UBS tax evader cites Holocaust "survival behavior"

[toguy5252]

I said: "I think your criticism of Israel has been less than genuine,"they did bad things, but they had to", but let us not dwell on that."

and you asked me for examples. I gave you these two:











I think you and a couple of others have proven that.

How do the quotes you have posted prove that at all. You are suggesting that it is bigoted to say that Israel is an incredible country notwithstanding it's shortcomings which are acknowledged or that security checkpoints are necessary to deter pocket attacks etc.

We obviously have a different definition of racism.


From the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

 

[danmand]

How do the quotes you have posted prove that at all. You are suggesting that it is bigoted to say that Israel is an incredible country notwithstanding it's shortcomings which are acknowledged or that security checkpoints are necessary to deter pocket attacks etc.

We obviously have a different definition of racism.


From the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

You should develop a habit of reading posts before responding to them.

 

[danmand]

Can you be a bigot if you are simply pro something?

I think you and a couple of others have proven that.

 

[danmand]

We obviously have a different definition of racism.


From the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

I doubt the fundamental definition is different. The difference between you and me is that I apply the definition equally to all humans, wheras you appear to only apply it for racism against jewish people.

 

[toguy5252]

I doubt the fundamental definition is different. The difference between you and me is that I apply the definition equally to all humans, wheras you appear to only apply it for racism against jewish people.

On what do you base that statement about me. I agree that i am pro-Israel and I make no secret about it. I agree that my view is that the failure or refusal of the Palestinians to return to the bargaining table is the largest impediment to peace and I have made no secret of that. I believe that the refusal by Hamas and others to renounce violence and terrorism and halt the rocket attacks has led to Israeli security precautions and incursions which have led to suffering and deaths among the Palestinian people and I have made no secret of that. I have not expressed any general negative statement about the Palestinian people and perhaps you would be good enough to point out where I have. My record I believe is fairly consistent and I am happy for peole to judge me by my posting history.

 

[toguy5252]

i agree..TO guy seems to really like to throw the anti-semite tag around ...and i've read some of his posts on muslims....just two sides of a bitter and hateful coin(gryfin and TO guy)

For example?

 

[toguy5252]

I think you and a couple of others have proven that.

For example?

 

[fuji]

I agree that my view is that the failure or refusal of the Palestinians to return to the bargaining table is the largest impediment to peace and I have made no secret of that. I believe that the refusal by Hamas and others to renounce violence and terrorism and halt the rocket attacks has led to Israeli security precautions and incursions which have led to suffering and deaths among the Palestinian people and I have made no secret of that.

I agree with both those statements. How about these:

The Jewish settlements built in the occupied territories are a provocation and an impediment to the peace process. The relocation of the security wall so that it encloses some of those settlements is also offensive, and another provocation and impediment to the peace process.

Do you agree?

 

[toguy5252]

it's called being pro- white supremacy

That is absurd. there is a difference between pride in once's race, religion, ethnicity, cultural background whatever and being a racist. Being proud of being black, or Irish or Jewish or whatever is not being racist. When you assert the general superiority of one's race, religion etc, or assert the general inferiority if another that is quite different. Does being a proud Canadian and a defender of Canadian values make me a racist? If not why then is it different that I am a proud of Israel and a defender of its right to exist.

 

[toguy5252]

I agree with both those statements. How about these:

The Jewish settlements built in the occupied territories are a provocation and an impediment to the peace process. The relocation of the security wall so that it encloses some of those settlements is also offensive, and another provocation and impediment to the peace process.

Do you agree?

I agree with both of those statements. i also agree that through negotiation those issue are likely to be resolved and that Israel should not unilaterally do either but should do so through a negotiation. Israel has not asked for unilateral concessions nor has it imposed conditions on the negotiations.

 

[fuji]

I agree with both of those statements. i also agree that through negotiation those issue are likely to be resolved and that Israel should not unilaterally do either but should do so through a negotiation. Israel has not asked for unilateral concessions nor has it imposed conditions on the negotiations.

Yet, at some point, those settlements did not exist, that wall did not exist. Israel unilaterally established settlements in occupied territory and unilaterally built a security wall partitioning what was clearly occupied Palestinian land. If those now amount to bargaining chips in the peace process, for which presumably the Palestinians are to offer concessions, what is to stop Israel from carrying out more unilateral provocations, in order to increase its bargaining position? Is that reasonable?

Is it fair to say that Israel has by these actions unilaterally complicated the peace process and unilaterally impeded it?

 

[toguy5252]

Yet, at some point, those settlements did not exist, that wall did not exist. Israel unilaterally established settlements in occupied territory and unilaterally built a security wall partitioning what was clearly occupied Palestinian land. If those now amount to bargaining chips in the peace process, for which presumably the Palestinians are to offer concessions, what is to stop Israel from carrying out more unilateral provocations, in order to increase its bargaining position? Is that reasonable?

Is it fair to say that Israel has by these actions unilaterally complicated the peace process and unilaterally impeded it?

I don't agree. Some of the settlements did exist. Some are new and I agree that they are irritants to peace. The security wall of course did not exist but it was erected for a specific purpose, to some extent the same as the US is talking about fencing off Mexcio and much like the fences that exist in several countries. The fence in my view regardless of your view of its efficacy was made necessary by the terrorists entering Israel from the West Bank. The route was determined by the military apparently based upon security issues. i do not believe that either of these are bargaining chips. i do believe that there are many issues which must be resolved by negotiation in the context of a comprehensive peace negotiation leading to a two states. when you speak of Palestinian land that is a misnomer. In 1967 when the Israelis captured much of that land there were no Palestinians per se. The land was under Jordanian rule. the purpose of the negotiation is to create a Palestinian state.

 

[WoodPeckr]

That is absurd. there is a difference between pride in once's race, religion, ethnicity, cultural background whatever and being a racist. Being proud of being black, or Irish or Jewish or whatever is not being racist. When you assert the general superiority of one's race, religion etc, or assert the general inferiority if another that is quite different. Does being a proud Canadian and a defender of Canadian values make me a racist? If not why then is it different that I am a proud of Israel and a defender of its right to exist.

Not absurd at all!!!
You are promoting a slippery slope type of thinking.

Seem to recall a certain nutjob called Adolf in Germany a few years back got a lot of folks into swallowing all that happy horsesh*t you posted above and even fancied they were some kind of Master race destined to eradicate other more inferior races....

 

[toguy5252]

Not absurd at all!!!
You are promoting a slippery slope type of thinking.

Seem to recall a certain nutjob called Adolf in Germany a few years back got a lot of folks into swallowing all that happy horsesh*t you posted above and even fancied they were some kind of Master race destined to eradicate other more inferior races....

I am a proud Canadian. i have not advocated killing all non-Canadians or anyone for that matter. Your right. Exactly the same as Hitler.

 

[fuji]

I don't agree. Some of the settlements did exist.

I'm talking about the settlements built on land that Israel captured in the 1967 war. Are you saying they existed prior to that?

The security wall of course did not exist but it was erected for a specific purpose, to some extent the same as the US is talking about fencing off Mexcio and much like the fences that exist in several countries.

I have no problem whatsoever with the existence of the wall. I fully understand and support the reasons for having the wall.

What I am disagreeing with is the location of the wall, it was run through clearly occupied territory so as to enclose settlements built on the Palestinian side of the line. It's a clear land grab, and unlike the settlements which you can say were put there by radicals, the course of the wall was Israel state policy.

The route was determined by the military apparently based upon security issues.

The term "security issues" is a bit dodgy given that the "security issue" was to protect illegal settlements that had been built on Palestinian land. The wall should have been built along the original Israeli border and any settlers on the wrong side of the wall should have been told to sort their issues out with the Palestinian authority who would be governing them.

Israel should also obviously have offered them assistance and safe passage should they instead decide to tear down their illegal settlement and rebuild it somewhere a little more kosher.

 

[toguy5252]

I'm talking about the settlements built on land that Israel captured in the 1967 war. Are you saying they existed prior to that?

Yes of course there were some Jewish communities or settlements in the West Bank prior to 1967. Does anyone doubt that? Certainly not the number or population there is post but certainly some.

I have no problem whatsoever with the existence of the wall. I fully understand and support the reasons for having the wall.

What I am disagreeing with is the location of the wall, it was run through clearly occupied territory so as to enclose settlements built on the Palestinian side of the line. It's a clear land grab, and unlike the settlements which you can say were put there by radicals, the course of the wall was Israel state policy.

You say its a land grab they say it is for security purposes. I think it is fair to say that neither you or I know the truth with certainty. In the final analysis it will be resolved by negotiation.

The term "security issues" is a bit dodgy given that the "security issue" was to protect illegal settlements that had been built on Palestinian land. The wall should have been built along the original Israeli border and any settlers on the wrong side of the wall should have been told to sort their issues out with the Palestinian authority who would be governing them.

Israel should also obviously have offered them assistance and safe passage should they instead decide to tear down their illegal settlement and rebuild it somewhere a little more kosher.

That is your view and you may in fact be correct. But the reality is that it is an issue that must be resolved in the context of a comprehensive peace.

 

[fuji]

That is your view and you may in fact be correct. But the reality is that it is an issue that must be resolved in the context of a comprehensive peace.

That's true as far as it goes, but you're glossing over that this particular issue is an issue that was created unilaterally by Israel.

Actually I'm not sure it's true: Since Israel unilaterally created the issue, what's really to stop Israel from doing the right thing and unilaterally resolving it?

That would simplify the peace process, leaving the negotiators to concentrate on the hard questions like WTF to do about Jerusalem, rather than being distracted by this Israel created settlement issue. You've stated it's not a bargaining chip, so why not just resolve it unilaterally?

 

[toguy5252]

That's true as far as it goes, but you're glossing over that this particular issue is an issue that was created unilaterally by Israel.

Actually I'm not sure it's true: Since Israel unilaterally created the issue, what's really to stop Israel from doing the right thing and unilaterally resolving it?

That would simplify the peace process, leaving the negotiators to concentrate on the hard questions like WTF to do about Jerusalem, rather than being distracted by this Israel created settlement issue. You've stated it's not a bargaining chip, so why not just resolve it unilaterally?

The fence was not created in a vacuum. The fence is relatively new in terms of the history of the problem and it followed many attempts at resolution without success, intifadas and terrorist attacks. I do not agree that it was a unilateral action. It was a reaction to a problem. End the problem end the need for the fence.

 

[fuji]

The fence was not created in a vacuum. The fence is relatively new in terms of the history of the problem and it followed many attempts at resolution without success, intifadas and terrorist attacks. I do not agree that it was a unilateral action. It was a reaction to a problem. End the problem end the need for the fence.

I have no problem with the fence existing and I agree that it was an appropriate reaction to a very real problem. That is not the issue at all. Israel is more than entitled to build a fence along its border if it wants to in any case even if there wasn't a reason--and there in fact was a reason, a good one.

The issue is that Israel did not build the fence along the border, but used it to annex occupied Palestinian land, unilaterally. That is what is unilaterally complicating and impeding the peace process.

Why doesn't Israel unilaterally move the fence back to the Israel/Palestine border, undoing the unilateral damage it did to the peace process? Why should undoing a post 1967 Israeli error be contingent on any negotiation with anyone? That would remove the impediment to the peace process that is due to Israel while preserving security in Israeli territory.

 

[toguy5252]

I have no problem with the fence existing and I agree that it was an appropriate reaction to a very real problem. That is not the issue at all. Israel is more than entitled to build a fence along its border if it wants to in any case even if there wasn't a reason--and there in fact was a reason, a good one.

The issue is that Israel did not build the fence along the border, but used it to annex occupied Palestinian land, unilaterally. That is what is unilaterally complicating and impeding the peace process.

Why doesn't Israel unilaterally move the fence back to the Israel/Palestine border, undoing the unilateral damage it did to the peace process? Why should undoing a post 1967 Israeli error be contingent on any negotiation with anyone? That would remove the impediment to the peace process that is due to Israel while preserving security in Israeli territory.

You keep repeating that like you have intimate (and probably classified) knowledge of the security considerations which dictated the route of the fence. I doubt that you have any greater information than I do in which case neither of us know. In any event the easiest way to change the rout of the fence would be to make it unnecessary. Not sure why that is difficult to accept.

There have been promising developments today and it appears that Abbas will return to the table. Very encouraging.