Somebody very dear to me published the following on ISO, the Israeli Students forum at Stanford University:
Read this:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3403987,00.html
Amir that is quoted in the Article, he is Anita's & Gabi's son. He is the president of Hillel at SJSU.
And he was the one that design the shirt with the slogan "if I were a suicide bomber, you were Dead."
Read this:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3403987,00.html
Amir that is quoted in the Article, he is Anita's & Gabi's son. He is the president of Hillel at SJSU.
And he was the one that design the shirt with the slogan "if I were a suicide bomber, you were Dead."
Sorry, but this is a legitimate protest, and there's nothing there which I don't agree with.
ReplyDeleteThe response of the jewish and Israeli communities to a legitimate protest is ridiculous. It seems that they don't really understand what free speech is all about.
"not friendly"? life for palestinians is very unfriendly under Israeli occupation.
This goes well in line with the hysteric response to the Jimmy Carter new book, which I started reading and I completely agree with, so far.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=861942&bl=2&contrassID=2
ReplyDeleteמה שאני אומר הוא פשוט
ReplyDeleteאם הם אומרים שהמחסומים וה"גדר" מדכאים ומשפילים אותם והופכים את חייהם לסיוט, ושהכיבוש אינו אנושי, אינו צודק ומזיק - אני חושב שכולנו מסכימים במידה רבה או פחותה
יאיר יכול לטעון שהוא מצטער שהמחסומים קיימים, וברור שאני מאמין לו, אבל שזאת הדרך היחידה שמונעת פיגועים, וכנ"ל החומה. אני נוטה לא להסכים, אבל זה טיעון חזק: גם אם יש חורים בחומה, בין היתר בגלל המתנחלים, שלא מסכימים להשלים את בניית החומה על הקו הירוק, וגם בגלל הצבא, שמתעלם מהוראות בג"ץ לשנות את התוואי; עדיין הרבה יותר קשה למתאבד פוטנציאלי לנוע בתוך השטחים, בגלל המחסומים הרבים, עם מטען נפץ עד המקום הקרוב ביותר שיש בו פתח, ולכן נמנעים פיגועים, לשמחתנו הרבה. עדיין, צריכה להיות זכות לכל אחד למחות כנגד המצב הזה, סתם מחאה אנושית פשוטה. ואם הם עושים זאת בדרך "לא ידידותית ולא נעימה" - נו, באמת. זה כל העניין
ואם הם אומרים שבישראל יש משטר אפרטהייד, אני מסכים אתם, ויאיר יכול לא להסכים, אבל זאת עדיין מחאה לגיטימית. כמו שאמרתי, התחלתי לקרוא את ספרו של ג'ימי קרטר, וצפיתי בו בטלויזיה כשעתיים מדבר על הספר, וציפתי למצוא בספר משפטים איומים ונוראים כנגד היהודים או חיילי צה"ל המנוולים - אבל כלום, הוא מציג את הקונפליקט באופן כל כך הוגן, ודי מאוזן, שעד עכשיו לא נתקלתי במשפט אחד שאני לא חותם עליו בשתי ידיים
ואם הם קוראים לחיילי צה"ל נאצים או דורכים על דגל ישראל - לזה אני לחלוטין לא מסכים, וזה לא לגיטימי, אבל עדיין, ופה תסלחו לי שוב - חופש הביטוי הוא מוחלט, כל עוד לא עוברים לאלימות. כי למי יש הסמכות לקבוע מה לגיטימי ומה לא? זה מדרון מאד חלקלק ולכן אני חושב שלא צריך להתקרב אליו אפילו
הנשיא האמריקאי וודרו וילסון, שלא נחשב דווקא לחכם גדול, אמר משפט יפה: אני בעד חופש דיבור מוחלט. אם מישהו הוא אידיוט או מנוול, עדיף לתת לו לדבר באופן חופשי כדי שכולם יראו זאת
רק תגובה (לא) קצרה בהקשר להפגנות באן בקליפרוניה
ReplyDeleteהכל עניין של "מידתיות" (מלה אופנתית לאחרונה) ושל פרופורציות
גם כשאתה מפגין נגד מה שנראה בעיניך עוולה, חוסר הומניות ואי צדק (בלי להיכנס לויכוח אם זה מוצדק או לא, שכן מדובר אכן בזכות לחופש הדיבור), יש דרכים יותר "מתורבתות" לבטא מחאה. חיילי צה"ל יורים בנשים הרות? מעבר לחוסר טעם מחליא, זה פשוט לא נכון
רוצה תגובה לענין
צפה בקטע הסרט הבא
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8cLkCNBDrw
חבורת רופאים בריטים מתנכלים לרפואה הישראלית בטענות שקריות לפיהן אנחנו לא הומניים כלפי החולים הפלשתינים. את הטענות שיש להם (צודקות או לא) כלפי מדיניות ממשלת ישראל וצה"ל הם מפנים לרופאים. הם שלחו מכתב לגארדיאן ובו הם דורשים להוציא את הרפואה הישראלית מהקהילה הבינלאומית.
אז מה האמת? כנראה שזה תלוי באיזה צד של המחסום אתה נמצא
אגב - אפרופו הזכות האמריקאית הבלתי מוגבלת לחופש הדיבור, ומאחר שבחרת כבר להשתמש בדברי חכמים, הרי עוד ציטטה מחכימה
The Constitution gives every American the inalienable right to make a damn fool of himself
הרי אתם מכירים את דעותי בנושא ההתנחלויות, השטחים, וכו'. עם זאת, כאשר כל מה שאנו שומעים עליו הוא מחאות והפגנות כנגד עווולת הצד הישראלי בסכסוך, זה מעורר בי שאלות קשות - האם ראיתם איפ פעם הפגנות של פלשתינאים ו/או מוסלמים כנגד המעשים הנוראים, הזוועות שהם עושים איש ברעהו? וזה עוד לפני שהתפנינו לשאול מדוע לא מראים ומפגינים כנגד הטרור הרצחני שהם מפעילים כנגדנו
חיים
ReplyDeleteכמו שאמרתי לך, מזי ממש התמוגגה מהתשובה שלך. ישר ולעניין
אמרתי קודם ואומר שוב: אם הם מראים חיילים יורים בכוונה בנשים הרות - זה לא לגיטימי בעיני, ולכן צריך לגנות זאת ולהראות כמה שזה לא נכון ולא הוגן. אבל אסור למנוע ממישהו להביע את דעתו גם אם היא מטופשת, לא הוגנת ולא לגיטימית, מפני שאין לכך סוף. מחר (מחר? אתמול כבר) אנשים מסויימים יגידו, שלהגיד שהכיבוש משחית זה לא לגיטימי ויש לאסור גם את זה
הפגנות נגד הטרור - אכן אין מספיק, ואני מאשים את החברה הפלסטינית בכך. יש בהחלט הפגנות נגד החיזבאללה בלבנון מדי פעם. אבל (וכאן בא האבל שיאיר לא אוהב) - היכן ההפגנות שלנו נגד הכיבוש? נגד העוולות של ממשלת ישראל? כמה כאלה כבר היו לאחרונה? גם לחברה הישראלית יש במה להכות על חטא, על כך שאנשים כמונו שמתנגדים לכיבוש, בעצם לא עושים כלום חוץ מלהתווכח בינינו בקליפורניה שטופת השמש
סילחו לי שוב על ההשוואה, אבל התקפות של חיל האויר, שבהן נהרגים אזרחים פלסטינים, לא שונות עקרונית מפיגועי הטרור, ואין מי שמפגין נגדן בישראל חוץ מאורי אבנרי וקומץ משוגעים כמוהו (אני מניח שהם משוגעים גם בעיניכם). לנו יש גירסה משלנו לאחמדינג'אד, קוראים לו אלי ישי והוא הציע אתמול "לשטח כל אזור ממנו יורים קסאמים" ולא שמעתי שמישהו הפגין נגדו. במה זה שונה מהצהרה של נשיא איראן "לשטח" את ישראל בגלל שהיא הורגת פלסטינים? לא רחוק היום שהאיש הזה ישב בוועדת החוץ והביטחון ויוכל להחליט על דברים כאלה. אתם יכולים לקרוא לי משוגע את אתם רוצים אבל זאת דעתי על הכיוון שהמדינה שלנו הולכת אליו
1. I'm not proud of that, but have nothing to be ashamed about it either - I was a right-wing supporter till the 82 Lebanon war. Few weeks in Nabattia gave me enough time to realize that my long-time political views of the Arabs and the Palestinians need to be completely changed. That was my "moment of true", where I started my long journey to the left side of the political map.
ReplyDelete2. Look up the definitions of "war crime". Here is what I've found:
- an act committed usually during an international war for which individual criminal liability will be imposed by a domestic or international tribunal; specifically : a violation of the laws or customs of war as embodied or recognized by international treaty, court decisions, or established practice.
- Any of various crimes, such as genocide or the mistreatment of prisoners of war, committed during a war and considered in violation of the conventions of warfare.
- crimes committed against an enemy, prisoners of war, or subjects in wartime that violate international agreements or, as in the case of genocide, are offenses against humanity.
So - how do you define when this is a crime and when it is a legitimate use of force?
3. I suggest - the intention should be used as a criteria (at least - one of the criteria) - in other words, when you send soldiers to a military actions against military targets, and during the fights civilians are killed - may not be considered as war crime (providing you took necessary actions to protect as much as possible the civilians). However, when you deliberately kill civilians - just to kill people (as the Arab terrorists are doing) - that's purely crimes.
4. Were Drezden and Hiroshima war crimes? That's a touch one. In the grand scheme of things, the huge loss of lives caused by those two bombardments actually helped save the life of many, many others. From what I know, at least the Japanese knew that the Americans are planning to do something drastic with terrible consequences, but they refused to surrender.
5. You know I don't like Halutz a bit, including his unfortunate remark about the "wing of his airplane". However, I still don't think he is a war criminal.
6. There a lot of things we (the Israelis) are doing which is wrong, exp. regarding the way we treat the Palestinians. Occupation is the reason for that. War crimes, though, are not included. Inhuman acts (sometimes) - yes.
7. If you really want to go back in history, you should have listened to London and Kirshenbaum yesterday. Benni Moritz and Milstein were discussing whether the "massacre" of Dir Yasin actually occurred. Apparently, there were several other (unknown) incidents where the Palmach, Hagana and Etzel were involved in killing Arabs. Were those also war crimes?
8. And not a word on so many undisputed incidents of war crimes by the Arabs amongst themselves.
Haim, according to the definition you brought, Halutz is a war criminal. There's a very easy to check: send him to the international court for law. Of course you will say that they are all anti-semitists. But I don't buy that. This court has tried many war criminals with justice.
ReplyDeleteYour (naive) definition for "intention" doesn't apply in court. Nobody tries people for intentions, just for actions. The Hamas can also say, with some just, that they never intended to kill for the killing, they just want to achieve (what they see as) their just cause. Same as Hallutz. Some people in the Hamas may be "trigger-happy", but in that, my friends, I insist that they are no different than some of us. Most of them are just human beings, who commit TERRIBLE crimes, just like Dan Halutz.
The fact that the “Hagana” committed war crimes (true) - so what? What does this justify? The Arabs have also committed war crimes, so what? What kind of an argument is that?
Sorry, I don't agree.
ReplyDeleteI don't have legal degree, but as far as I know the proof of "intention" has a lot to say in court. Killing a man can be treated as homicide or just causing a man's death - all has to do with showing intention.
Internationl court - you know quite well that it is all politics. When was the last time they dealt with an Amercian or British ? Even accoridng to your defintions, Bush & company should have been sent to trial due to war crimes. Not to mention: did they EVER prosecute any Arab terrorist? (but maybe my memory is not strong enough anymore...)
I, maybe, can somehow accept Hamas & other terror organizations committing attacks against soldiers, but when it comes down to simply killing civilians, those terror activities are simply war crimes.
naivety? On the contrary - I think we should stop seeking the ultimate justice. Otherwise, we may find ourselves with no right cause to hold on to the state of Israel.
Yes, I think you are right.
ReplyDeleteIntention does make a difference in court. So, most israeli soldiers who killed civilians are not war criminals. They are just criminals (Hariga is also a crime, a lesser crime but not a war crime).
But I think that Halutz was very honest when he said "A Snap in the Wing (of his aircraft)". I believe that he really doesn't care much.
You are also right about the international court. Still, the occupation is one big collective crime (for which you can't bring to court), and some actions done by some israelis are also war crimes.
My main point is: let us live under occupation for 40 years, and some of us will become big terrorists (Ehud Barak in another rare moment of honesty).
Avner, same way I can understand you should be banned from coming to Israel if you put posters of Haluz in Berkley, you can say I should be sent to a court because I, just as Haluz, am ready to cause casualties (if no other way is possible) including kids when I am trying to kill a mega terrorist.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, there are some mantras you keep repeating like, "I believe most of the Palestinians want peace and would you have given them a state without the Intifada" that kind of drive me nuts. I on the other hand believe that the Palestinians want more than anything else to get rid of us because they are jelous, they are ignorant and they are Moslims, they are not peace lovers or anything like that (show me ONE Palestinian peace song and I will become the leftiest of the leftiest). Intifada is just a way to legitimate the killing. If they really wanted peace they would have reacted totaly different in 2000.
I might be wrong but I don't think so.
Bottom line - if my dream as an Israeli is an Israeli state flourishing and living in peace next to Arab countries, their dream is just another Arab state in which they can implement their Islam.
You can well say, these are mantras no less then your mantras - well, you are right (with one difference, my mantras are right and yours wrong :))
So my only question is: how come this guy speaks nonsense, while Avner takes seriously all the Israeli politicians? I take this guy very much as he defuses his poison to all the Muslims who listen to him.
ReplyDeleteDoes this guy look like he his willing to make peace? He does what he likes, against all the democracy that Avner also takes advantage of, and uses to preach for what he believes.
The main question, regardless of the Israeli leadership, is the real question:
Are we under a real treat of life? I assume that they (Muslims, Palestinians and other Rednecks) like to wipe out Israelis and Jews.
Yossi, welcome back.
ReplyDeleteI don't "take advantage" of democracy. I speak my mind which is what democracy is all about. The way you put it, it sounds like democracy is only for those who think like you. I know that this is not what you mean.
I don't take what israeli politicians say seriously, only what they DO. What they do now to the Palestinians is worse than what this clown is saying, because he's only talking, and they are committing crimes.
Our politicians also speak a lot of nonsense, but even they don't take it seriously (Olmert said recently that he "embraces the Saudi initiative". this is bullshit because his governement didn't decide on it, they are doing nothing to promote it, and he only sais it for the ceremony).
Avner,
ReplyDeleteSo to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I check it via my personal perspective. My cousin's sons died when his tank exploded from a land mine, and he was toasted. He patrolled to protect the Jewish settlers there. Not that I like the settlers, but they were a great, legitimate reason for the Army to be there. After PM Sharon withdraws from there, this will cause by far many more corpses in both side - you will see that, you like to count.
I really don't think that they like peace with me (or with you). Also, I don't think that they agree that I'll be their next door country, by any means. That's why I think that you are not even a dreamer. Realistically, Israel will be destroyed along with our neighbors. Those who will make that decision don't mind you or the Palestinians. I also think that we will give back the West Bank after the Americans will give back the lands to the Indians; that will be the time that I'll agree to that - I like the Indians better most of the time. Historically they did not hide behind their kids and women, and fought from there. How can you trust someone like that? Would you hide behind your son and shoot from there?
It is amazing how you can avoid obvious facts. So when I read your notes and listen to what you say, I really don't understand what really you decide to ignore, or not to see. What gives you the assumption that if you keep saying "peace" again and again you will convince the Palestinians to agree with you?
Also I apologize but I intend to support better people, who in my opinion try to protect life. It is just the same like I do not think that George W. Bush was correct with his war, but it took the spotlight from the country I love - Israel.
Hope we will all have great productive week,
Yossi
Dear Yossi,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your views very much.
I don't think that anybody will destroy Israel. We are doing it ourselves, very slowly. I heard that the majority of Avoda voters want Barak to come back; and the majority of Likud voters want Bibi back. So I think that we didn't learn anything and the situation is hopeless for the next 20 years. But we have 50-60 more years to live so let's enjoy them while we can.
As much as I don't like him and his pomposic gestures, I don't have much to say against chapter #5. He is right about that.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3409666,00.html
Of course he is right about many things. Nobody cares about Sderot, there's no solidarity in our society any more. It is terrible to live in Sderot today (and not much fun in Gaza either).
ReplyDeleteBut... as Olmert admitted, there's no military solution. They will soon start a big operation, kill a few dozens from Hamas, and a few civilians, then pull out, and there will be quiet for a few days or weeks. Maybe it's worth it, maybe it's not. The main thing is, the occupation is not over even when we are out of Gaza but putting a siege on it, holding their tax money, etc.
People in Gaza elected Hamas not because they liked them, but because Fatah is corrupt and destroyed, and Hamas is actually doing something against the occupation. It may not be what they want them to do, but out of despair they will support anybody who will put food on their tables.
Let's wait here in the States for another 40 years, and maybe after 80 years of occupation we will realize how bad it is for us (and them).
I agree with a lot, BUT, one quaetion, why do you assume they elected Hamas because of your reasons, why shouldn't I believe that they actually do not want an agreement, they just want their land back regardless of what happened here in the last 50 years. I think the Palestinians still have a dream to come back and when they see what we built here, they envy and assume (God knows why) they can do the same.
ReplyDeleteYou ignore what he said about what they teach their kids. I don't and it bothes me a lot. That's why I don't believe when you say that most
of the Palestinians want to live quitely in peace. No way.
Did you hear/read what were Huseins plans had he managed to beat us in the war like he planned ? to kiil a LOT of Israelis in villaged near
Jerusalem, let alone what were Nazer's plans.
Avner - They are Arabs, and you keep ignoring it.
I think that today, their dream of the Greater Palestine (which does exist in their mind, I'm sure) has become like our dream of the Greater Israel. Maybe you don't have this dream, but a lot of Israelis do. I believe that most Palestinians, like most Israelis, know already that it is just a dream.
ReplyDeleteREGARDLESS if we have this dream or not, we surely act like we have it: we do nothing to end the occupation, and we hope that the problem will just go away. In the best case, we hope that forever we will be able to fight and prevail. How relaistic is this? Am I the naive or are you? Do you really think that we will have the US support forever? Or that we will be able to be against the whole world forever? What are we, Supermen?
I wish you didn't say the last sentence. I know you and I know that Arabs are equal human beings for you. I know that you believe that their religion is the problem, not the fact that they are Arabs. That's legitimate opinion, but I disagree.
http://www.wychwoodcircle.org/2014/10/lines-written-with-care.html?showComment=1624230798478&m=1#c3182135166995688902
ReplyDeleteהאבסורד של "שקר האפרטהייד" בתוך ישראל הרב-גזעית שאירגנה ערבייה-ישראלית שנבחרה במדינה הדמוקרטית.
ReplyDeleteבדיוק כשבממשלת ישראל [יוני 2021], המפלגה האיסלאמית בקואליציה, שר ערבי, 2 סגן יו"רים ערבים ושלושה ראשי ועדים ערבים, תווית "האפרטהייד בישראל" מעולם לא נראתה מגוחכת יותר ...
עצם ועידת ה"אפרטהייד" [יוני 2021] בישראל בתוך בניין הכנסת שאורגנה היום על ידי חברת כנסת ערבית שנבחרה [עאידה תומא-סולימאן] בישראל רב-גזעית ... מתנגדת לכותרתה ולהגדרות שלה עצמה. האם אפרטהייד דרום אפריקה היתה מאפשרת ועידה כזו בבנייני ממשלתה?
האם איזושהי מדינה ערבית יכולה לארגן ביקורת עצמית כזו? שלא לדבר על ה"מדינה-העתידית" פלסטין הערבית האפרטהייד לחלוטין. במקום בו הכריז מחמוד עבאס ה"מתון "בשנת 2012, -" אם אנו רוצים מדינה עצמאית, אני לא אקבל אף ישראלי אחד בשטחינו", [טיהור גזעני, אתני].
___
ממציא השמצה היה אחמד שוקירי ב -17 באוקטובר 1961 (בהקשר לכך שהוא התנגד לאייכמן להישפט בישראל והוא קידם ב 30 בנובמבר 1962 את הטאקוארה הנאצית בשנת 1962, הקבוצה הנאצית ששמרה על אייכמן וגילפה צלב קרס על גרסיאלה סירוטה ב- 21 ביוני 1961).
טשטוש האפרטהייד שהשמיע 5 וחצי שנים לפני מלחמת 67 '.
הבחור הזה, שוקיריי היה משתף פעולה של היטלר מאז 1941 והצדיק את השואה בקיץ 1946.
{הרקע הנאצי של אחמד שוקאיירי - עבודה עבור היטלר:
מוזכר בבית-הנבחרים של ארה"ב ב- 26 ביולי 1961 על ידי הנציג הולצמן; ב- 3 בפברואר 1964 על ידי הנציג סקוט; על ידי הנציג פרבשטיין ב- 26 בינואר 1965 ונזכר על ידי ד"ר סימארד ל NYT - צוטט ב- New York Jewish Detroit. ב-3 בפברואר 1967. עמ '9. שוקיירי גם הצדיק את השואה - כפי שדווח ב'בני ברית', 12 ביולי 1946)}.
___
מאז 1961, כל אמצעי הביטחון שננקטו בישראל "הותאמו" להשמצה ה"מיוסדת" כבר 'כברירת מחדל'.
ג'ימי קרטר בשנת 2006 הבהיר כי ישראל היא דמוקרטיה נהדרת השווה לכל, וכי בחירתו במונח הזה היא רק לגבי ה"שטחים", ואף גם שם לא הצליח להראות שום השוואה. עומר שאקיר מ- HRW היה פעיל פרו-ההשמצה בכל ישראל מאז שהיה סטודנט בשנת 2010, אלא שאז הוא עדיין נאבק בזה ("BDS בארה"ב, 2001-2010." נורא ערקת, קיץ 2010). בשנת 2021 הוא שינה, הרחיב והגדיר מחדש את האפרטהייד רק כדי לוודא שהתעמולה שלו תידבק.
___
אגב, אם מדברים על גזענות אמיתית, אלו שצוווחים על יהדוזיציה judaizing בירושלים, מה כל הקמפיין הזה, אם לא אנטי-יהודי מובהק? אז ערביזציה, איפוא, כן כשר לפי זה?
_____
ReplyDeleteThe absurdity of "apartheid lie" inside multi-racial Israel organized by an elected Israeli-Arab
Just as in Israeli government [June, 2021], Islamic party in the coalition, an Arab minister, 2 Arab deputy chairmen, and 3 Arab committee chairmen, "Apartheid in Israel" has never looked more ridiculous...
The "apartheid" conference [June, 2021] in Israel in the Knesset building today organized by an elected Arab MK [Aida Touma-Suleiman] in multi-racial Israel... debunks its title and own definitions. Would Apartheid South Africa allow such a meeting on its premises?
Can any Arab state, arrange such self criticism? Not to mention apartheid Arab Palestine. Where "moderate" Mahmoud Abass declared in 2012 , — "If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories," [racist, ethnic cleansed] state.
____
The inventor of the slur was Ahmad Shukeiri on Oct 17, 1961 (in the context of him objecting Eichmann to be tried in Israel and he has promoted in Nov.30.1962 Nazi tacuara in 1962, the nazi group that has guarded Eichmann and has carved swastika on Graciela Sirota on June 21, 1961).
The apartheid slur he uttered 5 and half years before the '67 war.
This guy, Shukairy was a Hitler collaborator since 1941 and has justified the Holocaust in the summer of 1946.
{Ahmad Shukairy's nazi record - working for Hitler:
Recalled in the US House on July 26, 1961 by Rep. Holtzman; on February 3, 1964 by Rep. Scott; by Rep. Farbstein on Jan 26, 1965 and
reminded by Dr. Simard to the NYT - qtd in Detroit Jewish News. February 03, 1967. p.9. He who had rationalized the Holocaust - as reported in B'nai B'rith, July 12, 1946)}.
___
Ever since 1961, whatever security measures would be taken in Israel has been "adjusted" to the already 'default' slander.
Carter in 2006 clarified that Israel is a great democracy equal for all stated his terminology choice is only on the "territories," and didn't even make a comparison case. Omar Shakir of HRW was the pro-slur activist on all of Israel since he was a student in 2010 then he still struggled with it ("BDS in the USA, 2001-2010." Noura Erakat, Summer 2010). In 2021 he has redefined apartheid to make sure his propaganda sticks.
___
BTW, all those that utter the racism charge a lot and cry about "judaizing" Jerusalem? What is that campaign if not Anti-Jewish? Is Arabization better?