tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 15 Feb 2009 11:42:53
From: jingus
Subject: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
racist, zionist regime in israel.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=A2KIPFLkUphJKuwAdgQ4v7YF?slug=ap-dubai-israelidenied&prov=ap&type=lgns




 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 13:58:10
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On 16 Feb, 20:42, number_six <cyberi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:40=A0pm, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> < snip long post in which the poster, among other things, overstates
> Arafat's reasonableness,

What Arafat was asking for was a Palestinian state within the Occupied
Palestinian Territories which is legally recognized by both the UN and
ICJ as being territory intended for a Palestinian state. This has been
re-affirmed in numerous UN resolutions, etc, etc.

IOW, Arafat's position fell *within* both the legal and the
international consensus i.e. a Palestinian state within the 1967
borders, whereas Israel's position i.e. Israel illegally retains
sovereignty over all of Arab East Jerusalem plus most of its illegal
settlements in the W Bank, fell *outside* of the international
consensus. The impossibility of bridging this gap explains why the
Camp David talks failed.

What you don't seem to understand or even possibly aren't even aware
of is that Israel's *desire* to retain large parts of East Jerusalem
and the W Bank trumped Palestinians *legal and moral* rights to a
state in this territory - and a *desire* does not count for more than
a legal or moral right.

Furthermore, given that during the talks Arafat expressed a
willingness to agree to Israel keeping *some* of its illegal
settlements within the W Bank and E Jerusalem, it can easily be argued
that Arafat was willing to make more concessions than he was legally
obliged to under international law, whereas Israel - in wanting to
keep most of its illegal settlement blocs - refused to make all but a
few its legally obliged concessions.

I'm sorry if this doesn't sit well with your pre-conceived notions
about Arafat's negotiating positions at Camp David. You're simply
perpetuating the biggest contemporary myth about the conflict.

>then appears to indulge in the fantasy that
> there is not merely weight, but perhaps even finality, to
> pronouncements from the International Court of Justice as to what is
> or is not legal.

Explain to me why the ICJ is not an appropriate body to make a
decision on the legality of the security wall or the Israeli
settlements in the W Bank? Again, you are presumably one of these
people who makes ad-hominem judgements on organisations like the ICJ
because you don't like the judgements they make on Israel.

Furtheremore, you haven't addressed the arguments I made about why
Israel didn't build the security wall along the green line, which
actually would have made the wall more effective because, under its
current route, the wall only blocks off the Palestinians on the wall's
west side, not its east. This is the consequence of only building 20%
of the wall on the green line and 80% of it around illegal
settlements.

Why not build it on the green line?

Why build the wall around the illegal settlements which cuts off
Palestinians from their land and makes it easy for Israel to annex the
territory in the future? And FYI the wall has already effectively
annexed 7% of the W Bank territory - is that OK with you?

> Because the post is grievance-based, not based on the status quo
> (however poorly it sits with you), you miss the starting point every
> time.

Yet you haven't even demonstrated any knowledge of the subject you are
discussing, have routinely skipped my points and then accused me of
making points not relevant to what you describe as the "peace process"
whilst simultaneously making points not relevant to the "peace
process" yourself.

> If this problem is ever resolved, it will *not* be to the
> specifications you seem to take as a given,

Well you're right about this - the conflict will be resolved when
Israel officially annexes the W Bank and then gives the Palestinians
there full rights just like Israeli citizens. This is the course
Israel is headed on if it continues to colonize the land - they can't
keep up this strategy of "we want the land but not the people that
come with it" forever.

What do you think the Jews-only roads are for in the W Bank?
What do you think the monopoloization of the W Bank water supply is
for?
What do you think the restriction of housebuilding permits for
Palestinians in the W Bank is for?

Answer: Israel wants the W Bank but not the people that come with it.
This was the entire problem with Zionism in the first place but
Israel's strategy is not sustainable in the long-term.

>and which a compromised
> Europe -- fearing Intifada in her own streets, from Malmo to Marseille
> -- hopes for, in vain.

More meaningless blather - I thought you didn't want to make points
not relevant to the peace process?

> And for the third and final iteration, the failure of this thread
> faithfully replicates the failure of the "peace process".


There exists no such thing - Israel has no intention of giving back
the territory and the negotiations you keep referring to are nothing
more than a charade designed to feign Israel's supposed flexibility
and "willingness to make peace".

I ask you again: is Israel's continued expansion of its settlements in
the W Bank the sign of an honest broker for peace? And if "no" then
what is the point in the theatre that is the "peace process"?

Let me guess: you'll just skip the point yet again.


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 12:42:40
From: number_six
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Feb 15, 3:40=A0pm, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
< snip long post in which the poster, among other things, overstates
Arafat's reasonableness, then appears to indulge in the fantasy that
there is not merely weight, but perhaps even finality, to
pronouncements from the International Court of Justice as to what is
or is not legal. >

Because the post is grievance-based, not based on the status quo
(however poorly it sits with you), you miss the starting point every
time.

If this problem is ever resolved, it will *not* be to the
specifications you seem to take as a given, and which a compromised
Europe -- fearing Intifada in her own streets, from Malmo to Marseille
-- hopes for, in vain.

And for the third and final iteration, the failure of this thread
faithfully replicates the failure of the "peace process".




 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 22:22:16
From: Fan
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Feb 15, 9:59=A0pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 6:42=A0pm, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
> > enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
> > whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
> > racist, zionist regime in israel.
>
> >http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=3DA2KIPFLkUphJKuwAdgQ4v7YF?slug=3D=
a...
>
> "The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice.=A0 The
> times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred
> of the Jews.=A0 This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly
> seek new forms and forums for his poison.=A0 How he must revel in the
> new masquerrade!=A0 He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-
> Zionist'! ...
> When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- make no mistake about
> it."
> (Martin Luther King)

Martin Luther King could not =93dream=94 of Israel turning out a barbaric
terrorist inhuman state :-(

If those who object to the horrors visited upon the Palestinians by
Israel are ant-Semites then anti-Semite must stand for someone who
values human life, human dignity and justice.


  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 06:32:59
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:22:16 -0800 (PST), Fan
<TurnagainArm@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 15, 9:59 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 6:42 pm, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> > apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
>> > enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
>> > whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
>> > racist, zionist regime in israel.
>>
>> >http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=A2KIPFLkUphJKuwAdgQ4v7YF?slug=a...
>>
>> "The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice.  The
>> times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred
>> of the Jews.  This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly
>> seek new forms and forums for his poison.  How he must revel in the
>> new masquerrade!  He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-
>> Zionist'! ...
>> When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- make no mistake about
>> it."
>> (Martin Luther King)
>
>Martin Luther King could not “dream” of Israel turning out a barbaric
>terrorist inhuman state :-(
>
>If those who object to the horrors visited upon the Palestinians by
>Israel are ant-Semites then anti-Semite must stand for someone who
>values human life, human dignity and justice.

Israel invented terror. Ariel Sharon was the Father of Terrorism.

Moshe Dyan was a soldier. Ariel Sharon a terrorist.

Is he (Sharon) still "vegetating" or has he died btw.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 15:40:01
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On 15 Feb, 22:59, number_six <cyberi...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> This is not a coexistence argument; this is an eradication argument.

You mean the Israeli attempt to eradicate Palestinian national rights
by colonizing the very land that the UN and the International Court of
Justice has continually re-affirmed is intented for a Palestinian
state? You keep talking about Palestinians not recognizing Israel's
"right to exist", yet this is a matter of words rather than actions.
Israel, OTOH, takes deliberate and calculated actions on the ground to
ensure that a Palestinian state will never be created. You haven't
once even acknowledged Israel's illegal settlement building in the W
Bank and E Jerusalem so far in the debate. Take a look at this map of
the Israeli settlements and the sophisticated road network connecting
them and then tell me if you think Israel has any intention of
returning the territory:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians=
/key_maps/jewish_map.gif

> Instead of helping the Palestinians, Arab states (and Soviet funding
> and fomenting) turned them into a weapon against Israel's existence.

Er, no I think you'll find that in many instances the Palestinians got
caught up in the fighting through no fault of their own e.g. 1967. And
what you're saying is irrelevant to the current peace process anyway,
yet according to you the only thing we should be discussing is the
peace process (the peace process is in fact pure theatre).

> Now that some of the key Arab states have made peace with Israel, the
> Palestinians must suck it up and do the same -- or remain in the demi-
> world they inhabit. =A0They would have been out of it long ago, but
> their yearning for struggle and bloodshed was greater than their
> yearning for a state.

Wrong again. Israel will only allow the Palestinians to have their own
state on terms that are more favourable to Israel than they are to the
Palestinians. And any state that occurs on Israel's terms would not be
a proper sovereign state and would therefore not resolve the conflict.
If you're familiar with why the Camp David/Taba talks failed, you
would know that it's because Israel never offered Arafat even close to
what the Palestinaians were legally entitled to and the state as
proposed at Camp David would have been split into 4 different cantons,
and Israel would have maintained sovereignty over some of its largest
settlement blocs and none of Arab East Jerusalem was on offer. This
was not a state worth having; if it had been Arafat would have
accepted it.

> > Exactly how many terrorist attacks from the W Bank have occured in the
> > last couple of years? Not very many.
>
> Explanation -- the fence.

You're simply misinformed. But before we get into that. You're
response to my point was irrelvant anyway. Israel doesn't have to
dismantle the wall in order to dismantle the settlements; the wall can
remain but must be built on the green line.

Do you even know the route that the wall is built on? The bulk of the
route follows the illegal Jewish settlements in the W Bank, not the
green line. Whilst the wall has undoubtedly been a factor in reducing
suicide bombings from the W Bank, it can't possibly be the only factor
because only 20% of the security wall is built along the green line
(the legally recognized border between Israel and the W Bank), which
means that not all Palestinians are blocked off by it i.e. in many
cases their ability to try and enter Israel to commit attacks remains
unchanged. The other reason why the decline in attacks has occured is
because Israel improved its security at the checkpoints, which is
where most of the suicide bombers entered Israel from. Political
factors may also be an explanation.

The wall would have been far more effective had it been built on the
green line; as it stands, the Palestinians on the west side of the
wall have not had their ability to attack Israel eliminated/reduced;
only the Palestinians on the east side of the wall have. No-one is
saying that Israel is not allowed to build the wall, but they should
only do so along the green line, both for legal and moral reasons, but
also for reasons related to the effectiveness of the wall in achieving
its stated aim.

You also don't seem to be aware that the International Court of
Justice doesn't believe that Israel's case for the wall adds up and
even speculates that the route of the wall (around illegal Jewish
settlements) suggests that it may be designed to annex the territory:

121. Whilst the Court notes the assurance given by Israel that the
construction of the wall does not amount to annexation and that the
wall is of a temporary nature (see paragraph 116 above), it
nevertheless cannot remain indifferent to certain fears expressed to
it that the route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier
between Israel and Palestine, and the fear that Israel may integrate
the settlements and their means of access. The Court considers that
the construction of the wall and its associated r=E9gime create a "fait
accompli" on the ground that could well become permanent, in which
case, and notwithstanding the formal characterization of the wall by
Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation.

137. To sum up, the Court, from the material available to it, is not
convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was
necessary to attain its security objectives. The wall, along the route
chosen, and its associated r=E9gime gravely infringe a number of rights
of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the
infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by
military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or
public order. The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes
breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable
international humanitarian law and human rights instruments.

http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil=
3d.htm

You also seem to be unaware that even some Israeli politicians have
suggested that the wall will become the future border between Israel
and Palestine, with all the illegal settlments to the east of the wall
being automatically annexed to Israel:

On March 9, 2006, The New York Times quoted then-acting Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert as stating that if his Kadima party wins the
upcoming national elections, he would seek to set Israel's permanent
borders by 2010, and that the boundary would run along or close to the
barrier.[95]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier






 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 15:00:43
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On 15 Feb, 22:34, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> If there was ever an expert on "gutter religion", Farrakhan would be one,
> although I agree that Judaism is not equivalent to Zionism, and
> anti-Zionism does not necessarily equate to, although it ordinarily _is_
> associated with or is a mask for, anti-Semitism.

No it isn't. Anti-Zionism is in fact rarely a mask for anti-semitism.
Has it ever occured to you that people might be anti-Zionist because
the fulfilment of Zionism's aim of a Jewish majority state in
Palestine entailed the dispossesion of another people from their land,
or at minimum, the subjugation of these people to Jewish rule in which
they would play at best a limited role in the functioning of the
state?

If we accept that Zionism's goals could not be achieved without
uprooting the Palestinian Arabs from their land, then what is wrong
with being anti-Zionist? People aren't against the religion of those
proposing the ideology; they are against the ideology itself.

Take Israel's recent bloodbath in Gaza. There was much worldwide
condemnation for Israel's actions because they killed 1400 people
using military force that caused far, far greater harm than the rocket
attacks they claimed they were defending against. The worldwide
condemnation of Israel's behavior resulted not from anti-semitism but
from the fact that it was clear to most people that Israel's behavior
was wrong. Basically, what is often labelled as criticism of Israel
inspired by anti-semitism is in fact just a recognition that Israel
has behaved in an immoral manner. There are just some actions that are
not possible to dismiss or explain away with propaganda, ad-hominem
attacks, or canards.

One of the original justifications given for Israel's creation was
that the diaspora Jews could never live in peace provided they were
the minority populations in the countries where they were residing, as
the majority populations in these lands were intrinsically anti-
semitic and would always oppress the Jews. The pogroms in Russia and
other examples of course explain why the Jews wanted to have their own
state. However, in creating the state the reverse has occured: the
Jews in Israel have become the majority population in the 78% of
Palestine that is Israel and within this territory they subjugate and
discriminate against the Israeli Arabs because, fundamentally, they
are not Jews. Whilst the treatment of the Israeli Arabs is not even
close to the horrible treatment of the diaspora Jews, this is not the
point; which is that it is still discrimination and subjugation
nonetheless. Things have come full circle and anti-semitism largely
has nothing to do with it.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 14:59:38
From: number_six
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Feb 15, 1:46=A0pm, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> snip <
> You characterize the concessions as if Israel would be being nice if
> they gave back some of the land. Yet this land does not legally belong
> to them and they are legally entitled to give it back so that the
> Palestinians can have their own state on this land. It's hardly a
> concession if they have to give back what is not theirs anyway.
>
> If I stole your house and then gave it back to you, would you consider
> this a "concession"?
>

This is not a coexistence argument; this is an eradication argument.
Instead of helping the Palestinians, Arab states (and Soviet funding
and fomenting) turned them into a weapon against Israel's existence.
Now that some of the key Arab states have made peace with Israel, the
Palestinians must suck it up and do the same -- or remain in the demi-
world they inhabit. They would have been out of it long ago, but
their yearning for struggle and bloodshed was greater than their
yearning for a state.

I reiterate: this thread simulates the peace talks, and like the
"peace process," will not progress past step one as you have stated
it.

Look, I understand the complex the Arab world has in dealing with the
Europeans. The Arabs backed the winning side in WW I, but it came out
really badly for them. So then they backed the losing side in WW II
and that came out really badly for them. The European complex in
dealing with the Jews is not so easily summarized, but it is an
inescapable part of the problem.


> Exactly how many terrorist attacks from the W Bank have occured in the
> last couple of years? Not very many.

Explanation -- the fence.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 14:36:37
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On 15 Feb, 22:11, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com > wrote:
> Calimero wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 6:42 pm, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
> >>enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
> >>whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
> >>racist, zionist regime in israel.
>
> > "The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. =A0The
> > times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred
> > of the Jews. =A0This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly
> > seek new forms and forums for his poison. =A0How he must revel in the
> > new masquerrade! =A0He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-
> > Zionist'! ...
> > When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- make no mistake about
> > it."
> > (Martin Luther King)
>
> this is the a big part of the game that is played by the apologists for
> the racist zionist israeli apartheid regime: take any criticism of
> zionism and claim that it is actually a criticism of judaism. =A0then the
> person is therefore declared to be anti-semetic. =A0the attempt here is t=
o
> change the subject. =A0of course, this makes the big assumption that
> judaism is indistinguishable from zionism: too bad people like noam
> chomsky don't know that. =A0the truth of the matter is that even jews are
> subject to retribution from the zionist lobby when they don't support
> the standard zionism line: a former professor at de paul university,
> norman finkelstein, was subjected to fierce opposition by the zionist
> lobby for his criticisms of israel that were considered anti-zionist.
> as result, he was denied tenure, and to my knowledge is not currently
> teaching at a university. =A0on the other hand, noam chomsky is a well
> established academic, so there isn't a whole lot that the zionist lobby
> can do to him. =A0on the other hand, finkelstein was an untenured
> professor, so the apparently the zionist lobby decided to sink his
> academic career prospects to make an example of him.
>
> since you like citing quotes, here's a better one: =A0"to equate judaism
> with zionism is to practice gutter religion." =A0(louis farrakhan).- Hide=
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I really admire those Jews and Israelis who are willing to condemn
Israel's brutal policies in the face of the wall of hardcore
nationalism and ignorance that they are up against. Unfortunately a
lot of the Israel supporters who seek to marginalise these people with
ad-hominem slurs such as "self-hating Jew" can't decide whether
Judaism is a religion or a nation. And if there is such a thing as a
God, then I'm sure that he/she would be horrified by the behavior of
all sides in this conflict, including the supposed "good guys", the
State of Israel.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 14:06:41
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On 15 Feb, 20:32, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 19:08, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even allowing Hamas to run in the elections held under the Oslo Accords
> > violated and ended those accords:
>
> > CHAPTER 4 - COOPERATION
>
> > ARTICLE XXII
>
> > Relations between Israel and the Council
>
> > =A0 =A01. Israel and the Council shall seek to foster mutual understand=
ing and
> > =A0 =A0tolerance and shall accordingly abstain from incitement, includi=
ng
> > =A0 =A0hostile propaganda, against each other and, without derogating f=
rom the
> > =A0 =A0principle of freedom of expression, shall take legal measures to
> > =A0 =A0prevent such incitement by any organizations, groups or individu=
als
> > =A0 =A0within their jurisdiction.
>
> Yes and Israel clearly took "legal measures to prevent such
> incitement" as the continued expropriation of Palestinian land in the
> W Bank and E Jerusalem, the continued monopolization of the W Bank
> water supply, the violent (and often unpunished) behaviour of Israeli
> settlers in the W Bank towards Palestinians, the unlawful killings of
> Palestinian civillians (see reports by Amnesty Intl and HRW), the
> demolition of Palestinian houses, the denial of housebuilding permits
> to Palestinians etc, all of which occured right throughout the Oslo
> period and was a far greater barrier to a settlement than the
> meaningless piece of paper that is the Hamas charter. And that's
> notwithstanding the fact that Hamas was not even in control of any of
> the Palestinian territories during the Oslo period and what
> effectively killed the accords was Israel's continued illegal
> colonization of the land, essentially making any Palestinian state
> unviable in the process. This is now even more the case then it was
> then.

In fact, even Yitzhak Rabin, the supposed "man of peace" who signed
the Oslo Accords said shortly after (Sep 1993) that he opposed the
creation of a Palestinian state. How could the Oslo Accords result in
a two-state settlement if the representative of the occupying power
openly states that he opposes a two state solution?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979266-1,00.html

Q. The Labor Party seems to be softening its opposition to a
Palestinian state.

A. No. I am against this. I oppose the creation of an independent
Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan, and I don't believe that
at this stage it would be a good idea if I brought out the options.




 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 13:46:07
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On 15 Feb, 21:10, number_six <cyberi...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> We simply do not concur as to the what constitutes "the first step".
> I'd say the first step is to have a cease-fire that is actually
> adhered to by both sides, and to have a mutual acknowledgement of the
> parties' right to exist.

Sensible point but what I am arguing is that even if such a scenario
occured, Israel would still not withdraw from the W Bank and E
Jerusalem. If Israel really wanted peace, then why did its settlement
construction continue right throughout the Oslo period and *before*
the second Intifada?

> I don't want to mischaracterize your position, but it looks like your
> idea of the "first step" is to have Israel make land concessions, with
> a continuing Intifada to extract more concessions. =A0

You characterize the concessions as if Israel would be being nice if
they gave back some of the land. Yet this land does not legally belong
to them and they are legally entitled to give it back so that the
Palestinians can have their own state on this land. It's hardly a
concession if they have to give back what is not theirs anyway.

If I stole your house and then gave it back to you, would you consider
this a "concession"?

It's only a concession from the perspective of what Israel wants i.e.
to keep as much of the territory as possible. Just as it's a
concession from my perspective if I give you back your house i.e. I
desire to keep your house.

You talk about an "Intifada to extract more concessions" yet no
Intifada is currently occuring in the W Bank and E Jerusalem and
Israel continues to expand its settlements. You can't invoke
Palestinian terrorism or an uprising as a reason not to cede land if
Israel refuses to cede land even when no terrorism or uprising is
happening. IOW, Israel wants the land regardless of Palestinian
terrorism.

Exactly how many terrorist attacks from the W Bank have occured in the
last couple of years? Not very many. Has Israel rewarded the
Palestinians for that by dismantling some of the settlements? No. In
fact they continue to expand them.



 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 13:10:54
From: number_six
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Feb 15, 12:37=A0pm, Wayne <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 20:06, number_six <cyberi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There have been so many deals, so many efforts. =A0There have been so
> > many envoys and diplomats -- General Zinni, for example -- who have
> > been seduced by the idea of the "peace process" and have lost sight of
> > the fact that it is all for naught unless they can get off square one
> > (as detailed in your post). =A0Hamas cannot and will not take the first
> > step.
>
> Yet even when Hamas was not in power in any of the Palestinian
> territories, the situation did not change: Israel did not dismantle
> any of its settlements in the W Bank and E Jerusalem. Why doesn't
> Israel take the "first step" and dismantle some of the settlements? In
> fact, the settlements keep being expanded which automatically makes a
> Palestinian state less and less viable. And all the while this occurs
> people claim that Israel "wants peace" - that isn't what it looks like
> when you demolish people's homes to make way for further Jewish
> settlements; that isn't what it looks like when a Jewish settler
> family has a swimming pool whilst the Palestinians next door have no
> more than two hours of running water a day. How can any of this
> possibly be justified? Why isn't this racist and immoral? And then we
> are told that Israel "wants peace"? Well they do want peace, but only
> on terms that mean the Palestinians acquiese in the dispossession of
> much of their W Bank land.

We simply do not concur as to the what constitutes "the first step".
I'd say the first step is to have a cease-fire that is actually
adhered to by both sides, and to have a mutual acknowledgement of the
parties' right to exist.

I don't want to mischaracterize your position, but it looks like your
idea of the "first step" is to have Israel make land concessions, with
a continuing Intifada to extract more concessions. This thread is a
simulacrum of the talks themselves, and shows why the talks fail.

I have to question whether Britain and France, whose colonial and post-
colonial policies played such a prominent role in defining the modern
Middle East, can constructively contribute to the peaceful resolution
of the status of Gaza and the West Bank.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:59:18
From: Calimero
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Feb 15, 6:42=A0pm, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com > wrote:
> apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
> enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
> whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
> racist, zionist regime in israel.
>
> http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=3DA2KIPFLkUphJKuwAdgQ4v7YF?slug=3Da=
...


"The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice.=A0 The
times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred
of the Jews.=A0 This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly
seek new forms and forums for his poison.=A0 How he must revel in the
new masquerrade!=A0 He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-
Zionist'! ...
When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- make no mistake about
it."
(Martin Luther King)

Max


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 16:11:17
From: jingus
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
Calimero wrote:
> On Feb 15, 6:42 pm, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
>>enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
>>whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
>>racist, zionist regime in israel.
>
> "The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The
> times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred
> of the Jews. This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly
> seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the
> new masquerrade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-
> Zionist'! ...
> When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- make no mistake about
> it."
> (Martin Luther King)
>

this is the a big part of the game that is played by the apologists for
the racist zionist israeli apartheid regime: take any criticism of
zionism and claim that it is actually a criticism of judaism. then the
person is therefore declared to be anti-semetic. the attempt here is to
change the subject. of course, this makes the big assumption that
judaism is indistinguishable from zionism: too bad people like noam
chomsky don't know that. the truth of the matter is that even jews are
subject to retribution from the zionist lobby when they don't support
the standard zionism line: a former professor at de paul university,
norman finkelstein, was subjected to fierce opposition by the zionist
lobby for his criticisms of israel that were considered anti-zionist.
as result, he was denied tenure, and to my knowledge is not currently
teaching at a university. on the other hand, noam chomsky is a well
established academic, so there isn't a whole lot that the zionist lobby
can do to him. on the other hand, finkelstein was an untenured
professor, so the apparently the zionist lobby decided to sink his
academic career prospects to make an example of him.

since you like citing quotes, here's a better one: "to equate judaism
with zionism is to practice gutter religion." (louis farrakhan).


   
Date: 15 Feb 2009 17:34:16
From: mimus
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:11:17 -0600, jingus wrote:

> Calimero wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 6:42 pm, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
>>>enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
>>>whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
>>>racist, zionist regime in israel.
>>
>> "The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The
>> times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred
>> of the Jews. This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly
>> seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the
>> new masquerrade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-
>> Zionist'! ...
>> When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- make no mistake about
>> it."
>> (Martin Luther King)
>
> this is the a big part of the game that is played by the apologists for
> the racist zionist israeli apartheid regime: take any criticism of
> zionism and claim that it is actually a criticism of judaism. then the
> person is therefore declared to be anti-semetic. the attempt here is to
> change the subject. of course, this makes the big assumption that
> judaism is indistinguishable from zionism: too bad people like noam
> chomsky don't know that.

Has Chomsky ever agreed with US foreign policy on, or held anyone but the
US guilty for, anything?

More, and somewhat more generally, isn't it bizarre how "Western"
"Left-wing" "liberals" seem so often to so readily champion murderous and
woman-slaving Islamic Theocracy?

> the truth of the matter is that even jews are
> subject to retribution from the zionist lobby when they don't support
> the standard zionism line: a former professor at de paul university,
> norman finkelstein, was subjected to fierce opposition by the zionist
> lobby for his criticisms of israel that were considered anti-zionist.
> as result, he was denied tenure, and to my knowledge is not currently
> teaching at a university. on the other hand, noam chomsky is a well
> established academic, so there isn't a whole lot that the zionist lobby
> can do to him. on the other hand, finkelstein was an untenured
> professor, so the apparently the zionist lobby decided to sink his
> academic career prospects to make an example of him.
>
> since you like citing quotes, here's a better one: "to equate judaism
> with zionism is to practice gutter religion." (louis farrakhan).

If there was ever an expert on "gutter religion", Farrakhan would be one,
although I agree that Judaism is not equivalent to Zionism, and
anti-Zionism does not necessarily equate to, although it ordinarily _is_
associated with or is a mask for, anti-Semitism.

Speaking of fine distinctions, the only real scientific meaning for
"Semitic" is a linguistic one, as in "the Semitic languages", and both
Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages . . . .

--

Take a deep breath, take a walk, cool off, plot a bit, and serve again.



 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:51:34
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On 15 Feb, 18:20, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com > wrote:

> with the unabashed slaughter of palestinians in gaza, the racist,
> zionist israeli apartheid regime stepped up it's practice of genocidal
> collective punishment of the palestinian people to a new level that
> should draw the disgust of all right-minded people.
>
> of course, israel was one of the few allies of the apartheid south
> african regime, so it should come as no surprise that the racist israeli
> apartheid regime is so similar to that of the south african apartheid
> regime. =A0the difference is that the racist israeli regime uses the
> jewish holocaust committed by the nazis are a justification and to play
> to a sense of guilt to inhibit criticism.

Israel's entire treatment of both the Israeli Arabs and the
Palestinians in the OPT is just disgusting and the West would call it
for what it really is if it was any other country in the world
carrying out the same actions: racism. Just look out how concepts of
virulent nationalism and racism have become accepted and almost
unquestioned concepts in mainstream Israeli politics: politicians like
both Avigdor Lieberman and the supposedly "moderate" Tzipi Livini now
openly talk about dealing with the demographic threat, i.e. the
Israeli Arabs, by means of transfer if this means that the Jewish
majority can be maintained:

Lieberman advocates land and population exchanges, seeking to reduce
the number of Arabs who are Israeli citizens and dividing Jews and
Arabs into two homogeneous states. The suggested plan is to award the
Palestinian Authority governoship over Arab-Israeli towns near the
West Bank in exchange for Israeli control over Jewish cities which
reside on disputed territory. Lieberman also advocates that all
Israeli citizens, including anti-Zionist Haredim and Israeli Arabs,
take loyalty tests and recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Those who
refuse would be stripped of their citizenship, but could remain in
Israel as permanent residents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has sparked controversy by saying
a Palestinian state would provide "a national solution" for Israel's
Arabs.

Politicians from the minority Arab community have demanded she clarify
if it means that Arabs citizens will face loss of rights in Israel or
expulsion.

Israeli politicians have long grappled with the issue of a growing
proportion of ethnic Arabs in the Jewish state.

"Transfer" has been mooted explicitly only by far right-wingers in
Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7779087.stm

By the year 2030 30% of Israel's population will be Arab, that's why
it's called the demographic threat. Essentially the Jewish majority
can only be maintained by increasingly facist means. As long as Israel
continues to rule over people who are non-Jews then there will never
be peace because discrimination will always occur. A state can only be
Jewish and a democracy if all its citizens are Jewish; discrimination
against those citizens who are not Jewish is inherent in the entire
concept of the state.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:37:53
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On 15 Feb, 20:06, number_six <cyberi...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> There have been so many deals, so many efforts. =A0There have been so
> many envoys and diplomats -- General Zinni, for example -- who have
> been seduced by the idea of the "peace process" and have lost sight of
> the fact that it is all for naught unless they can get off square one
> (as detailed in your post). =A0Hamas cannot and will not take the first
> step.

Yet even when Hamas was not in power in any of the Palestinian
territories, the situation did not change: Israel did not dismantle
any of its settlements in the W Bank and E Jerusalem. Why doesn't
Israel take the "first step" and dismantle some of the settlements? In
fact, the settlements keep being expanded which automatically makes a
Palestinian state less and less viable. And all the while this occurs
people claim that Israel "wants peace" - that isn't what it looks like
when you demolish people's homes to make way for further Jewish
settlements; that isn't what it looks like when a Jewish settler
family has a swimming pool whilst the Palestinians next door have no
more than two hours of running water a day. How can any of this
possibly be justified? Why isn't this racist and immoral? And then we
are told that Israel "wants peace"? Well they do want peace, but only
on terms that mean the Palestinians acquiese in the dispossession of
much of their W Bank land.



 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:32:20
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On 15 Feb, 19:08, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Even allowing Hamas to run in the elections held under the Oslo Accords
> violated and ended those accords:
>
> CHAPTER 4 - COOPERATION
>
> ARTICLE XXII
>
> Relations between Israel and the Council
>
> =A0 =A01. Israel and the Council shall seek to foster mutual understandin=
g and
> =A0 =A0tolerance and shall accordingly abstain from incitement, including
> =A0 =A0hostile propaganda, against each other and, without derogating fro=
m the
> =A0 =A0principle of freedom of expression, shall take legal measures to
> =A0 =A0prevent such incitement by any organizations, groups or individual=
s
> =A0 =A0within their jurisdiction.

Yes and Israel clearly took "legal measures to prevent such
incitement" as the continued expropriation of Palestinian land in the
W Bank and E Jerusalem, the continued monopolization of the W Bank
water supply, the violent (and often unpunished) behaviour of Israeli
settlers in the W Bank towards Palestinians, the unlawful killings of
Palestinian civillians (see reports by Amnesty Intl and HRW), the
demolition of Palestinian houses, the denial of housebuilding permits
to Palestinians etc, all of which occured right throughout the Oslo
period and was a far greater barrier to a settlement than the
meaningless piece of paper that is the Hamas charter. And that's
notwithstanding the fact that Hamas was not even in control of any of
the Palestinian territories during the Oslo period and what
effectively killed the accords was Israel's continued illegal
colonization of the land, essentially making any Palestinian state
unviable in the process. This is now even more the case then it was
then.




  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 16:00:14
From: jingus
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
Wayne wrote:
>
> Yes and Israel clearly took "legal measures to prevent such
> incitement" as the continued expropriation of Palestinian land in the
> W Bank and E Jerusalem, the continued monopolization of the W Bank
> water supply, the violent (and often unpunished) behaviour of Israeli
> settlers in the W Bank towards Palestinians, the unlawful killings of
> Palestinian civillians (see reports by Amnesty Intl and HRW), the
> demolition of Palestinian houses, the denial of housebuilding permits
> to Palestinians etc, all of which occured right throughout the Oslo
> period and was a far greater barrier to a settlement than the
> meaningless piece of paper that is the Hamas charter. And that's
> notwithstanding the fact that Hamas was not even in control of any of
> the Palestinian territories during the Oslo period and what
> effectively killed the accords was Israel's continued illegal
> colonization of the land, essentially making any Palestinian state
> unviable in the process. This is now even more the case then it was
> then.
>

it's a funny thing, the bush administration justified starting a war
against iraq on the premise that iraq had been in violation of
international law. yet, you have the racist, zionist israeli apartheid
regime that has been in violation of u.n. resolution 242 (which was
passed in 1967) for over 40 years.

the depiction of the palestinians reminds me of the way that native
americans used to be depicted in old western movies. in the old western
movies you would have a scenario in which a white family was sitting in
their connestoga wagon when all of a sudden a flaming arrow would piece
the wagon and the family would be shown under attack by the "savage"
indians - seemingly without provocation. but what the old western
movies *didn't* show you was the native americans, including women,
children and the elderly, who were slaughted by the supposedly
"peaceful" white people; and how the native americans were fighting back
against having their land and their homes taken from them.

isn't that so much like what the racist israeli zionists have done to
the palestinians? using as a justification, the wrongs done to jews by
the nazis, the racist zionists committed acts of ethnic cleansing to
take the land and the homes of palestinians, rendering these victims and
their decendants to lives as refugees to this day. then you had the
degradation suffered by palestinians under occupation by the SS troops
dispatched by the zionist regime to enforce the occupation. the
palestinian people have had to live with seeing their families beaten,
killed, their homes taken and/or demolished and subjected to an economic
blockade that keeps them in abject poverty - all of these done by the
racist zionist israeli apartheid regime. then these very same racist
zionists act surprised and can't understand why palestinians might want
to become suicide bombers.

then there is the fate of palestinians who live as second class citizens
within the racist, apartheid state of israel. you can have wingnut
zionists making all manner of crazy proclamation about how arabs are
less than rodents (true to the tradition of hermann goering), yet they
are able to run for political office and enjoy full rights within the
racist zionist regime. yet, palestinians can have their rights
curtailed for showing "sympathy" to palestinian causes. when the racist
zionist israeli regime undertook a war against the lebanese people
(under a claim that they were trying to eliminate hezbollah) the western
media gave considerable coverage to show the "terror" under which
israelis had to live - you know, having to retreat to bunkers and all.
what the media didn't show you was that most of the israeli citizens
who got killed were palestinians - because the racist israeli regime
didn't make any allowance for them to have bunkers.

as a general rule, the racist israeli regime makes sure that the media
show israeli jews while preventing the western media from having access
to palestinian areas so that people in the west don't get to see
palestinians as human beings, but rather as faceless "terrorists". a
few years ago there was footage showing a palestinian girl crying after
bombs launched by the racist zionist regime killed her family. this was
a very rare case in footage showing palestinians as human beings leaked
out to the west. but not to worry, the racist zionist regime promptly
claimed that they weren't the fault for the bombing and then proceeded
to prevent any international bodies from investigating the incident.

my thinking is that if those of us in the west were able to actually see
what the racist zionists were doing agaisnt he palestinian people, that
sympathy for the racist zionist israeli apartheid regime would decline
precipitously. thus, the racist zionist regime and their supporters,
such as AIPAC and the AJC, see to it that the racist anti-arab
propaganda machine is cranked up in high gear.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:06:56
From: number_six
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Feb 15, 11:08=A0am, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> snip <
> Even allowing Hamas to run in the elections held under the Oslo Accords
> violated and ended those accords:

Cogent post. I guess I thought the Oslo Accords were dead a long time
ago, along with the "road map", but perhaps the Accords lingered in
some vestigial form, though dead in spirit. If the PA elections were
held under those auspices, I agree Hamas was not a legitimate
participant. But their level of support in Gaza showed the deep
schism within the PA, and that civil war was the reality, whether
behind the scenes, or in the open.

There have been so many deals, so many efforts. There have been so
many envoys and diplomats -- General Zinni, for example -- who have
been seduced by the idea of the "peace process" and have lost sight of
the fact that it is all for naught unless they can get off square one
(as detailed in your post). Hamas cannot and will not take the first
step.







 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 10:10:42
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Feb 15, 1:00=A0pm, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 6:42=A0pm, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
> > enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
> > whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
> > racist, zionist regime in israel.
>
> >http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=3DA2KIPFLkUphJKuwAdgQ4v7YF?slug=3D=
a...
>
> The international community banned South African athletes from
> sporting events and even from the Olympics because of their apartheid.
> The Israeli apartheid is far worse than the South African apartheid
> was. What is surprising is that more countries do not ban Israeli
> athletes especially after Israel=92s brutal slaughter of Palestinians in
> Gaza.

Banning Palestinians from life is one thing and Dubai banning Israel=92s
tennis players from playing tennis is something else. Dubai has to be
punished, right?



  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 13:43:29
From: mimus
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:10:42 -0800, wkhedr wrote:

> On Feb 15, 1:00 pm, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 15, 6:42 pm, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
>>> enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
>>> whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
>>> racist, zionist regime in israel.
>>>
>>> http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=A2KIPFLkUphJKuwAdgQ4v7YF?slug=a...
>>
>> The international community banned South African athletes from sporting
>> events and even from the Olympics because of their apartheid. The
>> Israeli apartheid is far worse than the South African apartheid was.
>> What is surprising is that more countries do not ban Israeli athletes
>> especially after Israel’s brutal slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.
>
> Banning Palestinians from life is one thing and Dubai banning Israel’s
> tennis players from playing tennis is something else. Dubai has to be
> punished, right?

No, they have money.

--

Take a deep breath, take a walk, cool off, plot a bit, and serve again.



 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 10:00:16
From: Fan
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Feb 15, 6:42=A0pm, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com > wrote:
> apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
> enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
> whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
> racist, zionist regime in israel.
>
> http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=3DA2KIPFLkUphJKuwAdgQ4v7YF?slug=3Da=
...

The international community banned South African athletes from
sporting events and even from the Olympics because of their apartheid.
The Israeli apartheid is far worse than the South African apartheid
was. What is surprising is that more countries do not ban Israeli
athletes especially after Israel=92s brutal slaughter of Palestinians in
Gaza.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 14:08:29
From: mimus
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:00:16 -0800, Fan wrote:

> On Feb 15, 6:42 pm, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
>> enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
>> whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
>> racist, zionist regime in israel.
>>
>> http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=A2KIPFLkUphJKuwAdgQ4v7YF?slug=a...
>
> The international community banned South African athletes from
> sporting events and even from the Olympics because of their apartheid.
> The Israeli apartheid is far worse than the South African apartheid
> was. What is surprising is that more countries do not ban Israeli
> athletes especially after Israel’s brutal slaughter of Palestinians in
> Gaza.

The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given
in full below. Following are highlights.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr,
Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine
is an Islamic Waqf [trust] consecrated for future Muslim generations
until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered:
it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through
Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a
waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the
Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook,
they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is
embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present
conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

The charter is a rather classical Islamist document, applied to the local
issues. It declares that Jihad (in the sense of armed battle) is the only
solution. It cites the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, a ludicrous
anti-Semitic forgery.

The "Zionists" and the freemasons and others are blamed for what Hamas and
radical Islamists see as the major calamities of the world, especially the
French Revolution.

One of the most ominous aspects of the Charter however, is this Hadith:

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if
obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way
of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the
Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's
promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah
bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the
Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and
trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there
is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree,
would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
(related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

The implication is clear: Allah promised that the Jews will be murdered,
and the Hamas "aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter
how long that should take."

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

Even allowing Hamas to run in the elections held under the Oslo Accords
violated and ended those accords:

CHAPTER 4 - COOPERATION

ARTICLE XXII

Relations between Israel and the Council

1. Israel and the Council shall seek to foster mutual understanding and
tolerance and shall accordingly abstain from incitement, including
hostile propaganda, against each other and, without derogating from the
principle of freedom of expression, shall take legal measures to
prevent such incitement by any organizations, groups or individuals
within their jurisdiction.

2. Israel and the Council will ensure that their respective educational
systems contribute to the peace between the Israeli and Palestinian
peoples and to peace in the entire region, and will refrain from the
introduction of any motifs that could adversely affect the process of
reconciliation.

http://www.mideastweb.org/meosint.htm

--

And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had yearned so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_



  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:20:33
From: jingus
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
Fan wrote:
>
> The international community banned South African athletes from
> sporting events and even from the Olympics because of their apartheid.
> The Israeli apartheid is far worse than the South African apartheid
> was. What is surprising is that more countries do not ban Israeli
> athletes especially after Israel’s brutal slaughter of Palestinians in
> Gaza.
>

with the unabashed slaughter of palestinians in gaza, the racist,
zionist israeli apartheid regime stepped up it's practice of genocidal
collective punishment of the palestinian people to a new level that
should draw the disgust of all right-minded people.

of course, israel was one of the few allies of the apartheid south
african regime, so it should come as no surprise that the racist israeli
apartheid regime is so similar to that of the south african apartheid
regime. the difference is that the racist israeli regime uses the
jewish holocaust committed by the nazis are a justification and to play
to a sense of guilt to inhibit criticism.


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 09:45:54
From: Raja
Subject: Re: peer denied visa to play in dubai tennis championships
On Feb 15, 11:42=A0am, jingus <jin...@mindspring.com > wrote:
> apparently israeli players with dual passports have been allowed to
> enter the country under their non-israel passports but it is not clear
> whether peer attempted to enter dubai under a passport issued by the
> racist, zionist regime in israel.
>
> http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=3DA2KIPFLkUphJKuwAdgQ4v7YF?slug=3Da=
...

They shld not mix politics with tennis. Not cool. What did she do?