+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Apartheid or not, separation is the reality

After nearly 50 years of occupation, it has become impossible to differentiate between Israel’s ‘security concerns’ and flat-out apartheid policies.

By Hagai El-Ad

“So far as the issue is security, these considerations are relevant and the role of the minister of defense indeed is to defend Israeli citizens. And I also realized that he said he did not give that kind of directive, so it’s all okay […] but I realized that it’s the result of pressure from settlers who do not want to travel with Arabs on the bus. I read what was said at the Knesset committee discussion, [and] it is intolerable that they claim that they need to have their own buses, because no one got up for a woman or for someone old or it’s not convenient for them or unpleasant. That’s apartheid. Security is security. That is why I contacted the Attorney General asking him to look into this. If it’s security reasons per se, it’s something I can not only live with, but also back. But if it comes from settler, political pressure [because] it is not comfortable for them [and] unpleasant for them to travel with Arabs in the very places they wanted to live at, knowing that these are places where Palestinians live, that is unacceptable to me and I will work against that. This discrimination is prohibited by law in the State of Israel.”

This quote, from a recent radio interview with Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, is a uniquely transparent example of how people who perceive themselves as moral – Livni of course being one of them – manage to wrestle with themselves in order to justify acts that cannot be justified. After all, if an act were morally unacceptable, one would certainly be against it. But the desire is to succeed in holding on to a self-perception of being moral while also supporting the occupation. Therefore it is necessary to find a way, every time, to justify that which is unjust. In this way both the occupation and one’s morality can remain untouched.

Palestinian workers holding an Israeli work permit wait in line to board an Israeli bus designated for Palestinians only after the Eyal checkpoint, near the West Bank city of Qalqiliya, March 4, 2012. The Israeli transportation ministry launched a bus line designated for Palestinians only, running from Eyal checkpoint to Tel Aviv and Kfar Saba, and back to the checkpoint. The line was opened after Israel settlers living in the West Bank complained that Palestinians use  Israeli buses that run through the West Bank on their way to and from work inside Israel. The new policy will mainly effect  workers returning to the West Bank with Israeli buses, as police will force workers to go off buses when they enter the West Bank. (Photo by: Oren Ziv/ Activestills.org)

Palestinian workers holding an Israeli work permit wait in line to board an Israeli bus designated for Palestinians only after the Eyal checkpoint, near the West Bank city of Qalqiliya, March 4, 2012. (Photo by: Oren Ziv/ Activestills.org)

This convoluted internal process has many variations, but it is not often that they are exposed so openly. Therefore it is worth pausing on Livni’s thought process, since these moral acrobatics serve as a key mechanism to sustaining the prolonged occupation.

The issue at hand, segregated buses, is morally unfathomable. In the words of the justice minister, it is apartheid. Something that is unacceptable, amounts to prohibited discrimination and is the result of unacceptable political pressure.

However the very same abomination, when properly explained by the defense minister using the justification of “security concerns,” is magically transformed from unspeakable “apartheid” into something that one can not only tolerate, but also publicly endorse.

Security concerns, indeed. Security concerns (and not the taking over of Palestinian land) that justify the “temporary” route of the separation barrier; security concerns (and not severing of Gaza from the West Bank) that are the core of the policy of continued closure of the Gaza Strip; security concerns (and, heaven forbid, not demographics) that explain the Citizenship Law; security considerations that are, of course, the only reason for the establishment of settlements and outposts, not to mention the need to protect them; and on and on. Indeed, what would happen to the moral justification of the occupation without “security considerations”?

But even if the moral flak jacket of “security considerations” is waived around endlessly, its essence remains intolerable. How can one calmly accept the very thing that has just been declared morally bankrupt?

Palestinian workers wait in line to board an Israeli bus line meant for Palestinians only after crossing the Eyal checkpoint from the West Bank into Israel proper. (Photo by Activestills.org)

Palestinian workers wait in line to board an Israeli bus line meant for Palestinians only after crossing the Eyal checkpoint from the West Bank into Israel proper. (Photo by Activestills.org)

Setting aside apologetic self-righteousness enables us to focus on the essence of the situation. Those actually concerned with that essence must come to the conclusion that it is not “okay” and that, indeed, it cannot be “okay.” Just like the segregated reality in the center of Hebron (motivated, of course, only by security concerns and fully backed by Israel’s High Court of Justice) will never be “okay.” Just like the fact that the settlers and the Palestinians answer to separate legal systems will never be “okay.” Just like will never be okay that all Palestinian demonstrations in the West Bank, for security reasons no doubt, are considered illegal. Just like the occupation will never be okay.

It is impossible to have it both ways: there is no moral occupation based on security excuses. Those who accept these excuses not only live with them in peace, but actually support them wholeheartedly. Those who do so are helping to perpetuate the occupation.

Hagai El-Ad is the executive director of B’Tselem. This article was first published on +972′s Hebrew-language sister site, Local Call. Read it in Hebrew here.

Related:
Segregating the evening commute to the West Bank
If this isn’t apartheid, then what is it?
What can we learn from the Israel apartheid analogy?

Newsletter banner 6 -540

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Gustav

      Which bit of a 100 year war waged by the Palestinian Arabs against the establishment of the only Jewish state in the world alongside 22 Arab states, does the author not understand?

      Since when are two parties which have been at war with each other, obliged to share buses?

      Had it been suggested in the Middle of WW2 that Russians, or Franch, or Americans or Brits must share buses with Germans, they would not have been laughed at. They would have been arrested. Don’t believe me? Read up how draconian the allies were during WW2. Hint … internments … censorship … jailings ….

      We really are amateurs compared to them. Hey fellas, live with it. That’s war. Don’t want separation? Fight those who want war. Who are those? The Arabs.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        “Which bit of a 100 year war waged by the Palestinian Arabs against the establishment of the only Jewish state in the world alongside 22 Arab states, does the author not understand?”

        The bit about that NOT being the reason why the settlers want Jews-only buses, perhaps….

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Which bit of … we don’t want to travel on the same bus with people who do this kind of thing, don’t you understand? …

          “The Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing was the suicide bombing of a crowded public bus (Egged bus 2) in the Shmuel HaNavi quarter in Jerusalem, Israel, on August 19, 2003. Twenty-four people were killed and over 130 wounded. Many of the victims were children, some of them infants.[1] The Islamist militant group Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.”

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Or which bit of this type of bus bombing don’t you understand? …

            “31 August: At least 16 people are killed and dozens are injured in two near-simultaneous suicide bombings on two buses in the southern city of Beersheba.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            … or this …

            “22 February: A Palestinian suicide bomber kills eight people and injures dozens in an attack on an Israeli bus in Jerusalem.

            29 January: A suicide bomber kills 11 people and injures around 50 on a bus in Jerusalem.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Want more incidences when some of your saint-Palestinian terrorists blew up our buses together with themselves, just so they could kill some of us too?

            Well, WHATSHISFACE? Speak up, it happened many more times. Would you want to travel on a bus with people who perpetrate such hatred? They don’t ALL have to be like that … some of them are enough to generate enough revulsion from us not to take a chance with ANY of them till at least they are willing to sign a peace deal and put this mess behind us. Till then, I guess they will just have to endure separation from us on our buses. I just know that they can if they try hard enough … (Sarcasm)

            No one else would act differently if they would be in our place. Some would even react more harshly than us.

            Reply to Comment
          • Utemia

            Gustav, those attacks were horrific and condemnable. I can’t imagine what it must have been like to be afraid to use public transport for fear of getting blown up. But the buses in question here don’t operate like that. Everybody that gets on them is searched before they can board, more than once – or that was what it sounded like. It’s not compareable to a city bus with frequent stops and uncontrolled entry and exit of the passengers.

            Racially segregating a heavily security controlled busline that has operated for years without any incident because apparently some Jewish settlers feel uncomfortable can’t be justified with security concerns about attacks that are almost impossible to take place with the current security measures in place. Ergo, it’s just an excuse to disguise the real motive, which has nothing to do with attacks.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Utemia

            Of all the anti Israeli opinions around here, yours is the only one which I respect. But I still disagree with you.

            Why? Because even if you are right about the searches, security is still an issue. And not just for Jewish Israelis but for the Arabs of the WB. The point is that there is no peace agreement. There is ongoing vilification and bad history. Why on earth do we want people who are hostile to each other to travel on the same bus? Even without bombs or weapons, people have the ability to hurt each other or even kill each other. Why do we want to create another opportunity to let that happen?

            I don’t see the point of calling this action for separate buses as apartheid. I see it as recognizing reality minimizing the chance for violence and using common sense.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Utemia, first of all, thank you for your wise comments. Your unique voice is really welcome and needed here. You defuse a lot of reflexive paranoia. You can see the calming effect you have. But calmed or not, no one budges. The fact that Gustav can paint you of all people here as “anti-Israeli” says a lot. (I see you as pro-Israeli but no matter.) There are in fact plenty of (Jewish) Israelis that think as you do. Are these Israelis anti-Israeli? It is anti-Israeli to have anything but a right wing opinion fit for the editorial page of J. Post and I. Hayom? And Ginger Eis can seriously reply to you, Utemia, that “You used the term “cultural (and racist) prejudice”…that went too far, because it encompasses the Jewry in Israel and suggest that racism/racist prejudice is inherent in the Jewish culture”? Any criticism of cultural prejudice/racism, and any question about the degree to which right wing Jewish culture in Israel as it exists today is racist is “too far”? Even you, Utemia, who serves as a kind of control that neutralizes the petty antagonisms rife on this forum, dare not criticize anything or else you are “anti-Israeli”? Or, as Eis is plainly itching to say, anti-Semitic?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “The fact that Gustav can paint you of all people here as “anti-Israeli”

            Fair point. For once in your life, Brian, you made a fair point.

            I should have expressed myself better. I should have said, Utemia is a critic of Israeli policies.

            On the other hand, Brian, I still call YOU anti Israel. Go on, ask me why. I dare you …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Which bit of … we don’t want to travel on the same bus with people who do this kind of thing, don’t you understand?”

            The bit about where the Shin Bet and the IDF say that there is no security risk in letting these Palestinians get on those buses.

            As in, this portion of your question: …”with people who do this kind of thing”… is a nonsense.

            Why?

            Because the Shin Bet and the IDF both say that the people who get on those buses are NOT capable of “doing those kinds of thing”, precisely because have been very thoroughly vetted before they even get near that bus-stop.

            What part of that don’t you understand, Gustav?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I just don’t care. Get it? No one sees into anyone else’s head. The Shin Beth and the IDF are not the authories on all wisdom. We are a people at war with the Palestinian Arabs. Only in the case of Israel do idiots like you, yea you, WHATSHISFACE insist that if we say we don’t trust them ( for good reason) or even ourselves for that matter, and therefore we don’t want to ride with them on the same bus, then that’s apartheid. Of course it isn’t. People can maim or even kill each other with their bare hands. And between Jews and Arabs of the WB, it wouldn’t be for the first time.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “I just don’t care.”

            Oh, of that I have no doubt.

            Gustav: “No one sees into anyone else’s head. The Shin Beth and the IDF are not the authories on all wisdom.”

            In Gustav-world the settlers know more about security than does the Shin Bet.

            As in…..
            a) The settlers say they don’t want to sit in the same bus as a Palestinian because they are scared they’ll be blow up.
            b) The Shin Bet says that it is impossible for any Palestinian to step onto any one of those buses armed with any weapon of any kind.

            And what does Gustav believe?

            Why, Gustav “doesn’t care” what the Shin Bet says, he cares far more about the prejudices and paranoia of those illegal colonists.

            Yeah, I “get that”, Gustav.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Why, Gustav “doesn’t care” what the Shin Bet says, he cares far more about the prejudices and paranoia of those …”

            Yeah, Right, the hatred from the WB Palestinian Arabs towards Israeli Jews is just my prejudice. The 100 year war, the very recent suicide bombing campaign by them against us, between 2000 and 2006 is just a figment of my imagination.

            Did I say you are an idiot WHATSHISFACE? No? Then let me say it: You are an idiot, WHATSHISFACE!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “b) The Shin Bet says that it is impossible for any Palestinian to step onto any one of those buses armed with any weapon of any kind.”

            Like I said, oh obtuse one …

            People can kill each other with their bare hands. And certainly they can maim each other …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “People can kill each other with their bare hands. And certainly they can maim each other”

            But why stop at that, Gustav?

            They can also kill by firing a wire-guided anti-tank missile at the bus, so perhaps it’s all for the best if the IDF shoves all the Palestinians over the Allamby Bridge into Jordan.

            You know, to keep those anti-tank (a.k.a. bus-busting) missiles out of range…..

            This is very, very simple: the settlers say they don’t want to share a bus with Palestinians because they are Oh-So-Scared!, and the Shin Bet insists that there is nothing to be scared about.

            So at THAT point the correct response is to tell those settlers that they are a bunch of namby-pamby puissant pussies.

            And, furthermore, if they still insist that they don’t want to share a bus with those Palestinians then THEY should be told to get their Lazy Fat Arses out of those bus seats and start walking.

            Because – du’oh! – it’s a f**king long way to walk to their illegal colonies, seeing as how deep into the West Bank some of those colonies are.

            So start walking, buddy, and please ignore the jeers of derision from those Palestinians who whizz past you on that bus.

            After all, THEY were perfectly happy to share the bus with YOU.

            Apparently they are somewhat tougher – and rather more accommodating – than those pissing-in-their-pants Zionist colonists.

            So I would suggest that it is only fair that THEY should be allowed to stay on those buses, and it’s those fluffy-girls-blouses who should be left to their own devices.

            Serves ’em right, I say…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “People can kill each other with their bare hands. And certainly they can maim each other”

            WHATSHISFACE:”But why stop at that, Gustav?”

            Why indeed?

            WHATSHISFACE:”They can also kill by firing a wire-guided anti-tank missile at the bus, so perhaps it’s all for the best if the IDF shoves all the Palestinians over the Allamby Bridge into Jordan.

            You know, to keep those anti-tank (a.k.a. bus-busting) missiles out of range…..”

            Is that what you would do? Ok … whatever … When are you going to stop beating your wife WHATSHISFACE?

            WHATSHISFACE:”This is very, very simple: the settlers say they don’t want to share a bus with Palestinians because they are Oh-So-Scared!, and the Shin Bet insists that there is nothing to be scared about.

            So at THAT point the correct response is to tell those settlers that they are a bunch of namby-pamby puissant pussies.”

            You can tell them anything you want. Or even tell the rest of us. But why should we care about what you tell us? What are your qualifications? Why should we respect what the likes of you tell us? Because you have our best interests at heart? Yeah, Right …

            WHATSHISFACE:”And, furthermore, if they still insist that they don’t want to share a bus with those Palestinians then THEY should be told to get their Lazy Fat Arses out of those bus seats and start walking.

            Because – du’oh! – it’s a f**king long way to walk to their illegal colonies, seeing as how deep into the West Bank some of those colonies are.”

            Ok, any more rants you wanna get of your chest so we can proceed to ignore you?

            WHATSHISFACE:”So start walking, buddy, and please ignore the jeers of derision from those Palestinians who whizz past you on that bus.

            After all, THEY were perfectly happy to share the bus with YOU.”

            Yep, you do …. LA, LA, LA …. LA, LA, LA …. LA, LA, LA ….

            WHATSHISFACE:”Apparently they are somewhat tougher – and rather more accommodating – than those pissing-in-their-pants Zionist colonists.”

            Yeah, Right … they just can’t live without us … next thing you will tell us that in the last 100 years we grew on them and they just love us to death …

            WHATSHISFACE:”So I would suggest that it is only fair that THEY should be allowed to stay on those buses, and it’s those fluffy-girls-blouses who should be left to their own devices.

            Serves ‘em right, I say…”

            You can suggest whatever you want buddy. Now let me suggest something to you … no, on second thought I won’t. I am in a good mood today I don’t want to offend you by suggesting that you should shove your suggestions to a place where the sun does not shine … oops, I just did …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Ah, such arrogance.

            How very Zionist of you, Gustav.

            I would have thought that this is a pretty easy concept to grasp:
            a) if the settler trailer-trash don’t want to share the bus trip with Palestinians,
            b) even though the Palestinians appear perfectly willing to share the bus trip with those obnoxious settlers
            c) then fairness would dictate that the group who have to vacate that bus should be the whinging wieners, not the group who aren’t complaining.

            Now, I certainly do understand that **YOU** think differently.

            That **YOU** think that the Palestinians should be forced off the bus because… well…. because.

            After all, those puissant pussies who call themselves “settlers” want the bus to themselves.

            Sure, I understand that you agree with them.

            I mean, let’s face it: you do appear to be quite the puissant pussy yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Ah, such arrogance.”

            I am glad you brought up the word “arrogance” WHATSHISFACE, we have a name for it in your case. It’s called HUTZPAH. Let’s see what you are jumping up and down for:

            You insist that there is no other choice than to insist that “the hated settlers” must be forced to travel on the same bus as your Saint Palestinians because otherwise, they would cause irrepairable offense to the Palestinians who have grown so fond of the eeeeeevil settlers that they would never forgive us. Separate buses are not even an option because? Because? Because? WHATSHISFACE does not really know … But he does know that he wants to use this issue as another beat-up. Well, he can get knotted.

            “How very Zionist of you, Gustav.”

            Gee thanks, WHATSHISFACE, thanks for calling me a good Zionist, I am proud of it.

            “I would have thought …”

            Is that what you call it? “Thought” … Huh? … Stop exaggerating.

            “that this is a pretty easy concept to grasp:

            a) if the settler trailer-trash don’t want to share the bus trip with Palestinians,”

            Yep, then WE will give them their own bus. Because it is OUR bus and we can … get it?

            “b) even though the Palestinians appear perfectly willing to share the bus trip with those obnoxious settlers”

            Are you sure? Maybe they too would be perfectly happy to travel in their own bus because they won’t have to put up with the eeeeeeevil settlers.

            “c) then fairness would dictate that the group who have to vacate that bus should be the whinging wieners, not the group who aren’t complaining.”

            … Fairness? Stop pretending that you have the remotest notion about fairness WHATSHISFACE, all you are here for is to spew your polemics.

            “Now, I certainly do understand … ”

            Again, stop pretending that you understand anything, WHATSHISFACE.

            “that **YOU** think differently.

            That **YOU** think that the Palestinians should be forced off the bus”

            See? You don’t understand at all. What I am happy with is for each group to travel on their own buses in order to avoid a very likely confrontation between them.

            “because… well…. because.

            After all, those puissant pussies who call themselves “settlers” want the bus to themselves.”

            Actually YOU are the one who calls them settlers. But let’s not quibble …

            “Sure, I understand …”

            There you go again pretending to understand …

            “I mean, let’s face it: you do appear to be quite the puissant pussy yourself.”

            LOL. That’s the best you can do to try and insult me? I would call that a feeble pussy-ish attempt, you amateur.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You insist that there is no other choice than to insist that “the hated settlers” must be forced to travel on the same bus as your Saint Palestinians because otherwise”

            *chortle*

            No. Actually. Quite. The. Reverse.

            Hands up anyone who thinks that I have been suggesting that the Settler Trailer-Trash **must** get on those buses?

            No, Gustav, you can put your hand down. Everyone already knows how delusion you are.

            Anyone else?
            Anyone?

            Gustav, matey, I have been pointing out that if the Israeli colonial pussies don’t want to get on buses with Palestinians then they can… take a hike.

            After all, hasbarah does keep telling that it’s a free country, and nobody – least of all Israel security forces – is holding a gun to their head.

            So if they don’t want to get on that bus then Good Luck To Them.

            But, heck, they’ve got a mighty long walk ahead of them…..

            Win/Win for everyone, I’d suggest.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Hands up anyone who thinks that I have been suggesting that the Settler Trailer-Trash **must** get on those buses?

            No, Gustav, you can put your hand down. Everyone already knows how delusion you are.

            Gustav, matey, I have been pointing out that if the Israeli colonial pussies don’t want to get on buses with Palestinians then they can… take a hike.”

            Hey bubble boy …

            Last I heard, the buses are ours not yours. So nooooo, we will give the eeeeeevil Settlers their own buses on which no Saint-Palestinian will set foot because we don’t want the two groups to throttle each other.

            Ya don’t like it? Then you can lump it. When YOU will be providing the buses, you will make the rules. But as of today, we do and each group will have their own buses, no kappish? No matta’ …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Last I heard, the buses are ours not yours. So nooooo, we will give the eeeeeevil Settlers their own buses on which no Saint-Palestinian will set foot” ….

            Apparently Livni has rather more brains than Gustav, because she understands how that will play to the audience that keeps getting told that no, no, no, there’s no Apartheid being practiced here. No sir, not here, nothing to see here.

            Gustav:…” because we don’t want the two groups to throttle each other.”

            Annnnnd, back to the very beginning, a very good place to start.

            Settlers: We are scared of getting on a bus with those Palestinians!
            Government: Is that fear well-grounded?
            Shin Bet: Nah, they are just being pussies.
            Gustav: Are not! Are not! Are not!

            That’s about the gist of your lamentable argument.

            The Shin Bet has said that they have no security concerns regarding this issue.

            OK. Good-o. Right-you-are-then.

            At which point (I have mentioned this before? I think I have..) if those colonial carpet-baggers still want to complain then the solution is simple: open the bus door and tell ’em to get off.

            After all, the Palestinians aren’t complaining, and their dinner is getting cold….

            So either sit down ‘n’ shut the f**k up or get outta’ the bus and walk your sorry arse home.

            I could care less either way.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Here is one of dozens of hits when I googled the following phrase: ‘pub brawl’ ”

            Well, I can honestly say that I’ve now heard everything.

            A “pub brawl on a bus”, no less.

            Who knew that Israeli buses served alcohol? Or that those whacky ultra-orthodox would tank themselves up while watching the wheels of the bus go round and round, up and down, round and round?

            Still, won’t be a problem on the bus route to Nokdim – the Moldovan can be on hand to utilize his hard-earned ex-bouncer skills.

            But, please, Gustav, you must stop with the jokes.

            Did you hear the one about the Muslims starting a pub brawl on a bus?

            Nah, neither did I. After all, Muslims and alcohol are… well… you know…..

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Well, I can honestly say that I’ve now heard everything.

            A “pub brawl on a bus”, no less.”

            Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending?

            In a pub, violence is fueled by alcohol.

            On a bus full of Palestinians and “settlers” violence would occur due to extreme political differences fuelled by nationalism on both sides.

            The point of the pub brawl example is to illustrate that human beings are able to hurt or killing each other with their bare hands.

            Any more school-boyish arguments, WHATSHISFACE?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Is that what you would do? Ok … whatever … When are you going to stop beating your wife”

            Oh, at about the same time that you stop throttling bus-passengers with your bare hands, I’d suggest.

            Because it really is damned amusing to see you hand out hypotheticals (“People can kill each other with their bare hands”) like they were lollies, and then go all huffy and puffy when I return the favour (“They can also kill by firing a wire-guided anti-tank missile at the bus”).

            What’s good for the goose should also be good for the gander.

            Except, apparently, in Gustav-world.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “… Because it really is damned amusing to see you hand out hypotheticals (“People can kill each other with their bare hands”) like they were lollies,”

            You mean they can’t? You haven’t heard of riots? Brawls? And injuries or even deaths in brawls? I take it you are a non drinker then who has never set foot in a pub? You must have been leading a sheltered life endlessly slaving away at your computer keyboard from under the safety of your mother’s skirt. Good for you WHATSHISFACE you might be a mighty internet warrior but the rest of us live in the real world in a very rough neighborhood so we have bitter and real experience with how easily things can get out of hand around here.

            “and then go all huffy and puffy when I return the favour (“They can also kill by firing a wire-guided anti-tank missile at the bus”).”

            Did I go huffy and puffy on you WHATSHISFACE? Oh dear … I hope I didn’t offend you? Or do I?

            “What’s good for the goose should also be good for the gander.”

            Ok. I do agree with that except I would not call you a goose. I would call you a self important puffed up little peacock insted. Or maybe just a cock for short …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You mean they can’t?”

            This is just soooo rich.

            My argumentative little friend put forward the suggestion that Palestinian terrorists could attack a busload of Jews with… their bare hands.

            He put forward that suggestion in all seriousness, and continues to promote it in all seriousness.

            Yet he then goes oh-so-sarcastic when I suggest that Palestinian terrorists could ALSO attack a bus full of Jews by launching an anti-tank missile at it.

            This, to Gustav, is a whacky-way-out scenario deserving of all the scorn that he could muster.

            Which is odd, because I can’t remember any Palestinian terrorist ever attacking a bus with his bares hands, whereas I do know that an Egged bus was attacked by anti-tank missiles in 2011.

            So my scenario appears to be more likely than Gustav’s scenario by, oh, a factor of something like Infinity-to-None.

            Yet Gustav keeps advancing his scenario, while pouring scorn on mine.

            Very odd indeed…..

            Still, it’s not unknown for Gustav to Double Down On Dumb.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “You mean they can’t?”

            WHATSHISFACE:”This is just soooo rich.

            My argumentative little friend put forward the suggestion that Palestinian terrorists could attack a busload of Jews with… their bare hands.”

            Nope. I said that the two groups are likely to brawl. Have you got comprehension problems, WHATSHISFACE?

            WHATSHISFACE:”He put forward that suggestion in all seriousness, and continues to promote it in all seriousness.”

            Now I am being accused of seriousness? Or even worse; “All Seriousness”? LOL.

            WHATSHISFACE:”Yet he then goes oh-so-sarcastic when I suggest that Palestinian terrorists could ALSO attack a bus full of Jews by launching an anti-tank missile at it.”

            I hope you liked my sarcasm, I did.

            WHATSHISFACE:”This, to Gustav, is a whacky-way-out scenario deserving of all the scorn that he could muster.

            Which is odd, because I can’t remember any Palestinian terrorist ever attacking a bus with his bares hands, whereas I do know that an Egged bus was attacked by anti-tank missiles in 2011.”

            Nooooooh it couldn’t beeeeee …. I thought you said they love us, didn’t you WHATSHISFACE?

            WHATSHISFACE:So my scenario appears to be more likely than Gustav’s scenario by, oh, a factor of something like Infinity-to-None.”

            Funny that, I thought that I too brought up quite a few bomb related scenarios but since WHATSHISFACE insists that I considered his scenario impossible, he must be telling the truth even though I don’t recall denying the possibility of his scenario. Oh dear … now he will argue endlessly and try to prove that I did … should I argue with him about it? Well, let’s see what nonsense he comes up with. It is sure to be boring and irrelevant to this discussion though …

            WHATSHISFACE:”Yet Gustav keeps advancing his scenario, while pouring scorn on mine.”

            Scorn? Yes of course because WHATSHISFACE ‘s scenario had no relevance to this topic but I bet this master of obfuscatory will attempt to now sidetrack and argue about red herrings. No matter, maybe I’ll get to like his red herrings, after all I DO like herrings.

            WHATSHISFACE:”Very odd indeed…..”

            Yep, odd indeed … I am shaking my head in sympathy with WHATSHISFACE. No I am not, just kidding … I predict that he will now pull out his dreaded gosh … golly gosh … and he will start muttering dark thoughts about “my straw man” … he usually pulls that stunt round about this stage of our marathon arguments. I am looking forward to it LOL. Then again, now that I showed him that I am on to his silly tricks, will he? … Or won’t he? We shall see …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “I thought you said they love us, didn’t you WHATSHISFACE?”

            No, I certainly never said that.

            After all, carpet-baggers and army camp followers are a particularly unlovable bunch…

            But I did say this: even though these are unlovable carpet-baggers it is nonetheless true that the Palestinians still say that they are perfectly willing to get on the same bus with them.

            Apparently they are much the more accommodating folk, which is commendable indeed…

            Gustav: ….”since WHATSHISFACE insists that I considered his scenario impossible”…

            No, actually, I didn’t say that either.

            I said that you kept pouring scorn on that scenario, even though it is vastly more credible than yours.

            Gustav: ….”even though I don’t recall denying the possibility of his scenario”…

            Yet you then refuse to consider the consequences of that.

            Which is this: in your mind the mere possibility of “bare-handed fisticuffs” justifies excluding Palestinians from those buses, even though that “threat” is as nothing compared to that of a anti-tank missile being fired into that same bus.

            Okay… so let’s consider the consequences….

            Because it should be indisputable that preventing Palestinians from getting anywhere near rocket-firing-range of those bus routes is far more important than the “threat” of Palestinian pugalism, correct?

            So… say… a 5km exclusion zone down every road that carries an Israeli bus.

            You’d support that, wouldn’t you, Gustav?

            You know, in the interests of consistency, if nothing else…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Which is this: in your mind the mere possibility of “bare-handed fisticuffs” justifies excluding Palestinians from those buses,”

            Not exactly what I said. But what does one expect from a Bubble-Boy?

            Again, I said let the two groups travel on separate buses, yes … because the possibility of fisticuffs and more (he got dat bit right).

            But you would think I murdered Bubble-Boy’s mother, he is so upset by that proposition. I guess he thinks that the eeeeevil settlers and the WB Arabs cannot live apart from each other and they would pine for each other’s company if we do dat.

            “even though that “threat” is as nothing compared to that of a anti-tank missile being fired into that same bus.”

            Ok, ok, ok I get it …

            I think Bubble-Boy wants me to stop talking about buses and start talking about missiles. I’ll tell you what though bubbeleh …
            I will talk about missiles some other time … honest Injun … I will … cross my heart, I will … but right now, I wanna talk about buses. Ok?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “I take it you are a non drinker then who has never set foot in a pub?”

            I am an Australian, Gustav, and as such I take offense at both those propositions.

            But even in The Land Of The Golden Amber I have never, ever, ever seen alcohol served on a public bus.

            And so I’m going to have to call you out (again) on your “pub brawl on a bus” scenario.

            But Israeli colonists get loaded up on the juice as they ride their bus home to their illegal squats in the West Bank, do they?

            Because it certainly can’t be the Palestinians who will be juicing up, for the obvious reasons….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            What a bunch of malarkey.

            Poor old WHATSHISFACE, he was now forced to concede that human beings are capable of hurting or even killing each other with their bare hands. So what does he do?

            …He retreats to his next line of defense, pretends that such violence is only possible in pubs because in pubs they serve alcohol. He pretends that without alcohol, people are incapable of working up enough fury to hurt, maim and even kill each other with their bare hands. Nah, not much … as if nationalistic hatred is not fuel enough. I guess the Palestinian Arabs who become suicide bombers all fill themselves up with alcohol prior to murdering Israeli men women and children randomly, huh WHATSHISFACE?

            As for his stupid rocket firing range scenario, I guess he brought it up to try and convince himself that the two scenarios are mutually exclusive. According to our bubble boy – known as WHATSHISFACE or ‘Yeah, Right’, we can either have …

            1. A rocket attack by Palestinian Arab terrorists on a bus.

            Or

            2. According to him, the much less likely event of a brawl on a bus by two rival nationalistic groups.

            In WHATSHISFACE-world, you cannot have both.

            My sarcasm about his scenario was because he tried to sell me that puppy with his scenario. That’s why I ridiculed him. Because in my world, or Gustav-world, either scenario is possible. Not only possible but highly probable.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “He retreats to his next line of defense, pretends that such violence is only possible in pubs because in pubs they serve alcohol.”

            No, I’m pointing out that “pub brawls” are called “pub brawls” for a reason.

            As in… they don’t happen on buses.

            I’ve seen a “pub brawl”, Gustav.
            I’ve also ridden on buses.

            So I know that nothing even remotely resembling a “pub brawl” can take place on a public bus.

            Heck, your argument is about as impressive as describing “a trapeze act in a broom cupboard”.

            Sure, I’ve seen trapeze acts.
            Yeah, I own a broom cupboard.

            But, no, I don’t live in fear of opening my broom cupboard only to find Cornel Wilde swinging from the rafers…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “No, I’m pointing out that “pub brawls” are called “pub brawls” for a reason.”

            And that reason is? Drum rollllllllll … because they happen in a pub.

            Does that mean that brawls can’t happen on a bus? Of course NOT!

            Does it mean that people can get hurt maimed and even killed in brawls? Any brawls? Anywhere? Even on buses? … Of course it DOES!

            Thank you Bubble-Boy, I knew you would come around and see the light…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “What a bunch of malarkey.”

            No, actually, it’s not.

            If Gustav’s concern was “the safety of Jews on buses” then he should be far more concerned with the danger posed by anti-tank rockets.

            After all, that has happened before.

            But, apparently, he isn’t offering any remedies for that threat, despite the fact (and it is fact) that this is far more likely and much more dangerous than his own pissing-in-my-pants-with-worry concern.

            How odd.

            Equally, if Gustav’s concern was the threat posed by “bare-knuckle fisticuffs” then that is something that is far, far more likely to happen in a cinema, or a restaurant, or a… pub.

            After all, Gustav, have you **seen** how many stout metal poles there are inside public buses?

            Hardly conducive to haymakers, and especially not when it’s much easier (and likely to be vastly more effective) to let those punches fly in pubs, cinemas or (let’s far it) almost anywhere else that doesn’t have stout metal poles getting in the way.

            But despite the fact that the danger posed by bare-knuckle fisticuffs in THOSE places is much greater than on a bus…. I don’t see Gustav demanding that Arabs be banned from cinemas, or from restaurants, or from… pubs.

            How odd.

            His tingly spider-senses appear to be quite numb to those dangers.

            How. very. odd. indeed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yeah, Right …

            1. Bubble-Boy here is pretending that people can only brawl and hurt each other in pubs and cinemas but not on buses. Because somehow buses are safety zones.

            2. Bubble-Boy is also trying to tell me what to be concerned with and not to worry about. But he forgot my earlier advice to him about where to shove his advice. I guess he always has been a bit dense and hard on the uptake.

            A sad case of repetitites. No cure for it either. I would hate to meet him in person, I bet one can never get in a word edgewise once this motor-mouth starts talking because judging be his antics here on the net, I am sure he only likes the sound of his own voice. He is some internet warrior, a regular legend in his own mind, no less

            He just cannot understand why we are simply not interested in his advice to us even though my heart breaks for him, he is trying so hard to tell us what to do.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “1. Bubble-Boy here is pretending that people can only brawl and hurt each other in pubs and cinemas but not on buses. Because somehow buses are safety zones.”

            Here’s an experiment you should try for yourself: Stand on a bus (even an empty bus) and then start flailing your arms about as violently as you can.

            Tell me how that turns out for you.

            Heck, I’ll even sign a “Get Well, Gustav!” on the plaster cast(s)….

            Gustav: “2. Bubble-Boy is also trying to tell me what to be concerned with and not to worry about.”

            What I am pointing out is that his “security concerns” should be consistent, which sadly in Gustav’s case are not at all consistent.

            Here, an example:
            Gustav is soooo worried about “pub brawls on buses” that he insists that Palestinians be banned from riding such buses.

            Yet he is monumentally unconcerned about Palestinians starting fist-fights in clubs, bars, pubs or cinemas.

            One would **almost** think he is being oh-so-conveniently selective in his “security concerns”.

            Here, another example:
            Gustav is so unconcerned about the threat of an external attack on buses that – apparently – he couldn’t care less about doing anything to prevent them.

            Again, an observer might come to the conclusion that Gustav’s “security concerns” are more than a little self-serving in that ever-appealing settler-trailer-trash-wise way…

            Odd that…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Here’s an experiment you should try for yourself: Stand on a bus (even an empty bus) and then start flailing your arms about as violently as you can.”

            Huh?

            Is this man weird? Or is he weird? His new name, Bubble-Boy is very apt for him …

            But looky here Bubble-Boy, I found more examples of real cases of brawls on buses too. Here is just one …

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Transit_Bus_fight

            There are many others too. Enjoy…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “But looky here Bubble-Boy, I found more examples of real cases of brawls on buses too. Here is just one …”

            …. followed by a link to an incident where two men get into an altercation on a bus and then they… gulp!… get off the bus.

            As in: once the altercation was over they…. stand up and leave the bus.

            As in: an altercation So Very Serious that neither man was arrested, despite that video.

            I’m (slightly) curious, Gustav: would you advocate that Old White Guys be banned from Oakland Transit Buses because of that altercation?

            And if not then… why not?

            After all, that was a “fight on a bus”, was it not?

            And you are adamant that “fighting on a bus” is more than sufficient grounds for banning people from buses, are you not?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I did not say that ALL bus brawls lead to deaths, Bubble Boy …

            Here is another case …

            “AMITE- A town councilman faces charges after getting into a fight with a citizen after the town council meeting Tuesday night. Police said Jonathan Foster faces aggravated battery charges. A citizen was also charged in connection with the fight. Police Chief Jerry Trabona said both men were booked… more »”

            Again, no one died but we don’t want brawls Bubble-Boy, get it? No of course you don’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “There are many others too. Enjoy…”

            Just as there are many, many videos of pub brawls.

            I’ll now ask everyone to open two tabs on their web browser: one showing “brawls on a bus” and the other showing “pub brawls”.

            And I’ll now invite everyone who Can’t Tell The Difference to put their hand up…

            Yeah, thought so: just one dimwit with his hand in the air.

            Gustav, I’ve seen “pub brawls”, and they don’t look remotely like those ludicrous bitch-slapping girlie-fights that you keep pointing me to.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “I’ll now ask everyone to open two tabs on their web browser: one showing “brawls on a bus” and the other showing “pub brawls”.”

            LOL

            So now our argument is whether pub brawls are worse or bus brawls are worse?

            No, Bubble-Boy, Lo, nyet, night, lah, non …

            The reason we want separate buses is because we don’t want brawls, period. Get it? No I am sure you don’t you clown.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “So now our argument is whether pub brawls are worse or bus brawls are worse?”

            I’m pointing out that “pub brawling” is not possible aboard a “public bus”.

            Too many stout poles…

            You really are a hoot, Gustav.

            You really do appear to believe that you can “justify” the banning of ALL Palestinians from settler-frequenting public buses because you piss your pants at the “threat” of a girlie bitch-slap session on those buses.

            What. A. Pussy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “You really do appear to believe that you can “justify” the banning of ALL Palestinians from settler-frequenting public buses because you piss your pants at the “threat” of a girlie bitch-slap session on those buses.”

            Public buses? Public to whom? Public to Israelis or legitimate tourists.

            Are the WB Palestinians Israelis? NO!!

            Are the WB Palestinians legitimate tourists? NO!

            I’ll tell you who the WB Palestinians are. They are a people who have been making war on us for 100 years. As such, we are not obliged to let them travel on our public buses. And making them travel on their own buses is not unreasonable. Particularly given their very recent nasty past habits of blowing up our public buses.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The WB Palestinians are a people who have been making war on us for 100 years because they do not want to have two states for two peoples. They want one state for themselves only and most of us out … “back to Europe or wherever they claim our great grand parents came from”.

            We on the other hand are on the record of agreeing to let them form their own independent sovereign state alongside ours as soon as they agree to sign a peace deal with us in which they unambiguously announce that they recognize our right to be here and have our own independent Jewish majority state, alongside their Palestinian Arab state.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            One more thing, bubble boy ….

            If an ordinary average Israeli would turn up in a WB Palestinian city and tried to go to a cinema, a restaurant or sit on one of their buses, we would be lynched.

            I am not just saying it. It has already happened to two Israeli citizens in Ramallah in 2000. So the WB is off bounds to us. Any comments about that?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “I’m pointing out that “pub brawling” is not possible aboard a “public bus”

            You don’t say. You might also say that bus brawling is not possible in a pub and your statement would be equally pointless. But brawling IS possible on a bus, No?

            “What. A. Pussy”

            Yep, you ARE a schoolboy bubble boy, aren’t you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “The reason we want separate buses is because we don’t want brawls, period.”

            Ah, OK, I do believe we are finally getting somewhere.

            According to Gustav the concept of “brawls, period” is what justifies the banning of Palestinians from buses.

            In which case, of course, the concept of “not wanting brawls, period” is also applicable to Palestinians in pubs, clubs, restaurants, cinemas, etc., etc.

            That must be true, because what Gustav objects to isn’t “brawls on buses” but, instead, he objects to “brawls, period”.

            I know that for a fact, because Gustav just said so.

            Sooooo, Gustav, your thoughts on the banning on Palestinians from any club, or restaurant, or cinema, or any other establishment that is frequented by Jews?

            Yes? No? I’d-Rather-No-Say?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Sooooo, Gustav, your thoughts on the banning on Palestinians from any club, or restaurant, or cinema, or any other establishment that is frequented by Jews?”

            Are you serious?

            The WB Palestinians are welcome to go to their own WB cinemas, restaurants, clubs or what have you. They are not welcome to go anywhere in our country because they are part of a people who have been making war on us for the last 100 years. They are not Israeli citizens, nor are they tourists.

            In what type of bubble world do you live, bubble boy? Do you think that in the middle of WW2 the English would have been willing to bus in busloads of Germans and allow them to visit English cinemas, bars and restaurants?

            Sheeesh are you stupid? Or are you hear to spread misinformation?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Gustav, I’ve seen “pub brawls”, and they don’t look remotely like those ludicrous bitch-slapping girlie-fights that you keep pointing me to.”

            Really? You have? When? When did you have the time to go out to go to a real pub? Aren’t you too busy posting your lies on the net?

            Bitch-Slapping Girlie fights? LOL. You think that mysogonist expressions like that will make you look like the He-Man you imagine yourself to be?

            Hey bubble boy, you are just a little puppy like school boy who would scream and poop in your pants the first minute you would set foot in this very rough neighbourhood in which we live.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “As for his stupid rocket firing range scenario, I guess he brought it up to try and convince himself that the two scenarios are mutually exclusive.”

            No, actually, and I have no idea why Gustav “thinks” (chortle) that one follows logically from the other.

            I brought it up to highlight the very selective nature of you “security” concerns.

            As in: you are *so* concerned about the threat of fisticuffs breaking out on a bus that you consider that *alone* justifies banning Palestinians from those buses.

            Yet that threat is demonstrably
            (a) much less likely and
            (b) far less dangerous
            than the prospect of an anti-tank rocket being fired at that same bus.

            Surely if drastic action is required to prevent punches being thrown then Much, Much More Drastic Action is required to prevent anti-tank rockets from ever getting within 5km of those bus routs.

            Right?

            Err, no, apparently Gustav puts that in the “Well, Shit Happens” threat-category, even though “Pub Brawls On A Bus” has him pissing in his pants with worry.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “I brought it up to highlight the very selective nature of you “security” concerns.”

            Selective nature?

            Apparently, if one does not talk about what Bubble Boy wants to talk about but instead one concentrates on the topic of this thread which is
            B-U-S-E-S, then according to our Bubble-Boy, one is selective …

            Ok, bubbeleh, whatever ..

            Please feel free to repeat your nonsense 10 more times …

            ONE …. TWO …
            Go, Bubble-Boy..

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Apparently, if one does not talk about what Bubble Boy wants to talk about but instead one concentrates on the topic of this thread which is
            B-U-S-E-S, then according to our Bubble-Boy, one is selective”

            And, once again….

            SETTLERS: I’m concerned about the “threat” of getting on the same bus as these Palestinians!SHIN BET: Stop being such pussies, these Palestinians pose no threat.
            SETTLERS: Do too! Do too! Do too!
            SHIN BET: No, I know what I’m talking about. They don’t pose a threat.
            SETTLERS: Do too! Do too! Do too!

            Sorry, but that’s the gist of your argument, and it’s monumentally unimpressive.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “And, once again….”

            As I said, Bubble-Boy, you can repeat yourself 10 more times. I already responded to your nonsensical arguments, Shin Beth et el. I ain’t doing it again.

            Bring up some NEW nonsense of yours and I might respond to that. But if you just repeat yourself, all you are doing is …

            I said it more times than you … therefore I am righ…. But it ain’t right in the ADULT world which we grown ups inhabit… such a conclusion is only valid in the school-boyish world which you inhabit, Bubble-Boy, dear …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            *sigh*

            The settlers want to ban Palestinians from these buses because those settlers have “security concerns”.

            The Israeli govt asks the Shin Bet if there is any justification for those “security concerns”, and the answer they receive is this: No, those settlers are just being a bunch of pants-pissing pussies.

            Gustav then becomes well-nigh-demented in his obsession with proving that those settlers ARE justified in being shit-scared of Palestinians On A Bus.

            And that life-threating fear is….. what, exactly?

            Well, apparently its that Jewish settlers and Palestinian workers might get into a girlie-bitch-slap like some old man and some black dude on some forsaken Oakland Transit Bus.

            Wow!

            That’s certainly “security concern!” – heck, it’s an existential threat! – and one that is well worth banning any and all Palestinians from any bus ever frequented by pants-pissing Israeli colonists.

            Apparently.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Sigh … want repetition? Here it is …

            “I just don’t care. Get it? No one sees into anyone else’s head. The Shin Beth and the IDF are not the authories on all wisdom. We are a people at war with the Palestinian Arabs. Only in the case of Israel do idiots like you, yea you, WHATSHISFACE insist that if we say we don’t trust them ( for good reason) or even ourselves for that matter, and therefore we don’t want to ride with them on the same bus, then that’s apartheid. Of course it isn’t. People can maim or even kill each other with their bare hands. And between Jews and Arabs of the WB, it wouldn’t be for the first time.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Sigh … want repetition?”

            The truth never gets old, Gustav, though I do understand that hasbarah regards it as a malleable product with a limited shelf-life.

            Gustav: “I just don’t care. Get it?”

            Very trollish, Gustav.

            Gustav: “No one sees into anyone else’s head.”

            Non-sequitur.

            Gustav: “The Shin Beth and the IDF are not the authories on all wisdom.”

            Ahem. It is indisputable that Shin Bet and the IDF represent “the authorities”, and that those settler trailer-trash… don’t.

            So who’s advice should Livni heed?
            a) The authorities?
            or
            b) The shrill warnings of those settlers and their shills?

            Not much of a choice, is it.

            Gustav: “We are a people at war with the Palestinian Arabs.”

            Hyperbole (not to mention that int’l law would regard that as being an very questionable assertion when it is being muttered by an occupying power).

            Gustav: “Only in the case of Israel do idiots like you, yea you, WHATSHISFACE insist that if we say we don’t trust them ( for good reason) or even ourselves for that matter, and therefore we don’t want to ride with them on the same bus, then that’s apartheid.”

            Note that Gustav has just made an impassioned plea for “separate development”.

            Which was, of course, the Afrikaner-to-English translation of the word “Apartheid”.

            Not to mention the massive logic-flaw in Gustav’s argument i.e. if those whinging pussies don’t want to get on a bus with those Palestinians then THEY should be the ones to get off the bus and walk, they certainly shouldn’t be rewarded for their histrionics.

            Gustav: “Of course it isn’t.”

            Yeah, it is. The Afrikaners gave the same excuse to justify why blacks had to be banned from their whiter-than-white buses.

            Gustav: “People can maim or even kill each other with their bare hands.”

            And the “threat” of that happening ON A BUS is considered by the Shin Bet to be outlandishly unlikely.

            Livni is perfectly correct: if the Shin Bet were to say that there is some basis to that fear then, OK, maybe. But if the Shin Bet says that this is just fear-mongering then…. it’s just fear-mongering, and policy shouldn’t be determined by that unseemly display of histrionics.

            Q: So, is the Shin Bet willing to play along with Gustav on this?
            A: No, they insist that Gustav is deliberately pissing his pants.

            Which is never a good look, Mr Pissy Pants.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            No fear mongering Bubble-Boy the Saint Palestinians hate us, they want us gone and they take every opportunity to try and murder us. Recent as well as ancient history 101.

            But according to Bubble-Boy, the Saint Palestinians love us. No they don’t he says, then yes they do … He can’t even make up his mind he does not only have an extreme case of repetitis but he also has an extreme case of polemicitis.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Note that Gustav has just made an impassioned plea for “separate development”.

            Why yeeeeeees. Have you noticed? One state for the Jewish people and a 23rd state for the Arabs.

            “Which was, of course, the Afrikaner-to-English translation of the word “Apartheid”.

            As well as …

            1. Pakistan and India

            2. The Chechs and the Slovaks

            3. The Bosnians and the Serbs

            4. The Irish republic

            5. Ukraine

            Want me to go on?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Why yeeeeeees. Have you noticed? One state for the Jewish people and a 23rd state for the Arabs.”

            Now, why do I get a sinking suspicion that Gustav doesn’t actually know what constitutes the crime of Apartheid?

            Gustav: “As well as …
            1. Pakistan and India
            2. The Chechs and the Slovaks
            3. The Bosnians and the Serbs
            4. The Irish republic
            5. Ukraine”

            Yup, that list stands as very stark evidence that Gustav’s understanding of the meaning of the word “Apartheid” is positively Humpty-Dumpty-ish.

            Gustav: “Want me to go on?”

            Actually, yes.
            Yes, I do.

            Because I would be curious indeed to know what your understand to constitute the crime of Apartheid.

            I suspect very much that your answer will lead to a very Inigo Montoya moment for all the readers out there….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Crime of Apartheid, Bubble Boy? It is a false accusation agains Israel. Polemics, propaganda, get it? If Israel is apartheid then so are all those other states which I listed and many others as well. You boring little man…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Crime of Apartheid, Bubble Boy? It is a false accusation agains Israel.”

            No, actually, that’s a non-sequitur.

            And I do have that on the highest authority, precisely because that is actually the state-sanctioned answer to THIS very different question: What is a blood libel?

            Or, in short: Gustav has just indulged in polemics.

            Gustav: “Polemics, propaganda, get it?”

            Yeah, I do, because I’m looking at it right now.

            Come on, Gustav, this isn’t a hard question: what is the crime of Apartheid?

            After all, you did say “Want me to go on?”

            So, yeah, since you asked: I do indeed want you to go on.

            The crime of Apartheid does have a definition.

            So, please, let us know what it is.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Come on, Gustav, this isn’t a hard question: what is the crime of Apartheid?”

            You tell us, oh great know it all guru or poobah or bubble boy or whatever real name you call yourself.

            “After all, you did say “Want me to go on?”

            Yes I did. If you are interested in hearing about other areas in the world where either by mutual understanding or because only one side, (contrary to the wishes of their neighbors) decided that they would like to or actually were able to separate from their neighbors and form their own independent sovereign nation minus some or ALL of their neighbors.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You tell us, oh great know it all guru or poobah or bubble boy or whatever real name you call yourself.”

            Okay, I think we have now all agreed that Gustav does not know that the crime of Apartheid is defined in the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

            Gustav, baby, your homework for tonight is to grab a hold of the Rome Statute and work your way through it to find the definition of the “crime of Apartheid”, which is listed amongst the eleven Crimes Against Humanity.

            Get to it, because there’ll be a test on this tomorrow…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Get to it, because there’ll be a test on this tomorrow”

            LOL … Yeah, Right.

            I did notice you like to play ‘School Teacher’, bubble boy. All pimply faced scrawny, nerdy school boys do. It is their favorite game …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “LOL … Yeah, Right.”

            Oh, so you have read the 2002 Rome Statute? You have looked up the definition of the Crime of Apartheid?

            Very good, Gustav.

            Care to recite for all to see?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            In the legal system which I am familiar with, bubble boy, the onus of proof is on the person who alleges a crime. And until the proof sticks in a court of law, the alleged perpetrator is innocent till proven guilty.

            Soooooo bubble boy, you made the charge of apartheid. You have to prove it. Go on then bubble boy, make your case. I am all ears (oops I meant eyes, LOL).

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “In the legal system which I am familiar with, bubble boy, the onus of proof is on the person who alleges a crime.”

            Ah, very good. I agree.

            So, now does appear to be a good time for that question…

            Gustav, baby, you have alleged that:
            “1. Pakistan and India
            2. The Chechs and the Slovaks
            3. The Bosnians and the Serbs
            4. The Irish republic
            5. Ukraine”
            are all equally as guilty of Apartheid.

            Okay, that was your claim, so the onus of proof is on you.

            Please, explain to me how those aforementioned countries carry out any policy that would be consistent with the definition of the crime of Apartheid that is found in the Rome Statute of 2002.

            Take your time, I’ll wait.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Okay, that was your claim, so the onus of proof is on you.

            Please, explain to me how those aforementioned countries carry out any policy that would be consistent with the definition of the crime of Apartheid that is found in the Rome Statute of 2002.”

            Oooooh this one is a hard one bubble boy … have mercy … LOL.

            They are as guilty as Israel is. Neither is guilty. That was my point you clueless little nerd.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “They are as guilty as Israel is. Neither is guilty.”

            So each of those aforementioned countries is planning on establishing a systematic segregation of buses based upon race or ethnicity?

            Because if they aren’t then your claim that “They are as guilty as Israel is” would turn out to be… wrong.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Because if they aren’t then your claim that “They are as guilty as Israel is” would turn out to be… wrong.”

            Each one of those countries separated from the other based on ethnicity or religion. Some of those countries were fighting a war with each other and certainly durig those wars they did not allow the other side on their buses. Some of those countries still don’t allow the other side onto their buses to this day.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Soooooo bubble boy, you made the charge of apartheid. You have to prove it.”

            Fine, though it will require a recap.

            You and I both agree that the Jewish settlers do not want to share the bus with these Palestinians.

            No. Dispute. There.

            Where we differ is this: YOU insisted that they want this segregation for reasons of legitimate “security concerns”, whereas I insist that’s bogus and the real reason is that the settlers simply want the bus for themselves.

            That is the core of the debate between you and I, agreed?

            OK, because today you have conceded that the claim of “security concerns” is a bogus one.

            Right here: “Let’s just say concerns.”
            And here: “You can call it security concern if you think that sounds like a good catch cry.”

            It is now indisputable that you accept that there are no “security concerns”, even while you continue to insist that these settlers want the state to instigate a policy of segregation.

            Okay, so let’s now look at the Rome Statute, which defines the Crime of Apartheid to include “Persecution against any identifiable group” … “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”

            Hmmmm.

            The settlers want the state of Israel to institute a systematic segregation based on nothing more than THEIR loathing of the “other racial group”.

            After all……

            a) You admit that the settlers loath the Palestinians.

            b) You admit that the settlers want the bus to themselves.

            c) You do not dispute that the “other racial group” is perfectly willing to ride in those buses with the “dominant racial group”.

            Yet you continue to insist that this segregation must take place, even though you concede that there is no legitimate “security concern” why that should be necessary.

            QED: you are advocating the Crime of Apartheid.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I changed my mind bubble boy, you really ARE a comedian.

            All that drivel. You really are desperate aren’t you? Your poor keyboard …

            So now the settlers are doing this bus thing just to persecute the saint-Palestinians huh?

            If what they would ask for would be to take the buses off the WB Arabs and make them walk, that could be construed as causing them hardship which could be taken as persecution.

            But since they are offering them other buses without the presence of what you call obnoxious settlers, that certainly isn’t persecution.

            Next!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “So now the settlers are doing this bus thing just to persecute the saint-Palestinians huh?”

            No, and that you advance that argument shows that you have very serious comprehension problems.

            The issues isn’t “just” that this done to persecute the Palestinians.

            “Just” persecution isn’t the hallmark of the crime of Apartheid.

            It is persecution committed with the intention of maintaining an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “It is persecution committed with the intention of maintaining an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.”

            But we just established that no persecution is intended with this bus issue.

            Unless of course you call it Peresecution to deprive the Saint-Palestinians of the company of the “obnoxious settlers”?

            Nah, even you wouldn’t be that stupid, or would you? Then again …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “But according to Bubble-Boy, the Saint Palestinians love us. No they don’t he says, then yes they do”

            Again, Gustav insists on putting words into my mouth that I have never uttered.

            I certainly never said that Palestinians love the settlers.

            After all, nobody could love a bunch of war criminals, carpet-baggers and army camp followers who are openly and contemptuously intent upon their dispossession.

            But what I **did** say is that despite those many obnoxiously unlovable traits the Palestinians are still willing to share a bus with them.

            In that they are, indisputably, far, far more accommodating than the racist colonial expansionists who insist on banning Palestinians from their midst.

            Apparently it doesn’t matter how many times I say that, Gustav will simply insist on verballing me.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “But what I **did** say is that despite those many obnoxiously unlovable traits the Palestinians are still willing to share a bus with them”

            You said lotsa things bubble boy. Most of them lies, distortions half truths and propaganda.

            As far as willing to share a bus? Maybe because otherwise they would have to walk.

            But here an alternative choice is being given to them which neither involves walking nor having to share the bus with those obnoxious … etc.

            Which option do you think they actually prefer? Did you even ask them before making a false political issue out of this?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            What was that you saying about polemics, Gustav?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yea, them things which you endlessly churn out from your worn out keyboard bubble boy.

            Advice: get a hobby instead. Or even a girl friend? Both are much more fun …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Annnnnd, once more, Gustav stands before us and proudly displays his lack of understanding of the meaning of words.

            Our Gustav-inspired weasel-word for today is “polemics”, which is a word that means exactly what Gustav wants it to mean, neither more nor less.

            That Humpty Dumpty impersonation of his does appear to be Gustav’s one and only party trick.

            Don’t give up your day job, sonny.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something.
            “his polemic against the cultural relativism of the Sixties”
            synonyms: diatribe, invective, denunciation, denouncement, rant, tirade, broadside, attack, harangue, verbal onslaught; More
            the practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute.
            noun: polemics
            “the history of science has become embroiled in religious polemics”

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            I think that now is an excellent time to recap Gustav’s lamentable excuse for an argument.

            My argumentative friend insists that this is true: the settlers aren’t demanding to have the bus to themselves merely because they want the bus to themselves but, rather, because they have very legitimate “security concerns”.

            Which leaves him with a problem, which is that he has to identify what that “security concern” actually is.

            Unfortunately for him the Shin Bet is convinced that those Palestinians are unable to smuggle arms onto those buses, and so Gustav is faced with inventing a “security concern” that involves bare hands.

            Hmmmm, a tough sell indeed.

            So Gustav is reduced to claiming that “fisticuffs” constitute a legitimate “security concern”, even though he can’t appear to find anyone in authority who will agree with that proposition.

            Soooo, he is reduced to pointing me to videos of racist old white guys getting into an altercation with a too-easily-offended black dude on some Oakland bus, even though that altercation ended with No Real Damage Done To Anyone.

            Indeed, that bitch-slapping girlie-fight was not regarded as a “security concern” by US Homeland Security, nor by the Oakland Police Force, nor even by the Oakland Transit Authority.

            Indisputably so, since the entire event was captured on video and nobody was charged with anything, much less is anyone suggesting that this “proves” that Angry Black Dudes and Racist White Dudes have to be segregated onto different buses.

            Ooops, there goes that theory.

            So, in summary: Gustav has utterly failed to come up with a scenario that ANYONE OTHER THAN HIMSELF would recognize as a legitimate “security concern”.

            Not US Homeland Security.

            Not the Oakland Police Force.

            Not the Shin Bet.

            Not Justice Minister Livni.

            Not even the settlers themselves

            (The settlers flatter themselves with far darker theories, and they – and does anyone really doubt this? – would be offended by Gustav’s suggestion that they are scared of unarmed Palestinians)

            Just Gustav, who insists on sitting all by himself while muttering his nonsense about “pub brawls on buses”.

            Get. Real.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “My argumentative friend”

            What and you are not argumentative, bubble-boy?

            “insists that this is true: the settlers aren’t demanding to have the bus to themselves merely because they want the bus to themselves but, rather, because they have very legitimate “security concerns”.”

            Let’s just say concerns.

            “Which leaves him with a problem, which is that he has to identify what that “security concern” actually is.”

            They don’t want brawls on the buses with people who are part of the enemy camp.

            “Unfortunately for him the Shin Bet is convinced that those Palestinians are unable to smuggle arms onto those buses, and so Gustav is faced with inventing a “security concern” that involves bare hands.”

            Yes, bare hands and makeshift weapons.

            “Hmmmm, a tough sell indeed.”

            What is tough about it? The fact that the WB Palestinian Arabs and the settlers are sworn enemies?

            “So Gustav is reduced to claiming that “fisticuffs” constitute a legitimate “security concern”, even though he can’t appear to find anyone in authority who will agree with that proposition.”

            You can call it security concern if you think that sounds like a good catch cry. I call it common sense precaution to prevent violence between two groups of people who are both nationalistic and who dislike each other intensely. In other words, they are enemies.

            “Soooo, he is reduced to pointing me to videos of racist old white guys getting into an altercation with a too-easily-offended black dude on some Oakland bus, even though that altercation ended with No Real Damage Done To Anyone.”

            And another case plus there are many other cases on the net. I am not looking at each and every one of them but I deliberately did not include cases where people died due to shootings and knifings because I did not want to debate that. But in reality, the settlers at least may have guns and knives while the WB Palestinians too may conceal knives at least. But life’s too short. It ain’t worth arguing the point with my argumentative bubble boy.

            Mooks … Moors … Mooks … Moors. In case anyone is mistified, I refer to what I consider a funny Seinfeld episode which had a bubble boy in it too LOL.

            “Indeed, that bitch-slapping girlie-fight was not regarded as a “security concern” by US Homeland Security, nor by the Oakland Police Force, nor even by the Oakland Transit Authority.”

            Again with the misogyny. Our bubble boy thinks that using expressions like “”bitch-slapping” and “girlie-fight” makes him a He-Man. But instead, it makes him sound like a bragging, pimply faced nerdy school boy, LOL.

            “Indisputably so, since the entire event was captured on video and nobody was charged with anything, much less is anyone suggesting that this “proves” that Angry Black Dudes and Racist White Dudes have to be segregated onto different buses.”

            Oh, he is still on about that single example which by the way, is valid by itself because there was a brawl. Which is what we are trying to prevent. Unless of course our bubble boy disputes even the probability of brawls between two groups of people who have deep a resentment and disdain towards each other?

            “Ooops, there goes that theory.”

            Bubble boy thinks he scored a point and he takes a bow … LOL.

            “So, in summary: Gustav has utterly failed to come up with a scenario that ANYONE OTHER THAN HIMSELF would recognize as a legitimate “security concern”.

            Really? I failed? Keep on saying that to yourself bubble boy.

            “(The settlers flatter themselves with far darker theories, and they – and does anyone really doubt this? – would be offended by Gustav’s suggestion that they are scared of unarmed Palestinians)”

            Where did I say anyone is scared? You were the one who accused us of being “pussies”, bubble boy – which is another sign that you have the maturity of a schoolboy – I said we don’t want brawls. And we don’t. Because people can get hurt in brawls. People can also generate propaganda about how settlers and WB Arabs are involved in brawls. Who needs all that?

            “Just Gustav, who insists on sitting all by himself while muttering his nonsense about “pub brawls on buses”.

            Get. Real.”

            Pub brawls on buses? You are the one who came up with that nonsense, YOU get real, bubble boy, LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Let’s just say concerns.”

            No, actually, let’s not. After all, the settlers don’t cite “concerns”, they say “security concerns”.

            So, again, what are those “security concerns”?

            Apparently they are whatever Gustav can pluck from his backside. And the best he can come up with (“brawls on a bus!”) doesn’t rise to the level of a “security concern”.

            Gustav: “Let’s just say concerns.”

            No, actually, let’s stick to the topic.

            As in: are “brawls on a bus!” a security concern?

            Apparently not, which now (apparently) even Gustav is willing to concede.

            What. A. Joke.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “So, again, what are those “security concerns”?”

            Sigh …

            The probability of brawling and possibly maiming or even killing each other.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Me: “So, again, what are those ‘security concerns’?”

            You: “The probability of brawling and possibly maiming or even killing each other.”

            The Shin Bet have said that they have no “security concerns” about the current arrangement.

            Which leaves Gustav in the embarrassing position of being in a minority of one, while I have the Israeli authority responsible for “security concerns” agreeing with me.

            Heck, Gustav is *so* isolated that he doesn’t even have those whinging settlers on his side.

            Sad, but true…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh dear …

            Our school boyish bubble boy is playing his own version of a filibuster.

            I must admit he IS kinda amusing in a childish sort of a way.

            What am I to do with him? I know ….

            …. watch this space ….

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “They don’t want brawls on the buses with people who are part of the enemy camp.”

            But Gustav, baby, you have just conceded that “brawls on a bus!” are not a security concern.

            You did so right here:
            Gustav: “Let’s just say concerns.”

            So which is it, Gustav?

            Are “brawls on a bus!”
            a) a “security concern”, or
            b) are they just “concerns”?

            Because, so sorry, you have just set some sort of world-speed-record for contradicting yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “So which is it, Gustav?

            Are “brawls on a bus!”
            a) a “security concern”, or
            b) are they just “concerns”?”

            Sigh …

            Both.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “Both.”

            Earlier: “Let’s just say concerns”

            Earlier: “You can call it security concern if you think that sounds like a good catch cry.”

            You were – indisputably – distancing yourself from any suggestion that the argument that you were advancing amounted to “security concerns”.

            Which must have seemed like a good idea at the time (goodness knows why, even Livni could see that trap) until it dawned on you just how utterly and completed you’ve kicked yourself in the nuts.

            Never a good look, but certainly a rich vein for comedy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “You were – indisputably – distancing yourself from any suggestion that the argument that you were advancing amounted to “security concerns”.

            No I wasn’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “You can call it security concern if you think that sounds like a good catch cry.”

            No, **I** am not the person describing this as a “security concern”, and **I** have always considered to be nonsense.

            It is the **settlers** who are doing that, and (apparently) you and I are both willing (finally!) to acknowledge that the claim is bogus.

            Which leaves you with… nothing.

            You now appear to be backpedalling so furiously that you are reduced to nothing more than saying that the Palestinians must be forced from those buses merely because both they and the settlers loath each other.

            Which is likely very true, but Gustav appears to be wearing blinkers with regard to one important fact i.e. DESPITE that mutual loathing the Palestinians ARE willing to share these buses with those trailer-trash.

            So this is indisputable: it’s the trailer-trash who don’t want to share the bus, in which case (one more time!) the answer is simplicity itself: whose whinging weiners should get out and start walking.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “It is the **settlers** who are doing that, and (apparently) you and I are both willing (finally!) to acknowledge that the claim is bogus.”

            No.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “No.”

            Except….
            Me: “My argumentative friend insists that this is true: the settlers”… “have very legitimate ‘security concerns’.”

            You: “Let’s just say concerns.”

            Look at that exchange again, Gustav, because in it you clearly said that those settlers had “concerns”, not “security concerns”.

            First rule of hasbarah: if you are going to lie then at least keep the lie consistent.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “First rule of hasbarah: if you are going to lie then at least keep”

            First rule of propagandists like you is to obfuscate, misinterpret, tell the story selectively, repeat such misrepresentations endlessly, repeat, add water, stir and repeat ad nauseam till they think their lies become the truth a-la Goebbels school of propaganda,

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “What is tough about it?”

            It is a tough sell indeed to claim that an unarmed man represents a “security concern”.

            If that were true then ANY Palestinian in ANY public place ANYWHERE would have to be regarded as a “security concern”, and therefore all Palestinians must at all times be segregated from The Chosen People.

            And you do know where that takes us, don’t you, Gustav?

            Gustav: “The fact that the WB Palestinian Arabs and the settlers are sworn enemies?”

            No, that’s a non-sequitur.

            Here, easily demonstrated…
            Me: It is a tough sell to claim that a “bare-handed man” is a “security threat”
            You: But! But! Palestinians and setters are sworn enemies!

            That is clearly a non-sequitur, precisely because “mutual loathing” is not the measure of the “threat” that is posed by an unarmed person on a bus.

            The threat that such a person poses is – as the Shin Bet has no hesitation saying – measured at a level hovering somewhere around “not much, actually”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “If that were true then ANY Palestinian in ANY public place ANYWHERE would have to be regarded as a “security concern”, and therefore all Palestinians must at all times be segregated from The Chosen People.”

            What are you a Zombie, bubble boy? I already addressed this nonsense of yours above. Go find it amongst the bubble boy manure that you left behind.

            This little clown has just decided that it is fun to rehash every bit of nonsense which he spews, 10 times, and act as if his stupid points were not answered. BUT THEY WERE, bubble boy. Go look for it.

            But I must ask you this bubeleh. Are you sure you are not dead already? I mean someone like you must bore yourself to death. Don’t you think? Oooops, did I say “think”, in connection with you? Naaaah, I couldna’ have …

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Gustav: “I already addressed this nonsense of yours above.”

            He has, of course, done no such thing.

            And until he does then the point stands: it is a very tough sell indeed to argue a “security concern” concerning an “unarmed man”.

            Indeed, it is such a tough sell that Gustav now appears to have abandoned any attempt to sell it.

            Why?

            Because IF it were possible to argue than an “unarmed Palestine” represents a “security concern” THEN that would not be limited just to buses.

            It would, indeed, be equally true everywhere you could find “unarmed Palestinians”.

            Now it is certainly true that I keep repeating that point, mainly because it is undeniably true that Gustav keeps refusing to address it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “You really do appear to believe that you can “justify” the banning of ALL Palestinians from settler-frequenting public buses because you piss your pants at the “threat” of a girlie bitch-slap session on those buses.”

            Public buses? Public to whom? Public to Israelis or for legitimate tourists.

            Are the WB Palestinians Israelis? NO!!

            Are the WB Palestinians legitimate tourists? NO!

            I’ll tell you who the WB Palestinians are. They are a people who have been making war on us for 100 years. As such, we are not obliged to let them travel on our public buses. And making them travel on their own buses is not unreasonable. Particularly given their very recent nasty past habits of blowing up our public buses.
            ————-
            The same argument applies to cinemas, clubs and restaurants too

            Of course, the WB Arabs have their own perfectly good cinemas restaurants and clubs in the WB which we the average Israelis cannot visit because if we would, we would be lynched as two of us already were lynched in Ramallah in 2000. But all of that does not bother our polemicist bubble boy.
            —————-

            PS
            The WB Arabs have been making war on us for 100 years because they don’t accept the right of a Jewish state to exist in the Jewish ancestral homeland. We on the other hand accepted the two state solution.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, rigght

            Gustav: “Public buses? Public to whom? Public to Israelis or for legitimate tourists.”

            No, actually. Public to Israeli settlers and to Palestinian day workers.

            Why?

            Because those buses are going FROM Israel INTO an Israeli-occupied territory, and therefore as far as the state of Israel is concerned the people who get on that bus have to have a legitimate reason for going into that occupied territory.

            Or didn’t you know that’s why Ya’alon is supposed to make this decision, not the Minister for Transport?

            Honestly, Gustav, do you have even the faintest idea what this issue involves?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV: “Public buses? Public to whom? Public to Israelis or for legitimate tourists.”

            WHATSHISFACE:”No, actually. Public to Israeli settlers and to Palestinian day workers.”

            Ok, bubble boy, you are allowed to change your mind but you were the one who called them “public buses”. I just quoted YOU.

            WHATSHISFACE:”Why?

            Because those buses are going FROM Israel INTO an Israeli-occupied territory, and therefore as far as the state of Israel is concerned the people who get on that bus have to have a legitimate reason for going into that occupied territory.”

            Ok but why is it so earth shatteringly important that these buses must carry “obnoxious settlers” with WB Arabs together on the same buses?

            Answer: Only in bubble boy’s imaginary world. Out here in the REAL world there is nothing wrong with letting each group have their own buses.

            WHATSHISFACE:”Or didn’t you know that’s why Ya’alon is supposed to make this decision, not the Minister for Transport?”

            I don’t care who makes the decision. But I do care about idiots like you making mischievous allegations about what it means if the decision goes contrary to what you demand. Maybe you’d do better if you’d stick your long Pinocchio nose out of our affairs and get interested in a worthwhile cause in the land of Amber beer. I am sure there are plenty of good causes over there which could keep you busy at your computer keyboard for two life times.

            “Honestly, Gustav, do you have even the faintest idea what this issue involves?”

            There he goes again using that word “honestly” again in vain.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Gustav: You never know when to quit. And please, please drop the shouting and juvenile name calling. “WHATSHISFACE” and “bubble boy” are the lamest admissions that you have lost control of the argument.

            Y.Right: Thanks for a spirited, thorough, convincing argument. He’s a lot of work!

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            In the recent news I read about Palestinian bus-drivers being murdered by their Jewish passengers, but not about Palestinians strangling Jewish passengers with their bare hands. Try to overcome your perpetual victim mentality – its not healthy and it cannot and has not created a healthy society.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes Bryan I said I was concerned about the possible behavior of both parties. I am glad you agree with me that mixing this lot in one bus is not a good idea.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Utemia

      I read on Haaretz that the military doesn’t believe it is a security issue to have Settlers and Palestinians using the same buses because of all the security checks and the vetting process to even obtain a work permit for Israel. It looks like this seperation of buses is more down to cultural (and racist) prejudices.

      I fully understand the need for security, but my empathy stops at blatant racism, from any side. And the outside perspective in regard to this issue looks like settlers don’t want to share buses with stinky arabs who only speak arabic and allegedly ogle and harass their woman. This has nothing to do with war.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        1. In Israel, Jews, Arabs, Africans, Europeans etc. ride on the same bus, train, trams, etc.
        2. In Israel, Jews, Arabs, Africans, Europeans, etc. work together, eat in the same restaurant, use the same rest rooms, lodge at the same hotels, etc.
        3. In Israel, Jews, Arabs, Africans, Europeans are more than free to marry each other according to their personal choice.

        Why then, Utemia, is it always all too easy for you to accuse Jews of racism? Tell me, Utemia, who is the racist here: YOU who are obsessed with Jews constantly scrutinizing them and baselessly accusing them of racism, etc. or ordinary Israelis who lead as ordinary a life as your own countrymen?

        Reply to Comment
        • Utemia

          I am not quite sure why you brought up your points 1-3 since they have nothing to do with the issue of the buslines in question.

          The people in question here, who I call racist, aren’t representative of every Israeli, but apparenty (at least that was my impression) a vocal and politically well connected small group of settlers who object to the fact that they have to share the evening ride home with arabs.

          If it talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, is an asshole like a duck – it very like is a duck. I just call them as I see them, and this example with the buslines seems to be very straight forward.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Thanks for you reply, Utemia. Segregated buses can only come about by an act of government. You used the term “cultural (and racist) prejudice” to describe it. I thought that went too far, because it encompasses the entire Jewry in Israel and suggests that racism/racist prejudice is rooted in the Jewish culture. Regardless, your response provides enough clarification and I accept it. I will only add that some of those who want segregated buses really fear for their lives (and there is evidence to back it up). Their fears may – in the opinion of security agencies – not rise to the level of taking acute measures such as segregating the buses, but such fears are always never taken seriously until someone gets knifed to death in the buss (then it is too late for the victim). The issue is thus not really black&white as our ubiquitous leftist brothers and sisters make it out to be. Personally I am conflicted about the issue and have stayed away from the debate. My only wish is that YC would find a solution to the transportation issue without getting the government involved. It will only cost them thinking out of the box and a few million dollars, which would be well spent and shouldn’t be too hard to raise (I think).

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Segregated buses can only come about by an act of government. You used the term “cultural (and racist) prejudice” to describe it. I thought that went too far, because it encompasses the Jewry in Israel and suggest that racism/racist prejudice is inherent in the Jewish culture. Regardless, your response provides enough clarification and I accept it. I will only add that some of those who want segregated busses really fear for their lives (and there is evidence to back it up). Their fears may – in the opinion of security agencies – not rise to the level of taking acute measures such as segregating the buses, but such fears are always never taken seriously until someone gets knifed to death in the buss (then it is too late for the victim). The issue is thus not really black&white as our ubiquitous leftist brothers and sisters make it out to be. Personally, I am conflicted about the issue and have stayed away from the debate. My only wish is that YC would find a solution to the transportation issue without getting the government involved. It will only cost them thinking out of the box and a few million dollars, which would be well spent and shouldn’t be too hard to raise (I think).

            Reply to Comment
          • Utemia

            Yeah, I did use those terms because they are apt when applied to this group of settlers.

            It seems like there is this deep seated fear (bordering sometimes on paranoia) – and it is of course a fear that can be explained since many Israelis have been killed in horrific attacks – that paints every single Palestinian with the same brush. Even someone who has had to prove to the IDF and the buraucratic apparatus that runs the territories that they are not a terrorist, affiliated with any, that nobody in their family is neither; who are physically checked more than once on their evening commute home; who know very well that slightest suspicion could cost them their work permit for Israel, and that they are probably under constant surveillance by the Shabak.

            And even those few thousand Palestinians that qualified and passed all the scrutiny are still deemed a threat because they could attack an Israeli with their bare hands – which, from the outside, seems like hysteria at best but is likely just plain old cultural and racist prejudice.

            Haaretz had published the minutes of one of the meetings, and it was more like things as “they only speak arabic, they are rude, they want to speak to israeli woman” that motivated this move, and not fear for their lives.

            Reply to Comment
        • (There are many articles regarding #1 and #3 – #2 is vague and generic)

          Regarding #1

          By Haggai Matar
          |Published August 25, 2012
          Bus company backs driver who refused Palestinian passengers on board

          An Israeli bus driver refused to take Palestinian passengers on board, was ordered to do so by police, and took his revenge by forcing them off the bus at the entrance to a settlement. The bus company: “The driver acted exactly as expected of him.”

          Tel Aviv Central Bus Station, Thursday, two weeks ago: a bus driver on the 286 line that goes to the settlement of Ariel refused to allow a group of Palestinian workers on board who wanted to get back home to the West Bank. After a short argument the driver called the police, asking for the Palestinians to be escorted away from the door of the bus. A policewoman who arrived shortly after talked to the would-be passengers, and then told the driver the Palestinians all had valid permits to be in Israel, all went through security checks at the entrance to the station, and that he therefore must allow them on the bus.

          “The driver told her she was wrong and took her name and badge number so that all guilt would be on her head, and also said that he would drop them off half way, but the policewoman insisted,” says Neria Mark, a passenger who witnessed the scene. “Eventually he let them on, and even took some more Palestinian passengers outside the station so the bus became quite packed. The great heat and the Ramadan fast made many of them fall asleep, and so we drove on.”

          However, when the bus reached the industrial zone outside the settlement of Barkan the driver called the guard at the gate, and had him order all the Palestinians to get off the bus. Two people who were accidently missed were ordered off by another guard at a later point along the route. “They all went down without a fight, some protesting verbally against the treatment and reminding both the driver and the guard that they’re fasting. All this time one of the passengers was encouraging the driver to do this ‘cleansing’, and once the deed was done the driver told him: ‘That’s the only way they’re going to learn. Anyone who boarded the bus today won’t dare to do it again.’”

          According to Mark, from that point on the driver didn’t make the stops where Palestinians were waiting along the road. In a letter she later sent the Ministry of Transportation, Mark wrote that “the driver’s behavior was racist and in violation of the policewoman’s orders. He humiliated people just in order to teach them a lesson.”

          In the bus company where the driver works, however, nobody seems to see anything wrong with this story. “The driver acted exactly as expected of him,” says Ben-Hur Akhvat, CEO of Afikim. “The official policy is simple: anyone who can pay the fare can go on the bus. This means we have no choice but to also take Palestinians on board in Israel and drive them to Judea and Samaria, even though it always causes problems with the Israeli passengers, and both sides start verbal and physical slights with the other.”

          According to Akhvat, any driver in the company has the mandate to decide that Palestinians look suspicious and call the police, but has to obey the police as the driver in this case did. “Inside Judea and Samaria the case is different, as Palestinians are not allowed inside the Israeli settlements without a permit by local security and an armed guard even if they do have an entrance permit to Israel, so the driver did the right thing in forcing them off. Every now and then Palestinians fall asleep on the bus and get unnoticed, and when they wake up at the last stop inside Ariel we have to call the police to show them the way out.”

          Akhvat also wishes to remind us that army orders forbid Palestinians from entering or leaving Israeli borders through the same checkpoints as Israelis. “These people are supposed to go only through the Eyal checkpoint. On their way in they don’t have a choice, but on their way back they make it easier on themselves by taking our buses through the Cross-Samaria Checkpoint which is only meant for Israelis. Unfortunately we are not authorized to enforce the law they are violating.” Akhvat also mentions that the company regularly receives complaints from Jewish passengers who don’t wish to see Palestinians on the bus. “We are in ongoing negotiations with authorities regarding a possible alternative solution to the problem,” he says.

          Mark is unsurprised by this. “After I got to Ariel, all stunned, I was picked up by Palestinian friends from Nablus and told them the story. They all just nodded, and treated it as the most natural thing in the world. They think it’s normal, but I think there’s nothing normal about this reality.”

          “3. In Israel, Jews, Arabs, Africans, Europeans are more than free to marry each other according to their personal choice.”

          Op-EdContributors Jerusalem Post
          By URI REGEV \

          11/11/2013 20:36

          Israel’s marriage laws are discriminatory

          Israel must embrace its promise for “freedom of religion and conscience… and equality” as a blueprint for a modern democratic Jewish state.

          This week, leaders of Jewish communities are convening in Jerusalem for the General Assembly (GA) of the Jewish Federations of North America. The GA bears great significance for Israel’s future and relationship with American Jewry. For the first time, the GA will be tackling the controversial issue of freedom of marriage in Israel, critical for Israel-Diaspora relations.

          I applaud this important step and am glad to be able to point to other major Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Committee [AJC] and National Council of Jewish Women [NCJW] who adopted public positions supporting freedom of marriage in Israel. I hope that many other organizations and communities will follow suit and express their support and love for Israel by advocating for freedom of religion and equality.

          This unfortunately has yet to happen and until it does, the risk of losing solidarity and support of the future generation of Diaspora Jewry exponentially increases.

          That’s not to say no one is trying.

          One of the most expensive and ambitious initiatives to bond the next generation of world Jewry to Israel comes from Israel’s Prime Minister’s Office. It’s thrust is: “The Government of Israel is determined to champion and co-create, with World Jewry, a multi-layered initiative that guarantees a thriving future for the next generation of Jews.”

          It brought together an international consultation last week that involved over a hundred key lay leaders, renowned professionals and Israeli officials. The consultation’s participants were clearly committed not to rock the boat nor embarrass Israel’s government.

          Their disregard, with few subdued exceptions, for the root issues of freedom of religion and marriage is worrisome and would likely bring about the initiative’s ultimate failure if not addressed.

          In 2013, Jewish identity and bonds with Israel are no longer self-evident. Collective memories of the Holocaust, Israel’s founding, and the Six Day War have little effect on future Jewish identity and mutual responsibility. The next generation’s connection with Jewish peoplehood is individualized, autonomous and constantly re-shaping. Many leaders of major Jewish organizations grapple with this reality and seek ways to bring to the table a generation that “did not know Joseph.”

          Travel programs like Birthright and Masa have a demonstrated impact on strengthening Jewish identity and building relationships with Israel, but these successes will ultimately be confronted by the daunting reality resulting from Israel’s politicians’ decision to vest all authority over marriage of Jews in the hands of the haredi Orthodox rabbinate.

          In the past month Rabbi Avi Weiss, a leading modern Orthodox rabbi and long-term advocate for Israel, blasted the Chief Rabbinate when they rejected the validity of his confirmation of a former congregant’s Jewish status for the purpose of marriage. It further sensitized him to the disgraceful status of the current state of affairs and brought him to call for freedom of marriage in Israel.

          Similarly, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin in a public discussion with me at the AJC’s Global Forum acknowledged that Israel must fully recognize civil and non-Orthodox marriages and remove coercion from Jewish life in Israel.

          When such staple modern Orthodox leaders and fervent advocates of the State of Israel publicly speak of the need to include civil and a clear sign of the changing times that have not yet reached the religious and political establishment in Jerusalem.

          Do Jewish leaders seriously believe that Israel can successfully engage the next generation of Diaspora Jewry while aware that Israel would deny most of them equality, respect and recognition of their Jewish choices? Israel’s marriage laws not only refuse hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens the right to marry, but as Hiddush’s Freedom of Marriage World Map clearly demonstrates, the laws place Israel in the unenviable fellowship of the world’s fundamentalist Islamic countries as the only democracy in the world that denies its citizens this basic right.

          Hiddush recently published selections from former Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak’s forthcoming book on Human Dignity: The constitutional Right and its Derivatives, which illustrates the far-reaching damage of Israel’s religious marriage laws: “Anyone who is unable to marry according to religious law, and anyone who does not want to marry according to religious law for their own reasons, cannot marry in Israel.

          Civil marriage is not recognized in Israel. This state of affairs violates the constitutional right to marriage… the right to freedom of conscience and freedom from religion…

          [and] the right to equality.”

          These violations of basic human rights stand in sheer contrast to the desire of the overwhelming majority of Israelis. A clear majority of the Israeli public support freedom of marriage and Jewish pluralism. Hiddush’s 2013 Religion and State Index, in congruence with other studies, found 62 percent of Israelis support official recognition of non-Orthodox and civil marriages and 67% support equal recognition of non-Orthodox rabbis.

          The widely-discussed Pew study of the American Jewish population found that the intermarriage rate among American Jews is 58%.

          These families, along with thousands of Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist converts to Judaism and their children, are a crucial and active part of the Jewish fold.

          Similarly in Israel, 350,000 citizens who immigrated from the FSU and are children or grandchildren of intermarriages are not considered Jewish by the Chief Rabbinate. That demographic grows annually by approximately 5,000 children.

          As a result, none of them enjoy the legal right to marry in Israel altogether. Many other citizens are denied the right to legally marry in Israel due to other religious restrictions that Orthodox rabbinate imposes on them. Israelis as well as world Jewry share an interest in a sustainable solution based on freedom of religion and the cherished right to family.

          This problem is a direct continuation of the historic “Who is a Jew” battle, which at its peak, jeopardized the financial and political support of Diaspora Jewry. While the direct assault on non-Orthodox conversions was successfully countered, the efforts did not grant converts full recognition and dignity.

          None of them is fully recognized as Jewish enough to legally marry in Israel. What we need is consistent Diaspora advocacy, involvement in confronting these inequities, and partnership with fellow Israelis so as to go beyond periodic crises and guide Israel to civil freedom and inclusivity as envisaged by Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

          The cause of Jewish peoplehood and Jewish mutual responsibility is paramount for Israel-Diaspora relations.

          This effort will take more than creative programming and large financial investments like the prime minister’s initiative. It will require a bold resolution on the part of those convening in Jerusalem to tell Netanyahu openly: it is unacceptable for Israel to threaten Jewish Peoplehood by denying equal rights to more than half of the children in the American Jewish community.

          Creating an honest, long-lasting relationship between Israel and the Diaspora requires the acknowledgement that Israel is the state of the entire Jewish people.

          The Orthodox Rabbinate cannot remain the only yardstick for Jewish legitimacy. Israel must embrace its promise for “freedom of religion and conscience… and equality” as a blueprint for a modern democratic Jewish state. Only an Israel that lives up to this noble vision and celebrates Jewish pluralism will be able to continuously blossom and capture the hearts of the global diversified Jewish community to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

          The author heads Hiddush – Freedom of Religion for Israel.

          Reply to Comment
    3. Bruce Gould

      This is from page 65 of Blumenthal’s Goliath – you can check the original sources yourself:

      …in the wake of the 2009 election results, even well-established liberal Zionists were beginning to discuss in unflinching terms the presence of fascism in Israeli life. Amnon Dankner, the former editor of Maariv, one of Israel’s major newspapers, was moved to condemn what he saw as ‘neo-Nazi expressions in the Knesset’ and ‘entire parties whose tenor and tone arouse feelings of horror and terrifying memories.’ David Landau, the former editor in chief of Haaretz, echoed Dankner, calling on Israelis to boycott the Knesset ‘to stand against the wave of fascism that has engulfed the Zionist project.’ And Uri Avnery, the famed Israeli journalist, politician and sabra, warned ‘Israels very existence is threatened by fascism.’

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        Naftali Bennett: If Jewish nation-state bill doesn’t pass, coalition will fall apart.

        The fascists are gathering…

        “The best lack all conviction,
        While the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

        Reply to Comment
      • GilGamesh

        Do you honestly think that you could go to almost any country with a free press and not find 3 journalists complaining about fascism by the Gov’t Bruce? I’ll bet I can easily find more than 3 examples in the US and Great Britain. As per usual Blumenthal uses a few extreme examples to imply that it is an opinion represented by the majority. He is the Borat of journalism.

        Reply to Comment
    4. Ben Zakkai

      Geez you guys, why can’t you understand that it’s really all about security? You see, every single Palestinian suffers from some spiritual or perhaps genetic flaw that makes them hate all Jews inexorably, to the point of being willing and indeed eager at all times to carry out the most atrocious, sadistic and violent attacks against helpless and blameless Jews. The baseless and repulsive claim that some Palestinians actually have genuine grievances against Israel that give rise to understandable feelings of hostility, is pure anti-Semitism and I won’t hear a word of it. Israel’s noble and selfless settlers and soldiers provide all of Israel, and indeed the entire world, with an invaluable service by keeping an eye on those shiftless and unreliable A-Rabs, and if in the course of doing so they also happen to avail themselves of cheap land, water, labor and other resources, or occasionally administer a healthy beating to one of the locals to relieve their natural frustrations, then it has nothing to do with excessive greed or tribalism. I didn’t understand all of that until Gustav and Ginger and their friends gave me a glass of special strawberry Kool-Aid to drink, but now I’ve got my story straight.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “You see, every single Palestinian suffers from some spiritual or perhaps genetic flaw that makes them hate all Jews inexorably,”

        Noooooooo Benny, we know that underneath it all, they love us all passionately. That is why it would cause them deep frustration, offense and a broken heart to be spurned and to have to travel separately from their beloved settlers and Zionists …

        “Palestinians actually have genuine grievances against Israel that give rise to understandable feelings of hostility,”

        …. and you Benny are saying that the Palestinians whom we hurt so often and without any reason whatsoever, don’t hold even a teeny weeny iota of a grudge towards us? That sorta does not tie in even with very recent history … have you read my above posts about the suicide bombings of our buses not all that long ago? Was that their sign of affection for us?

        ” I didn’t understand all of that ..”

        You also don’t seem to understand that the word grievances applies both ways. Your bosom buddy Saint-Palestinians are not the only ones with grievances. And they never stop trumpeting them while at the same time they ignore their own contributions to the litany of grievances.

        Now, I’ll tell you what Benny. Since you too are so besotted with THEIR grievances against us but don’t really care about OUR grievances against THEM, you should consider slashing your wrists to repent on our behalf. I’ll tell you why: because the rest of us sure as hell won’t!!!!

        We won’t because we know that the torrent of grievances on both sides will only stop when your Palestinians will agree to sign a peace deal with us and actually mean it rather than pretend to mean it. You might contact your Hamas buddies and ask them when will that be? What do you think is the chance that they will say SOON, Benny … SOON?

        Reply to Comment
        • You should get that treated.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            … yes dearie, as soon as you will attend to your self confessed condition …

            manic
            ˈmanɪk/Submit
            adjective
            (in psychiatry) relating to or affected by mania.
            “the manic interludes in depression”
            showing wild, apparently deranged, excitement and energy.
            “a manic grin”
            synonyms: mad, insane, deranged, demented, maniacal, lunatic, crazed, wild, demonic, demoniacal, hysterical, raving, neurotic, unhinged, unbalanced; More
            frantically busy; hectic.
            “the pace is utterly manic”
            synonyms: frenzied, feverish, frenetic, hectic, intense; More

            Reply to Comment
          • My taking on the label provided by Eis was to spite her name calling rather than try to fight it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes dear …

            I needed to know that. All’s better now …

            Reply to Comment
        • Ben Zakkai

          Slit my wrists? Wow Gustav, that’s a new low, even for you. Still, you’ll have to try harder if you want to be as scary as Ginger.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            New low, Benny? I was just trying to help you since you seem to be so distraught on a permanent basis with an ill conscience. I was just suggesting a way for you to repent. It isn’t an unusual solution for people with a bad conscience. But hey, you don’t really have to do it. Obviously you are not as depressed about the Palestinian’s grievences against us as I thought you were … good for you old chap. Maybe there is hope for you yet?

            Mind you, Benny, I think the Saint Palestinians would be most happy if we would all collectively slash our wrists. Unfortunately for them we won’t be doing it despite the efforts of you and your cronies in magazines like these to make us feel like Sh$&@t about ourselves.

            Reply to Comment
          • “Mind you, Benny, I think the Saint Palestinians would be most happy if we would all collectively slash our wrists.”
            There are maybe some Palestinians who might be happy with that prospect. Is it safe enough to say there maybe some Jews who might be happy if all Palestinians would do the same?

            “Unfortunately for them we won’t be doing it despite the efforts of you and your cronies in magazines like these to make us feel like Sh$&@t about ourselves.”

            That’s what you think this is all about, an attempt to “make us feel Sh$%2t about yourselves”? First off, WTF is Sh$%2t? What narcissistic, self-absorbed nudnikim. This might explain the projectile vomiting from you and your cronies, some more than others, when your hasbara alarm goes off, which must be all the time.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “There are maybe some Palestinians who might be happy with that prospect”

            Some? Maybe?

            You are a laugh a minute Manic. How about most and definitely. That would be much closer to the mark.

            Reply to Comment
          • Palestinians – all evil, without exception.

            Israeli Jews – all good, without exception, always.

            Does that about describe it for you Goosestep?

            You feel a need to whip Ben into shape because he’s not in lockstep with Fearless Leader? He doesn’t appear to agree with your 99.9?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I just love your straw man arguments Manic dear, now let me correct you …

            “Palestinians – all evil, without exception.”

            No they are not evil. Many of them are basically good people. But they are extremely nationalistic and their evil leadership has set them on an evil path long ago. Now the cycle has become self perpetuating.

            “Israeli Jews – all good, without exception, always.”

            No, that isn’t true either. We have extremely evil people too. The rest of us are not evil but we too do some nasty things in reaction to the nasty things which the Palestinian Arabs have been doing to us for 100 years. We react to evil things done to us like all humans do. With nastiness.

            “Does that about describe it for you Goosestep?”

            Yes, Miss Gestapo.

            “You feel a need to whip Ben into shape because he’s not in lockstep with Fearless Leader? He doesn’t appear to agree with your 99.9?”

            Nope, I feel the need to correct Benny’s skillful distortions. His agenda is the same as yours despite your attempts to try and sound reasonable, at times. You cannot wait for Israel’s destruction. You are open about it. He is trying to disguise it somewhat. It is getting to the stage where I actually respect YOU more than him. And that’s saying something.

            Having said that, the word “respect” has a very wide spectrum and is relative. In the scheme of things, I disrespect you BOTH.

            Reply to Comment
          • “You cannot wait for Israel’s destruction. You are open about it.” I’ve never said anything even closely approximating this. You’re a such a liar; really can’t speak without lying can you and you do it so easily. This is the point you always return to. This is the cherry on top. So predictable, so boring, so completely impotent.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV:”You cannot wait for Israel’s destruction. You are open about it.”

            MANIC:”I’ve never said anything even closely approximating this”

            Actually you said plenty of things which closely approximate it even if you may not have actually uttered the words as I put them. But let’s not quibble, I have no right to put words in your mouth.

            So, since you so vehemently deny it, it seems you don’t actually want to see Israel destroyed, am I right?

            Before you answer, if you choose to answer, remember this …

            Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. Which means that it is a majority Jewish state with laws which guarantee the rights of non Jewish minorities.

            Are you saying that you don’t want to see such a state destroyed? If you are, then I apologize for the words which I put in your mouth. Otherwise …
            Your own response will speak for itself. Assuming you respond of course …

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav: “Actually you said plenty of things which closely approximate it even if you may not have actually uttered the words as I put them. But let’s not quibble, I have no right to put words in your mouth.”

            “But let’s not quibble, I have no right to put words in your mouth.”

            “Actually you said plenty of things which closely approximate it even if you may not have actually uttered the words as I put them.”

            Unfucking believable. Reality check.
            Question: Why would I bother responding to a pathological liar?
            Answer: I wouldn’t.

            You’re like the kid on the playground playing catch with other kids. He plays pretty good too, for a spoiled brat, until he starts to lose. The other kids won’t give into his ridiculous demands to give him points either. So after long minutes of yammering, fussing and crying and “zeh lo fair” screamed over and over again, that kid then steals the ball and runs home to ema or saftah who assures him that he’s right, don’t worry, those other kids will pay for making my sweet boy cry. Ugh.

            Reply to Comment
          • Oops, missed this one

            Gustav: “Before you answer, if you choose to answer, remember this …”

            You could be a game show host if your day job dries up. Let’s see:

            – The Price Tag is Right
            – Let’s Break a Deal
            – What’s My Lie?
            – Name That Occupation
            – To Tell the Truth? Nah!
            – Wheel of Misfortune
            – The Weakest Wank
            – Fear Factor

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            No roblems Marnie. And yes I am here to catch you out so I will whenever you put your foot in your mouth as you tend to.

            As to whether you answer or not, I’ll leave that to you. Howzat?

            Reply to Comment
          • “Now, I’ll tell you what Benny. Since you too are so besotted with THEIR grievances against us but don’t really care about OUR grievances against THEM, you should consider slashing your wrists to repent on our behalf. I’ll tell you why: because the rest of us sure as hell won’t!!!!”

            Why would you suggest something like that? WTF is wrong with you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yeah … WTF … Now read again what I actually said.

            I do love your indignation though. Just what I would expect from hypocrites like you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            !!! Gustav, you’ve joined the exclusive club of +972 suicide urgers!!! A club so exclusive it had just one very special member until today. Now it’s a club of two! Expanding the franchise!

            Reply to Comment
    5. There is nothing so far that hasn’t been argued by the right that hasn’t been posed as an opinion to represent all israelis, all of the time, a marketing tool I guess. To pretend the entirety of israeli Jews are zionists, pro-settler and hate/fear Palestinians with every fiber of their being is delusional. The people who were born and raised in the US and aren’t afraid of their history no matter how bad it is, understand certain things. The US was birthed in occupation and became one of the richest nations on earth. How did this miracle happen? By the free labor extracted from the sweat and blood of African chattel slaves (“Black gold”, european term) for over 200 years. If you can’t amass great wealth from free labor, something’s wrong. The 150 years following emancipation are marked by segregation and immense brutality, the vestiges are still very present. We know what this looks like, sounds like and smells like.
      “That’s apartheid. Security is security. That is why I contacted the Attorney General asking him to look into this. If it’s security reasons per se, it’s something I can not only live with, but also back. But if it comes from settler, political pressure [because] it is not comfortable for them [and] unpleasant for them to travel with Arabs in the very places they wanted to live at, knowing that these are places where Palestinians live, that is unacceptable to me and I will work against that. This discrimination is prohibited by law in the State of Israel.”
      Ms. Livni really back-peddled to save her skin politically and possibly practically. But is seems clear the notion is very distasteful to her. The hate and hubris that will come her way for half-assed stating an obvious truth, I wouldn’t wish on anyone. When Rueven Rivlin said “The time has come to admit that Israel is a sick society, with an illness that demands treatment” he spoke an undeniable truth. If a foot has become necrotic, gangrenous and revascularization is not an option, amputation is the only option. The foot can no longer be salvaged, but the body will not die. Zionism is the gangrene, the rot, that is slowly killing this region. If it is amputated, there will be pain no doubt, the phantom limb pain is bad, but can be treated. Ultimately amputation will preserve the body and provide the means for survival.

      Reply to Comment
      • Avdim

        “Zionism is the gangrene, the rot, that is slowly killing this region”

        By this region do you mean us and our neighbors? The entire Middle east? The entire world?

        Given over a 100 of conflict, our region is probably the most peaceful in the entire middle east, especially when it comes to the number of dead. And while Israel may have faults with its policies, just like any other country would have in a similar situation and probably much less, there’s nothing inherently wrong with Zionism.

        Just like there’s nothing inherently wrong with the Arab national movements, they just have serious issues of implementation…
        Check the opinions on the other side – the support for extreme militaristic Islam, the antisemitism, the support for mindless violence, the support for the wild stupid fantasy of the RoR. Now think if those are not obstacles to a peaceful settlement, don’t these opinions killing the region as well?

        Yes, we all have our opinions and problems. Who wouldn’t after more than 100 years of violent conflict?! But to say that “Zionism is the gangrene, the rot, that is slowly killing this region” is simply not true, it’s nonsense on the most basic level, a combination of words with no meaning and no relation with reality.

        I don’t want to accuse you of anything, but how can a person with the tiniest bit of knowledge come to this silly conclusion?!

        Here’s a YNET article –
        http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4593347,00.html

        It shows several photos from Gaza following today’s Terrorist act in a synagogue and a caricature of Jews with large noses that isn’t antisemitic at all. The people with the candy are all probably Zionists…

        Reply to Comment
        • By this region I mean Israel/Palestine.

          “I don’t want to accuse you of anything, but how can a person with the tiniest bit of knowledge come to this silly conclusion?!”

          Reading the responses of many of the folks here, Mondoweiss, the JPost, Ha’aretz and the Times of Israel has been a real eye opener into the minds of some people who proudly declare they are zionists. It stinks of racism and a nationalism that is horribly and tragically familiar. I hate to see what the next few days will bring after the murder of the 4 Jews in a Jerusalem synagogue today. Netanyahu again promises a swift and harsh response, not because it works, but people demand blood and he’s more than happy to oblige. And he has to be extra vigilent to outshine the 2 newer gunslingers in town who want to be sheriff of these here parts, Moshe Feiglin or Naftali Bennett.

          Reply to Comment
          • Avdim

            Besides the first paragraph, I fail to see how the rest of your comment is related to what I wrote.

            Zionism is just a national movement, it certainly doesn’t stink of racism. Please bring me an example of a national movement that is not nationalistic, seems very interesting.

            We can probably both say a lot of bad things about Netanyahu, but that man is a very cautious leader, and I bet there will be no harsh response.

            You must be confused, people around here don’t demand blood but demand QUIET and are willing to pay for it, we’re just not ready to perform a national suicide like you’d like us to. The demand for blood, holy war and martyrs comes from the other side.

            I’ll ask again, do you honestly believe your “evil Israel vs righteous Palestinian” opinion will improve the situation here? Don’t you think it’s over-simplistic?

            Reply to Comment
          • I’m not concerned about what you think of my opinions. Whether zionism is different than other nationalistic movements or not doesn’t lessen the danger of it or rot from it. “But to say that “Zionism is the gangrene, the rot, that is slowly killing this region” is simply not true, it’s nonsense on the most basic level, a combination of words with no meaning and no relation with reality.” That’s your opinion and History has shown us enough “movements” that started out seemingly benign, but along the way mutated and grew into something horrible. I’m not trying to change your mind. There are things I don’t have a full understanding of, but understand enough about myself to have an opinion.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Hmm. Well, what is Zionism, anyway? If it’s an ideology based on religious faith (or a fortiori if it favors theocracy), or if Zionism is necessarily or inevitably characterized by hatred, exclusion and oppression, then I’m not a Zionist. Alternatively, if Zionism is based on the general proposition that any ethnic/religious group that has suffered is entitled to its own nation-state, then I’m still not on board; in fact I’m tired of all these Welsh-Scottish-Quebecois-Walloon-Flemish-Catalan-Basque-etc.-type attempts to fracture perfectly good countries. However, if Zionism is the particular assertion that under prevailing circumstances, Israel as a Jewish state with Jewish attributes is better than any available alternative (like the misguided one-state solution for Israel-Palestine), and if Jewish Israel can be a reasonably liberal and democratic place, then I’m a Zionist. For similar practical reasons, I’d also support statehood for Palestinians, Kurds and Tibetans. Many people who call themselves Zionists have incorporated repellent feelings or ideas within their Zionism, and that quite naturally fuels anti-Zionist backlash that sometimes categorically opposes the notion of a Jewish state. It’s too bad, because there’s nothing inherently illegitimate about having a state for Jews.

            By the way Avdim, many Israelis, like many Palestinians, really DO want blood. As for Gazans handing out sweets yesterday to celebrate Jews murdered in synagogue, that may indicate a kind of barbarism/sadism in Palestinian/Muslim culture; but on the other hand, the difference between Israelis and Palestinians is that we’re on top and they’re on the bottom. When you’re standing on somebody’s neck and then you punch him, you can afford to be generous in your sentiments and say, “Gee, I’m sorry about that, but I had no choice.” But when somebody’s standing on YOUR neck and you manage to get in a good punch anyway, then BOY are you happy. I can think of at least one boss I’ve had who, if they fell under a bus, would make me want to hand out Snickers bars in the hallway.

            Reply to Comment
          • “However, if Zionism is the particular assertion that under prevailing circumstances, Israel as a Jewish state with Jewish attributes is better than any available alternative (like the misguided one-state solution for Israel-Palestine), and if Jewish Israel can be a reasonably liberal and democratic place, then I’m a Zionist.”

            But it isn’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Not generally and not presently, no. But maybe my definition will catch on. Stranger things have happened.

            Reply to Comment
          • Why does there have to be a “Jewish state”?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Marnie, if the question (your question) was purely abstract or philosophical and the world was a blank slate, then maybe I’d answer that there’s no need for a Jewish state. But when we’ve got a actual, concrete state called Israel whose sovereignty over a particular geographical territory (on our side of the Green Line) is internationally recognized, and about three-quarters of the citizens of that state are Jewish, then I don’t have a problem with the official language being Hebrew, just like other countries have official languages, and with some of the official holidays being Jewish holidays, just like Christian and Moslem countries celebrate their respective holidays, or even with immigration law giving preference to Jews, just like many European countries grant immigration preference to related ethnic groups. None of that is unprecedented or outrageous, and if majority prerogatives in Israel are accompanied and counterbalanced by human and minority rights, then that is a workable solution in a less-than-perfect world. If you’re an idealistic believer in a secular liberal democratic one-state solution for Israel-Palestine, then more power to you, but I happen to think that implementation of such a solution would be another disastrous example of beautiful abstract ideology crashing head-on into corrupt and intractable human nature, like the Terror of the French Revolution or the totalitarianism of Soviet-style Communism. And if you do favor (or are willing to accept) a two-state solution, then what should Israel be if not a Jewish state? A Japanese state?

            Also, on another topic, if I were you I’d go back to “Marnie” and drop the “Manic.” Ginger is an awful person and doesn’t deserve that tribute.

            Reply to Comment
          • I believe the 2 state ship has sailed. I appreciate your response.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Well, I have often heard that the two-state solution is impossible because Israel has settled and appropriated too much Palestinian territory and resources to allow for the creation of a fair and viable Palestinian state, and on the other hand I’ve often heard (generally from a different set of people) that the one-state solution is impossible because the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians don’t want it, and no one can make them accept it against their will. Maybe if at some point world pressure forced Israel to relinquish the West Bank and Gaza, and Israel announced that it was pulling the IDF out of Palestinian territories, then most of the settlers would soon follow of their own accord, a la Algeria 1962. But who knows?

            Reply to Comment
          • A just solution, I hope, is on the horizon.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “and if Jewish Israel can be a reasonably liberal and democratic place, then I’m a Zionist.”

            Of course it can be and it would be but not while it has been under sustained attack for the last 66 years. And the Jewish people in Palestine, even before that …

            No people can be 100% democratic and altruistic while they have to defend their very existence as a people. In fact, under such circumstances we have a better record than what most other democracies had while THEY were fighting for their national survival. That isn’t just an assertion. It is provable by any objective standards.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Hmm. Well, what is Zionism, anyway? If it’s an ideology based on religious faith (or a fortiori if it favors theocracy)”

            BS Benny and YOU know it’s BS.

            Herzl’s Zionism was a purely secular ideology. It can be summed up in one simple sentence. Zionism is the national aspiration of the Jewish people for self determination in our own sovereign state.

            Most of the original Zionists were secular and many of them were left wing atheists. Of course, religious Jews can be Zionists because Zionism does not exclude religion but it’s thrust is not religious. It is national. As such, religious Jews believe in their own brand of Zionism which does encompass religion.

            But frankly, Benny, to describe Zionism the way you described it Benny, is just plain dishonesty. I say dishonesty because I know from your posts that you are not ignorant.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben Zakkai

            Actually Gustav, if you knew me better you’d understand that I sometimes am ignorant – and when I am I try to recognize it, admit it and learn – but I’m not dishonest. Herzl has the best claim to be called Founder of Zionism, like Marx re Marxism, but neither man had an exclusive patent on the developing ideology of his movement, and I would imagine that you are aware that over the years many schools of Zionist thought proclaimed their existence and articulated their vision, including Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Religious Zionism and others. And isn’t that a big part of what we’re fighting about right now? What the future constitution of Israel will be? Herzl is just a memory today, but Naftali Bennett, for example, is very influential, and he proudly identifies himself as a Zionist, but his vision of Zionism is quite different from Herzl’s.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes, we agree that Zionism has spawned in many directions. I too talked about the main strand, Herzl’s and the Zionism of religious Jews which itself has many strands.

            But that’s not how you originally described what Zionism is. You described it like this ….

            ““Hmm. Well, what is Zionism, anyway? If it’s an ideology based on religious faith (or a fortiori if it favors theocracy)”

            In other words you made it sound like your above description is definitive Zionism. That’s why I objected vehemently to your initial interpretation of what Zionism is.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Yeah, right

      Gustav: “Nope. I said that the two groups are likely to brawl.”

      Gustav: “People can kill each other with their bare hands.”

      Apparently there are two Gustav’s posting on this site….. who knew?

      Gustav: “Have you got comprehension problems, WHATSHISFACE?”

      No, but I can name someone who has a very serious problem with their short-term-memory.

      This dude…..

      Gustav: “People can kill each other with their bare hands.”

      Gustav: “Nope. I said that the two groups are likely to brawl.”

      Imagine that: a hasbarah propagandist with a split personality and no short term memory.

      Man, what a combination….

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “Apparently there are two Gustav’s posting on this site”

        LOL …

        Apparently, according to our bubble-boy, one Gustav cannot say both these things …

        Gustav: “Nope. I said that the two groups are likely to brawl.”

        Gustav: “People can kill each other with their bare hands.”

        So now WHATSHISFACE is engaging in his other favorite school-boy game of …

        “… but you said it this way before … and now you are saying it this way …”

        … hey bubble-boy, WHATSHISFACE, who gives a F$&K? People CAN brawl and when they brawl they CAN kill each other with their bare hands. Get over yourself you overgrown puffed out school-boy. Then again, you may not even be over-grown. Your stature may be as stunted as your mental ability …

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav: “Nope. I said that the two groups are likely to brawl.”

          Gustav: “People can kill each other with their bare hands.”

          This is not a case of saying the same thing but in a different way Gustav. This is 2 different subjects. I give you a lot of credit as English isn’t your mother tongue but the above is not a good example of saying something a different way and thinking it has the same meaning.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes dear …

            Reply to Comment
    7. Brian

      ““Palestinians – all evil, without exception.”

      No they are not evil. Many of them are basically good people. But they are extremely nationalistic and their evil leadership has set them on an evil path long ago. Now the cycle has become self perpetuating.

      “Israeli Jews – all good, without exception, always.”

      No, that isn’t true either. We have extremely evil people too. The rest of us are not evil but we too do some nasty things in reaction to the nasty things which the Palestinian Arabs have been doing to us for 100 years. We react to evil things done to us like all humans do. With nastiness.”

      =================

      The interesting thing about this description of the conflict is that one could switch, in every instance, “Israeli Jew” with “Palestinian Arab” and the whole statement remains equally if not more true. The thing never owned up to in all the incessant, careful grievance nurturing, however, is the incessant land theft. Pure and simple. Just get out. Stop stealing, bullying, lording, throwing rocks while IDF goons protect you all the while pontificating about 20 year sentences for rock throwing for A-rabs. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
      By the way, the reason Marnie’s adopting “Manic” from her screeching, unhinged, online assailant is funny and effective (IF one has ANY sense of humor, a big if) is because Marnie is, on the face of it, so calm and reasoned and wryly detached and bemused, is not at all manic/psychotic/crazy/etc., not even a little bit, while her assailant so plainly is, in spades. Have a nice day.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Gustav

      nsttnocontentcomment

      Reply to Comment
    9. I don’t like silly catch phrases Brian but You Nailed It!

      Reply to Comment
      • Kiwi

        Brian never disappoints with his one eyed rants.

        Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        Thanks!

        Reply to Comment
    10. Gustav

      “The interesting thing about this description of the conflict is that one could switch, in every instance, “Israeli Jew” with “Palestinian Arab” and the whole statement remains equally if not more true.”

      Only if one ignores history and ignores causes and effects. But that would be a bit like blaming gravity for the murder of a person who is pushed off the top of a sky-scraper by a serial killer.

      “The thing never owned up to in all the incessant, careful grievance nurturing,”

      According to Brian, if one remembers how we got to this lamentable state of mess, it is grievance nurturing.

      “however, is the incessant land theft.”

      He then utters his own grievance which is not even valid.

      “Pure and simple. Just get out.”

      Yes, and let history repeat itself because the other party has no obligations to set things right? To ensure that they won’t repeat and try to do what they tried to do before? Unilateral withdrawal anyone? How did the last one work out?

      “Stop stealing,”

      Stop beating your wife. How about you stop lying?

      “bullying,”

      Yea just take what they dish out to you on the chin because THEY have grievances but YOU mustn’t remember any of your grievances. Why? Because Brian doesn’t want you to …

      “lording,”

      Instead just put yourself out to be lorded upon or worse. Why? Because we are unworthy. Why? Because that’s what Brian thinks?

      “throwing rocks”

      Yea, endlessly highlight what some Jews do often through sheer frustration because of what Arabs do.

      “while IDF goons protect you”

      Yea, it is wrong of the IDF to protect it’s own citizens.

      “all the while pontificating about 20 year sentences for rock throwing for A-rabs.”

      20 years? A slight exaggeration, No? I mean we are stupid enough to let out even terrorists with blood on their hands sooner than that because the PA insists that we should, otherwise they will hold their breath and refuse to even negotiate with us.

      “The hypocrisy is nauseating.”

      Yes, one could apply a switch here too. And I do. I am nauseated by YOUR hypocrisy, Brian.

      “By the way, the reason Marnie’s adopting “Manic” from her screeching, unhinged, online assailant is funny and effective (IF one has ANY sense of humor, a big if)”

      Sense of humor? You call what you two exhibit a sense of humor? You have a weird idea about what humor really is. Rest assured, you people and “humor” are an oxymoron.

      “is because Marnie is, on the face of it, so calm”

      Really? You could have fooled me …

      “and reasoned and wryly detached and bemused,”

      Really? Reasoned?! Are you sure you are not related to bubble-boy?

      “Is not at all manic/psychotic/crazy/etc., not even a little bit, while her assailant so plainly is, in spades.”

      If you say so yourself Manic Marnie … er …. Brian …. er whoever you are … twin … sock puppet……

      Reply to Comment
    11. Gustav

      “The interesting thing about this description of the conflict is that one could switch, in every instance, “Israeli Jew” with “Palestinian Arab” and the whole statement remains equally if not more true.”

      Only if one ignores history and ignores causes and effects. But that would be a bit like blaming gravity for the murder of a person who is pushed off the top of a sky-scraper by a serial killer.

      “The thing never owned up to in all the incessant, careful grievance nurturing,”

      According to Brian, if one remembers how we got to this lamentable state of mess, it is grievance nurturing.

      “however, is the incessant land theft.”

      He then utters his own grievance which is not even valid.

      “Pure and simple. Just get out.”

      Yes, and let history repeat itself because the other party has no obligations to set things right? To ensure that they won’t repeat and try to do what they tried to do before? Unilateral withdrawal anyone? How did the last one work out?

      “Stop stealing,”

      How can one steal something from someone if it isn’t even owned by that someone?

      “bullying,”

      Yea just take what they dish out to you on the chin because THEY have grievances but YOU mustn’t remember any of your grievances. Why? Because Brian doesn’t want you to …

      “lording,”

      Instead just put yourself out to be lorded upon or worse. Why? Because we are unworthy. Why? Because that’s what Brian thinks?

      “throwing rocks”

      Yea, endlessly highlight what some Jews do often through sheer frustration because of what Arabs do.

      “while IDF goons protect you”

      Yea, it is wrong of the IDF to protect it’s own citizens.

      “all the while pontificating about 20 year sentences for rock throwing for A-rabs.”

      20 years? A slight exaggeration, No? I mean we are stupid enough to let out even terrorists with blood on their hands sooner than that because the PA insists that we should, otherwise they will hold their breath and refuse to even negotiate with us.

      “The hypocrisy is nauseating.”

      Yes, one could apply a switch here too. And I do. I am nauseated by YOUR hypocrisy, Brian.

      “By the way, the reason Marnie’s adopting “Manic” from her screeching, unhinged, online assailant is funny and effective (IF one has ANY sense of humor, a big if)”

      Sense of humor? You call what you two exhibit a sense of humor? You have a weird idea about what humor really is. Rest assured, you people and “humor” are an oxymoron.

      “is because Marnie is, on the face of it, so calm”

      Really? You could have fooled me …

      “and reasoned and wryly detached and bemused,”

      Really? Reasoned?! Are you sure you are not related to bubble-boy?

      “Is not at all manic/psychotic/crazy/etc., not even a little bit, while her assailant so plainly is, in spades.”

      If you say so yourself Manic Marnie … er …. Brian …. er whoever you are … twin … sock puppet…

      Reply to Comment
    12. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter