U.N. rights investigator accuses Israel of 'ethnic cleansing'

[Phoenall]

Ahh, he meant just a few of these Palestinians. Well, it's ok then. Well, let's change "racism" to religious discrimination. How is that.

Great - So when are you going to be critical of Pbel's spewage?

If I see anything he/she writes that I find untrue, I will comment. As I have said, I deal in facts, not propaganda.

HE/she is pulled nearly every time they post for using islamonazi sites

 

[pbel]

Oh no, Richard Falk has been replaced by what appears another antisemite. From her name she appears to be an Indian woman, probably Hindu. Darn, these pesky antisemites are everywhere.

By Robert Evans | Reuters
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
The building of Israeli settlements and attacks by settlers on Palestinians are a major source of much abuse of rights in the occupied territories, the United Nations’ top human rights official said on Monday.

Human Rights High Commissioner Navi Pillay also expressed concern at a recent surge in violence in and around the Gaza Strip by both local groups and Israeli forces.

“Israeli settlement-related activities and settler violence are at the core of many of the violations of human rights in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem,” she told the U.N.'s 47-nation Human Rights Council in Geneva.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/CP/2014/03/25/U-N-rights-chief-hits-Israel-over-settlements

According to our local ZioNuts, anyone who speaks ill of Israel is an anti-Semite....According to a BBC World Poll that would include 99% of the known world.

How about a link to your allegations then, lest see which ISLAMONAZI site has misrepresented the facts, Oh and for the record the BBC is a known and proven ANTISEMITIC JEW HATRED organistaion.

What can we say? Poor Phoenall is obviously delusional. First the Associated Press, now the British Broadcasting (BBC), next the entire world minus Phoenall?

You said you have Proof for the BBC, provide a link.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

This is a matter of reputation.

If I see anything he/she writes that I find untrue, I will comment. As I have said, I deal in facts, not propaganda.

(COMMENT)

Anyone that deals in substantiated facts, has an established reputation over time, and doesn't have to tell people how valid their information or presentation might be.

Most Respectfully,
R

I only deal in substantiated facts. That's just a fact. I don't appreciate reading propaganda. But in the I/P discussion there is only one fact, Christians and Muslims of Palestine are an occupied people, I don't think this fact can be disputed. Not even by you.

Then why are your facts so often from Islamic sites that have an agenda, and many are the basis for BLOOD LIBELS

 

[Phoenall]

If I see anything he/she writes that I find untrue, I will comment. As I have said, I deal in facts, not propaganda.

You deal in facts? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks for the laughs, el socko!

Ciao Bozo, name one thing I have stated that is not a fact.

That the Palestinians are not the ones ethnically cleansing the Christians from Palestine, when the Christians themselves have said that it is the Palestinians they are fleeing from.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm actually not sure what is meant by this.

But in the I/P discussion there is only one fact, Christians and Muslims of Palestine are an occupied people, I don't think this fact can be disputed. Not even by you.

(COMMENT)

The territory is "occupied." Currently, the people within the "occupied Palestinian territory" (oPt) can be categorized in any number of ways. Clearly some will be "Christians and Muslims."

Q: What does it mean when you say "Christians and Muslims of Palestine?"

• Are you speaking of Christians and Muslims in the oPt?
• Are you speaking of Christians and Muslims in Palestine as defined by the Palestinian National Charter or the HAMAS Covenant?
• Are you speaking of Christians and Muslims of Palestine as defined as citizens of the 1988 State of Palestine?

Q: What distinction is implied between Christians and Muslims of Palestine and other religious or ethnic affiliations?

Most Respectfully,
R

Does it really matter? Legally, it is the people and territory controlled by the occupier. If the occupier controls the land borders, air space and territorial waters it is occupied territory. In this case the distinction between the occupier and the occupied is more accurately denominated as Jew and non-Jew or as the Jews call us, "goy". With a name like Rocco, I suspect you are also a "goy".

You are either refusing to answer the question because it will show your real agenda, or you have no idea what you are talking about.

yes it does matter if you want to uphold your unbiased sic stance

 

[Phoenall]

Your last post was BS - not fact.

His last post was a question, not a statement.

So the "BS" comment, doesn't even apply.

Still BOLLOCKS though

 

[Phoenall]

According to our local ZioNuts, anyone who speaks ill of Israel is an anti-Semite....According to a BBC World Poll that would include 99% of the known world.

How about a link to your allegations then, lest see which ISLAMONAZI site has misrepresented the facts, Oh and for the record the BBC is a known and proven ANTISEMITIC JEW HATRED organistaion.

What can we say? Poor Phoenall is obviously delusional. First the Associated Press, now the British Broadcasting (BBC), next the entire world minus Phoenall?

You said you have Proof for the BBC, provide a link.

You forgot one tiny detail I am British and know the BBC very well, so here goes with the truth about them

Criticism of the BBC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticisms of the corporation's perceived lack of impartiality and objectivity have since been made by some observers. Owing to the corporation's high standards of programming, and its objective to be impartial and unbiased in its reporting, whenever the corporation is perceived to be falling short of these high expectations, or its reporting is viewed as more sympathetic with one side of an argument than the other, criticism may be levelled at the BBC.

In the course of their "Documentary Campaign 2000–2004," Trevor Asserson, Cassie Williams and Lee Kern of BBCWatch published a series of reports The BBC And The Middle East stating in their opinion that "the BBC consistently fails to adhere to its legal obligations to produce impartial and accurate reporting

Douglas Davis, the London correspondent of The Jerusalem Post, has accused the BBC of being anti-Israel. He wrote that the BBC's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a "portrayal of Israel as a demonic, criminal state and Israelis as brutal oppressors" and resembled a "campaign of vilification" that had de-legitimised the State of Israel.[50] "Anglicans for Israel", the pro-Israel pressure group, have berated the BBC for apparent anti-Israel bias

The Daily Telegraph has criticised the BBC for its coverage of the Middle East. In 2007, the newspaper wrote, "In its international and domestic news reporting, the corporation has consistently come across as naïve and partial, rather than sensitive and unbiased. Its reporting of Israel and Palestine, in particular, tends to underplay the hate-filled Islamist ideology that inspires Hamas and other factions, while never giving Israel the benefit of the doubt

Martin Walker, then the editor of United Press International, agreed that the report implied favouritism towards Israel, but said this suggestion "produced mocking guffaws in my newsroom" and went on to list a number of episodes of (in his view) clear pro-Palestinian bias on the part of the BBC.[46] Writing in Prospect Magazine, Conservative MP Michael Gove wrote that the report was neither independent nor objective.

In March 2006 a report about the Arab-Israeli conflict on the BBC's online service was criticised in a BBC Governors Report as unbalanced and creating a biased impression. The article's account of a 1967 United Nations resolution about the six-day war between Israel and a coalition of Egypt, Jordan and Syria suggested the UN called for Israel's unilateral withdrawal from territories seized during the six-day war, when in fact, it called for a negotiated "land for peace" settlement between Israel and "every state in the area". The committee considered that by selecting only references to Israel, the article had breached editorial standards on both accuracy and impartiality

On 7 March 2008, news anchor Geeta Guru-Murthy clarified significant errors in the BBC's coverage of the Mercaz HaRav massacre that had been exposed by media monitor Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Correspondent Nick Miles had informed viewers that "hours after the attack, Israeli bulldozers destroyed his [the perpetrator's] family home." This was not the case and other broadcasters showed the east Jerusalem home to be intact and the family commemorating their son's actions

On 14 March 2008, the BBC accepted that in an article on their website of an IDF operation that stated "The Israeli air force said it was targeting a rocket firing team... UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned Israel's attacks on Palestinian civilians, calling them inappropriate and disproportionate", they should have made reference to what [Ban] said about Palestinian rocket attacks as well as to the excessive use of force by Israel. The article was additionally amended to remove the reference of Israeli 'attacks on civilians' as Ban Ki-Moon's attributed comments were made weeks earlier to the UN Security Council, and not in reference to that particular attack, and in fact, he had never used such terminology

In response to perceived falsehoods and distortions in a BBC One’s Panorama documentary entitled ‘A Walk in the Park', transmitted in January 2010, British journalist Melanie Phillips penned an open letter in news magazine The Spectator to the Secretary of State for Culture, Jeremy Hunt, accusing the BBC of "flagrantly biased reporting of Israel" and urged the BBC to confront the "prejudice and inertia which are combining to turn its reporting on Israel into crude pro-Arab propaganda, and thus risk destroying the integrity of an institution

In March 2011, Member of Parliament Louise Bagshawe criticised the inaccuracies and omissions in BBC's coverage of the Itamar massacre and questioned the BBC's decision not to broadcast this incident on television and barely on radio, and its apparent bias against Israel.[61] In his July 2012 testimony to the Parliament, the outgoing Director-General of the BBC Mark Thompson admitted that BBC "got it wrong

Enough impartial and factual evidence for you then pbel, or would you like more from some other sites ?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

 

[Billo_Really]

You forgot one tiny detail I am British...

You're British? I did not know that.

In that case...

...do you know the difference between a Porsche and a Mercedes?

Lady Di wouldn't be caught dead in a Porsche.

 

[Roudy]

You forgot one tiny detail I am British...

You're British? I did not know that.

In that case...

...do you know the difference between a Porsche and a Mercedes?

Lady Di wouldn't be caught dead in a Porsche.

You call that humor? Gawd what a fucken psycho.

 

[Billo_Really]

You call that humor? Gawd what a fucken psycho.

Wasn't that bad.

 

[Phoenall]

You forgot one tiny detail I am British...

You're British? I did not know that.

In that case...

...do you know the difference between a Porsche and a Mercedes?

Lady Di wouldn't be caught dead in a Porsche.

Much prefer an M.G or an Austin Healy to any German rubbish.

As for Di she was having a muslim baby and was in the process of converting when she was taken out by the "men in Grey Suits"

 

[Phoenall]

You call that humor? Gawd what a fucken psycho.

Wasn't that bad.

Heard them all before and it no longer bothers many Brits what sad lonely American losers say. How are you getting on with your gas guzzler that you have to push round corners, have you tried stiffer suspension to make it handle like a horse and cart and not a plate of jello ............

 

[Roudy]

You call that humor? Gawd what a fucken psycho.

Wasn't that bad.

It wasn't bad, it was horrible. Don't give up your daytime job, collecting welfare checks. LOL

 

[Roudy]

You forgot one tiny detail I am British...

You're British? I did not know that.

In that case...

...do you know the difference between a Porsche and a Mercedes?

Lady Di wouldn't be caught dead in a Porsche.

Much prefer an M.G or an Austin Healy to any German rubbish.

As for Di she was having a muslim baby and was in the process of converting when she was taken out by the "men in Grey Suits"

Muslim Ayrab baby ruining the ancient Royal British bloodline, passed down for centuries? There was no way MI3 was going to let that happen.

As far as British cars, although they are really plush and luxurious and classy looking, nobody really buys them here in the US because they are known to breakdown down a lot, so everybody only leases them and by the time they're returned the value has dropped so much its worthless. I think Mercedes has sprung ahead of the luxury sedan pack with their new S 550, nothing in other cars, Audi A8, Porsche Panamera S, Lexus, Infiniti, Jaguar, even Bentley comes anywhere close to it.

 

[Phoenall]

You're British? I did not know that.

In that case...

...do you know the difference between a Porsche and a Mercedes?

Lady Di wouldn't be caught dead in a Porsche.

Much prefer an M.G or an Austin Healy to any German rubbish.

As for Di she was having a muslim baby and was in the process of converting when she was taken out by the "men in Grey Suits"

Muslim Ayrab baby ruining the ancient Royal British bloodline, passed down for centuries? There was no way MI3 was going to let that happen.

As far as British cars, although they are really plush and luxurious and classy looking, nobody really buys them here in the US because they are known to breakdown down a lot, so everybody only leases them and by the time they're returned the value has dropped so much its worthless. I think Mercedes has sprung ahead of the luxury sedan pack with their new S 550, nothing in other cars, Audi A8, Porsche Panamera S, Lexus, Infiniti, Jaguar, even Bentley comes anywhere close to it.

Not many British cars now mores the pity. It was a Palestinian mentality by the British Owners that caused the death of our Car and Motorbike companies. They stayed stuck in the past in regards to designs and colours, and this allowed the Japanese to take over the market in quick order.
I would not have a Lexus after they placed an order with us for a 200 ton lot of scrap steel to roll into car body work. Its was done on the cheap to maximise the profits.
Yes the British cars had a reputation of breaking down until recently, now the Land Rover and Range Rover are as good as anything out there in their price range.