Guardian

Why were these comments by Geoffrey Alderman deleted by ‘Comment is Free’ moderators?


Beneath the line of a Guardian report by David Smith, ‘Israel condemns South Africa for relabeling of West Bank products‘, Aug. 23, about South Africa’s decision to label Israeli products from the disputed territories as made in the ‘occupied Palestinian territories, there were many comments like this:

However, there were quite a few pro-Israel responses refuting some of the anti-Zionist commentary. 

For instance, in response to the comment by ‘jmgreen’ above, there was this by occasional Guardian contributor Geoffrey Alderman at 6:29.

His comment was deleted by CiF moderators:

Alderman then submitted the same comment, at 7:34, omitting only the word ‘Apartheid’.

However, this too was deleted:

Here’s another (cheeky) comment by Alderman defending Israel, at 8:06:

That last comment was deleted without a trace.  In addition to their consistently biased moderation decisions, I guess CiF moderators also don’t have much of a sense of humor.

Moreover, as you can clearly see, Alderman’s comments weren’t off-topic or, in any manner, inconsistent with ‘Comment is Free’ community standards. 

So, why exactly were they deleted?

102 replies »

  1. Well, I wish I were surprised!
    By the way, If I recall correctly, Alderman used to contribute to this blog… It’s a shame we longer get to read him, here.

  2. His comments were deleted because the moderators didn’t like what he had to say. (Just stating the obvious).
    Life after capitalism?

  3. The Guardian deleted his comments because they didn’t like them. They are still trying to find out how to do the same to reality.

    • They’ve surely managed to do that, haven’t they, Matzoh Maker, at least in part, judging by some of the rubbish they allow to be printed as fact on Comment is Free?

      Geoffrey Alderman is honest and minces no words. He shows up the pygmy intellects of CiF for what they are, but, instead of debating the issues with him from a position of knowledge (which Alderman has and they can’t be bothered to acquire) they prefer to obliterate what he has to say.

  4. This deletion brings to mind the movie Chariots of Fire. There’s a scene where the Master of Trinity College, superbly played by Sir John Gielgud, discusses the lack of “sportsmanship” for the Jewish sprinter Harold Abrahams to have employed a “professional” coach. Of course, it was just a cover for entrenched anti-Semitism. In the uniquely English way, they discussed this behind closed doors. It would have been considered bad manners to publicly confront Abrahams.

    The Guardian would never come out and say why they deleted Alderman’s posts, and other similar ones. However, we are not to publicly question the Guardian, for after all we know, wink, wink, nod, nod what this is really all about.

  5. The JMGreen comment still exists in all its smugness, proving that for the Guardian the subject is sufficiently on topic. The deletion is the result of malice, prejudice or pettiness, probably all three.

  6. You have failed to understand that any pro-Jew, pro-Israel, or even pro- actual fair peace between Jews and Arabs contravenes the CIF community standards.
    Refuting any anti-Israel comment, no matter how politely and accurately it is done, isn’t allowed.
    The anti-Israel comments, however, are always free, no matter how tendentious or inaccurate they may be.

  7. Geoffrey Alderman…..Should change his name to Berchmans,Krustythe Klown or to any one of the other Guardian’s stooges.Then he would never get deleted and he could get away with anything.

    • Berchers, e.g., is definitely the CiF in-house anti-semitic pet.
      No matter what insane tin-foil-hatted rantings that spiteful little clown posts, the mods will pat him on the head and say, ‘awwww’.

  8. Could it have been deleted for being nonsense?

    This ridiculous conflation of the indisputably illegal Israeli colonisation of Palestine with “Jews right to settle” is quite typical of the dishonest hasbara that we see on here.

    It’s a little rich to defend the existence of Jew-only colonies then accuse another state of apartheid.

    • Avram
      Spot on about the question of apartheid except you have it arse about .
      Reality is that the only true sickening racist apartheid is that which exists throughout the Arab world and especially in the so called Palestinian territories .
      The world turns its collective embarrassed head from statements by Abbas that Palestine will be a Jew free nation ( the Christians will be the first to go )
      The whole rotten edifice stinks of apartheid and antisemitism .
      Keep making it up as you go Avram . It doesn’t take much to see through you .
      Take your poison off to Mondoweiss or MPAC . You will be among friends .

      • and of course Saudi Arabia ( only Muslims P-leeeeze ), Sudan ( 300000 murdered a few years ago ), no Ali about Arabs murdering non Arabs in numbers not seen since Pol Pot/Bosnia. The Muslim slaughter in Nigeria right now is another racism going ‘un-outraged’ at the Groan. And then there is Mali where even more Muslims are trying to run bath and its the usual collapse of a semi functioning society.
        As Syria turns into our next “Bosnia” the Left is hiding behind the bushes.
        What needs to be pointed out that Arabs simply have no viable model of society as of now. Anybody who gets into bed with Arabs in our time knows that death is a very good possibility.

      • I have consistently said that I don’t believe Israel (meaning internationally recognised Israel) is an apartheid state. Israel’s management of parts of Palestine (specifically the West Bank) is, however, textbook apartheid.

        As for your comments about ethnic discrimination in the wider Arab world, I completely agree with you. As I have said many times before, I would rather be an Arab in Israel than a Jew in the wider Arab world.

          • I don’t believe that peoples of any faith should be excluded from living where they please, and that goes for Palestine as much as any where else. You know as well as I do that’s not what we’re talking about.

            We’re talking about the Israeli state illegally acquiring territory by war, imposing strict limitations on the movement of the occupied people in an attempt to impose “conditions of life” designed to drive them out.

            A simple question for you – do you believe the Jew-only colonies are in Israel?

            • Avram,

              The land was not acquired illegally:

              Israel’s presence in the West Bank today is not illegal under international law. Israel entered the West Bank lawfully in June 1967 in the exercise of its right of self-defence against Jordanian attack. The occupation in and of itself is not unlawful.

              In November 1947, the United Nations had voted to divide mandatory Palestine (then administered by Britain) into a sovereign Jewish state and a sovereign Arab state – a two-state solution. The Jewish leadership accepted this plan. The Arab leadership did not.

              In 1948-49, Israel fought its war of independence against the Arab residents of Mandatory Palestine, and five neighbouring states. In 1950, Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank, of which it had taken control in the course of the war.

              In June 1967, Jordan launched a massive bombardment of civilian Israeli targets from the West Bank on the first day of the Six Day War, and despite appeals from Israel to Jordan to stay out of the war which had started with Egypt.

              As a sovereign state, and member of the UN, Israel has a right of self-defence under the UN Charter against attack by another sovereign state.

              Exercising that right, Israeli armed forces entered the West Bank to defend itself against the Jordanian assault. That is how the current ‘occupation’ began.

              Israel is obliged under international law to withdraw from territories (not all territories) occupied in 1967 in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242, in the context of a negotiated peace agreement with its neighbours which recognises Israel’s legitimate security needs, and the need for defensible borders.

              Within weeks of the 1967 war, Israel had already proposed to withdraw from most of the West Bank – but this and many other steps were rebuffed by the Arab states.

              Israel’s subsequent Camp David Peace Accords with Egypt in 1978, and its total withdrawal from the Sinai peninsula in 1982, marked a partial fulfilment of UN Resolution 242.

              Resolution 242, which is the centrepiece of relevant international law on this topic, does not require Israeli withdrawal from all West Bank territory.

              Thus, Israel’s entry into the West Bank was lawful. And its continued presence there is lawful too. It is for all the parties to the conflict to reach a negotiated peace agreement under which Israel would
              withdraw.

              Note all parties

              • “Israel’s presence in the West Bank today is not illegal under international law.”

                Never claimed it was.

                “Israel entered the West Bank lawfully in June 1967 in the exercise of its right of self-defence against Jordanian attack.”

                Even if the self-defence myth hadn’t been debunked more times than I care to remember, I agree that Israel’s military occupation is not in itself illegal.

                “The occupation in and of itself is not unlawful.”

                Agree.

                “In November 1947, the United Nations had voted to divide mandatory Palestine (then administered by Britain) into a sovereign Jewish state and a sovereign Arab state – a two-state solution.”

                Incorrect.

                In 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to recommend that the Mandatory power implement the recommendations of UNSCOP. Knowing that partition could not be carried out by force, the British declined, punting the matter back to the UN.

                It’s worth noting that Arab leader expressly suggested that a binational state would be the better solution, with a strict constitution protecting rights and access to holy places.

                After political support for partition vanished, key member states agreed that Palestine should be placed into the UN Trusteeship system, and a draft text was drawn up. Before it could be voted on, the Zionist leaders, backed by the various terror groups unilaterally declared Israel to exist on what was, at that time, predominantly Arab land.

                “In June 1967, Jordan launched a massive bombardment of civilian Israeli targets from the West Bank on the first day of the Six Day War, and despite appeals from Israel to Jordan to stay out of the war which had started with Egypt.”

                Jordan had signed a mutual defence treaty with Jordan, and after Israel aggression against the UAR had started, Jordan did what it was obliged to do.

                “As a sovereign state, and member of the UN, Israel has a right of self-defence under the UN Charter against attack by another sovereign state.”

                Yes, it does.

                “Exercising that right, Israeli armed forces entered the West Bank to defend itself against the Jordanian assault. That is how the current ‘occupation’ began.”

                Agree.

                “Israel is obliged under international law to withdraw from territories (not all territories) occupied in 1967 in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242,”

                The resolution which expressly reinforced the inadmissibility of territory acquired by war. A view reiterated by it’s chief framer.

                “and the need for defensible borders.”

                Secure and recognised. Which is fine. Israel must engage in negotiations for 1 for 1 land swaps to create a sensible border. All sensible stuff.

                “Resolution 242, which is the centrepiece of relevant international law on this topic, does not require Israeli withdrawal from all West Bank territory.”

                Never claimed it did. It stresses the inadmissibility of territory acquired by was and requires Israel to negotiate 1 for 1 land swaps. Any sign of that happening?

                The settlements are illegal because they violate international humanitarian law. They violate the prohibition on the colonisation of occupied land. That is why they are illegal. Don’t confuse the legality of the occupation with the illegality of the colonisation, they are separate issues.

                This is the position of every institution of international law, and was also, incidentally, the opinion of Israel’s legal adviser in 1967 as put forward in a top secret memo.

                • Sigh. Should also have read “Knowing that partition could only be carried out by force, the British declined, punting the matter back to the UN.”

                  Will endeavour to fins my specs before posting again.

                • You have written that Israel’s presence in the West Bank today is not illegal under international law and that you never claimed it was.

                  “Illegal” means outside the law. You have said that YOU were talking about “Israel illegally acquiring territory by war”

                  What else could you be meaning, or don’t you remember writing that?

                  Israel “must” not engage in land swaps of any description unless she can trust the good faith of her partners. Give me some examples of how she can. She already gave back territory in Gaza and look what has happened. Are you seriously arguing that she should do the same again with the West Bank?

                  Jordan was not “obliged” to do anything which would not have been in her own best interests. You should not blame Israel for Jordan’s foolishness.

                  As for the rest, is it as I suspect, that you are burbling just to hear your own noise, because you are not making sense?

                  • A military occupation is not the same as acquiring territory by war.

                    Unless you’re going to argue that the US has “acquired” Afghanistan and Iraq.

                    The acquisition of territory refers to annexation, not to occupation. Two very different things.

                    “Israel “must” not engage in land swaps of any description unless she can trust the good faith of her partners.”

                    Well no, it doesn’t “have” to, the alternative, which has pretty much happened anyway, is to have the 67 lines as its permanent borders, given that it cannot acquire territory by war.

                    “She already gave back territory in Gaza and look what has happened.”

                    Erm? Gaza was never Israel’s, it gave nothing back. All it did was elect to shirk its responsibilities as belligerent occupier. Personally, at this point in time, I think Israel should be redeploying troops into Gaza.

                    “Jordan was not “obliged” to do anything”

                    It had signed a mutual defence agreement. As in mutual – defence – agreement.

                    Don’t feel bad, I’ve been doing this for a while.

        • So, you don’t believe that Israel is an apartheid state, but, looking at what you DO believe, why aren’t I comforted at all by that? (Who cares what you believe?) And you’d rather be an Arab in Israel would you?

          What exactly IS “textbook apartheid,” O gigantic intellect?

          Reply here giving examples.

          “Israel as apartheid state” is a massive category mistake (look it up) conveniently employed by Islamists and their fellow travellers who can rely on the fact that what they are saying will never be questioned by their sheep-like followers who think emotionally rather than with reason.

          And can this distorted notion of “apartheid” apply on the West Bank, which has not yet said, much less behaved, that it wants a lasting peace with its neighbour

            • I am sorry to barge in, but there are no “Jew-only roads”, or “Jew-only colonies”.(Now you’re back to your lying-demonization routines).
              There are Arabs-Israelis living in Ariel(for example), AND, in neighbourhoods of “East”-Jerusalem.
              http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/myth-of-jewish-only-roads.html


              The Associated Press published a correction in January 2010 stating, “These roads are open to all Israeli citizens, including Arabs, foreigners and tourists.” Similar corrections were published on CNN, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe.

            • Wikipedia is hardly a well-regarded “textbook” is it?

              I still fail to see how this applies to what you say about Israel on the West Bank. “Jews only” roads are so, as well you know, because of the predilection of some Palestinians to attack, stone and shoot at, sometimes kill, Jewish settlers.

              And even you cannot forget the infamy of Itamar, where the convicted thugs smiled from the dock and were lionised by Abbas subsequently. How might the settlers be able to tell which Palestinians are trustworthy and which not?

              Perhaps you can share with us, O gigantic intellect, what signs there are from Abbas et al that they are ready to make the sort of peace which would mark the beginning of a withdrawal from the settlements. (I am talking about behaviour rather than taqiyya-type lies) Inclined as they are to blame everyone but themselves for their murderous behaviour (but others in the world are oppressed but they don’t teach their children to want to die whilst killing Jews) the Palestinians don’t learn from their mistakes, and behave like children who are thwarted, rather than trying something different which might work.

              In South Africa no black person was a suicide murderer or yelled from a church pulpit that his white neighbours be wiped from the face of the earth. Most black people, including the egregious Tutu, were peaceable in word at least. None of this applies to the Palestinians, or at least not to those who survive after declaring that they want peace.

              • Just seen Commentary101’s comment preceding mine. Thanks Commentary101. This moron Avram writes for effect.

  9. ‘We’re talking about the Israeli state illegally acquiring territory by war, imposing strict limitations on the movement of the occupied people in an attempt to impose “conditions of life” designed to drive them out.

    A simple question for you – do you believe the Jew-only colonies are in Israel?’

    First off , following the 6 day war , Israel offered to return the West Bank and Gaza in return for an irrevocable peace agreement ie land for peace . That offer was refused in the infamous ‘ three noes statement by members of the Arab Council in Khartoum in 1969
    No negotiation
    No recognition
    No peace .
    In 1979 , Sadat broke that impasse and as a result Israel returned the Sinai in return for an albeit cold peace agreement . Sadat was assassinated by the MB for his troubles .
    As for limitations of movement in the West Bank today , this is as a result of Palestinian propensity to murder and maim Israeli civilians as witnessed during the second Intifada .
    No murder ,no restrictions and no security fence . Finally what is a ‘Jew only colony in Israel’
    ? . Your nonsensical and illiterate question define you as an antisemite and a pretty poorly informed one at that .

    • States cannot acquire territory by war. This is a fundamental principle of international law. It is also the opinion of every single institution of international law that Israel’s colonisation of the West Bank is illegal.

      There is really nothing controversial here.

      • In this case the Greeks should have Istanbul back, con.
        International law doesn`exist but in the form of treaties, conventions, institutions, multilateral, bilateral and so on with at least contradictory contents.
        Theres is no unified International Law and therefore no single institution of International Law but a different set of institutions with differing agenda. Something the con doesn`t know.
        Most interesting example of unilateralism is the Islamic Republic of Iran which only signs treaties and regards conventions when fitting the Iranian version of Sharia.
        So the Iranian interpretation of NPT and IAEO rules is completely different as everybody can easily guess.

  10. Avram says States cannot acquire territory by war.
    Then how did the Arabs get all of North Africa from the Berbers in the 7th century.

    • A question so stupid I can only assume it is asked in jest…but the right of conquest ended after WWII.

        • They did. It was entirely without legality. In fact Jordan was nearly expelled from the Arab League because of it.

          The major powers (US and UK) saw it as a potential solution to the conflict. And, of course, the annexation was completely different to living under Israeli occupation – not least of all because they were all given full Jordanian citizenship and the right to vote.

          Now, if Israel wants to model itself on that route, it should formally annex the West Bank, give everyone in it citizenship and the right to vote.

  11. First of all, it would have been impossible to retain territorial integrity. Israel would never have allowed a land corridor between Gaza and the West Bank.

    Secondly, Arabs in the West Bank had achieved self determination as they were full and equal citizens of Jordan.

    Thirdly, Palestinian identity was forged in no small part by both their persecution at the hands of “The Jews™” and their maltreatment by “The Arabs™”.

    • I hope you realize, that even presently, Israel will not allow, nor must it, a corridor under Pal. sovereignty wading through Israel(that would essentially cut it in half).
      So that is a moot point, at best. Certainly NOT an impediment.
      Then it follows per point 2., that you would have supported the Hussein-Peres agreements??
      Thirdly, the Pals. never gained “self-determination”, per se.
      Self-determination requires control over national policy, and some form of sovereignty, all of which was lacking in the Jordanian West Bank, because the Hashemite ruling-class held(and still does hold) the aegis of power.
      (And apparently, that IS what the Palestinians desire, since they’re not content with the Oslo-proffered autonomy, and de facto independence).
      So, no conclusive answer on all three points.
      (Though I tend to agree with you that a sense of deprivation and disenfranchisement by Israel pervade the Pal. mindset).
      A Palestinian state COULD have been created, had it(the Pal. problem) not been transformed by the Arab states, as a masthead, juggernaut, against Israel. A perennial thorn, in their proverbial neck.

      • There isn’t space here, Commentary, to discuss the Palestinian mindset – reinforced by a combination of questionable support by NGOs and insh’allah which stops them from doing things differently rather than keep on trying the same failed “policies”.

        Of course they feel deprived and disenfranchised – heaven knows that they are paid enough to remain so (think about what might happen if they suddenly woke up and pursued peace, how much financial support would they lose?). It seems to me that all the dots are there for fulfilled life in peace, but the Palestinians cannot or will not join them up and more importantly, they’d have to do one hell of a lot more to maintain it than they are doing.

        So the Arab states (who are riven because Jews have made a jewel of a state in their midst) as well as the Palestinian leaders, who let’s face it wouldn’t survive if there was peace, feed and play on this sense of belligerent self-pity.

        Self-determination in all aspects of one’s life begins with a sense of self and is internally motivated. These poor sods are led by the nose and seem not to have the will not to be. I doubt that Abbas has a mature sense of self to be a good enough leader. His public persona shows him to be a rabble rouser and a liar, I doubt that he has enough sense of self to have a private one.

  12. “I hope you realize, that even presently, Israel will not allow, nor must it, a corridor under Pal. sovereignty wading through Israel(that would essentially cut it in half).”

    You must also realise that the Palestinians are not compelled to negotiate a swap for a single inch of land over the green line. It is Palestinian land. No ifs, no buts. If Israel want to keep its Jew-only colonies, it will need to exchange significant chunks of land within Israel.

    “So that is a moot point, at best. Certainly NOT an impediment.”

    It’s an impediment in the sense that a non-contiguous Palestinian state will not be viable. A non-viable Palestinian state is not in Israel’s interest.

    “Thirdly, the Pals. never gained “self-determination”, per se.”

    Firstly, by my reckoning, we cannot achieve self determination within the statist framework. The West Bank and the East Bank were given 30 seats each in the Parliament and the right to vote. So perhaps they had achieved self determination in the same was as Palestinian-Israelis do when they participate in Israel’s democracy with its Jewish ruling class.

    • I hope you won’t keep contradicting yourself.
      In your references to UNSC 242(above), you mentioned that while Israel is not obliged to retreat from all the territories, it should so within the framework of land-swaps. So land-swaps, according to YOU, were the formula, set out by Caradon(which we’ve already discussed); therefore, since, as Caradon said(“…We never said ‘go back to the 1949 borders’–that would be insanity“), for the sake of Secure borders, the Pals. will have to compromise.
      I am glad that you backtracked from your earlier claim of “Jew-only” roads.
      Now, these “Jew-only” colonies; There ARE Arab-Israelis living in the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. See French Hill, Pisgat Ze’ev and Ariel.
      By the way, neither of these land-swaps, as discussed in Camp David(for instance) would ever cut Israel in half. So that’s not the point.
      Why couldn’t a Pal. state, living in peace with Israel, use Israeli infrastructure to connect with Gaza?
      East Timor does this(With Indonesia. Surely the Pals. can do so with Israel?).

  13. I think you’re misunderstanding. Israel cannot acquire territory by war, so any land swaps must be minor and mutual. i.e. its land mass must not alter. So yes, both sides should negotiate, but only under the “inadmissibility principle”.

    Now any concession by the Palestinians to allow Israel to keep its Jew-only colonies must be accompanied by an equal concession from Israel in terms of land of equal size and value.

    No one would choose the armistice lines as borders, they’re ridiculous. So yes, this would be the ideal opportunity to iron them out, guided, of course, by the inadmissibility principle.

    Now, as you well know, one of Netanyahu’s extreme preconditions is that any negotiation must not be based on international law. Which of course raises the question of what it *should* be based on.

    No negotiations based on 242 can take place until the Israeli side drops this intransigent position vis a vis international law.

    • We’re not going to get anywhere, if you keep spewing nonsense.
      UNSC 242 states nothing of the “minor” kind. Don’t add your own interpretations to a readied and fashioned document
      Now we come to your lies, once again:


      Now, as you well know, one of Netanyahu’s extreme preconditions is that any negotiation must not be based on international law…

      I know nothing of the kind, and if you have any evidence for that truly frivolous claim, please produce it.(Bear in mind, that since the Madrid process, all consecutive Israeli governments acknowledges Res. 242, and 338). I await with anticipation.
      Furthermore, if you’re going to keep fallacious terms like “Jew-only colonies”, keep in mind, that you’re going to be reminded of Ariel, Pisg’at Ze’ev and the French Hill, till you’re blue in the face.
      Now please furnish with the “dish” on Netanyahu(if it exists).

      • http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/Policy%20and%20Politics/AIPAC%20Analyses/Issue%20Memos/2011/12/AIPAC%20Memo%20-%20Abbas%20Refusing%20to%20Negotiate%20Demanding%20Preconditions.pdf

        Yes, I’m citing AIPAC. It’s that late.

        Abbas’s insistence that negotiations be based on international law, that the negotatiations be based on the 1967 lines are presented as Palestinian pre-conditions, and are to be rejected.

        The real precondition of course is the reverse, the reality is that if we refuse to negotiate based on the 67 lines, then we refuse to negotiate based on international law.

        This isn’t controversial.

        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/76DBBD49E69DF4AD85257921004624C3

        Here is Abbas demanding that negotiations be based on international law.

        The only time Bibi has come close to accepting international law as the reference point was when he thought that the UN might recognise a Palestinian state – such was his terror at the prospect.

        • So no sources for: “Netanyahu’s extreme preconditions is that any negotiation must not be based on international law…“.(As I suspected).
          I see. As for the 1967 part, we have YOU, to rely on:

          “No one would choose the armistice lines as borders, they’re ridiculous.”

          If that is the case, as YOU say, then we shouldn’t take the 1967 lines a basis, BECAUSE they are ridiculous. You said it best, yourself.
          Humm, contradicting yourself, AGAIN, “Avram”?

          • You’re being a little silly, and sounding a little desperate.

            As envisaged by Caradon, the negotiations will centre on the 67 lines, with minor and mutual land swaps.

            I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. You accept the inadmissibility principle, and that only makes any sense at all with a reference point – the 67 lines.

            This will not be entertained by Bibi, hence his refusal to entertain negotiations based on international law. He also refuses to end constructions of the illegal colonies in the interests of negotiation.

            • Again, try to reconcile this of Caradon’s:


              “We didn’t say there should be a withdrawal to the ’67 line; we did not put the ‘the’ in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew – that the boundaries of ’67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers… We did not say that the ’67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.

              If, as I understand it, you accept this position of Caradon’s that the 1967 implied danger to Israel’s security(as indeed they have), then trying to coerce a start of negotiations on the premise that the 1967 lines are somehow sacrosanct, is a travesty that is in and of itself a violation of Intl. law, as envisaged by the framers of UNSC 242.(It doesn’t mean that the final border will have to differ significantly from it; and you’ll find that ALL Israeli offers, from Camp David onward, gave the Pals. AT LEAST 95% of the West Bank, a priori).
              As for the “colonies”(sighs), there WAS a settlement freeze, that you conveniently forget about:
              Netanyahu froze ALL settlement activity for 9 months(!). Did Abbas come to the table?

              • I think you’re having a straw man argument again. No one is suggesting that Israel return to the 67 lines. Caradon agrees with me. He only agrees with you if you cite him selectively. Here is Caradon:

                “Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line I was not prepared to use wording in the Resolution which would have made that line permanent. Nevertheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent “secure and recognized” boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the “inadmissibility” principle.”

                Now, bearing in mind the inadmissibility principle, how do you reconcile that with the admissibility of territory acquired by war?

                • You misunderstand me.
                  Land-swaps ARE the way.
                  The problem was(at Camp David, for instance), the Pals. demanded withdrawal FIRST(to the ’67) lines, THEN a discussion on final borders.
                  This is outrageous(not to mention, controverting Intl. law). And precisely what Ben-Ami(as chief negotiator) described here:
                  http://www.haaretz.com/end-of-a-journey-continuation-1.69708
                  It’s very unfortunate, we COULD have had a deal. The Clinton parameters, were precisely the formula for a solution.
                  It’s a shame that Arafat replied with a bold, resounding “No”.

                  • There is nothing in international law that prohibits a return to the 67 lines. Goldberg was very clear on this point:

                    “The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.”

                    Another false claim.

                    • I stated the the DEMAND by the Pals. to return to these lines FIRST(as a basis for any negotiations), is ludicrous and unsupported by Intl. Law.
                      That’s my claim.
                      That, you can’t deny.

                    • You claimed it controverted international law. This is a lie.

                      It was neither supported by nor controverted international law. It was a diplomatic position to obtain a level playing field.

                    • That Israel has to withdraw first in order for peace negotiations to START, is indeed against Intl. Law.
                      Because, “withdrawal”, under article 1. of UNSC 242, also entails, sub-clause II:
                      “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty…”.
                      If you’re going to withdraw, WITHOUT it, you’re in effect corrupting the meaning of the resolution.
                      No playing field. Just lies on your part.

                    • First of all, cite, so we’re sure what your lies are.

                      Your acrobatics are fun this morning.

                      You’ve gone from “controverting international law” to being “unsupported” by international law and back to “against international law”.

                      If you you do a double somersault on your dismount you might be in for a perfect 10.

                    • Cite what? UNSC 242? I think you can find that by yourself.
                      If you’re going to get testy, “Avram”… Let’s end this right now.
                      I am no mood to hear your petulant diatribes.
                      If you don’t see how demanding that Israel withdraw first, before negotiations have even started, or that Israel commit itself to a full withdrawal, subvert the meaning of UNSC 242, I can’t help you.

                    • I’m asking you to elaborate on what you mean by “Pals. demanded withdrawal FIRST” by citing a source.

                      Naturally, I will disallow any sources with whom I disagree with politically 😛

                      Don’t be so defensive.

                    • By All means:
                      Recently, Abbas:
                      http://www.haaretz.com/news/pa-chair-abbas-lays-out-first-precise-demands-for-palestinian-borders-1.230759
                      “…full Israeli withdrawal from all territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War…”
                      “We want it as it is.”
                      http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,234797,00.html
                      Arafat:
                      (During Defensive Shield):
                      “Arafat will likely demand greater Israeli withdrawal as a precondition for any cease-fire.”.
                      Dennis Ross(in his memoirs):
                      “Arafat continued to demand the 1967 lines as a border; he would not have anything but”.
                      Finally, I urge you to read the Ben-Ami interview(above). It’s very melancholy, moving, and saddening.
                      (There are sadly, many more examples.
                      I could include Barghoutti, since according to recent polls, he’s the most popular candidate for Presidency in the West Bank; it’s optional, but still there:
                      http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gVfNAbMAfgzifmWHGzG0GqTAjkNQ)

                    • So from the Haaretz article you cite to make your rather odd case:

                      “But at the same time, Abbas left the door open for a land swap. “A border adjustment, on the basis of the same quality and the same amount, we have no objections,” he said.”

                      In other words, he agrees with Caradon and Goldberg.

                      In Time, “Arafat will likely demand…”

                      Seriously. You’re citing the authors interpretation of what Arafat might have done in the future (from vantage point of the article date)?

                      “Arafat continued to demand the 1967 lines as a border; he would not have anything but”

                      You’re citing Ross? The discrepancies between Ross’s account and the other accounts from Camp David have been covered extensively so I won’t go over them again.

                      And as you bring up Ben Ami (an eminently nice chap):

                      “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.”

                      Now, I asked for a citation to back up the suggestion that the Palestinian contingent demanded a withdrawal to the 67 lines FIRST – as you put it.

                      Still waiting.

                    • Just so you are clear, this is the claim you’re trying to substantiate:

                      “The problem was(at Camp David, for instance), the Pals. demanded withdrawal FIRST(to the ’67) lines, THEN a discussion on final borders.”

                    • You have to agree, among other things, that this double-speak is more than disingenuous.
                      On the one hand he claims it “as is”, then he says he’s open to this or that.
                      I wish they would state their case categorically, once and for all.
                      As for TIME, Arafat did, as you recall.
                      Ross’ account is perfectly valid, as is Ben-Ami’s. And you can’t deny what he said for Ha’artez, and in his own recollections of that event.
                      As for the sources, I’ll fetch them within the hour.(Somewhat busy right now).

                    • There exist only highly partisan accounts of Camp David, unfortunately.

                      Taba is more interesting because it is uncontroversial. The Israelis abandoned negotiations.

                      The Saudi Plan is also interesting because it offers Israel almost exactly the deal that Israel *claims* to have offered the Palestinians.

                      You happily cite a partisan account like Ross’s, which has been shown to differ substantially from the accounts given by other observers, but you criticise Chomsky for citing the diplomatic record.

                    • Taba was actually a regression, compared to Camp David.
                      Says the EU* not, I.
                      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/CEA3EFD8C0AB482F85256E3700670AF8
                      There was nothing substantive in those talks:

                      The Pals. rejected demilitarization
                      Nothing was exchanged on Refugees.
                      No maps were delivered.

                      They were non-starters, at best.
                      The Saudi initiative, by stipulating complete withdrawal, and is unbending, is unfit for Israel and its security concerns.
                      Not to mention, deliberate ambiguity on refugees

                    • Here’s some:(More to follow)
                      http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1026/What-are-the-Israeli-Palestinian-peace-talk-preconditions/Palestinian-Authority-Pre-1967-borders
                      You may not like this(i.e. that it merely asks to accept the ’67 borders), but in fact, it IS contrary to what you yourself had stated: that the ’67 borders are ridiculous.
                      And any in case, any deal is roughly shaped already. 96%-97% of the West Bank, the rest in Land swaps.
                      To start everything from scratch now, as you can see from Ben Ami, is preposterous.

                    • “The Pals. rejected demilitarization”

                      Did Israel also reject demilitarisation?

                      Is there anything in international law that would insist on a sovereign state being demilitarised?

                      “Taba was actually a regression”

                      You got that right, with Israel walking out.

                      “The Saudi initiative, by stipulating complete withdrawal, and is unbending”

                      The Saudi plan is based on 242. And considering the framers intended any border modifications to be insubstantial, minor and mutual, this was certainly a good place to start talks.

                      “is unfit for Israel and its security concerns.”

                      Aaar yes, Israeli needs first, Palestnian rights second.

                      “Not to mention, deliberate ambiguity on refugees”

                      This is a big plus for Israel. It backs away from the right of return, and offers ambiguity in the form of a just settlement.

                      August 27, 2012 at 7:48 am
                      Commentary101

                      “You may not like this(i.e. that it merely asks to accept the ’67 borders), but in fact, it IS contrary to what you yourself had stated”

                      bzzzzzzzz

                      That’s the noise I’m going to make each and every time you lie. To quote the article:

                      “Abbas wants Netanyahu to agree on a baseline for those negotiations”

                      He wants Netanyahu to accept the premise of 242, to agree with Goldberg, to agree with Caradon. In other words, he wants Netanyahu to accept international law. The answer is clear, as noted in that article. “No!” Israel will demand that any negotiation is not based on international law. Thanks for the link, will prove useful in future.

                      “http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/world/before-scheduling-elections-arafat-demands-israeli-pullback.html
                      “Yasir Arafat said … until Israeli forces pulled back from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”.”

                      Note the absence of quotation marks in the article. You’re citing the author of the article.

                      “http://jcpa.org/article/a-new-palestinian-agenda-after-iraq/
                      “Arafat’s position is based on four demands: a return to the 1967 borders…”

                      Note that you are citing Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, not Arafat.

                      Your arguments have been weighed, measured, and found wanting.

                      Bear in mind, again, that as the US has repeatedly stated, any border modifications will be insubstantial, minor and mutual.

                    • The New York Times is not good for you(Reporting does not have to be accompanied by “direct quotation”).
                      Neither is the JCPA. What Abbas says you reject(by constructing apologia for him).
                      As for lies, you were swift(but silent), to retract your trope of “Jew-only roads”.
                      Israel asks that no negotiations be preempted by preconditions. I think that’s a very reasonable point.
                      And yes, Israel DOES have concerns, and legitimate interests. )Gaza here, for instance, has just recently renewed its rocket assaults against it).
                      If you’re not willing to see the plethora of evidence of available, that’s frankly, your problem.
                      And yes, you did state YOURSELF that the 1967 borders were ridiculous.
                      I don’t see what the fuss is about.(as the Pals. rejectionism is a matter of public record, evinced by ALL of the above).
                      Keep on reading Chomsky. It’s the best antidote to reality. And say “Hi” to the Viet Cong/Castro…

                    • “The New York Times is not good for you(Reporting does not have to be accompanied by “direct quotation”).
                      Neither is the JCPA.”

                      You quote a journalist and an Israel general. I accept that the articles represent the author and the general’s interpretation of events. But that’s all it is. You have still failed to back up your assertion.

                      “What Abbas says you reject(by constructing apologia for him).”

                      I offered no apologea, I merely quote the article that you posted to illustrate that it said the opposite of what you claimed it said.

                      “As for lies, you were swift(but silent), to retract your trope of “Jew-only roads”.”

                      I retract nothing of the sort. I’ve seen enough of what happens when a Palestinian tries to use them to know that they are roads for the masters.

                      “Israel asks that no negotiations be preempted by preconditions.”

                      Whilst insisting as a precondition that international law be suspended for negotiations.

                      “I think that’s a very reasonable point.”

                      International law, like all laws, are there in no small part to protec the weak from the strong. What does it say of Netanyahu that he insists as a precondition that the Palestinians give up their legal entitlements in order to negotiate?

                      “And yes, Israel DOES have concerns, and legitimate interests.”

                      Of course. So do the Palestinians. But their rights always play second fiddle to Israeli wants.

                      “And yes, you did state YOURSELF that the 1967 borders were ridiculous.”

                      They are.

                      “I don’t see what the fuss is about.”

                      The argument that you attempted to advance is that the Palestinians derailed Camp David by insisting that Israel withdraw to the 67 lines first, then negotiate from there. Now that might be true, but you have yet to demonstrate anything that comes close to it.

                      You also tried to make the argument that Israel could acquire some territory by war. And you expressly denied that Goldberg supported the notion of minor and mutual territorial exchanges. I guess that was what we were arguing about.

                      But as our discussions tend to, we have wandered a long way. I can no longer remember how it started. What fun.

                • “I think you’re having a straw man argument again.”
                  Coming from AVRAM this must Mondays opener for Ali’s comedy week.

      • And on the minor and mutual front – this is present in the record of the diplomatic negotiations surrounding 242. Jordan was repeatedly assured that only minor border modifications were necessary, and that and exchanges would be mutual.

        What Caradon referred to as “mutually agreeable land swaps”, guided by the inadmissibility principle.

        • “…referred to as “mutually agreeable land swaps”…”

          Where?!
          Source please.
          As far as I am aware, Caradon said nothing(!) of the kind.
          A. J. Goldberg certainly didn’t.

          • Sorry that’s entirely wrong. That wasn’t Caradon at all. I have to get up in 6 hours so before I start drooling.

            It was, in fact Goldberg who stressed the mutuality of any border adjustments, as he put it – “there must be a mutuality in adjustments”.

            And quoting from declassified State department documents:

            “U.S. officials emphasized that any territorial adjustments would be limited in nature and would not, of necessity, be detrimental to the Arab states”; there would be at most “minor reciprocal border rectifications” with no “substantial withdrawing of the [pre-war] map.”

            Will attempt to follow up tomorrow any questions tomorrow.

            • Look, if you’re going to quote Chomsky, we might as well end this conversation right now.(Unless you have a different source for that “declassified document” – in which case, provide it).
              As for Goldberg, remember two things:
              Preceding that line of “mutuality”(which certainly exists) consider this:
              “…there must be a withdrawal to recognized and secure frontiers for all countries, not necessarily the old armistice lines…”
              And, what Goldberg himself had said:

              “Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words ‘the’ and ‘all’ are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal.

              Therefore, no one has yet specifically introduced the concept of “land-swaps”(In fact, this offered first by the Israelis(! Hardly to believe, right?), at Camp David.

              • lol, I might have guessed – I cite one of the most prominent scholars in the world – you retort with an ad hominem.

                Like Chomsky or loath him – his work, like Finkelstein’s, is meticulous in its citing of the documentary record. And put quite simply – he he more trustable than an anonymous forum troll.

                So let me turn it around – if you have a charge to make against an emeritus MIT professor, you’d better have something to back it up with. But you don’t do you? You have long since been exposed as a one-trick pony – the ad hominem is your tool of first and last resort.

                And you are wheeling out a straw man argument. Caradon and Goldberg agree with me – there was no suggestion that Israel was to return to the 67 lines. None whatsoever.

                The intention, as outlined by Caradon, as outlined by Goldberg, was that there were to be minor and mutual border adjustments to create a secure and recognised border, guided by the inadmissibility principle.

                Squirm as you might, for reasons that escape me, you seem unable to see what is obvious to everyone else.

                “Therefore, no one has yet specifically introduced the concept of “land-swaps””

                On the contrary, as Caradon and Goldberg explicitly noted, this was the intention of 242. The fact that you think this came from Israel at Camp David shows, quite frankly, how utterly indoctrinated you are.

                • Avram redefines the term troll. It is incredible to read what he writes here. On the other hand he gives us a detailed insight into the make belief world of the Left.

                • We’re also waiting for you to either substantiate your claims against Chomsky, or accept that Goldberg stated that land swaps would be based on mutuality.

                  • I am not planning to debate someone, who uses a supporter of the Viet-Cong as a source.
                    That’s where I draw the line, frankly.
                    Goldberg never said anything about “Swaps”. Mutuality could also be understood, as recognition by the opposite party, of the legitimate security needs of the former.

                    • If Einstein had “supported the Vietcong” (an amusing notion) – would e not equal mc^2?

                      Your levels of intellectual dishonesty know no bounds. Your ability to ignore the documentary record based on who is citing it is most impressive, I see now how you have managed to maintain your belief set in the face of the evidence.

                      The context of Goldberg’s quote was that of land swaps, or border “adjustments” as he put it.

                      Try as you might, you won’t escape the fact that Goldberg agrees with me. As does Caradon.

                    • So Chomsky cited that memo once, in 1993, in radical left wing publication.
                      It has NOT surfaced hence, never reappeared anywhere
                      Don’t you think, that if there were some basis for it(perhaps it was selectively misleading), it would be excellent fodder for the various anti-Israeli parties out there, including Chomsky?
                      (Einstein, by the way, knew better than the Viet Cong).
                      Again, “land swaps” are not mentioned by either Caradon, or Goldberg.
                      It’s a blessing that they’re dead too, for they would shudder at agreeing, with you.
                      (Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, apropos).

                    • Except, of course, that I’m sat reading the declassified diplomatic record as we speak.

                      I’m reading Goldberg’s comments about mutuality and border adjustments.

                      As for land swaps, Goldberg uses the term “territorial adjustment” – and the mutuality he refers to applies to these adjustments.

                      Now, will we see you argue that mutual territorial adjustments do not equate to land swaps? That would be fun to watch.

                      And Caradon, of course, explicitly said he intended there to be border alterations guided by the inadmissibility principle – in other words, the border should change, but the land mass should stay more or less the same. i.e. – land swaps.

                      What fun.

                      The position of minor and mutual land swaps was acknowledge by Rabin in he Knesset, and the Americans repeatedly stressed that any border alterations would be insubstantial.

                    • That this is the position now accepted, I do not doubt it.
                      But that neither Caradon, nor Golberg spoke of “land-swaps”, is a fact.
                      Mutuality, could means a process done with the consent of both parties. Recognizing Israel was severely handicapped pre-1967, it could have 1%-2%(minor) for its security needs(I think that’s reasonable).
                      Read this, of Dore Gold:
                      http://jcpa.org/article/land-swaps-and-the-1967-lines/
                      “So where did the idea of land swaps come from? During the mid-1990s there were multiple backchannel efforts to see if it was possible to reach a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.”
                      And if you’re going to use Rabin, remember this:


                      “Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made clear in his last Knesset address in October 1995 that Israel would never withdraw to the 1967 lines. He stressed that Israel would have to retain control of the Jordan Valley, the great eastern, geographic barrier which provided for its security for decades”

                      If you have another link(other than Chomsky) to that “declassified document”, why not provide it?
                      If not, I don’t think there’s any point in dragging this out further.

                    • “But that neither Caradon, nor Golberg spoke of “land-swaps”, is a fact.”

                      They spoke of territorial adjustments based on mutuality, border modifications guided by the inadmissibility principle etc. They are talking about land swaps. They could call them land exchanged, territory swaps, whatever – we’re talking about the same beast. That’s a fact.

                      “Mutuality, could means a process done with the consent of both parties.”

                      To quote the record:

                      “US prepared use its influence to help achieve reasonable settlement; fact that we did not visualize a Jordan limited only to East Bank; our desire to have a Jordan protected in permanent boundaries; the need for some territorial adjustment…Goldberg also stressed that “Our purpose is to create context of peace in which Israeli withdrawal will take place and Jordanian territorial integrity and political independence will be protected.” While we could not guarantee that everything would be returned to Jordan, and that some territorial adjustment will be required, we would be prepared to use our influence to help Jordan get best deal possible…

                      Goldberg continued time is running out, time has come for peace. We are ready to help, we do not wish to go back to fragile Armistice Agreements. We are committed to principle of political independence and territorial integrity and we are ready to reaffirm it bilaterally and publicly in SC res. US believes in territorial integrity, withdrawal, and recognition of secure boundaries. Principle of territorial integrity has two important sub-principles, there must be a withdrawal to recognized and secure frontiers for all countries, not the old armistice lines, and there must be mutuality in adjustments. If Jordan makes an adjustment along the Latrun salient there ought to be some compensatory adjustment for it. We wish to work to this end so that equitable agreement can be achieved. We believe, Goldberg said, that “He who seeks equity must do equity.””

                      Source: http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d501

                      Rabin’s acknowledgement of the minor and mutual nature of the land swaps:

                      http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Templates/Hasava.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7BC2421B2D-D2D8-40B3-A625-A58698E1D1BB%7D&NRORIGINALURL=%2FMFA%2FForeign%2BRelations%2FIsraels%2BForeign%2BRelations%2Bsince%2B1947%2F1992-1994%2F240%2BStatement%2Bin%2Bthe%2BKnesset%2Bby%2BPrime%2BMinister%2BRab.htm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest

                      To quote secretary of state Dean Rusk:

                      “We wanted [the wording] to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be “rationalized”; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties…But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided.”

                      To quote Henry Kissinger:

                      “Jordan’s acquiescence in Resolution 242 had been obtained in 1967 by the promise of our United Nations Ambassador Arthur Goldberg that under its terms we would work for the return of the West Bank to Jordan with minor boundary rectifications and that we were prepared to use our influence to obtain a role for Jordan in Jerusalem.”

                    • That doesn’t change the fact, that neither Caradon, nor Goldberg said “Swaps”… Mutuality, as well as adjustment can be understood differently, as I stated: The Arabs states could realize that 1%-2%(the minor aspect) are necessary for Israeli safety and security.
                      Why didn’t you also quote, from your document:
                      While we could not guarantee that everything would be returned to Jordan, and that some territorial adjustment will be required…”
                      (Latrun is a separate issue, which may have warranted a different agreement).
                      And just to be clear, do you now support reverting the West Bank to Jordan? I believe, as you would observe, in 1988 Jordan renounced all territorial claims to the West Bank(!).
                      Still, have you found a State Dept./Other source for the Chomsky claim?

                    • And furthermore, you’re practising disingenuousness again;
                      The Rabin quote, was from the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty.
                      Stop lying.

                    • Oh dear God, you are actually making the argument that minor and mutual territorial exchanges aren’t land swaps.

                    • The con`s lying again.
                      Rabin:
                      “It was for us to jointly determine the location of the border and ways of demarcating it. After negotiations, it was agreed that the boundary line would be based on the Mandatory border and on the ceasefire line that was agreed to by Jordan and Israel in 1949; since then, it was this line which appeared on our maps from the early days of the State.

                      However, it was also agreed that both sides would have to consider the reality created over the years, by making minor corrections to the border on a reciprocal basis. Neither of the two countries gave up a single square centimeter in comparison with the boundaries determined on the basis of the cease-fire line. These corrections will enable the Arava communities to continue working the lands they currently work – these will remain under Israeli sovereignty -and to continue using the water irrigating these areas. Also taken into account regarding these minor border corrections were ..”

                    • Thanks Fritz. He quoted the wrong thing altogether.
                      This was the Jordanian-Israeli Peace treaty, anyway.(So it has nothing to do with what I noted earlier, of Rabin’s).
                      As for “land-swaps”:
                      Kissinger spoke of those “minor” adjustments: NOT Caradon nor Goldberg.
                      Goldberg said of these adjustments, for the sake of restoring the land to Jordan(In which case, I would completely agree).
                      Since Jordan has abandoned the West Bank(in 1988), the point is non-existent.
                      “Avram”, if you’re going to keep imputing any more spurious, and idiotic claims to me, this conversation is over.
                      (I am waiting for an official recantation of “Jew-only roads”. AP et al renounced such falsehoods. Now it’s your turn).

                    • @ c101

                      I wouldn`t teach him, as you do. It doesn`t make sense to teach anti-Semites, they just learn how to extend and solidify their lies when you give them lectures on truth, facts, language..
                      Don`t train him, sent him packing

                  • Chomsky, the icon of left extremism, has no political credentials left, all lost along the way due to slopiness, lies and misrepresenations of sources, besides his bizarre denial of campuchea`s mass slaughtering.
                    You have lost no credentials, as you already started without any.

                    • You know, Fritz, about the comment above, you may well be right.
                      But some things are just so disparaging, so fictitious, that they need rebutting.
                      When they spew:”Jew-only Roads”, “Jew-only ‘Colonies'”, they must expect to be held accountable for it.
                      Of course, when every sentence is prefaced with: “Chomsky says…”, one does lose hope of ever influencing, or clarifying this or that.