ALL THE MORE REASON TO EMBRACE THE LEVY REPORT
Jerusalem rejects ‘biased’ Human Rights Council finding that West Bank Jewish communities are illegal
TIMES OF ISRAEL January 31, 2013, 2:36 pm 4
JTA — A United Nations investigation into the impact of Jewish West Bank settlements on the Palestinian population said that Israel should immediately begin to withdraw all settlers from the territory.
The report issued Thursday by the UN Human Rights Council based in Geneva said that settlement violate the 1949 Geneva Conventions and that failure to withdraw could lead to a finding of war crimes at the International Criminal Court.
The Palestinians have threatened to take Israel to the ICC since the Palestinian Authority was recognized as having non-member state status in the General Assembly in November.
The Human Rights Council’s investigation began last March. Israel did not cooperate with the investigation, including barring investigators from entering the territory, saying that the council is biased against the Jewish state. The council has issued more resolutions regarding Israeli human rights violations than any country.
The report said that Israel “must, in compliance with article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, cease all settlement activities without preconditions. It must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers from the OPT,” or Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Investigators interviewed about 50 Palestinians in Jordan in order to prepare the report. The report said that the Palestinians were prevented by the settlements from reaching their farming lands and water resources.
The report estimated that 520,000 settlers live in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem in some 250 settlements.
This, according to the report, “prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”
Israel’s Foreign Ministry rejected the report, calling it “counterproductive.” The report “will only hamper efforts to find a sustainable solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict,” the ministry said in a statement.
“The only way to resolve all pending issues between Israel and the Palestinians, including the settlements issue, is through direct negotiations without pre-conditions,” the ministry said. .
“The Human Rights Council has sadly distinguished itself by its systematical, one-sided and biased approach towards Israel. This latest report is yet another unfortunate reminder of such approach,” the ministry concluded.
dweller Said:
desperate for a meaningful and important reply, grasping for straws? It did not go past me, I chalked it up to anal compulsion or retention. My psych textbook is not here at the moment but I am sure you know which one applies.
@ Bernard Ross:
hopefully the storm has passed… 🙂
back to israel…un report.. jews…? 🙂
i don’t even remember where the adelson comment appeared, but i would welcome an exchange with you on this subject
dweller Said:
I do not see you as a “wannabe professor surrounded by acolytes” you see yourself as such, doling out of gems of wisdom as if manna from heaven.
Honey Bee Said:
🙂
i would add the following :
ALL kittens, eventually open their eyes and see things for WHAT THEY ARE. 🙂
dionissis, my weather vane has never shifted its position 🙂
yamit, maspik im hashtuyot. get well! 🙂
My moderated comment #37 is still in moderation, and it is an elucidating (and very big) one, i should hope someone would take it out of moderation.
@ dweller:
@ yamit82:
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
None of yawl are GAY, trust me A Queen Bee knows. Now shut-up. Dweller you are to argumentative. Dionissis go out to a taverna and have some fun, Yamit get some rest before you get pnuemonia[trust me, you don’t want that].
@ dweller
dweller Said:
The way you presented my alleged homosexuality, (that is, making it look like I am a sick person in need of help), had the effect of turning me into an object of pity and a facile target of diversive sexual slurs.
Keep in mind that, when you feel like patronizing someone (as I now understand is your hobby), you should never treat him like he is sick. For someone like you, who takes pride in his gentleness and tempered approaches, that should have been obvious – ergo, no real temperance in your approach, just a will to patronize, to dominate.
This is not enough to explain your approach to Curious American. There, I think, we have the demonstration of another of your vices, the will to degrade your Israpundit opponents by exposing them to the Israpundit audience as barbarian-like rednecks (“i have more tolerance than you, Yamit”).
Hurting me like you did (presenting me as sick and turning me into an object of pity and into a facile target) was inexcusable, but explicable in terms of your competitive need to downgrade Yamit et al by demonstrating to them the correct approach of dealing with dionissis: “That’s how it should be done, you hateful creatures, gently!”.
The funny thing is that no one in here had ever touched upon my alleged homosexuality, except you, now.
Of all the people, I think I was the only one who not only have not attacked you, ever, but also expressed my sincere admiration for some of your qualities. And yet, you couldn’t resist the temptation to patronize me and hurt me as a means to score in your competition against Yamit(s).
Dweller, we don’t punch in the face people who are smiling to us – but that’s exactly what you did to me.
It’s you who is sick, not me.
@ dweller:
I repost my moderated comment #37 omitting the reference to the present site’s name and substituting it with the letters IP. Whereever you see IP, i am referring to the site we are right now.
@ dweller
When you referred to my female identity, meaning that i am gay, maybe you had in mind your own version of helping someone to come out of the closet.
Now, let’s leave aside the incredible emotional stupidity that you demonstrated in thinking that you might talk to your selected latent homosexual about his latency in public in IP – it should have not come as a surprise to you that a gay will come out of the closet only when he chooses to, and only to the people he chooses to share it with.
If you think that non-derisive mawkish outing does not count as outing, then you are either emotionally inane or malevolent, or both.
Let’s move to what might have made you so impertinent and reckless as to think that you have any right whatsoever to bring up in IP such a sensitive subject as a person’s homosexuality – and especially in the way you did, by presenting the allegedly gay in question (me) as sick person who needs help.
You probably read all the exchanges i had in Mondoweiss concerning Israel and Iran (i had posted the link in IP and invited you to come with me to defend Israel online in that site, and have explained to you that i need a partner-in-online-arms with knowledge of the specifics of ante-1950 Israel history so as to be more effective in my defense of Israel).
You saw my freely speaking as if i might be gay or a kinky bisexual, and concluded that i am gay.
It happens that i am not gay, but i have a great sympathy for all those labeled “sexually perverted”, with the exception of those that do non consensual things (pedophiles and animal molesters). The reasons for my sympathy to these outcasts (minus the two despicable categories that i mentioned) is something that i don’t feel like sharing in IP right now – and, especially, not in your presence, now that i saw what you are.
But there are other reasons than my mere identification with such sexual outcasts that lead me to talk as if i might be one in sites where i am defending Israel.
It has not crossed your mind that alluding that one might be homosexual allows him to tackle successfully both Muslims and liberal anti-Israel commentators. It has happened to me in the Daily Telegraph in a conversation with a Muslim woman to consistently ask her if a hypothetical Muslim majority in Europe means that my gay friends will be outlawed. She kept on evading the issue, and anyone European reading the posts must have been left with a clear taste of Islam’s vulgarity, and reminded that there are dangers in letting Muslim populations grow.
In liberal sites, playing the gay-card allows you to disarm their arguments that the Zionists are supremacist rednecks – ‘hey, here is a Zionist that cannot be such a supremacist, he is gay”. They are going to listen to what you have to say more open-mindedly than they would have if they were left with the “supremacist” label in their heads.
The more lefty the site, the more the impact of the gay-tactic. And i use it a lot.
As you see, there are other interpretations of what you might consider evidence of one’s homosexuality.
If only you were willing to interpret evidence by injecting some reason, instead of merely “sensing”, may be you wouldn’t have fallen so far off the mark.
Of course, even in the absence of proper interpretation, you could have spared me your harassment simply by exhibiting the minimum of gentleness and common courtesy.
Dweller, i remember your having claimed that Yamit scares people away from IP.
As far as i am concerned, i now know that you have that potential impact.
@ dweller
Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld Said:
Dweller, as an aside before going on, don’t you think it’s high time you apologized to Ms Rosenfeld for the embarassement that you caused her by starting a discussion on my gay identity?
It would make me feel better too, to know that Ms Rosenfeld realizes that it was you who started the conversation, through your allegation that i am gay.
Comment number 37 in moderation (nothing improper, just many uses of the word “Israpundit”). I will wait for a while in case it shows up before posting my further comments.
@ dweller:
When you referred to my female identity, meaning that i am gay, maybe you had in mind your own version of helping someone to come out of the closet.
Now, let’s leave aside the incredible emotional stupidity that you demonstrated in thinking that you might talk to your selected latent homosexual about his latency in public in Israpundit – it should have not come as a surprise to you that a gay will come out of the closet only when he chooses to, and only to the people he chooses to share it with.
If you think that non-derisive mawkish outing (as was yours) does not count as outing, then you are either emotionally inane or malevolent, or both.
Let’s move to what might have made you so impertinent and reckless as to think that you have any right whatsoever to bring up in Isranpudit such a sensitive subject as a person’s homosexuality – and especially in the way you did, by presenting the allegedly gay in question (me) as sick person who needs help.
You probably read all the exchanges i had in Mondoweiss concerning Israel and Iran (i had posted the link in Israpundit and invited you to come with me to defend Israel online in that site, and have explained to you that i need a partner-in-online-arms with knowledge of the specifics of ante-1950 Israel history so as to be more effective in my defense of Israel).
You saw my freely speaking as if i might be gay or a kinky bisexual, and concluded that i am gay.
It happens that i am not gay, but i have a great sympathy for all those labeled “sexually perverted”, with the exception of those that do non consensual things (pedophiles and animal molesters). The reasons for my sympathy to these outcasts (minus the two despicable categories that i mentioned) is something that i don’t feel like sharing in Israpundit right now – and, especially, not in your presence, now that i saw what you are.
But there are other reasons than my mere identification with such sexual outcasts that lead me to talk as if i might be one in sites where i am defending Israel.
It has not crossed your mind that alluding that one might be homosexual allows him to tackle successfully both Muslims and liberal anti-Israel commentators. It has happened to me in the Daily Telegraph in a conversation with a Muslim woman to consistently ask her if a hypothetical Muslim majority in Europe means that my gay friends will be outlawed. She kept on evading the issue, and anyone European reading the posts must have been left with a clear taste of Islam’s vulgarity, and reminded that there are dangers in letting Muslim populations grow.
In liberal sites, playing the gay-card allows you to disarm their arguments that the Zionists are supremacist rednecks – ‘hey, here is a Zionist that cannot be such a supremacist, he is gay”. They are going to listen to what you have to say more open-mindedly than they would have if they were left with the “supremacist” label in their heads.
The more lefty the site, the more the impact of the gay-tactic. And i do it a lot.
As you see, there are other interpretations of what you might consider evidence of one’s homosexuality.
If only you were willing to interpret evidence by injecting some reason, instead of merely “sensing”, may be you wouldn’t have fallen so far off the mark.
Of course, even in the absence of proper interpretation, you could have spared me your harassement simply by exhibiting the minimum of gentleness and common courtesy.
Dweller, i remember your having claimed that Yamit scares people away from Israpundit.
As far as i am concerned, i now know that you have that potential impact.
dweller Said:
Well, dweller, when i said that Bernard meant me as one of your acolytes, i was not informing you, i was making show of informing you. You know, as in i was pretending to be the acolyte of yours hurt by Bernard’s remark?
You misunderstand lots of things in emotional issues, after all.
No wonder then that you mistook my playful willingness to play the submissive in dialogue as an invitation for you to come and dominate me for real.
You surely got that wrong.
@ dweller
dweller Said:
How much annoyance it would have spared me if you had decided to apply your gentle approach to me, too, especially on a subject such as homosexuality which is far more important than the format of Bernard’s paragrahs.
But on a matter that requires true gentleness, you went in like a bull in a china shop.
What worse could your favorite Israpundit competitors have done?
PS. there has been no need to be so extravagantly gentle to Bernard at the time, all the more so since you had already at the time some fairly tense exchanges with him. There were polite ways to tell him about his writing format even by referring to him in person.
This emotional dissonance of yours in gentleness application just convinces me that you don’t feel the real thing, you just use gentleness as a weapon to put down your Israpundit opponents.
@ dweller
dweller Said:
There has been a clear change of your policy of response, considering that you moved from not talking about my female identity (read:homosexuality), to an outright remark about its presence in me.
In this respect, you behaved more savagely than anyone else in Israpundit would have.
Denying that there has been a change of policy on your part is not just a petty lie.
I think it is also a sign that you are so much used to talk about your giving space and time to people, that you spout the same sentences that glorify your benevolent caution and thoughtfulness even at times when you haven’t been either cautious or thoughtful.
@ dweller
dweller Said:
The ball was in my court all along, as it should have been.
You took it in your court arbitrarily, by talking about my female identity, meaning that i am gay.
And now you have the nerve to tell me that you have no intention of forcing me?
That’s sheer chicanery – and it adds insult to injury.
@ dweller:
After you threw your bomb, about my female identity, which clearly meant that i am gay, you disappeared.
It is a matter of common courtesy to make sure that when you post something as serious for the audience of Israpundit as this, you post it at a time when you can be online so that you can reply to the possible replies of the alleged gay.
But let me bypass this rudeness of yours – a rudeness that reaches the level of emotional coarseness.
Now, that you came back, didn’t it cross your mind to give an explanation to my continuous questions about why you first made a joke and subsequently you presented it not as a joke but as an allusion to my homosexuality?
I have been making dozens of comments concerning this issue after you threw your bomb, because i wanted clarifications that would give me an understanding of your motivation in referring to my sexual identity out of the blue.
But you ignored all those questions of mine, even now that you came back – which is an indication of your true motives in talking about me as gay.
It is also an exhibit of your rudeness, a rudeness that i didn’t know you had in you.
@ dweller:
Dweller, i don’t know if you are the sort of whore that Yamit implies.
I don’t even know if you are gay, as he says.
But, after the last 3 days, i do know that you are a whore.
I will attempt to elucidate in subsequent comments.
dweller Said:
Not convinced this is true but if so, it could mean that I understand Jews and you don’t “Takes one to know one” adage in your case may prove to be the rule. I never consciously speak of Jews without including that which is distinctive. I never include Israeli Jews and American Jews in any similar or interchangeable context. Both may be called Jews and that is where any commonality ends. We are not (Thank-G-d) American Jews and American Jews are not us. Each year the divide widens and the gaps already may be unbridgeable.
Let’s say hypothetically I accept the fact you are Jewish , which I don’t, but hypothetically asking any objective non Jew which one of us you or me represents Jews more accurately which one do you think they would choose?
I say me by default. There is nothing about you that is obviously Jewish in deed or thought except that you say you are Jewish,Hint you are the messiah and claim to know more than all of the Jewish sages. (If they are right you are wrong and the converse)?
So dweller when I speak of Jews I usually prefix any opinion with what Jews I am referring.
You are in my opinion a Trojan goy posing in Jew clothing.
Your understanding of Judaism and Jewish knowledge is both rudimentary and when expressed usually wrong.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Yes, I got that.
It was the “surrounded” part that set my ear ajar
— and put me at pains to refer him to a good ophthalmologist.
@ Bernard Ross:
If you had checked the poster link a bit more carefully you’d have noticed that my comment (#47 on Comments Pg. 4) was not in response to your “packaging” comment of just a short while earlier (#43 on the same page, and which I actually had not even yet seen)
— but rather, a response to your much earlier post in which you had asked, “Is there a reason for the layout of your writing, are you making a dramatic flourish to convey importance, is it a performance?” [#28, same pg]
Interestingly, it occurred to ME, by way of reply to THAT, to also use the imagery of “packaging” (though, as I’ve noted, I hadn’t yet seen your more recent remark containing the word).
YOU may have found those other posts of mine more engaging, Bernard, but candidly I must tell you that I recall — when MAKING the very comment which you found “long winded, dramatic and containing little content of interest” — thinking to myself that that “long winded” and ‘uninteresting’ remark was MORE important than the others (short OR long)
— because, as it happens, when I noted in the latter half of that post [#47 of pg. 4] that I often find myself bypassing some comments because I find them less than easily readable to the eye, I was gently alluding specifically to (among others) many of your OWN longer posts — large, single paragraphs, dense w/ verbiage and no space between ideas (most ungentle on the ocular)
— and quietly suggesting to you, at the time, that some of your ideas might get better attention if they scanned a little better online. Hence, “packaging,” etc.
Try re-reading it in that context.
It had appeared unnecessary to mention you specifically at that moment, Bernard, since other posters could — it seeemed to me — also profit from the observation. I mention your posts in that regard now only to take note of the irony in it all, given the fact that it apparently went right past you the first time out.
@ yamit82:
Lucky for you then that you were not Joseph. . . .
@ Honey Bee:
Used to.
I fell asleep among the bookworms
— and awoke among the butterflies.
So my reading impulse these days is damned-near dead-as-a-doornail (to coin a phrase).
@ yamit82:
Depends on the SUBJECT concerning Jews.
On SOME things concerning Jews I’m quite comfortable speaking generically. On others, not.
On this one — i.e., Jewish susceptibility to the world’s argument in re J/S, etc — I’m good with the observation that “The Jews are the problem.”
Till I see compelling evidence to reverse (or suspend) that view, I’ll stay with it.
Frankly your OWN pronunciamentos in re Jews are FAR more wide-ranging than mine.
@ Bernard Ross:
Not to me — and it WAS to me, as I recall, that the question was addressed. I gave you my answer.
If you wanted a different answer, you should’ve asked somebody else.
We are all moralizers, Bernard. Man is created b’tselem elohim, in the image of God (the ultimate ‘moralizer’). He is made for moralizing.
Your only REAL objection to what I said, when you strip away all the bark, was to the nature of my ‘moralizing,’ not the fact of it.
Hence, your huffy response [herein, above] — itself a paeon to (and OF) moralization.
@ yamit82:
This is Yamit’s sheepish, backhanded way of confessing his envy of someone whom he senses (and for once, quite accurately) to be enormously STRONGER — both physically and emotionally — than he is.
A matter, it seems, of no small import to him.
— Hence the compulsive need to attack.
@ yamit82:
Get tested for early-onset alzheimer’s, pancho.
The posts I cited just above go back somewhat over a year.
@ dweller:
Another exchange from the same thread:
MORE FROM THOSE EXCHANGES.
@ yamit82:
EVERY soul is female
— as I’ve told you before. You’re just a little slow on the uptake; egotists (of either gender) always are.
From an old post:
@ Bernard Ross:
So you were whacked with a fry pan, you more interesting then I first thought, are you a cowboy too?
@ Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld:
Thank-you great to have another woman.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
It occurred to me some time ago that if you wanted to be known by your gender, you’d have allowed it by then.
There’s been no change in my perception as to that since then.
Nor any change in my policy of response to it.
That is to say, I’ve no intention of forcing your hand or otherwise calling the game.
As far as I’m concerned, the ball will remain in your court until and unless (and howsoever, if ever) you choose to deliver it.
@ Honey Bee:
Honey Bee wrote:
“Dear Ms. Rosenfeld: These fellows always ending up talking about sex, it is a fault in the male brain. That is why no women and only a bee can debate with them. Oh on occation, perhaps a Greek Godess chimes in on the comments.”
Marjorie Rosenfeld writes:
“I’d have them sing in chorus, cheek to cheek.” (Theodore Roethke, in “I Knew a Woman.”)
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
not you
@ Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld:
In Texas we regard men as cute little creatures[like puppies] but not to smart. I apprecriated your article greatly.
@ Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld:
Dear Ms. Rosenfeld: These fellows always ending up talking about sex, it is a fault in the male brain. That is why no women and only a bee can debate with them. Oh on occation, perhaps a Greek Godess chimes in on the comments.
@ Bernard Ross:
And who is it that you imply that impugns people personally? And what sort of outcome you mean?
@ dionissis mitropoulos:I think that this approach of impugning people personally, psycoanalysing them inlieu of reasoned argument, questioning their psyche, naturally leads to this sort of outcome. It is not an attractive tactic when used in argument and not the same as deriding an anti semite. Glass houses and stones.
Bernard Ross Said:
No Bernard, the comment about my sexual identity is not a joke. He meant it.
But he made it lots of comments AFTER the joke comment.
@ Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld:
Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld Said:
Ms Rosenefeld, maybe we should address this question to dweller, who expressed his concerns about a commentator’s hypothetical female identity?
Bernard Ross Said:
You will find out when dweller shows up.
Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld Said:
I agree, the psychobabble got out of hand, but I do not want to see Dionissis troubled, he is a long time Israel supporter of good intention.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
the word lamenting was in quotes as if to say it was not really a lament. It appeared to be all tongue in cheek.
are you saying that the comment about your female identity was a joke? I am not sure what your point or worry is?
@ Bernard Ross:
Good heavens! Why are we discussing people’s sexual preferences in this forum? I thought we were trying to decide how to help Israel, now that the Europeans are trying to reverse what they signed up to (the Mandate for Palestine) in demanding that Israel vacate what the Jews were given for their homeland (i.e., their State). Can’t we stick to that?
Bernard Ross Said:
Right.
You see nothing contradictory in lamenting being a humorous reaction.
Check a dictionary to see what “lamenting” means, and ask yourself if these negative emotions can ever be construed as humorous.
The psychological absurdity i was referring to?
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
Where did you get the idea he wanted to discuss it, he wrote one sentence where he made an observation. When he wants to discuss something it is long and dramatic. As I said I am not a mind reader and you have often said that I misread him. I base what I say on how it appears to me. I have no need or reason to pretend. Drama and pretension are not my stock in trade. Perhaps I need a translator again but it all appears like a storm in a teacup. Dont worry, be happy.
How do you insert emoticons?
@ dionissis mitropoulos: In thinking back this is not what I intended. At the time I thought he mistook you for a woman and thought that was amusing. The whole gay thing,etc.was not on my mind until you brought it up. Then everyone got into analysis and it has now made you serious and morose. Whatever it is, it is not about you, it is about him.
Bernard Ross Said:
So when he said that he has long sensed that he was dealing with a female identity in me, you understand that he did not want to discuss it.
Bernard, you are either thick or you pretend that you don’t understand..
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
he did not want to discuss your female identity he merely stated
dweller Said:
What is the unclear part about this statement? He clearly stated that he has been dealing with your female identity for a long time which is why he issued the “lament” regarding “demanding women”. He made the link of the female in you with a demanding woman.
the lamenting and blushing were a humorous reaction to your humor but not necessarily wholly humorous. As Yamit suggests it might be a flirtation concealed in humor(hitting on you?). Then again, it might not. It might just be a recognition of your female identity, but why make that recognition in that context.. Perhaps you are over thinking this.
Bernard Ross Said:
Why then did he make the first-sentence joke about blushing? If he wanted to discuss such an important issue to his mind (what he called my “female identity”), and if he wanted to lament it, would he have started with a one-sentence joke and then follow up with the lamenting? A lamenting that is not even clearly spelled out, but only disguised as a joke about demanding women?
Can’t you feel the psychological absurdity of it?
The straightforward statement is straightforward to the extent that he wants to lament what he calls my female identity.
It is not straightforward at all that this lamenting is what he meant when he made the half-joke.
In fact, the lamenting of female identity seems completely irrelevant to the half-joke.
He should have made the lamenting in a separate statement, independent of the joke.
And the question is why he didn’t.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
I am saying yes, it does not make sense to me “as a wholly humorous comment.” Frankly, as humor it would have made more sense and been more sophisticated as a “demanding acolyte” allowing the reader to participate. The phrase “demanding women” muddied the waters, is too direct and injecting a new aspect. Look how long this is discussed and how far it has gone, all from a simple question. It is not only the original dialogue, which is itself revealing, but also his response which cannot be confused with humor. Does it matter, you know what you meant and you have been told what he meant? Will further discussion make it clearer or muddier? He followed with a simple straightforward statement that does not need interpretation.