The "Virtuous" New Nazis.

[Tommy Tainant]

Thats a nonsense and you know it. In my life time I have boycotted South African and Chilean goods.
I have also boycotted businesses like Starbucks,Vodafone, Amazon and Sports Direct because of their dubious business model. I used to get my specs from Specsavers until I read about their tax avoidance and I have never bought the Sun or other Murdoch rags.

I know some on here have claimed to be boycotting Target in the US.

To me boycotting is a low key and non violent protest.

I disagree with the way that Israel treats the Palestinians but that does not make me anti-Semitic. How should I express this to meet your satisfaction ?

in the future I will point out for you how the nature of your
posts reveal the fact that you are anti-Semitic. I am a minor expert-----I grew up in a town that was heavily WASP----in the true sense of WASP----anglo saxon protestant having been
of that unfortunate nature since the time that the "united 'states" was -----THE COLONIES. My paternal "ancestors" resided in London----east end, of course. If
you lived in the USA, you would be a typical anti-Semitic
WASP. Even way back when I was a kid ---the PLETHORA of anti-jewish propaganda that floated around was "pro-arab" ------long before I knew what an "arab" is-----or where Syria happens to be-------I understood that the seedy little
propaganda pamphlets that floated around my town had something to do with Syria and "arabs" I thought that Syria had lots of Nazis-----but later found out that what Syria had was escaped Nazi war criminals who were prolific writers.
Of course I also thought that Syria was a CHRISTIAN country
since all the Syrians I knew were Christians with extra lines
in their crosses (keep in mind---your literature fell into my hands by the time I was eight years old)

Um, ok.

good answer. Kinda like Hillary's
"I CAN TAKE IT" ------(from the deplorables)

Well you sorta stumped me. You accused me of something pretty horrible and then backed it up with some stories from your childhood. Not sure what the correct response is to that.

oh----"horrible"-----lots of people take that which you are
calling "horrible" as simple fact. It was WRITTEN for
centuries and it is taught to more than a billion people
from early childhood------whether in school or from "grandma"
If the best you can do by way of response is "uh huh"-----
it might be wise to refrain from responding. I anticipate the
debates with bated breath----I wonder who will say
"uh huh" first

I havent got a clue what you are talking about.

 

[irosie91]

in the future I will point out for you how the nature of your
posts reveal the fact that you are anti-Semitic. I am a minor expert-----I grew up in a town that was heavily WASP----in the true sense of WASP----anglo saxon protestant having been
of that unfortunate nature since the time that the "united 'states" was -----THE COLONIES. My paternal "ancestors" resided in London----east end, of course. If
you lived in the USA, you would be a typical anti-Semitic
WASP. Even way back when I was a kid ---the PLETHORA of anti-jewish propaganda that floated around was "pro-arab" ------long before I knew what an "arab" is-----or where Syria happens to be-------I understood that the seedy little
propaganda pamphlets that floated around my town had something to do with Syria and "arabs" I thought that Syria had lots of Nazis-----but later found out that what Syria had was escaped Nazi war criminals who were prolific writers.
Of course I also thought that Syria was a CHRISTIAN country
since all the Syrians I knew were Christians with extra lines
in their crosses (keep in mind---your literature fell into my hands by the time I was eight years old)

Um, ok.

good answer. Kinda like Hillary's
"I CAN TAKE IT" ------(from the deplorables)

Well you sorta stumped me. You accused me of something pretty horrible and then backed it up with some stories from your childhood. Not sure what the correct response is to that.

oh----"horrible"-----lots of people take that which you are
calling "horrible" as simple fact. It was WRITTEN for
centuries and it is taught to more than a billion people
from early childhood------whether in school or from "grandma"
If the best you can do by way of response is "uh huh"-----
it might be wise to refrain from responding. I anticipate the
debates with bated breath----I wonder who will say
"uh huh" first

I havent got a clue what you are talking about.

I am not surprised

 

[saveliberty]

I guess that is the problem with discussing Nazis. You eventually are going to have it tied to Jews. It derails speaking about the current immigration problem with Muslims.

 

[Eloy]

International law requires Israel to get out of Palestine.

It's not that clear-cut.

"Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
(UN Security Council Resolution 242 Adopted unanimously half a century ago)

Which is not legally enforceable as it is just a set of recommendations. You also need to read the authors side notes that clearly state this means in the goodness of time after a peace treaty has been thrashed out. Why do you always gloss over the next part that tells the arab muslims what they must do. In matter of fact 242 dictates to the arab muslims and not the Jews, which is why the arab muslims try to alter its meaning

Anyone who can read English has no difficulty with the diplomatic meaning of "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied". Putting it in one word: ¡Fuera!

It seems that you do as it does not say when or which territories it means, that is in the description of the meaning as provided by the authors.

The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."

This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions
were undesirable and artificial."

Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."

The resolutions clearly call on the Arab states to make peace with Israel. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied. Since Israel withdrew from 91% of the territories when it gave up the Sinai, it has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242.


So what conclusion do you draw from the true meaning of 242, as opposed to the islamonazi one you seem to think is the real one ?


The Meaning of UN Security Council Resolution 242 | Jewish Virtual Library

Forgive me but no amount of verbiage can make the words ""Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied".mean that the Israelis should stay in the occupied territories.

 

[Tilly]

Does anyone have any evidence of BDS success? Israel doesn't seem to be any more demonised or isolated than it was before BDS started. Pals still do their thing, the wall and the Iron Dome are keeping Israelis safer than they used to be, and they are doing fine economically etc.

I'm with Dershowitz. I think the 'achievements' of the BDS are in fact negatives.


..."Adopting a strong line against the movement’s leadership, Dershowitz argued that “BDS will absolutely not bring peace. If the BDS movement is desirous of peace, then why will its leaders not debate me?” Asked about the lack of official representative from the BDS National Committee, Oxford University responded that “it is the Union’s policy never to comment on our invitation process.” The BDS National Committee were unavailable for comment....

In his view, “BDS is not an alternative to war as Tatchell said, but rather an alternative to negotiations for the Palestinians. The message to the Palestinian cause is clear, you don’t have to negotiate with Israel, you’ll get a state through external intervention.”...

The JPost

 

[Phoenall]

The OP is a bit hysterical in comparing events in nazi Germany to an economic boycott of Israeli goods.

Its very insulting to those who died under the Nazis.

The thrust seems to be that Israel has done no wrong and that any criticism of Israel is akin to anti semitism.

That is an outrageous suggestion and one designed to silence all debate.

It does the Israeli people no service whatsoever.

Because the boycott is only on Israeli outlets and not on muslim outlets selling the same goods. This makes it a RACIST ATTACK and hence ANTI SEMITISM.

If it was truly a boycott of Israeli goods then the muslim shops should be targeted as well. Only a neo marxist neo nazi would not see that as true and welcome the next line of attack on the Jews, just as we saw in 1930's Germany. We have had little " krystalnachts" already along with burning of Torah scrolls and defacing Jewish homes, shops and Synagogues. Dont forget tainted that it was you neo marxists that tried to silence all debate when your political party was in power, and invited extremist muslims to come here and attack British Jews


WE WILL NEVER FORGET THE LABOUR PARTY THROWING OVER 1 MILLION UNDERAGE SCHOOLGIRLS TO THE MUSLIMS AS SEX SLAVES IN RETURN FOR 500 VOTES.

Thats a nonsense and you know it. In my life time I have boycotted South African and Chilean goods.
I have also boycotted businesses like Starbucks,Vodafone, Amazon and Sports Direct because of their dubious business model. I used to get my specs from Specsavers until I read about their tax avoidance and I have never bought the Sun or other Murdoch rags.

I know some on here have claimed to be boycotting Target in the US.

To me boycotting is a low key and non violent protest.

I disagree with the way that Israel treats the Palestinians but that does not make me anti-Semitic. How should I express this to meet your satisfaction ?

LIAR as you have shown yourself to be a racist nazi and anti semitic. We have all seen the video's of the same people attacking elderly people that then protest about animal cruelty by attacking other elderly people. The video of the man plainly being racist who was asked why he was targeting a Jewish shop when the muslim shop over the road sold the same goods and replied because he was boycotting Jewish goods. It is the same old lefty rent a mob that rely on daddies money to bail them out when they are arrested.

How do the Israeli's treat the arab muslims then, any differently to how the Welsh treat the English ?

 

[Phoenall]

It's not that clear-cut.

"Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
(UN Security Council Resolution 242 Adopted unanimously half a century ago)

Which is not legally enforceable as it is just a set of recommendations. You also need to read the authors side notes that clearly state this means in the goodness of time after a peace treaty has been thrashed out. Why do you always gloss over the next part that tells the arab muslims what they must do. In matter of fact 242 dictates to the arab muslims and not the Jews, which is why the arab muslims try to alter its meaning

Anyone who can read English has no difficulty with the diplomatic meaning of "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied". Putting it in one word: ¡Fuera!

It seems that you do as it does not say when or which territories it means, that is in the description of the meaning as provided by the authors.

The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."

This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions
were undesirable and artificial."

Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."

The resolutions clearly call on the Arab states to make peace with Israel. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied. Since Israel withdrew from 91% of the territories when it gave up the Sinai, it has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242.


So what conclusion do you draw from the true meaning of 242, as opposed to the islamonazi one you seem to think is the real one ?


The Meaning of UN Security Council Resolution 242 | Jewish Virtual Library

Forgive me but no amount of verbiage can make the words ""Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied".mean that the Israelis should stay in the occupied territories.

And no amount of leftist double speak will alter the intended meaning as detailed by the authors of UN res 242. A resolution written before there were any arab muslims calling themselves palestinians so it does not apply to them does it.

Israel has already done its part under 242 by withdrawing from territories occupied, when are the arab muslims going to do their's by stopping the attacks on Israel with illegal weapons ?

 

[Phoenall]

Does anyone have any evidence of BDS success? Israel doesn't seem to be any more demonised or isolated than it was before BDS started. Pals still do their thing, the wall and the Iron Dome are keeping Israelis safer than they used to be, and they are doing fine economically etc.

I'm with Dershowitz. I think the 'achievements' of the BDS are in fact negatives.


..."Adopting a strong line against the movement’s leadership, Dershowitz argued that “BDS will absolutely not bring peace. If the BDS movement is desirous of peace, then why will its leaders not debate me?” Asked about the lack of official representative from the BDS National Committee, Oxford University responded that “it is the Union’s policy never to comment on our invitation process.” The BDS National Committee were unavailable for comment....

In his view, “BDS is not an alternative to war as Tatchell said, but rather an alternative to negotiations for the Palestinians. The message to the Palestinian cause is clear, you don’t have to negotiate with Israel, you’ll get a state through external intervention.”...

The JPost

They have a state already, it is called Jordan and it is about time the UN told them to give up their pipe dreams and move back home.

 

[Phoenall]

Boycotts are a good approach. How you doing on fuel oil and gasoline?

Boycotts and peaceful protests are civilized means of creating change. Beats the hell out of IED's and suicide vests.

And the only change it has brought for the arab muslims is unemployment, poverty, homelessness and deprivation. And not any part of this can be laid at Israel's door as they have done exactly what BDS has demanded and stopped producy=tion in the occupied territory. Even the P.A. has made BDS illegal and punishable by arrest and the usual treatment afterwards

 

[Phoenall]

Boycotts are funny things. I mean I could boycott broccoli for almost no reason, but gasoline is a toughie.

Not when Israel invents a new source of fuel that is cheaper based around alcohol. Will this mean the muslims will have to stop everything as the world runs on fuel.

 

[Mindful]

However, former Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks added his voice to the complaint that Mr Corbyn appeared to compare the state of Israel to so-called Islamic State (IS), calling it "demonisation of the highest order, an outrage and unacceptable".

The comments showed "how deep the sickness is in parts of the left of British politics today", he said in a statement.

He said IS was "a terrorist entity whose barbarities have been condemned by all those who value our common humanity. In the current political climate, when hate crimes are rising and political rhetoric is increasingly divisive, this is all the more shocking."



Chief Rabbi condemns 'offensive' Corbyn anti-Semitism comments - BBC News

 

[Phoenall]

Boycotts are a good approach. How you doing on fuel oil and gasoline?

Boycotts and peaceful protests are civilized means of creating change. Beats the hell out of IED's and suicide vests.

There is nothing either peaceful nor civilized about trying to destroy a tiny country because you hate their ethnicity and because you have joined the campaign of the savages whose only wish in life is to kill them.

I don't think that is why they are engaging in boycotts - it's a means to try and achieve a change in policy - whether right or wrong. It's certainly far more preferable than violence. Regardless of what you think about Israel - it isn't exactly black and white. There are wrongs and injustices on both sides, that need to be resolved.

Terrorism is a means to try and achieve a change in policy, and that has been proven not to work. To the lefties it is a means to engage in their nazism and racism legally until people start invoking laws and using the terminology in their favour. If we find BDS offensive then report the rallies as such to the police, if we see them as racially offensive tell the people taking part that we are reporting them as such. The message will go out very quickly and the racist followers of BDS will start wearing mask's to hide their identities, proving that they are just nazi racists out to attack the Jews. Every one arrested shown to be a political activist for the labour party would be a nail in Labours coffin and eventually an end to neo marxism

 

[Phoenall]

I'm not sure a boycott against the Palestinians would accomplish much, they simply don't have enough of an economy. More likely strings attached to aid.

And that is why it would hit them harder, what to the U.S. would be less than 1% of its economy would be 100% of the arab muslims economy and could destroy what little nation they have. Stop the aid and the arab countries would just allow them free passage to the west to start terrorist attacks forcing a lifting of the aid embargo. So even more violence will ensue not less, and youi will face what the Jews are facing daily.

 

[Phoenall]

Boycotts are a good approach. How you doing on fuel oil and gasoline?

Boycotts and peaceful protests are civilized means of creating change. Beats the hell out of IED's and suicide vests.

There is nothing either peaceful nor civilized about trying to destroy a tiny country because you hate their ethnicity and because you have joined the campaign of the savages whose only wish in life is to kill them.

I don't think that is why they are engaging in boycotts - it's a means to try and achieve a change in policy - whether right or wrong. It's certainly far more preferable than violence. Regardless of what you think about Israel - it isn't exactly black and white. There are wrongs and injustices on both sides, that need to be resolved.

I think you are showing remarkable patience.
Dogmaphobe frames his argument in dishonest terms that seeks to stifle debate.

Israel, in his eyes, can do no wrong and to suggest so is to mark you as an anti Semite.

Its a nonsense.

Like you ? who resorts to silly childish name calling when your arguments are shown to be just LIES

 

[Phoenall]

Boycotts and peaceful protests are civilized means of creating change. Beats the hell out of IED's and suicide vests.

There is nothing either peaceful nor civilized about trying to destroy a tiny country because you hate their ethnicity and because you have joined the campaign of the savages whose only wish in life is to kill them.

I don't think that is why they are engaging in boycotts - it's a means to try and achieve a change in policy - whether right or wrong. It's certainly far more preferable than violence. Regardless of what you think about Israel - it isn't exactly black and white. There are wrongs and injustices on both sides, that need to be resolved.

I think you are showing remarkable patience.
Dogmaphobe frames his argument in dishonest terms that seeks to stifle debate.

Israel, in his eyes, can do no wrong and to suggest so is to mark you as an anti Semite.

Its a nonsense.

That's what makes discussion of anything related to IP extremely difficult - it's like walking through a minefield full of anti-semitic canards from one side and accusations of anti-semitism from the other.

It would be imbecilic to claim that it didnt exist and has existed throughout history. But it doesnt put Israel beyond reasonable criticism.

And you have never shown one instance of reasonable critisim of Israel that has not had racism and Jew hatred as its main reason.

Want to try doing so now ?

 

[Mindful]

Boycotts are a good approach. How you doing on fuel oil and gasoline?

Boycotts and peaceful protests are civilized means of creating change. Beats the hell out of IED's and suicide vests.

There is nothing either peaceful nor civilized about trying to destroy a tiny country because you hate their ethnicity and because you have joined the campaign of the savages whose only wish in life is to kill them.

I don't think that is why they are engaging in boycotts - it's a means to try and achieve a change in policy - whether right or wrong. It's certainly far more preferable than violence. Regardless of what you think about Israel - it isn't exactly black and white. There are wrongs and injustices on both sides, that need to be resolved.

Terrorism is a means to try and achieve a change in policy, and that has been proven not to work. To the lefties it is a means to engage in their nazism and racism legally until people start invoking laws and using the terminology in their favour. If we find BDS offensive then report the rallies as such to the police, if we see them as racially offensive tell the people taking part that we are reporting them as such. The message will go out very quickly and the racist followers of BDS will start wearing mask's to hide their identities, proving that they are just nazi racists out to attack the Jews. Every one arrested shown to be a political activist for the labour party would be a nail in Labours coffin and eventually an end to neo marxism

Terrorism against Jews was going on long before the State of Israel.

Some interesting history here.

The Myth of Moslem-Jewish coexistence in Palestine

PS. Do you see any similar outrage directed to the latest onslaught on Aleppo?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The OP is a bit hysterical in comparing events in nazi Germany to an economic boycott of Israeli goods.

Its very insulting to those who died under the Nazis.

The thrust seems to be that Israel has done no wrong and that any criticism of Israel is akin to anti semitism.

That is an outrageous suggestion and one designed to silence all debate.

It does the Israeli people no service whatsoever.

Because the boycott is only on Israeli outlets and not on muslim outlets selling the same goods. This makes it a RACIST ATTACK and hence ANTI SEMITISM.

If it was truly a boycott of Israeli goods then the muslim shops should be targeted as well. Only a neo marxist neo nazi would not see that as true and welcome the next line of attack on the Jews, just as we saw in 1930's Germany. We have had little " krystalnachts" already along with burning of Torah scrolls and defacing Jewish homes, shops and Synagogues. Dont forget tainted that it was you neo marxists that tried to silence all debate when your political party was in power, and invited extremist muslims to come here and attack British Jews


WE WILL NEVER FORGET THE LABOUR PARTY THROWING OVER 1 MILLION UNDERAGE SCHOOLGIRLS TO THE MUSLIMS AS SEX SLAVES IN RETURN FOR 500 VOTES.

Thats a nonsense and you know it. In my life time I have boycotted South African and Chilean goods.
I have also boycotted businesses like Starbucks,Vodafone, Amazon and Sports Direct because of their dubious business model. I used to get my specs from Specsavers until I read about their tax avoidance and I have never bought the Sun or other Murdoch rags.

I know some on here have claimed to be boycotting Target in the US.

To me boycotting is a low key and non violent protest.

I disagree with the way that Israel treats the Palestinians but that does not make me anti-Semitic. How should I express this to meet your satisfaction ?

LIAR as you have shown yourself to be a racist nazi and anti semitic. We have all seen the video's of the same people attacking elderly people that then protest about animal cruelty by attacking other elderly people. The video of the man plainly being racist who was asked why he was targeting a Jewish shop when the muslim shop over the road sold the same goods and replied because he was boycotting Jewish goods. It is the same old lefty rent a mob that rely on daddies money to bail them out when they are arrested.

How do the Israeli's treat the arab muslims then, any differently to how the Welsh treat the English ?

And this is a good example of an incoherent and crazed loon. Please show me where I have been anti Semitic.

 

[Phoenall]

However, former Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks added his voice to the complaint that Mr Corbyn appeared to compare the state of Israel to so-called Islamic State (IS), calling it "demonisation of the highest order, an outrage and unacceptable".

The comments showed "how deep the sickness is in parts of the left of British politics today", he said in a statement.

He said IS was "a terrorist entity whose barbarities have been condemned by all those who value our common humanity. In the current political climate, when hate crimes are rising and political rhetoric is increasingly divisive, this is all the more shocking."



Chief Rabbi condemns 'offensive' Corbyn anti-Semitism comments - BBC News

Corbyn is a hateful person that will LIE to gain a point over his opponents. His latest stunt to sit on the floor of a half empty train trying to claim the rail networks were letting down passengers was a typical example. He has pledged to plunge the UK into massive debt to pay for his nationalisation and cronieism. In the process he will engineer attacks on the Jews and their supporters using rent a mob and the great unwashed uni lefties. We see it now in Labour heartlands where Jewish homes are now derelict muslim squats. Vibrant integrated Jewish areas and now segregated no go muslim enclaves. All down to the left's rampant anti semitism and Jew hatreds that has risen to the top at the same rate as the neo marxists have taken over. This has led to the nazi's being more openly racist and anti semitic. Maybe the police should arrest Corbyn for his offensive anti semitism and see what the party Grandees do then ?

 

[Mindful]

The OP is a bit hysterical in comparing events in nazi Germany to an economic boycott of Israeli goods.

Its very insulting to those who died under the Nazis.

The thrust seems to be that Israel has done no wrong and that any criticism of Israel is akin to anti semitism.

That is an outrageous suggestion and one designed to silence all debate.

It does the Israeli people no service whatsoever.

Because the boycott is only on Israeli outlets and not on muslim outlets selling the same goods. This makes it a RACIST ATTACK and hence ANTI SEMITISM.

If it was truly a boycott of Israeli goods then the muslim shops should be targeted as well. Only a neo marxist neo nazi would not see that as true and welcome the next line of attack on the Jews, just as we saw in 1930's Germany. We have had little " krystalnachts" already along with burning of Torah scrolls and defacing Jewish homes, shops and Synagogues. Dont forget tainted that it was you neo marxists that tried to silence all debate when your political party was in power, and invited extremist muslims to come here and attack British Jews


WE WILL NEVER FORGET THE LABOUR PARTY THROWING OVER 1 MILLION UNDERAGE SCHOOLGIRLS TO THE MUSLIMS AS SEX SLAVES IN RETURN FOR 500 VOTES.

Thats a nonsense and you know it. In my life time I have boycotted South African and Chilean goods.
I have also boycotted businesses like Starbucks,Vodafone, Amazon and Sports Direct because of their dubious business model. I used to get my specs from Specsavers until I read about their tax avoidance and I have never bought the Sun or other Murdoch rags.

I know some on here have claimed to be boycotting Target in the US.

To me boycotting is a low key and non violent protest.

I disagree with the way that Israel treats the Palestinians but that does not make me anti-Semitic. How should I express this to meet your satisfaction ?

LIAR as you have shown yourself to be a racist nazi and anti semitic. We have all seen the video's of the same people attacking elderly people that then protest about animal cruelty by attacking other elderly people. The video of the man plainly being racist who was asked why he was targeting a Jewish shop when the muslim shop over the road sold the same goods and replied because he was boycotting Jewish goods. It is the same old lefty rent a mob that rely on daddies money to bail them out when they are arrested.

How do the Israeli's treat the arab muslims then, any differently to how the Welsh treat the English ?

And this is a good example of an incoherent and crazed loon. Please show me where I have been anti Semitic.

That's what they all say.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The OP is a bit hysterical in comparing events in nazi Germany to an economic boycott of Israeli goods.

Its very insulting to those who died under the Nazis.

The thrust seems to be that Israel has done no wrong and that any criticism of Israel is akin to anti semitism.

That is an outrageous suggestion and one designed to silence all debate.

It does the Israeli people no service whatsoever.

Because the boycott is only on Israeli outlets and not on muslim outlets selling the same goods. This makes it a RACIST ATTACK and hence ANTI SEMITISM.

If it was truly a boycott of Israeli goods then the muslim shops should be targeted as well. Only a neo marxist neo nazi would not see that as true and welcome the next line of attack on the Jews, just as we saw in 1930's Germany. We have had little " krystalnachts" already along with burning of Torah scrolls and defacing Jewish homes, shops and Synagogues. Dont forget tainted that it was you neo marxists that tried to silence all debate when your political party was in power, and invited extremist muslims to come here and attack British Jews


WE WILL NEVER FORGET THE LABOUR PARTY THROWING OVER 1 MILLION UNDERAGE SCHOOLGIRLS TO THE MUSLIMS AS SEX SLAVES IN RETURN FOR 500 VOTES.

Thats a nonsense and you know it. In my life time I have boycotted South African and Chilean goods.
I have also boycotted businesses like Starbucks,Vodafone, Amazon and Sports Direct because of their dubious business model. I used to get my specs from Specsavers until I read about their tax avoidance and I have never bought the Sun or other Murdoch rags.

I know some on here have claimed to be boycotting Target in the US.

To me boycotting is a low key and non violent protest.

I disagree with the way that Israel treats the Palestinians but that does not make me anti-Semitic. How should I express this to meet your satisfaction ?

LIAR as you have shown yourself to be a racist nazi and anti semitic. We have all seen the video's of the same people attacking elderly people that then protest about animal cruelty by attacking other elderly people. The video of the man plainly being racist who was asked why he was targeting a Jewish shop when the muslim shop over the road sold the same goods and replied because he was boycotting Jewish goods. It is the same old lefty rent a mob that rely on daddies money to bail them out when they are arrested.

How do the Israeli's treat the arab muslims then, any differently to how the Welsh treat the English ?

And this is a good example of an incoherent and crazed loon. Please show me where I have been anti Semitic.

That's what they all say.

Perhaps because there is no basis to the accusation.

I know that there is anti Semitism out there. I have seen it, albeit in a mild form. But when I get accused of it for no reason it does make me wonder if it is being exaggerated out of context.
You do more harm than good when you make wild allegations.