All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Sixties Fan]

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Silent Intifada - Weekly terror report

Where are all of the attacks on the Palestinians?

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Silent Intifada - Weekly terror report

Where are all of the attacks on the Palestinians?

You are the one in charge of that on your Palestine today site.

 

[Sixties Fan]

An article in the Saudi government daily Al-Watan, by the daily's columnist Muhammad Al-Sa'idi, claimed that the Jews deliberately promote the publication and circulation of antisemitic literature in Arab countries that describes them as secretly running the world. This, in order to convince the Arabs of their power and thereby demoralize and frighten them. When the same literature appears in the West, he added, the Jews fight it in order to maintain their positive image there and present themselves as victims. Al-Sa'idi claimed further that Israel's real foreign policy is the opposite of what its officials present: it maintains close ties with its alleged enemies, such as Iran and Qatar, while pretending to be friendly with countries that actually have no ties with it, like Saudi Arabia.

The following are excerpts from the article:

(full article online)

Article In Saudi Daily: The Jews Spread Antisemitic Propaganda In Arab World To Cause Arabs To Fear Them

 

[Sixties Fan]

A young girl sits with balloons with other muslim women at a bus stop in East Jerusalem. October 02, 2008. (Lara Savage/Flash90)

(full article online)

This, yes this little moment, is my Jerusalem

 

[Sixties Fan]

Even the most right-wing Zionists accept the IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism. from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It was adopted by the US State Department. It says this about criticism of Israel:


Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

...Contemporary examples of antisemitism could include: Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
---------

The IHRA defines legitimate criticism of Israel as the type that would be leveled at any other country. This is quite fair.

The question is, who would oppose this definition?

Who wants to say that singling out Israel for special criticism when other countries are worse is not a form of antisemitism? Who wants to defend an Electronic Intifada/Mondoweiss worldview where obsessive focus on Israel out of proportion to its actions is considered legitimate debate? Who wants to claim that boycotting Israel, and only Israel, is not antisemitic in practice?

Who wants to say that accusations of dual loyalty is not antisemitism?

Who wants to say that equating Jewish self-determination with racism is not antisemitism?

Either these candidates accept the definition set here, or they don't. If they don't, they should explain the exact problematic part of the definition that they believe is not true - and be prepared to defend that.

No one, and I mean no one, is shutting down debate over Israel when the criticism is legitimate according to this definition. Which means that these candidates, and J-Street, have a completely different definition of what "legitimate criticism" than the IHRA.

(full article online)

The IHRA definition of antisemitism could solve this entire mess ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[P F Tinmore]

Even the most right-wing Zionists accept the IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism. from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It was adopted by the US State Department. It says this about criticism of Israel:


Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

...Contemporary examples of antisemitism could include: Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
---------

The IHRA defines legitimate criticism of Israel as the type that would be leveled at any other country. This is quite fair.

The question is, who would oppose this definition?

Who wants to say that singling out Israel for special criticism when other countries are worse is not a form of antisemitism? Who wants to defend an Electronic Intifada/Mondoweiss worldview where obsessive focus on Israel out of proportion to its actions is considered legitimate debate? Who wants to claim that boycotting Israel, and only Israel, is not antisemitic in practice?

Who wants to say that accusations of dual loyalty is not antisemitism?

Who wants to say that equating Jewish self-determination with racism is not antisemitism?

Either these candidates accept the definition set here, or they don't. If they don't, they should explain the exact problematic part of the definition that they believe is not true - and be prepared to defend that.

No one, and I mean no one, is shutting down debate over Israel when the criticism is legitimate according to this definition. Which means that these candidates, and J-Street, have a completely different definition of what "legitimate criticism" than the IHRA.

(full article online)

The IHRA definition of antisemitism could solve this entire mess ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Well, if you can only criticize some of the issues you have with Israel, that is a restriction on speech.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Even the most right-wing Zionists accept the IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism. from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It was adopted by the US State Department. It says this about criticism of Israel:


Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

...Contemporary examples of antisemitism could include: Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
---------

The IHRA defines legitimate criticism of Israel as the type that would be leveled at any other country. This is quite fair.

The question is, who would oppose this definition?

Who wants to say that singling out Israel for special criticism when other countries are worse is not a form of antisemitism? Who wants to defend an Electronic Intifada/Mondoweiss worldview where obsessive focus on Israel out of proportion to its actions is considered legitimate debate? Who wants to claim that boycotting Israel, and only Israel, is not antisemitic in practice?

Who wants to say that accusations of dual loyalty is not antisemitism?

Who wants to say that equating Jewish self-determination with racism is not antisemitism?

Either these candidates accept the definition set here, or they don't. If they don't, they should explain the exact problematic part of the definition that they believe is not true - and be prepared to defend that.

No one, and I mean no one, is shutting down debate over Israel when the criticism is legitimate according to this definition. Which means that these candidates, and J-Street, have a completely different definition of what "legitimate criticism" than the IHRA.

(full article online)

The IHRA definition of antisemitism could solve this entire mess ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Well, if you can only criticize some of the issues you have with Israel, that is a restriction on speech.

Only in your mind. That is not what it says.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No one is saying that you are not allowed to be antisemitic. No not at all.

Well, if you can only criticize some of the issues you have with Israel, that is a restriction on speech.

(COMMENT)

What is being said is that you realistically recognize yourself → when you are exhibiting the characteristics of "antisemitism."

​

It is the same as (analogy) of trying to argue that you are "green" (510 nm) when you actually have a wavelength of 450nm (blue). You can call yourself "green" (redefine it even) all you want → but you can't change your wavelength - no matter who measures you, if you are 450nm - you are what you are (blue).

The same is true of antisemitism. If your wavelength is that you "expressed hatred toward Jews" then you are what you are. You can redefine or attach your own perception to it. You can even make a new word for it. But when you reduce yourself to your simplest form → the disguise drops away and you are revealed for what you are → in your true form.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No one is saying that you are not allowed to be antisemitic. No not at all.

Well, if you can only criticize some of the issues you have with Israel, that is a restriction on speech.

(COMMENT)

What is being said is that you realistically recognize yourself → when you are exhibiting the characteristics of "antisemitism."

View attachment 249175
​

It is the same as (analogy) of trying to argue that you are "green" (510 nm) when you actually have a wavelength of 450nm (blue). You can call yourself "green" (redefine it even) all you want → but you can't change your wavelength - no matter who measures you, if you are 450nm - you are what you are (blue).

The same is true of antisemitism. If your wavelength is that you "expressed hatred toward Jews" then you are what you are. You can redefine or attach your own perception to it. You can even make a new word for it. But when you reduce yourself to your simplest form → the disguise drops away and you are revealed for what you are → in your true form.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but when have I ever expressed hatred toward Jews?

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No one is saying that you are not allowed to be antisemitic. No not at all.

Well, if you can only criticize some of the issues you have with Israel, that is a restriction on speech.

(COMMENT)

What is being said is that you realistically recognize yourself → when you are exhibiting the characteristics of "antisemitism."

View attachment 249175
​

It is the same as (analogy) of trying to argue that you are "green" (510 nm) when you actually have a wavelength of 450nm (blue). You can call yourself "green" (redefine it even) all you want → but you can't change your wavelength - no matter who measures you, if you are 450nm - you are what you are (blue).

The same is true of antisemitism. If your wavelength is that you "expressed hatred toward Jews" then you are what you are. You can redefine or attach your own perception to it. You can even make a new word for it. But when you reduce yourself to your simplest form → the disguise drops away and you are revealed for what you are → in your true form.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but when have I ever expressed hatred toward Jews?

Playing with words.

1) Rocco is not right that has the "right to be antisemitic". He may have expressed himself the wrong way.
Being antisemitic is being against the Jewish people. Period.
For any reason. Just because they are Jews.

2) It does not matter that you have not said the words " I hate Jews".
You have expressed your total disrespect for the Jewish people by constantly saying that Israel should not exist. Therefore in your mind, mainly, the Jewish people have no rights to being sovereign over their ancient homeland.

You have expressed borrowing conspiracy theories where Israel was not created by Indigenous Jews, but by Europeans who converted to Judaism.

You are full of conspiracy theories about Israel and about the Jews.

Conclusion:

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No one is saying that you are not allowed to be antisemitic. No not at all.

Well, if you can only criticize some of the issues you have with Israel, that is a restriction on speech.

(COMMENT)

What is being said is that you realistically recognize yourself → when you are exhibiting the characteristics of "antisemitism."

View attachment 249175
​

It is the same as (analogy) of trying to argue that you are "green" (510 nm) when you actually have a wavelength of 450nm (blue). You can call yourself "green" (redefine it even) all you want → but you can't change your wavelength - no matter who measures you, if you are 450nm - you are what you are (blue).

The same is true of antisemitism. If your wavelength is that you "expressed hatred toward Jews" then you are what you are. You can redefine or attach your own perception to it. You can even make a new word for it. But when you reduce yourself to your simplest form → the disguise drops away and you are revealed for what you are → in your true form.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but when have I ever expressed hatred toward Jews?

Playing with words.

1) Rocco is not right that has the "right to be antisemitic". He may have expressed himself the wrong way.
Being antisemitic is being against the Jewish people. Period.
For any reason. Just because they are Jews.

2) It does not matter that you have not said the words " I hate Jews".
You have expressed your total disrespect for the Jewish people by constantly saying that Israel should not exist. Therefore in your mind, mainly, the Jewish people have no rights to being sovereign over their ancient homeland.

You have expressed borrowing conspiracy theories where Israel was not created by Indigenous Jews, but by Europeans who converted to Judaism.

You are full of conspiracy theories about Israel and about the Jews.

Conclusion:

Load of hooey.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No one is saying that you are not allowed to be antisemitic. No not at all.

Well, if you can only criticize some of the issues you have with Israel, that is a restriction on speech.

(COMMENT)

What is being said is that you realistically recognize yourself → when you are exhibiting the characteristics of "antisemitism."

View attachment 249175
​

It is the same as (analogy) of trying to argue that you are "green" (510 nm) when you actually have a wavelength of 450nm (blue). You can call yourself "green" (redefine it even) all you want → but you can't change your wavelength - no matter who measures you, if you are 450nm - you are what you are (blue).

The same is true of antisemitism. If your wavelength is that you "expressed hatred toward Jews" then you are what you are. You can redefine or attach your own perception to it. You can even make a new word for it. But when you reduce yourself to your simplest form → the disguise drops away and you are revealed for what you are → in your true form.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but when have I ever expressed hatred toward Jews?

Playing with words.

1) Rocco is not right that has the "right to be antisemitic". He may have expressed himself the wrong way.
Being antisemitic is being against the Jewish people. Period.
For any reason. Just because they are Jews.

2) It does not matter that you have not said the words " I hate Jews".
You have expressed your total disrespect for the Jewish people by constantly saying that Israel should not exist. Therefore in your mind, mainly, the Jewish people have no rights to being sovereign over their ancient homeland.

You have expressed borrowing conspiracy theories where Israel was not created by Indigenous Jews, but by Europeans who converted to Judaism.

You are full of conspiracy theories about Israel and about the Jews.

Conclusion:

Load of hooey.

Directly from all of your posts.
Don't look at me for all the things you have expressed yourself.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you paint you strokes too wide.

Load of hooey.

(COMMENT)

Many people, like our friend "Sixties Fan" are people of deep conviction. They are people with very few gray area. Who is to say they are wrong.

Do I over think some issues? Maybe.

My advice is to actually listen to what people like "Sixies Fan" have to say and offer. You don't have to agree with everything, but it might do you some good to appreciate other alternative views.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Some Muslims are making their thoughts very clear. Somehow, people are not taking them seriously, and there are no consequences ]

Abdulhadi is not new to controversy. She has allegedly used AMED’s educational resources to stoke anti-Zionist sentiments and, in one instance, co-organized an event that saw students painting placards stating: “My heroes have always killed colonizers,” The Jerusalem Post reported.

Last year, she came under fire from dozens of organizations condemning her for posting anti-Zionist messages to the school’s official site. After SFSU President Leslie Wong apologized at the university’s Hillel for suggesting in the past that Zionists were not welcome at the university, Abdulhadi took to Facebook and equated the statement “to a declaration of war.”

“I consider the statement… from President Wong, welcoming Zionists to campus, equating Jewishness with Zionism, and giving Hillel ownership of campus Jewishness to be a declaration of war against Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians and all those who are committed to an indivisible sense of justice on and off campus,” said Abdulhadi.

Abdulhadi later doubled down on her position and wrote on her personal Facebook, “Zionists are NOT welcomed on our campus.”

(Full article online)

SFSU Professor Equates Zionism with Nazism, Denies Jewish Self-Determination on Facebook

 

[P F Tinmore]

[ Some Muslims are making their thoughts very clear. Somehow, people are not taking them seriously, and there are no consequences ]

Abdulhadi is not new to controversy. She has allegedly used AMED’s educational resources to stoke anti-Zionist sentiments and, in one instance, co-organized an event that saw students painting placards stating: “My heroes have always killed colonizers,” The Jerusalem Post reported.

Last year, she came under fire from dozens of organizations condemning her for posting anti-Zionist messages to the school’s official site. After SFSU President Leslie Wong apologized at the university’s Hillel for suggesting in the past that Zionists were not welcome at the university, Abdulhadi took to Facebook and equated the statement “to a declaration of war.”

“I consider the statement… from President Wong, welcoming Zionists to campus, equating Jewishness with Zionism, and giving Hillel ownership of campus Jewishness to be a declaration of war against Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians and all those who are committed to an indivisible sense of justice on and off campus,” said Abdulhadi.

Abdulhadi later doubled down on her position and wrote on her personal Facebook, “Zionists are NOT welcomed on our campus.”

(Full article online)

SFSU Professor Equates Zionism with Nazism, Denies Jewish Self-Determination on Facebook

From your link.

 

[Hollie]

EU COURT REJECTS HAMAS APPEAL, REINFORCES ITS STATUES AS TERROR GROUP
By HAGAY HACOHEN

Hamas members. (photo credit:" REUTERS)

EU court rejects Hamas appeal, reinforces its status as terror group
The EU General Court rejected all the arguments Hamas presented, meaning EU funds aimed for Hamas are still frozen.
The EU General Court rejected an appeal by the terrorist group Hamas which claimed it is ‘a lawful political movement’ on Wednesday.

The ruling rejected all the arguments made by Hamas, ensuring the EU funds controlled by the movement will remain frozen.

The decision can be appealed before the EU Court of Justice.



Gee whiz. I'm not sure why the Hamas franchise of Islamic Terrorism Intl. Inc. is concerned with the Islamic Terrorism label. They've done rather well financially for decades now with the UNRWA welfare fraud endowment.

I suppose that crimp in the money spigot is an annoyance.

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Some Muslims are making their thoughts very clear. Somehow, people are not taking them seriously, and there are no consequences ]

Abdulhadi is not new to controversy. She has allegedly used AMED’s educational resources to stoke anti-Zionist sentiments and, in one instance, co-organized an event that saw students painting placards stating: “My heroes have always killed colonizers,” The Jerusalem Post reported.

Last year, she came under fire from dozens of organizations condemning her for posting anti-Zionist messages to the school’s official site. After SFSU President Leslie Wong apologized at the university’s Hillel for suggesting in the past that Zionists were not welcome at the university, Abdulhadi took to Facebook and equated the statement “to a declaration of war.”

“I consider the statement… from President Wong, welcoming Zionists to campus, equating Jewishness with Zionism, and giving Hillel ownership of campus Jewishness to be a declaration of war against Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians and all those who are committed to an indivisible sense of justice on and off campus,” said Abdulhadi.

Abdulhadi later doubled down on her position and wrote on her personal Facebook, “Zionists are NOT welcomed on our campus.”

(Full article online)

SFSU Professor Equates Zionism with Nazism, Denies Jewish Self-Determination on Facebook

From your link.

Actually, the video is not from the link, but you went to Facebook and their page in order to find it.

What does this video have to do with what the professor said, equating Zionism with Nazism and denying Jewish Self-Determination?

Is there any point in it where it counters what the article says, or..... does it bring more of the Arab Muslim victimhood, in the USA and by Israel?

Are they aware as to why some Palestinians are still refugees?

Is she aware as to why she uses the word Diaspora, as if it always existed in the Arab/Muslim history and lexicon ?

Since she tells the story of the Nakba, amongst people who will listen, and tells of Palestinian "obsession" of documenting "everything ", is she aware where the Palestinian history comes from, and why many Arab Palestinians are in Israeli Prison. Are they all innocent victims of brutal colonization, the way the First Nations of the Americans and Australia were ?

It is amazing how this video you posted only emphasizes the fantasy land, "We are the victims of Israeli oppression, and Jews are colonizers of our land" narration (not history) of what happened since 1920.


Would you care to answer my questions?

 

[Sixties Fan]

The UNHRC condemns Israeli defense against armed terrorists who vow to “tear out the hearts” of Israelis and “erase” the border with Israel, but remains silent about the Hamas aggression.

(full article online)

The UN Human Rights Council Remains Allergic to Facts

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually, the video is not from the link, but you went to Facebook and their page in order to find it.

What does this video have to do with what the professor said, equating Zionism with Nazism and denying Jewish Self-Determination?

This video popped up when I was on your link.

I don't know. Do you have a video of that? I don't take the word of propaganda sites.