markhumphrys.com

wes

humphrys wrote: »

Did you actually read those links?

Yes.

humphrys wrote: »

Consider this, that I found through your link:

WAFA SULTAN: A TALE OF TWO TRANSCRIPTS
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008359.html

The transcripts look pretty identical to me.

The point, they were making is that Memri provided a false translation, which you have chosen to ignore, as it doesn't suit you.

humphrys wrote: »

I love Wafa Sultan's reference to the meteorite:
"Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me..."

I love Wafa Sultan's reference to the meteorite:
But shock horror, you have informed me that the correct translation is:
"My brother, believe, if you wish, in a stone but do not dare strike me with it..."

Do you have any better examples of alleged false translations of videos?

They they falsely identified one of the people involved, also you ignore the following fact from my link:

Memri offered a heavily edited version of the show, and mistranslated several of the exchanges, making it appear that al-Khouly had issued a death fatwa against Sultan.

Seems clear you didn't read my link at all. Just cherry picked a couple of bits here and there, and ignore anything you didn't like.

Nice try to ignore the entirety of what Memri did, not to mention claiming the person speaking was someone he was not (a Mufti who can make a Fatwa, when he was no such person), but much like yourself, facts are not worth a damn.

humphrys wrote: »

How about the Egyptians? All actors in the MEMRI studio I guess?

Memri have 0 credibility, much like yourself, as you choose to ignore facts you don't like. Memri are known for false translations, and its a well established fact.

Also, you ignore there clear bias as well, but again bias is only something you make claims in regards to people who disagree with you.

thecommietommy

humphrys wrote: »

I ignored this thread when it first came out, since "meditraitor" was not making an actual argument. He just seemed incredulous that anyone could have different opinions to him. This seemed too boring to engage with.

But this thread seems to have stuck around, so I thought I would say something.

The reason I am ranked high on Google is that a lot of sites link to me. They are mainly American, British and Israeli sites, though lots of others. Not all blogs either - quite a lot of international media links to me.

I am quite an international site, but I like to do certain research on Ireland since that is something I can contribute. I like to think I do the research on the Irish left that the Irish media fails to. For example:

The Irish Anti-War Movement supports Islamic terror groups:
http://markhumphrys.com/iawm.html

Al Qaeda approvingly quoted Richard Boyd Barrett in their terrorist publications:
http://markhumphrys.com/iawm.html#al.qaeda

Irish anti-Israel demos carry Islamic terrorist flags:
http://markhumphrys.com/free.gaza.irish.html

The Communications Co-ordinator at Amnesty Ireland is a Sinn Feiner:
http://markhumphrys.com/human.rights.groups.html#justin.moran

The Irish Times Middle East correspondent, Michael Jansen, is a female Muslim. She has been attacking Israel in their pages since 1987, and neither she nor the Irish Times ever told us she was a Muslim:
http://markhumphrys.com/michael.jansen.html

Anti-Israel TD Chris Andrews posed with Bashar Assad on a constituency leaflet:
http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.israel.html#chris.andrews

The Irish President, Michael D. Higgins, is the most anti-American head of state in the west. He has a long track record that the media entirely ignored:
http://markhumphrys.com/michael.d.america.html

Michael D. Higgins is also the most anti-Israel head of state in the west. He mourned the death of Yasser Arafat, objected to Hamas being labelled terrorists, and signed up to share a platform with Hezbollah. The media ignored all this:
http://markhumphrys.com/michael.d.israel.html

The major Islamic centres of Ireland are all linked to Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood who deny religious and sexual freedom, and regularly praise Islamic terror. The Irish left and the media don't care:
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.ireland.html
http://markhumphrys.com/clonskeagh.html

I am a classic liberal, an atheist who believes in religious, sexual and political freedom, and I think that Islam should be treated the same way we treat Christianity - with healthy scepticism, abuse and disrespect. The left's support for reactionary right-wing Islamists is the main reason I have contempt for the left.

If "meditraitor" or "thebman" want to debate any of these, that would be fun. But something tells me they won't want that.

Mark

Are you actually Jewish ? If not, why such an interest in Israel/Zionism ?

humphrys

thecommietommy wrote: »

Are you actually Jewish ?

No.

No connection to or interest in Judaism.

thecommietommy wrote: »

If not, why such an interest in Israel/Zionism ?

Because it's the issue the left gets most wrong. It's a sort of modern litmus test for whether you understand the world or not.

By the way, I also hate communism. See my site.

thecommietommy

humphrys wrote: »

No.

No connection to or interest in Judaism.



Because it's the issue the left gets most wrong. It's a sort of modern litmus test for whether you understand the world or not.

By the way, I also hate communism. See my site.

Yep, terrible of the left not to support millions of Europeans and Americans returning to ' their country ' after been away 2,000 years or more because a sky fairy allegedly said so :rolleyes: Naturally the people actually living there until the British inspired Balfour Declaration don't count, Lebensraum someone else called it :rolleyes:

humphrys

thecommietommy wrote: »

Yep, terrible of the left not to support millions of Europeans and Americans returning to ' their country ' after been away 2,000 years or more because a sky fairy allegedly said so :rolleyes: Naturally the people actually living there until the British inspired Balfour Declaration don't count, Lebensraum someone else called it :rolleyes:

When Israel was set up in 1947, the area designated was a clear majority Jewish area (538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs).

This Jewish majority had developed peacefully (not through warfare) over the previous 70 years.

http://markhumphrys.com/israel.conflict.html#existence

thecommietommy

humphrys wrote: »

When Israel was set up in 1947, the area designated was a clear majority Jewish area (538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs).

But according to Zionists, Israel was set up over 2,000 years ago :eek:

This Jewish majority had developed peacefully (not through warfare) over the previous 70 years.

http://markhumphrys.com/israel.conflict.html#existence

Doubtless Dr. Goebbels and his gang would have said the same if things had gone their way.

wes

humphrys wrote: »

This Jewish majority had developed peacefully (not through warfare) over the previous 70 years.

You have an interesting concept of "peaceful":

King David Hotel bombing

Deir Yassin massacre

I take we are also suppose to pretend that the terror groups like Irgun, the Haganah, and the Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang) all didn't exist as well.......

humphrys

wes wrote: »

You have an interesting concept of "peaceful":

King David Hotel bombing

Deir Yassin massacre

I take we are also suppose to pretend that the terror groups like Irgun, the Haganah, and the Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang) all didn't exist as well.......

I said "The Jewish majority had developed peacefully".

How did it come about that the area came to have 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs in 1947? That happened peacefully.

Where did I say that I defend Deir Yassin or Irgun or the Stern Gang?

wes

humphrys wrote: »

I said "The Jewish majority had developed peacefully".

Sure, and most American colonists didn't engage in violence against Native American's either, doesn't change the fact that they were part of the process of taking other peoples land, and that the force that represented them engaged in violence.

humphrys wrote: »

How did it come about that the area came to have 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs in 1947? That happened peacefully.

It happened via European colonisation, like what happened in the America's. Colonists are an essential part of the whole process......

humphrys wrote: »

Where did I say that I defend Deir Yassin or Irgun or the Stern Gang?

You ignoring there existence, and the entire purpose of Zionism:

From A new exodus for the Middle East?

As early as 1895, Theodor Herzl, the prophet and founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary in anticipation of the establishment of the Jewish state: "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country ... The removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

I fail to see how Zionism was ever peaceful. The intention was always to expel the Palestinians, and that never needed all the colonists involvement.

So from a Palestinian pov, from the vary start Zionists wanted to expel them, and they started to do exactly that in 1948, before a single Arab army got involved.

humphrys

wes wrote: »

Sure, and most American colonists didn't engage in violence against Native American's either, doesn't change the fact that they were part of the process of taking other peoples land, and that the force that represented them engaged in violence.

What are you on about? Jews had no ability to "seize land" before 1947.

wes wrote: »

It happened via European colonisation, like what happened in the America's. Colonists are an essential part of the whole process......

So despite the fact that the area designated had 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs in 1947, you would have denied them self-determination?

wes

humphrys wrote: »

What are you on about? Jews had no ability to "seize land" before 1947.

So your ignoring the entire purpose of Zionism then. It was always about taking the land. The entire idea of kicking out the Palestinians date back to the father of Zionism, whom I provided a quote, where he clearly state what the intent is.

There is also the whole notion of the Iron wall going back to the 1920's. You claims of peaceful intent is utterly absurd, on the basis of all this.

Not having the ability to ethnical cleanse Palestinians until 1947 as you claims, doesn't change the fact, that this was the very much something Zionists planned to do.

humphrys wrote: »

So despite the fact that the area designated had 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs in 1947, you would have denied them self-determination?

Self-determination, doesn't include ethnically cleansing the Palestinains who lived there earlier. Also, surely the Arabs also should have had a say, right? Last time, I checked self determination doesn't involved kicking out minorities at the very first oppurtunity..... and then grabbing more land at the first oppurtunity, something which btw is still happening today.

If all the Zionists did was defend there borders, and not kick out as many Palestinians as they could, before any Arab armies attacked, then you might have a point. However, what happened was that ethnic cleansed began right away, followed by an expansion of borders during the ensuing war. Oddly enough, Zionists weren't to bothered about Palestinians self determination, just like they aren't bothered today.

Also, I find it odd that you are suddendly invoking self determination, considering the excuses you have made for Israel settlements, and the current denial of self determination for Palestians. Seems pretty damn hypocritical to me.

Also, I don't trust you numbers either, as you link to your own web site.

Nodin

humphrys wrote: »

So despite the fact that the area designated had 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs in 1947, you would have denied them self-determination?

I find it a bit odd you bring up that, when you deny self determination to millions of Palestinians. why do you constantly refer back to the foundation of Israel, when the issue is the current program of colonisation by Israel outside those borders?

A number of questions are outstanding from earlier-

So you lambast Hamas for firing rockets from Gaza after an Israeli withdrawal, but laud continuing Israeli expansion into a peaceful area...

You don't see how that could be seen as sending the wrong message? That doesn't raise any questions for you as regarding Israeli motives?

Don't you see something odd about building civillian housing in a "buffer" zone?

Does Israel allow full democratic participation for the inhabitants of the occupied territories? Has it held a plebiscite on whether or not they wish the occupation to continue, the land be annexed outright etc?

humphrys

wes wrote: »

So from a Palestinian pov, from the vary start Zionists wanted to expel them, and they started to do exactly that in 1948, before a single Arab army got involved.

Could we stick to the existence of Israel in 1947?

I don't actually defend everything that happened in the 1948 war, as it happens. Not that I believe your claims above, which come from the fanatically anti-Israel Israeli Ilan Pappé.

As an aside, how come only western culture produces self-criticism like this? Anti-British Brits like George Galloway, and anti-American Americans like Michael Moore. I wonder where the pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian writers in the PA are? Oh that's right, they would be killed.

Anyway, I don't actually defend everything that happened in the 1948 war, but it was in response to an attempted genocide (which could easily have succeeded). But can we discuss that later. Could we first sort out the existence of Israel in 1947?

Did Israel have a right to be set up in 1947?

wes

humphrys wrote: »

Could we stick to the existence of Israel in 1947?

I can't as, the entire kick out the Palestinians thing goes back to the late 1800s and Theodre Herzl, the father of Zionism, and then there is the Iron Wall concept dating back to the 1920's. All this stuff was planned earlier by various Zionists. So it impossible to seperate it all.

humphrys wrote: »

I don't actually defend everything that happened in the 1948 war, as it happens. Not that I believe your claims above, which come from the fanatically anti-Israel Israeli Ilan Pappé.

He is no fanatic, and he is called that by people like yourself, who aren't fan of the truth. TBH, people who dismiss Illan Pappe are the fanatics imho.

humphrys wrote: »

As an aside, how come only western culture produces self-criticism like this? Anti-British Brits like George Galloway, and anti-American Americans like Michael Moore. I wonder where the pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian writers in the PA are? Oh that's right, they would be killed.

What a pointless addition of supremacist nonsense.

BTW, you wouldn't find very many Black South African's who supported the Apartheid regime as well btw........

humphrys wrote: »

Anyway, I don't actually defend everything that happened in the 1948 war, but it was in response to an attempted genocide (which could easily have succeeded).

The ethnic cleansing occured before any Arab armies attacked, and the intent of this ethnic cleansing goes back to the late 1800's. Also, the Arabs would call it an Anti-colonial war, against people who wanted to engage in genocide against them, and infact what Israel is doing today, closely resembles what was done to the Native American's.

humphrys wrote: »

But can we discuss that later. Could we first sort out the existence of Israel in 1947?

Did Israel have a right to be set up in 1947?

Zionists had no right to create a state, where they ethnically cleased Palestinians. This entire intention was made very clear in the late 1800's. I find it very odd that you want me to ignore that. The entire intent was to get rid of the Arabs, and as such they had no right to do that.

humphrys

wes wrote: »

So your ignoring the entire purpose of Zionism then. It was always about taking the land. ...
Not having the ability to ethnical cleanse Palestinians until 1947 as you claims, doesn't change the fact, that this was the very much something Zionists planned to do.

So you claim. But you agree there was no ethnic cleansing before 1947, and you still think they should not have been allowed set up a state? I don't think we'll agree on this.

Oddly, I think they had the right to set up a state, but it was probably a mistake to do so.

I'm not a Zionist. As I say here, it was probably an error to set up a state in such a backward region of the world:
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.conflict.html#existence
They probably should have gone to America instead. But I can see why they thought otherwise at the time.

Still, once brave, embattled democrats are in the Middle East, it is our duty to support them against non-democrats.

If the Palestinians were democrats I would think very differently. But they aren't. Why don't the Palestinians adopt secular liberal democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of sexuality, and non-violent protest? Then I would be very interested in their cause. As it is, you could hardly invent a more unattractive cause. What would happen if they win? You get a thug state like Iran in Gaza and a thug state like Syria in the West Bank. Who cares? Why is that a good thing? Doesn't the region have enough autocracies already?

I don't think you understand why Israel is attractive to non-Israelis. Israel is a free country in every way - political, religious, press, sexual.

Israel's enemies believe in thuggish tribal autocracy or maniac religious oppression, or both.



That is why people like me are happy to see Israel expand. Why should we worry when authoritarians and totalitarians lose their land to free peoples? The bigger the free world is, the better. Why would you support the Palestinians when they are so unattractive?

Would you seriously like to live under PA rule or Hamas rule?
Many Arab Muslims prefer Israeli rule to PA rule:
http://markhumphrys.com/church.islamism.html#israeli.arabs

Actually, scratch that. Pretty much all Israeli Arab Muslims prefer Israeli rule to PA rule. How many Arabs and Muslims move every year from Israel to the Palestinian territory? What's stopping them? Why does almost nobody move in that direction?

wes wrote: »

Also, I don't trust you numbers either, as you link to your own web site.

Actually that does link to a source, but here anyway:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/partition_plan.html

RichardAnd

I've read over some of this thread, let me throw in my views.

I actually studied under Mark Humphrys when I was a computer science student in DCU and he supervised one of my larger projects. Though I don't agree with everything he believes in, I found him to be an intelligent, polite individual. I've no doubt that he believes in what he says and unlike many people, he's willing to put his name to that. If nothing else, I tip my hat to that, even though I disagree with some points.

To people who take umbrage at Mark's beliefs, that's fine but I don't see why that's such a problem to them. Each of us is inclined and entitled to hold a different opinion on any number of things and if you feel strongly about anything, make your own website and tell the world how you feel.

wes

humphrys wrote: »

So you claim. But you agree there was no ethnic cleansing before 1947, and you still think they should not have been allowed set up a state? I don't think we'll agree on this.

Again, ethnic cleansing was part of the plan. You have chosen to ignore that fact.

Israel was created in 1948 and they kicked things off with ethnic cleansing. The situation you are talking about is entirely fictional. I am dealing with what happened. Zionists declared indepedence, and started ethnic cleansing the Palestininans. They had no right to do this.

Also, the entire ethnic cleansing plan, goes back to the late 1800's as I pointed out beforehand.

humphrys wrote: »

Oddly, I think they had the right to set up a state, but it was probably a mistake to do so.

Again, the plan was to set up a Jewish state, and get rid of the Palestinians. That is what happened. Why you choose to ignore what happened is entirely bizare imho.

humphrys wrote: »

I'm not a Zionist. As I say here, it was probably an error to set up a state in such a backward region of the world:
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.conflict.html#existence
They probably should have gone to America instead. But I can see why they thought otherwise at the time.

Again, you ignore that they wanted to ethnic cleanse the people already living there. They didn't just set up a state, they drove people out of there homes. Again, this whole idea goes back to the late 1800's.

Also, I don't accept anything from your own web page. Its no different than anyone referring to a random blog to prove something.

humphrys wrote: »

Still, once brave, embattled democrats are in the Middle East, it is our duty to support them against non-democrats.

What democracy exactly? Until there is a Palestinian state or the Palestinians in the West Bank are given the right to vote, there is no democracy at all.

humphrys wrote: »

If the Palestinians were democrats I would think very differently. But they aren't.

Neither are the Israeli's.... seeing as West Bank Palestinains don't have the vote. Again, simple hypocrisy, and a denial of basic reality

humphrys wrote: »

Why don't the Palestinians adopt secular liberal democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of sexuality, and non-violent protest? Then I would be very interested in their cause.

You support a Jewish state in everything that they do. So again hypocrisy.

As for non-violence, thats a bit rich, seeing as the West and Israel have never adopted such practices themselves.

Also, Palestinians do engage in non-violence, and its ignored by people like yourself, as its doesn't suit your views. Israel on the other hand, never resorts to non-violence, and tbh I find this one sided demand to be utterly bizare imho.

humphrys wrote: »

As it is, you could hardly invent a more unattractive cause.

You seem to find a racist state, that disenfrachises millions of people a attatractive enough cause......

humphrys wrote: »

What would happen if they win? You get a thug state like Iran in Gaza and a thug state like Syria in the West Bank. Who cares? Why is that a good thing? Doesn't the region have enough autocracies already?

So your in favour of the current racist status quo then, or do you favour giving the vote to Palestinians, which would end the Jewish state?

humphrys wrote: »

I don't think you understand why Israel is attractive to non-Israelis. Israel is a free country in every way - political, religious, press, sexual.

No, Israel is racist state, as evidence by the fact that millions of Non-Jews are treated under a 2 tier systems, which is rather similar to apartheid:

Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid'

If anyone knows apartheid some like Desmond Tutu, who lived under it and fought against it.

humphrys wrote: »

Israel's enemies believe in thuggish tribal autocracy or maniac religious oppression, or both.

Sorry, but again, Israel is a Jewish state, something there leaders like to mention a lot, which would fall under the entire tribal/religous oppression angle, considering the treatment of Palestinains in the occupied terrortories.

humphrys wrote: »

http://markhumphrys.com/Bitmaps/gaza.now.jpg

Again referring to your own site, with a single image, because that totally proves anything. Not even going to waste my time......

humphrys wrote: »

That is why people like me are happy to see Israel expand.

So you support religous fanatics, extremists and terrorists then, who are stealing land, as per there own holy book. Again hypocrisy, and support for violence, while calling for non-violence from Palestinians. So even more hypocrisy.

humphrys wrote: »

Why should we worry when authoritarians and totalitarians lose their land to free peoples? The bigger the free world is, the better.

Because the Palestinians deserver there own state, or equal rights.

Also, Israel is a racist state, that run a two tier system, rather like apatheid South Africa in the West Bank, so it is most certainly no part of the free world, unless you don't understand the idea of freedom.

humphrys wrote: »

Why would you support the Palestinians when they are so unattractive?

I am not a racist, and believe Palestinians should have the same rights as Jews. Either via there own state, or equal rights with a secular democracy that would encompass what is today Israel and the occupied terrotiries. Anything other than that, is simply racism. Either you support equality of you don't.

humphrys wrote: »

Would you seriously like to live under PA rule or Hamas rule

Irrelevant. Not my business how to tell others to live. Either way, I wouldn't want to live under Israeli rule, or Hamas, or the PA as they are. There all pretty awful in there own way. I rather live in a democracy that respect all regardless of race or Religion, which is something that Israel does not do btw, as much as you may want to pretend otherwise.

humphrys wrote: »

Many Arab Muslims prefer Israeli rule to PA rule:

Again, not going to bother with your web site.

humphrys wrote: »

Actually, scratch that. Pretty much all Israeli Arab Muslims prefer Israeli rule to PA rule. How many Arabs and Muslims move every year from Israel to the Palestinian territory? What's stopping them? Why does almost nobody move in that direction?

Why should they leave there homes? Saying that people who don't want to leave there ancestral home lands, as approval of the Israel, is simple nonsense. They live there, and see no reason why they should move for a bunch of racists.

humphrys wrote: »

Actually that does link to a source, but here anyway:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/partition_plan.html

I am sure they are fair and toally unbiased............. Seriously, your having a laugh with your heavily biased sources:

From there About Us Page:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/about/index.shtml

The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share.

So its a pro-Israel organisation, and not a generic Jewish relgious website, as the url would lead us to believe.

Logical_Bear

humphrys wrote: »

But this thread seems to have stuck around, so I thought I would say something.

The thread had been dead roughly nine months before you posted on the 21st of this month...
but thats ok Mark,I google myself sometimes too

humphrys

Logical_Bear wrote: »

The thread had been dead roughly nine months before you posted on the 21st of this month...
but thats ok Mark,I google myself sometimes too

Ha, I may regret starting this!

But I had some spare time, so I thought why not. This could go on forever though.

humphrys

RichardAnd wrote: »

I've read over some of this thread, let me throw in my views.

I actually studied under Mark Humphrys when I was a computer science student in DCU and he supervised one of my larger projects. Though I don't agree with everything he believes in, I found him to be an intelligent, polite individual. I've no doubt that he believes in what he says and unlike many people, he's willing to put his name to that. If nothing else, I tip my hat to that, even though I disagree with some points.

To people who take umbrage at Mark's beliefs, that's fine but I don't see why that's such a problem to them. Each of us is inclined and entitled to hold a different opinion on any number of things and if you feel strongly about anything, make your own website and tell the world how you feel.

Why thanks, whoever you are.

humphrys

wes wrote: »

What democracy exactly? Until there is a Palestinian state or the Palestinians in the West Bank are given the right to vote, there is no democracy at all.

Neither are the Israeli's.... seeing as West Bank Palestinains don't have the vote. Again, simple hypocrisy, and a denial of basic reality

You seem to find a racist state, that disenfrachises millions of people a attatractive enough cause......

So your in favour of the current racist status quo then, or do you favour giving the vote to Palestinians, which would end the Jewish state?

No, Israel is racist state, as evidence by the fact that millions of Non-Jews are treated under a 2 tier systems, which is rather similar to apartheid:

So you support religous fanatics, extremists and terrorists then, who are stealing land, as per there own holy book.

Also, Israel is a racist state, that run a two tier system, rather like apatheid South Africa in the West Bank, so it is most certainly no part of the free world, unless you don't understand the idea of freedom.

If the free nature of Israeli society leaves you unmoved, I think we are at an impasse.

Nodin

humphrys wrote: »

Ha,(...........)go on forever though.

You might revert to me re
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79893375&postcount=103

Nodin

humphrys wrote: »

Actually, scratch that. Pretty much all Israeli Arab Muslims prefer Israeli rule to PA rule. How many Arabs and Muslims move every year from Israel to the Palestinian territory? What's stopping them? Why does almost nobody move in that direction?

Because the occupied territories are run under an apartheid style system with "settler only" areas and roads, a separate system of 'justice' for settlers, where resources are prioritised to settlers and settlements, where Palestinians lack even the most basic protections of the Geneva convention. Hardly conducive to immigration.

wes

humphrys wrote: »

If the free nature of Israeli society leaves you unmoved, I think we are at an impasse.

I think the fact that you have chosen again to simply ignore what has been said and double down on your fantasy is pretty funny. You simply put support Israeli expansion, which is a extremist position that most supporters of Israel actually have the common sense to realise is a bad idea or at the very least public ally deny support for it, due to toxic nature of such a position.

So as you are against a Palestinian state, and don't seem to support equal rights for all in a single state. So seems pretty clear to me, that you don't understand what freedom is, and that you support extremist positions, to the very far right of most Israelis who at least support a 2 state solution.

RichardAnd

humphrys wrote: »

Why thanks, whoever you are.

No problem Mark. I speak well of you because you gave me a good grade

humphrys

wes wrote: »

You simply put support Israeli expansion, which is a extremist position that most supporters of Israel actually have the common sense to realise is a bad idea or at the very least public ally deny support for it, due to toxic nature of such a position.

So as you are against a Palestinian state, and don't seem to support equal rights for all in a single state. So seems pretty clear to me, that you don't understand what freedom is, and that you support extremist positions, to the very far right of most Israelis who at least support a 2 state solution.

I don't understand you.

I am to the right of most Israelis because I don't support the 1967 borders?? I think you'll find most Israelis don't support the 1967 borders.

I said I support 2 states. I said I think Israel should define their borders, build a wall and leave the people outside it to their own private hell - like Gaza.

You just seem shocked that I don't think the wall should be on the 1967 border. But I think most Israelis would agree. You know there are 1/2 million Jews in the West Bank? You can't just say evict them all. That, to me, is a real extremist position.

humphrys

RichardAnd wrote: »

No problem Mark. I speak well of you because you gave me a good grade

I hope I did!!

The problem with anonymous marking is you can't tell who the Zionists are to give them extra marks!

Only kidding, folks. I never introduce politics with my students. I try to be very upright. I never tell students about my website. Not that it's hard to find. But it's got nothing to do with my course.

humphrys

Nodin wrote: »

You might revert to me re
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79893375&postcount=103

I think we covered all these topics.

I don't feel you listened to a word I said.

wes

humphrys wrote: »

wes wrote: »

You simply put support Israeli expansion, which is a extremist position that most supporters of Israel actually have the common sense to realise is a bad idea or at the very least public ally deny support for it, due to toxic nature of such a position.

So as you are against a Palestinian state, and don't seem to support equal rights for all in a single state. So seems pretty clear to me, that you don't understand what freedom is, and that you support extremist positions, to the very far right of most Israelis who at least support a 2 state solution.

I don't understand you.

I am to the right of most Israelis because I don't support the 1967 borders?? I think you'll find most Israelis don't support the 1967 borders.

I said I support 2 states. I said I think Israel should define their borders, build a wall and leave the people outside it to their own private hell - like Gaza.

You just seem shocked that I don't think the wall should be on the 1967 border. But I think most Israelis would agree. You know there are 1/2 million Jews in the West Bank? You can't just say evict them all. That, to me, is a real extremist position.

Getting rid of illegal settlers is not extremist, and going against the 1967 borders with equitable land swaps is pretty much going against a 2 state solution. A 2 state solution means the Palestinians get a viable state. Without it there can't be peace.

Also you clearly stated you supported Israeli expansion, which is something that only the fanatics in Israel support. Your claims of supporting a 2 state solution ring hollow considering your clearly stated expansionist position (not to mention the massive hypocrisy of the support for the terrorism and violence needed to maintain and expand the settlements). I stand by you being to the far right of most Israelis. So to add to the hypocrisy, you seem unable to stick to one position, and I can't trust a word you say. You flip flop so fast, when someone calls out the extreme positions you take.

Nodin

humphrys wrote: »

I think we covered all these topics.

I don't feel you listened to a word I said.

No, we did not. Now, if you'd be as good.....