremist than the Salafists, but that's like debating if the KKK is less extremist than the neo-nazis

    Idiocy. Hamas is an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.
    Saudi Arabia (our "moderate" allies) are Wahhabists like Bin Laden.


    Very Ugly Pervert> Amnesty

    Remarkably, he quotes Amnesty as an authority yet neglects that Amnesty does NOT consider firing projectiles from populated areas (which Israel also does) "human shielding". To date it has only accused Israel, the occupier of Gaza, of the latter.

    As noted previously, populations forcefully denied the right of self-determination have no obligation to forego the use of force in a struggle for national liberation.

    Besieged, occupied and abused populations - Palestinians, Kashmiris, Irish, Chechens, Kurds - have the right to target and kill those who brutally occupy them, who in turn do NOT enjoy the right to forcefully suppress populations governed against their will.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3382

    Jun 19, 2016 11:33 PM GMT
    Hamas, unlike Saudi Arabia, is a bastion of liberal thought and Gaza is a haven for gays. NOT.
    One can debate if Hamas is less extremist than the Salafists, but that's like debating if the KKK is less extremist than the neo-nazis.


    AyaTrolLiar> Hamas is an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia (our "moderate" allies) are Wahhabists like Bin Laden.

    So Hamas is more like the KKK while Wahhabists are more like the neo-nazis?
    Thanks for the clarification.


    Hamas Commander, Accused of Theft and Gay Sex, Is Killed by His Own
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/world/middleeast/hamas-commander-mahmoud-ishtiwi-killed-palestine.html?_r=0

    he was accused of moral turpitude, by which Hamas meant homosexuality

    Hint: the punishment for "theft" is NOT death, yet he was executed by Hamas.

    AyaTrolLiar> [ignored]


    Hamas also at times prevents the Salafists (and other groups) from firing rockets on Israel. Not because they think it's wrong, but because they want to be in control of when that happens. They are competitors. According to the nonsense philosophy spouted by AyaTrolLiar founcer, he should support the Salafists' right to fire rockets on Israel because that's a god given right of the Palestinians and Israelis/Jews need to be punished and murdered.

    AyaTrolLiar> Populations forcefully denied the right of self-determination have no obligation to forego the use of force in a struggle for national liberation'

    That's completely contrary to international law, but he just confirmed my point.
    The Salafists have the "right" to fire rockets at Israel and are denied that by Hamas....



    AyaTrolLiar founcer [now posting as JTheM] blurted
    the Palestinians have every right to kill you.


    And that "right" extends not just to murdering Israeli Jews (and Americans), but to killing Gazans in the effort to murder Jews:

    Amnesty: Palestinian rockets killed more Gazans in 2014 war
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/palestinian-rockets-killed-gaza-civilians-during-war-amnesty-094310033.html?ref=gs

    AyaTrolLiar> [couldn't care less about Gazans killed when terrorists try to murder Jews]


    AyaTrolLiar> the right to target and kill ...

    innocent civilians, including tourists?

    And people wonder why Southbeach thought AyaTrolLiar founcer was my sock puppet, like an incompetent plant in the audience?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2016 4:17 PM GMT
    Very Ugly Pervert> So Hamas is more like the KKK while Wahhabists are more like the neo-nazis?
    Thanks for the clarification

    On the contrary, I would say David Duke is considerably more subtle these days than Benjamin Netanyahu, who does a pretty good impression of a Klansman himself ("The Arabs are coming!")
    His racist, violence-enthralled thug of a Defence Minister, Avigdor Liberman, could pass as a standard Eastern European neo-Nazi any day. Not exactly something that an be said of Ḥamās. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Very Ugly Pervert> That's completely contrary to international law, but he just confirmed my point

    It is precisely in accord with international law.

    Very Ugly Pervert> The Salafists have the "right" to fire rockets at Israel and are denied that by Hamas....

    PALESTINIANS have the right to throw off the yoke of Israeli occupation by force.
    Israel does not have the right to "defend" its occupation, nor supress the popular Palestinian struggle for national liberation (a legal right per the World Court) by force.

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3382

    Jun 21, 2016 3:54 AM GMT
    So when Hamas denies the Palestinian Arab Salafists their "right" to resist Israeli "occupation", they are violating international law?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2016 8:51 PM GMT
    There is no international law forbidding clashes by armed groups over whether to abide by a ceasefire. International law simply states that the use of force by an occupying power to crush an indigenous movement for national liberation is illegal. Hence Turkey has no rights in Cyprus or Kurdistan, India no rights in Jammu and Kashmir, Russia no rights in Chechnya and Dagestan, and Israel no rights in the West Bank and Gaza.

    Populations have the right to say "ochi" (that is, "no") to being governed brutally against their will, in accordance with the interests of a foreign state. Before such an injustice is ended, it is impossible to talk about the right of a reviled occupier to "self-defense". Such a concept (as yet) does not even exist.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3382

    Jun 22, 2016 2:45 PM GMT
    What a simplistic response, exactly what we'd expect from AyaTrolLiar founcer.
    Israel's rights in Judea & Samaria (the so-called "West Bank" OF Trans/Jordan from 1948-1967) are established in the Palestine Mandate.
    The UN, acting as trustee, terminated the Mandate in 1948 but could not modify the terms of the trust territory.
    Their proposed partition compromise was violently rejected by the Arab parties.

    None of which has anything to do with my question:

    When Hamas denies the Palestinian Arab Salafists their "right" to resist Israeli "occupation", are they violating international law?

    The Palestinian Arabs, he told us, have the "right" to attack Israel.
    Israel, he alleged, doesn't even have the right to defend itself from such attacks.
    But Hamas can defend Israel from such attacks, deny the Salafists their "right" and even "crush" them?

    He believes that Hamas is the legitimate government in Gaza.
    Shouldn't he be calling them "traitors" and "quislings"?
    How is Hamas acting to prevent Salafist terrorism different from the Palestinian Authority acting to prevent Hamas terrorism?
    Not in an effort to uphold just an informal "ceasefire", but in an attempt to establish a peace agreement?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2016 11:33 PM GMT
    Very Ugly Pervert> Israel's rights in Judea & Samaria are established in the Palestine Mandate

    Sounds impressive, even with the British Empire reserving the right to exclude any part of the Mandate from the future Jewish "home" (not state). Except we then find that:

    Very Ugly Pervert> The UN, acting as trustee, terminated the Mandate in 1948

    Oh dear. So what ruse will work next?

    Very Ugly Pervert> but could not modify the terms of the trust territory

    Palestine today is a "trust"?
    The countries within it owe allegiance to a plan established a century ago by the League of Nations?

    Very Ugly Pervert> Their proposed partition compromise was violently rejected by the Arab parties

    As we have seen, ONE (non-binding) proposal was rejected. Just as well as it would never have passed in the post-colonial period, or even in the era of the two-thirds majority.

    Zionism openly sought, and had long discussed how to implement, expulsion of the Palestinians to make way for a Jewish settler state - hardly a benign cause to be resisted via "compromise".

    Very Ugly Pervert> Israel, he alleged, doesn't even have the right to defend itself from such attacks

    Israel is not defending itself, but its occupation.
    Were Israel to withdraw today from the Palestinian Territories, honour its obligation to respect Palestinian national self-determination, and sign a peace treaty, it would have all the right in the world to defend its internationally recognized borders.

    As of now, it enjoys the same rights as the Soviets in Afghanistan and the French in Algeria.
    Namely the right to leave and menace the population no more.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3382

    Jun 23, 2016 5:12 AM GMT
    As usual, the AyaTrolLiar pursues his diversion to avoid the inconvenient point (see next post).

    What a simplistic response, exactly what we'd expect from AyaTrolLiar founcer.
    Israel's rights in Judea & Samaria (the so-called "West Bank" OF Trans/Jordan from 1948-1967) are established in the Palestine Mandate.


    AyaTrolLiar> with the British Empire reserving the right to exclude any part of the Mandate from the future Jewish "home" (not state)

    Wrong. Article 25 of the Mandate allowed Britain, acting as the Mandatory Power, to exclude only territories east of the Jordan River.

    The purpose of Mandates were to establish states, not "homes" or "bantustans". The Palestine Mandate specified Jewish self-governing institutions (Article 2) but referenced the language "homeland" used in the earlier Balfour Declaration (predating the Mandates).


    AyaTrolLiar> as the Soviets in Afghanistan and the French in Algeria.

    Bzzzt! Not only is there no comparison between empires to a border dispute over a handful of miles, but we've already seen that under his vaunted "international law" there is no comparison.

    Of course, no one expects this cheap troll to make actual arguments rather than resort to such hyperbole, slinging silly slogans and vapid soundbites. (It is to reasoned debate what paint-by-number is to art, but our uneducated and clever-by-half fool thinks he's drawn up a masterpiece....)


    The UN, acting as trustee, terminated the Mandate in 1948 but could not modify the terms of the trust territory.

    AyaTrolLiar> Palestine today is a "trust"?

    Palestine today doesn't exist.
    My comments referenced the Palestine Mandate which, as noted, was legally terminated in 1948.
    What don't you understand? Why is this so difficult for you?

    AyaTrolLiar> owe allegiance to a plan established a century ago by the League of Nations?

    ROTFL. You pretend your argument is based on "international law", and then you discard it when inconvenient?

    One could similarly ask if President Trump (yuck) would be bound by agreements established by President Obama.
    Or perhaps question if Americans today are bound by the Constitution, a "plan" established "centuries ago" to which they were not part of.


    Their proposed partition compromise was violently rejected by the Arab parties.

    AyaTrolLiar> ONE (non-binding) proposal was rejected.

    I referenced the "one" from 29 Nov 1947, but a decade earlier they also rejected the Peel Partition compromise.
    In both cases they weren't rejecting particular specifics, but the entire concept of compromise and peaceful coexistence.

    While many Palestinian Arabs (perhaps a majority) recognize that as a fatal mistake, our resident hate fanatic zealots on:

    AyaTrolLiar> Zionism openly sought, and had long discussed how to implement, expulsion of the Palestinians to make way for a Jewish settler state - hardly a benign cause to be resisted via "compromise".

    Only if out of thousands of pages written by Zionists one selects a sentence here and doctors a paragraph there.
    Most famously, for one example, mis-quoting "[We] must expel Arabs and take their places" when the original said:

    We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.

    The added irony, of course, is that Arab leaders (e.g. in Haifa) ordered Arabs out in 1948 in order to deprive Israel of a population, to hurt the new state. Yet the AyaTrolLiar thinks the state was planning to hurt itself, not just here and there but everywhere?
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3382

    Jun 23, 2016 5:15 AM GMT
    Now back to my question rather than his endless diversions:

    When Hamas denies the Palestinian Arab Salafists their "right" to resist Israeli "occupation", are they violating international law?
    The Palestinian Arabs, he told us, have the "right" to attack Israel.
    Israel, he alleged, doesn't even have the right to defend itself from such attacks.


    AyaTrolLiar> Israel is not defending itself, but its occupation.

    Hardly. There were similar attacks on Israel before 1967, before the "occupation", and Israel defended itself then as it does today.

    Note further that Israel likewise defended itself from Hizbullah attacks in 2006, more than 6 years after the UN certified that Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon (that none of Lebanon was occupied by Israel).


    AyaTrolLiar> Were Israel to withdraw today from the Palestinian Territories, honour its obligation to respect Palestinian national self-determination, and sign a peace treaty

    Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and rather than any measure of peaceful reciprocation, terrorism from Gaza against Israeli civilians skyrocketed.

    Israel offered to withdraw from 97-99.5% of the disputed territories in 2000, 2001 and 2008. It was the Arab parties who refused to end hostilities and who today refuse to resume negotiations let alone make peace. (Note also that his Hamas heroes categorically reject any peace, while AyaTrolLiar founcer himself rejects - on racist grounds - Jewish "national self-determination".)


    But Hamas can defend Israel from such attacks, deny the Salafists their "right" and even "crush" them?

    AyaTrolLiar> [found the question too hard]

    Or maybe when it clamps down on the Salafists, Hamas is "defending the occupation"?


    He believes that Hamas is the legitimate government in Gaza.
    Shouldn't he be calling them "traitors" and "quislings"?
    How is Hamas acting to prevent Salafist terrorism different from the Palestinian Authority acting to prevent Hamas terrorism?
    Not in an effort to uphold just an informal "ceasefire", but in an attempt to establish a peace agreement?


    AyaTrolLiar> [crawls back under his rock]

    Added irony: the AyaTrolLiar just paid lip-service to a "peace treaty", but he defends Hamas opposing one (recall it rose to infamy in the 1990s, not "resisting" the Israeli "occupation" but for its suicide bombings meant to derail the then vibrant peace process) and himself is against it.

    Let's talk peace: The two-state solution
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4180210
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2016 11:52 PM GMT
    Very Ugly Pervert> The purpose of Mandates were to establish states, not "homes" or "bantustans". The Palestine Mandate specified Jewish self-governing institutions (Article 2) but referenced the language "homeland" used in the earlier Balfour Declaration (predating the Mandates).

    Yet not a Jewish "state". Not only was the language of statehood deliberately not used, but the British Empire and the then-Secretary General of the Zionist Organization both insisted there was no desire for, let alone commitment to, such an idea (which would have split the Zionist movement at the time).

    Indeed, the British rejected an early draft of the Balfour Declaration proclaiming the establishment of Palestine as the "Jewish National Home", opting instead to use the term "in".

    VUP> Not only is there no comparison between empires to a border dispute over a handful of miles

    ROTFL.

    VUP> but we've already seen that under his vaunted "international law" there is no comparison.

    On the contrary, the law of occupation applies.
    Despite fevered denials, the Israeli High Court agrees with the World Court that the Palestinian Territories are OCCUPIED, just like Afghanistan and Algeria.

    The Mandate Charter is an obsolete document about an obsolete imperial construct, as is your League of Nations "trust".

    What is not obsolete is the status of Palestine as occupied by Israel, and the right of Palestinians to national self-determination in areas over which Tel Aviv has not an atom of recognized sovereignty.

    VUP> Palestine today doesn't exist

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine

    VUP> I referenced the "one" from 29 Nov 1947, but a decade earlier they also rejected the Peel Partition compromise.

    The Jews also rejected compromises.
    The Peel Partition plan of 1937 required the expulsion of Palestinians from the Jewish state.

    VUP> Only if out of thousands of pages written by Zionists one selects a sentence here and doctors a paragraph there.

    In fact, whole books have been written about the centrality of transfer in Zionist thought, while Zionist hero Benny Morris describes it as "pervasive" in Zionist leadership circles since the inception of the movement, proclaiming not just that it was "inevitable and inbuilt" into Zionism, but that “Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement” of the indigenous population. (Yes, Morris uses the terms "colonization" and "indigenous". He also uses "ethnic cleansing") icon_rolleyes.gif

    VUP> There were similar attacks on Israel before 1967, before the "occupation"

    That would be after Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, massacred them repeatedly, and blocked their legal right to return.

    Though Israel was recognized internationally, 80% of Palestine was already "occupied", from the Arab point of view, before 1967. Indeed, it was a straight-up Apartheid state governing one group of citizens under military rule on the basis of ethnicity - a racist bureaucracy of oppression since transferred onto the West Bank.

    VUP> Lebanon

    Were we talking about Lebanon?
    No. We we were talking about Palestine, which is occupied under international law.

    VUP> Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005

    Yes, in an attempt to throw the peace process into "formaldehyde" and "prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state" (according to the righthand man of Ariel Sharon), but Israel did not end its occupation.

    PUV> Israel offered to withdraw from 97-99.5% of the disputed territories in 2000, 2001 and 2008

    More fantasy, relying on junk figures that have been debunked over and over again.
    And the correct reference is to the OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN Territories (their legal status is not "disputed" under international law).

    Of course the hypocrisy continues. Ehud Barak, who began the last cycle of major violence in the territories after the "generous offer" lie at Camp David, and who claimed Operation Cast Lead ("22 Days of Death and Destruction", to quote Amnesty International) was not brutal enough, is now being celebrated for talking openly about the "fascism" long evident in Israeli society.
    As if he was above stoking it every chance he got...