[Lightman]

Noemon, where did I explicitly say I disagreed with the French/German comparison? I never said that Jewish and Muslim relations were worse than French-German relations. I think the comparison isn't entirely apt, because the French and the Germans aren't being asked to share a state, whereas the Israeli Jews and the Palestinian Muslims might be doing just that. But I dont think jewish muslim hatred is irreperable. You continue to attribute a view to me that I've specifically denied several times. It's quite annoying.

[noemon]

So do you agree with my French/German-Muslim/Jewish comparison or not?

Nope.

I think the comparison isn't entirely apt, because the French and the Germans aren't being asked to share a state, whereas the Israeli Jews and the Palestinian Muslims might be doing just that.

They are sharing a state in Switzerland and in the EU. Worse, the OP is suggesting a 1-state Jewish scenario. And last but not least Israel is not abiding by international law:

International law says that Israel must go back to its 1967 borders. Once Israel does that, then conversation between the Jews and Muslims can actually take place. I do not see how or why any rational person/government would even discuss to someone that does not abide by International Law. You cannot haggle with something that does not legally belong to you. And besides the OP is not even putting forward a 2-state, but 1 purely Jewish state.

These are things that not only do not require bilateral agreements but only unilateral withdrawal. These are not things contingent to the argument of mutual animosity but are unilateral animosity applicable to the State of Israel. If Israel was ok by international law, it had withdrew to its internationally recognised borders, seized the ethnic-cleansing and resumed peace-talks and the Palestinians attacked it or committed terrorism then one could actually understand the Israeli position of both sides being equally responsible for the lack of peace talks, but when you are on the offensive and are actively suppressing people while whining about stuff like the OP is doing then I do not see why should I or anyone take Israel seriously or how Harmattan's position is actually palatable.

Last but not least the fetish with a State which has undefined borders and no constitution is not really palatable within a liberal-democratic paradigm. Where is the line in the sand? And how can any liberal/moderate or whatever ever bring oneself to support such a state with no defined borders and no constitution? A State that blackmails European Christian Bishops, treats its non-Jewish citizens like second-class citizens and its occupied Arabs as cattle with absolutely no legal rights? While zionists in here like wat0n for example actively talk about "administrative process" about historical "antisemitism"(when in fact the Jews were the only people in the Ottoman empire who voluntarily accepted these terms by their own request unlike others who were forced to these dhimmie terms by the sword) and none of the self-proclaimed moderate "historians" take issue with that? When zionists actively undermine the UN and none of the self-proclaimed moderates take issue but do take issue with other inconsequential crap that undermine the zionist narrative and then turn around and demand to be considered specially moderate?

[Lightman]

Oh, I didn't realize you interpreted the "nope" that way (your interpretation is perfectly reasonable, so I apologize for that). I meant "nope" in the Internet-colloquial way of expressing general displeasure with your post, more specifically this line: "The only pogrom you found was after that date and was during the colonial regime of Iraq, which means that my statement is true." That statement is factually false and I was expressing my disagreement with it. I wasn't expressing my disagreement with the actual question you asked in the last line. Again, your reading is actually more natural and I apologize for the confusion.

They are sharing a state in Switzerland and in the EU.

Switzerland is an interesting example, in that its pretty much the ideal multi-national state. But Switzerland was established way before French and German national identities were fully solidified, and definitely way before French-German national rivalries were a thing. It's an interesting thought, but I don't think Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are going to come together and create a political culture as stable as Switzerland's.

I don't think the EU is really a good example, in that it isn't a sovereign state.

Worse, the OP is suggesting a 1-state Jewish scenario.

Yes, which is wrong, I've said this many times. I support either a two-state solution or a binational solution.

And last but not least Israel is not abiding by international law:

No disagreement there. The continued occupation and the settlements are wrong.

[noemon]

Switzerland is an interesting example, in that its pretty much the ideal multi-national state. But Switzerland was established way before French and German national identities were fully solidified, and definitely way before French-German national rivalries were a thing.

Switzerland in its current form was established by Russia, its constitution was written by a Greek(Kapodistrias) who later served as the first governor of Greece and it was forcefully established to contain Franco-German animosity following the Napoleonic wars and to act as a buffer between Russia and the bloody conflicts of the French and the Germans. Franco-German animosity is lot more ancient than modern Switzerland. The Old Switzerland was more a German Switzerland not the kind it came to be later.

Israel was mandated by the British with the expressed clause that Jerusalem will always be under international control to ensure the safety of all religions in the Holy Land and today we have Israel occupying the whole thing and actively undermining both Christians and Muslims in the area. It has even appropriated UN property in Jerusalem as in the case of the Al-Kurd family. Christians(under whose patronage Israel was established) suffer in Israel and the moderates keep mum.

Yes, which is wrong, I've said this many times.

You did not come in here to put the OP on his place though you came in here to disagree with me while I was talking to another European, nor did you ever show up in the other threads to speak against the persecution of Christians in Israel for example despite the fact that I explicitly asked you to take a position on the subject, so I'm sorry but I just can't take your claims seriously because you simply do not ever argue with zionists and we have quite a few crazy ones running around in the forum you only argue with people that argue with zionists. And stating or agreeing with the explicitly obvious is not really something that deserves a medal.

[Lightman]

Switzerland in its current form was established by Russia, its constitution was written by a Greek(Kapodistrias) who later served as the first governor of Greece and it was forcefully established to contain Franco-German animosity following the Napoleonic wars and to act as a buffer between Russia and the bloody conflicts of the French and the Germans.

Switzerland existed for 500 years before Kapodistrias gave it is modern constitution. While it had been disestablished in the French Revolutionary Wars, there was serious precedent for it holding together as a country. I'm not going to go into a detailed historical argument about Switzerland because it's not incredibly relevant.

Israel was mandated by the British with the expressed clause that Jerusalem will always be under international control to ensure the safety of all religions in the Holy Land and today we have Israel occupying the whole thing and actively undermining both Christians and Muslims in the area. Christians(under whose patronage Israel was established) suffer in Israel and the moderates keep mum.

Yeah, both the Arabs and Jews did not abide by the UN partition plan. And?

I've seen relatively little evidence that Christians face widespread persecution in Israel by the Israeli state (Arab Christians might face persecution, but that's insofar as they're Arab, not insofar as they're Christian). And no, your weird example about the legal dispute with the patriarchate doesn't count, and I'm not going to get involved in another seven page argument about that. I'm sure there are incidents in which Israeli Jews have discriminated against Christians, but I can't really find anything to indicate that the Israeli government as such does.

You did not come in here to put the OP on his place though you came in here to disagree with me while I was talking to another European, nor did you ever show up in the other threads to speak against the persecution of Christians in Israel for example, so I'm sorry but I just can't take your claims seriously because you simply do not ever argue with zionists and we have quite a few crazy ones running around in the forum you only argue with people that argue with zionists. And stating or agreeing with the explicitly obvious is not really something that deserves a medal.

I don't want a medal. I want you to stop aggressively misrepresenting what I say - which you have done in almost every thread we have both posted in for the last several months. I do not owe you a quota of anti-Zionist posts, nor do any other Jews on this forum (of course, if you look through my post history, you'll find plenty of posts criticizing Israel, and more posts defending Muslims in general). Your representation of my arguments and beliefs is false and disingenuous. I am still rather confused by why you decided to start a feud with me a year and a half ago - something to do you PMing me, accusing me of being a fake Jew (seriously, this remains one of the most bizarre Internet messages I've ever received, and I've received some fucking strange messages). Why is it so hard for you to debate in good faith?

[wat0n]

Let me guess then that all the conquests in the world that have taken place in history had anti-something hatred written all over them, or does it apply only when the conquered happen to be Jews acting on the name of Muslims and appointed by Muslims?

All conquerors that have massacred the conquered population as part of the spoils of war can be quite easily said to be anti-that population.

Straw, none of the dhimmies in the Muslim world were allowed to arm themselves not just the Jews, but also the Greeks, Armenians, Serbs, etcetera. And the example you provided above refers to a revolt against a Jewish leader who had arms and the entire force of the Marinid Sultanate at his disposal.
The real mackoy here is that the Jews voluntarily accepted these terms and settled en mass in the Ottoman Empire after their own request, they were not subjected to these terms by force like the rest, which makes your "antisemitic" claims all the more cringeworthy.

The Jews just picked the less bad option.

And yes, other non-Jewish dhimmis were discriminated against as well. Your argument is as stupid as saying that there was no genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman state in WWI, because it also massacred ethnic Greeks as well (or vice versa), that the Nazis were not antiziganist because they were harsher on the Jews, or that the Catholic Kings were not Islamophobic because they expelled the Jews in 1492 too.

You have yet to provide a single incident where something happened because of anti-semitism. If you ever come up with something, we can examine it.

If and when you feel like reading the sources with even a little of intellectual honesty, I am quite sure that you'll realize that my reasoning is not particularly unsound.

You claimed that these incidents were motivated by anti-semitism:

Yes, I explained why.

No, these cities were attacked because they belonged to the Muslim faction that lost the war by the victorious Muslim faction and the victorious ones proceeded to slaughter and plunder the Muslims, Jews happened to find themselves in the middle of the cross-fire and none of that was motivated by anti-semitism but by standard plunder procedure applied indiscriminately as was the case before the Human Rights Conventions which you so flagrantly have tried time and again to diminish.

The cities at the time of the attacks were seen as mostly Jewish population centers, which is why the events feature prominently anyway.

Also the Jewish communities would generally take no part in the broader violence and would not usually pick sides.

At some point you even went as far as to deny due process altogether in order to enable Israelis to detain Palestinians without due process and that would be an upgrade to their actual status because now they are simply shot on sight without even applying "administrative process".

And now further distortion of what I said. Charging people under administrative detention would begin a trial and allow due process, which is what some were demanding in that thread.

More and more intellectual dishonesty from you, it's becoming a trend noticed by several forum members besides me, including non-Zionists.

[noemon]

Switzerland existed for 500 years before Kapodistrias gave it is modern constitution.

Not as a multi-national state, but as a German state. You are confused about history, the multi-national element of Switzerland is the important thing here not its name.

I've seen relatively little evidence that Christians face widespread persecution in Israel by the Israeli state (Arab Christians might face persecution, but that's insofar as they're Arab, not insofar as they're Christian). And no, your weird example about the legal dispute with the patriarchate doesn't count, and I'm not going to get involved in another seven page argument about that. I'm sure there are incidents in which Israeli Jews have discriminated against Christians, but I can't really find anything to indicate that the Israeli government as such does.

Selective memory, selective reading and an attempt to undermine events is a well-known trait of nationalist apologists, here you go:

Patriarch Ireneos was refused recognition for more than 2 years from 2002-2005, this meant that the Church's bank accounts were frozen and that The Orthodox Church could not maintain the Tomb of Jesus Christ as it was forbidden access to its own bank accounts. His successor Patriarch Theophilos was refused recognition for another 2 years from 2005-2007 in a blatant attempt to wrangle property out of them, your silence on the subject is deafening despite the fact that I kindly requested from you to provide your opinion.

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem sold properties inside the Jaffa Gate to a Jewish company to prove to Israel that he does not sympathize with Palestinians and the PLO, Nikos Papadimas, the former financial manager of the patriarchate, told Haaretz yesterday. Papadimas, who signed the deal in the name of the Patriarch Irineos I, has fled Israel to an unknown destination. Irineos has accused him of embezzling patriarchy funds.
The Israeli government refused to approve Irineos' election as Jerusalem's patriarch for two years as ministers accused him of hating Israel and being close to Yasser Arafat.
In January 2004, the government gave its approval for his appointment, as required by tradition. Irineos negotiated the sale of the properties to a Jewish buyer and signed the deal soon afterward, in what could be seen as a payoff for making his installation as patriarch possible. The land's buyer is concealing his identity, apparently fearing international criticism of Israel for continuing to sponsor the acquisition of property in East Jerusalem.
The deal was signed by an offshore company registered in the Bahamas. Papadimas said the company deposited a $1.5 million advance into one of the patriarchy's accounts and that one of its representatives has started talks with the Djani family, which has been leasing the Imperial Hotel for 70 years, to evacuate it.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/patriarch-allege ... l-1.157386

In November 2004, various incidents aroused fears of the Patriarch towards Papadimas. During October and early November 2004, Papadimas tried to convince the Patriarch of the need to accept some of the property offers presented to the Patriarch’s advocate, in order to remedy the deteriorating financial situation at the Patriarchate, and to cover some of the debts and expenses, and pay the overdue salaries. The Patriarch declined all these offers and rejected every possible settlement. Instead, he insisted on approaching the Greek Government for financial help. Against this background, several verbal altercations took place between the Patriarch and Papadimas. Some of these altercations were in the presence of eye witnesses.

One day in November 2004, i.e., ten days before the escape of Papadimas, and while the Patriarch was on his way back to Jerusalem from Tel-Aviv together with a priest in his car, an anonymous car rammed the Patriarch’s car and fled the scene. The Patriarch suspected it was an attempt on his life. A few days later, the Greek Foreign Ministry called the Patriarch and notified him that the Israeli wife of Papadimas was arrested while entering Greece. She was carrying 120.000 Euros and various jewelries. The Ministry enquired if her husband was actually working for the Patriarchate. The Foreign Ministry instructed the Patriarch to seal the treasury and deny Papadimas any access to it. He complied.

Patriarch Theophilos:

In 2005, then-Patriarch Irenaios sparked outrage within the Church after he reportedly sold some of its land to a group of Israeli investors.

The clergy was incensed that the Patriarch would sell Church land, and the Arab laity even more so, because they left that their land had been sold to Israelis. In response, the Holy Synod stripped Patriarch Irenaios of his position, replacing him with the current Patriarch, Theophilos III.

This began a difficult two-year stretch for the Church. Besides the controversy within the Church, external problems surfaced as well.

The Israeli government refused to recognize Irenaios’s removal, citing the need for government approval for the action. By the same token, it refused to confirm Patriarch Theophilos as Irenaios’s successor. Some accusations said figures in the Israeli government blocked the Patriarchate’s recognition in order to gain valuable church properties.

As Patriarch Theophilos labored to restore the Church to its previous calm, he was challenged with a government freeze of the Patriarchate’s bank accounts, the funds of which were needed for maintaining the holy places and the Patriarchate’s school system.

The following year, the Israeli government refused to renew visas for many of the Greek clergy, which would have necessitated their exodus from Israel.

Israelis spitting on Christians in Jerusalem:

According to Daniel Rossing, former adviser to the Religious Affairs Ministry on Christian affairs and director of a Jerusalem center for Christian-Jewish dialogue, there has been an increase in the number of such incidents recently, "as part of a general atmosphere of lack of tolerance in the country."
Rossing says there are certain common characeristics from the point of view of time and location to the incidents. He points to the fact that there are more incidents in areas where Jews and Christians mingle, such as the Jewish and Armenian quarters of the Old City and the Jaffa Gate.
There are an increased number at certain times of year, such as during the Purim holiday."I know Christians who lock themselves indoors during the entire Purim holiday," he says.
Former adviser to the mayor on Christian affairs, Shmuel Evyatar, describes the situation as "a huge disgrace." He says most of the instigators are yeshiva students studying in the Old City who view the Christian religion with disdain.
"I'm sure the phenomenon would end as soon as rabbis and well-known educators denounce it. In practice, rabbis of yeshivas ignore or even encourage it," he says.
Evyatar says he himself was spat at while walking with a Serbian bishop in the Jewish quarter, near his home. "A group of yeshiva students spat at us and their teacher just stood by and watched."
Jerusalem municipal officials said they are aware of the problem but it has to be dealt with by the police. Shmuel Ben-Ruby, the police spokesman, said they had only two complaints from Christians in the past two years. He said that, in both cases, the culprits were caught and punished.
He said the police deploy an inordinately high number of patrols and special technology in the Old City and its surroundings in an attempt to keep order.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/christians-in-je ... m-1.137099

Your representation of my arguments and beliefs is false and disingenuous. I am still rather confused by why you decided to start a feud with me a year and a half ago - something to do you PMing me, accusing me of being a fake Jew (seriously, this remains one of the most bizarre Internet messages I've ever received, and I've received some fucking strange messages). Why is it so hard for you to debate in good faith?

You said this in the other forum as well a couple of months ago and here you are saying it again, it takes a special kind of person to misrepresent PM's from several years ago but to your dismay I still have the PM's and can publish them since you talk about them openly, the reason I contacted you was because you claimed that Southern Europeans are hybrids between Northern European and Sub-Saharan Africans and I asked you whether you identify as a Sicilian since you seemed to me to have completely forgot your father's Italian ancestry and fully become a zionist apologist who yearns to be considered something better than just a Sicilian, to a nationalist like me this is quite cowardly, but that's just me.

Your stance in this forum speaks for itself, as for your claims about good faith... That is quite laughable considering your total lack of any nuance as well as your ridiculous attempts to reduce the Israeli persecution of Christians as "weird claims", much the same way that you are trying to infer weirdness in my PM when it was actually very much understood perfectly well by yourself. Of course that we are talking about you and me on a personal level is once again your own doing here since you have nothing else to say.
You asked me why I consider you a zionist apologist and I answered it is not my fault that you took issue like a cry-baby.

All conquerors that have massacred the conquered population as part of the spoils of war can be quite easily said to be anti-that population.

You cannot say that Muslims were antisemitic though because Muslims had installed a Jew as a Vyzir and a Jew was commanding the Muslim armies against the renegade Muslims, the slaughter of the defeated was not particular to the Jews but to the Muslims. It takes a special kind of person to portray Muslim wars against Muslims as antisemitic events against Jews.

The Jews just picked the less bad option.

Does not change the fact that the Jews submitted themselves voluntarily and on their own request to these Muslims laws. Does not say much for the Jews considering these laws antisemitic as you claim.

And yes, other non-Jewish dhimmis were discriminated against as well. Your argument is as stupid as saying that there was no genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman state in WWI, because it also massacred ethnic Greeks as well (or vice versa), that the Nazis were not antiziganist because they were harsher on the Jews, or that the Catholic Kings were not Islamophobic because they expelled the Jews in 1492 too.

No dear as usual you are confused or simply pretending to be in order to drag this on until you are blue in the face, but to me it makes no difference. These populations were particularly targeted for extermination, the Muslims in Tiberias and Safed did not particularly target the Jews they particularly targeted the Muslims against whom they were actually fighting.

Yes, I explained why.

And your claims were trashed while even your fellow zionists disagree with you. Good show.

Charging people under administrative detention would begin a trial and allow due process, which is what some were demanding in that thread.

As I said it would be an upgrade from their current status which is quite hilarious and administrative process is holding someone indefinitely without due process.

[wat0n]

You cannot say that Muslims were antisemitic though because Muslims had installed a Jew as a Vyzir and a Jew was commanding the Muslim armies against the renegade Muslims, the slaughter of the defeated was not particular to the Jews but to the Muslims too.

Note however that the people who killed the said Jews were in fact Muslim. No one said that:

1) All Muslims hate Jews or have hated them in the past at the same time.
2) That Jews and Muslims could not work together to achieve their goals.

But what I did say is that Muslims targeted Jewish settlements for attack, mainly because they were predominantly Jewish and thus could do so with impunity. If you want, I can be even clearer and state that some Muslims did so, not all of them.

All in response to the ridiculous claim that there were not attacks against Jews in the Muslim world before the First Aliyah.

And let's not even get to the issue of their status as dhimmis.

Does not change the fact that the Jews submitted themselves voluntarily and on their own request to these Muslims laws. Does not say much for the Jews considering these laws antisemitic as you claim.

Oh come on. There were Jews fleeing from Poland to Nazi Germany shortly before WWII, does that make the Nazis not antisemitic?

No dear as usual you are confused or simply pretending to be in order to drag this on until you are blue in the face, but to me it makes no difference. These populations were particularly targeted for extermination, the Muslims in Tiberias and Safed did not particularly target the Jews they particularly targeted the Muslims against whom they were actually fighting.

Again the same nonsense, just like with your distortion of the Irenaios' and then his succesor Theophilos III's recognition sagas, despite the fact that the primary sources state quite clearly that the complaints began within the Church itself - including the PA report on Irenaios' case you quoted, which states explicitly that the non-recognition was due to an inquiry because opponents within the Church alleged criminal behavior on his part, which hindered recognition but it was eventually shown by the Israeli prosecutor himself that no such antecedents existed thus clearing the way for it, rather than the claim that it was an attempt to extort him to sell land in East Jerusalem to Israelis that cost Irenaios the post. Or now your attempt to claim that hatred of Christians is widespread among Israeli Jews over the actions of ultra-Orthodox ones.

And your claims were trashed while even your fellow zionists disagree with you. Good show.

What? Who would those Zionists be?

As I said it would be an upgrade from their current status which is quite hilarious and administrative process is holding someone indefinitely without due process.

Which is why I said they should be charged rather than be locked up without a trial.

[noemon]

But what I did say is that Muslims targeted Jewish settlements for attack, mainly because they were predominantly Jewish and thus could do so with impunity. If you want, I can be even clearer and state that some Muslims did so, not all of them.

You did not provide any evidence that the attacks were caused by antisemitism, in fact the sources in the wiki article you provided explicitly say that the wars were between Muslims and that the Jews were unfortunate enough to be caught in the middle. This does not support your argument. Plain and simple.

All in response to the ridiculous claim that there were not attacks against Jews in the Muslim world before the First Aliyah.

To the claim that they were not attacks caused by antisemitism as clarified numerous times because they were not.

Oh come on. There were Jews fleeing from Poland to Nazi Germany shortly before WWII, does that make the Nazis not antisemitic?

What the feck? Are you seriously claiming that the Jews requested from the Nazi government asylum while fleeing from Poland? Like they did in the Ottoman Empire and where they lived for 400 years under a status that they requested themselves to be subjected to?

That would be complete news to me, but if you can, elaborate please.

And let's not even get to the issue of their status as shimmies.

A status to which they voluntarily subjected themselves at their own request.

despite the fact that the primary sources state quite clearly that the complaints began within the Church itself

No dear as usual your non-sense know no bounds, the Haaretz article states quite explicitly that Israeli ministers were the ones doing the accusations in order to force the Patriarchate to release property to zionists.

Or now your attempt to claim that hatred of Christians is widespread among Israeli Jews over the actions of ultra-Orthodox ones.

Once again the Haaretz article does not pin the blame to the ultra-orthodox but says explicitly that it is a widespread phenomenon.

Who would those Zionists be?

My mistake here, I misread Lightman above, he does insist on this ridiculous argument like you are.

Which is why I said they should be charged rather than be locked up without a trial.

'Administrative process' is locking them up without a trial, officially and that is what you explicitly said that Israeli should do to Palestinians. Full stop.

[wat0n]

The only part in which he's right is that Israel should begin charging Palestinians under administrative detention ASAP.

Yeah, totally supportive of keeping Palestinians jailed without trial.

As for the rest it was already addressed, and your clear distortion of what I said is exactly what I was talking about of your poor, deceptive reading of the primary sources in all those cases (note that the Ha'aretz article is simply stating Papadimas' account, the same one who acted without Iraneios' permission according to the PA - hardly a pro-Israel source).

[noemon]

Yeah, totally supportive of keeping Palestinians jailed without trial.

Administrative process is when someone detains someone without a trial and that is what you said Israel should do.

note that the Ha'aretz article is simply stating Papadimas' account, the same one who acted without Iraneios' permission

No dear, your misrepresentation once again is ridiculous just like all your other ones.

This statement :

the Haaretz article states quite explicitly that Israeli ministers were the ones doing the accusations in order to force the Patriarchate to release property to zionists.

Is not made by Papadimas but by the author of the Haaretz article:

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem sold properties inside the Jaffa Gate to a Jewish company to prove to Israel that he does not sympathize with Palestinians and the PLO, Nikos Papadimas, the former financial manager of the patriarchate, told Haaretz yesterday.[Hey look there is a full stop here] Papadimas, who signed the deal in the name of the Patriarch Irineos I, has fled Israel to an unknown destination. Irineos has accused him of embezzling patriarchy funds.
The Israeli government refused to approve Irineos' election as Jerusalem's patriarch for two years as ministers accused him of hating Israel and being close to Yasser Arafat.
In January 2004, the government gave its approval for his appointment, as required by tradition. Irineos negotiated the sale of the properties to a Jewish buyer and signed the deal soon afterward, in what could be seen as a payoff for making his installation as patriarch possible. The land's buyer is concealing his identity, apparently fearing international criticism of Israel for continuing to sponsor the acquisition of property in East Jerusalem.

Your distortions are funny but at the end of the day they remain and will always remain figments of your incessant apologetics.

[wat0n]

Administrative process is when someone detains someone without a trial and that is what you said Israel should do.

The quote shows clearly this is not what I said, in plain English that even Maas would understand.

No dear, your misrepresentation once again is ridiculous just like all your other ones.

This statement :

Is not made by Papadimas but by the author of the Haaretz article:

It's just a matter of reading the article:

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem sold properties inside the Jaffa Gate to a Jewish company to prove to Israel that he does not sympathize with Palestinians and the PLO, Nikos Papadimas, the former financial manager of the patriarchate, told Haaretz yesterday. Papadimas, who signed the deal in the name of the Patriarch Irineos I, has fled Israel to an unknown destination. Irineos has accused him of embezzling patriarchy funds.
The Israeli government refused to approve Irineos' election as Jerusalem's patriarch for two years as ministers accused him of hating Israel and being close to Yasser Arafat.
In January 2004, the government gave its approval for his appointment, as required by tradition. Irineos negotiated the sale of the properties to a Jewish buyer and signed the deal soon afterward, in what could be seen as a payoff for making his installation as patriarch possible. The land's buyer is concealing his identity, apparently fearing international criticism of Israel for continuing to sponsor the acquisition of property in East Jerusalem.

The article makes it clear that this is Papadimas' account.

Your distortions are funny but at the end of the day they remain and will always remain figments of your incessant apologetics.

Said by the one who is deliberately, and dishonestly, putting words in my mouth - even worse, the exact opposite of what the quote states.

This is just shameful

[noemon]

The quote shows clearly this is not what I said, in plain English that even Maas would understand.

What on earth are you babbling? You explicitly said that administrative process should be applied to Palestinians.

Administrative process is when someone is held without a trial.

It's just a matter of reading the article:

You have lost your brain if you actually believe that anyone except for you is incapable to read basic English punctuation. Papadimas statement ends where his statement ends. The rest of the statements are not quoted to him. You are a funny person.

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem sold properties inside the Jaffa Gate to a Jewish company to prove to Israel that he does not sympathize with Palestinians and the PLO, Nikos Papadimas, the former financial manager of the patriarchate, told Haaretz yesterday. [Look there is a punctuation mark here ending his statement] Papadimas, who signed the deal in the name of the Patriarch Irineos I, has fled Israel to an unknown destination. Irineos has accused him of embezzling patriarchy funds.
The Israeli government refused to approve Irineos' election as Jerusalem's patriarch for two years as ministers accused him of hating Israel and being close to Yasser Arafat.
In January 2004, the government gave its approval for his appointment, as required by tradition. Irineos negotiated the sale of the properties to a Jewish buyer and signed the deal soon afterward, in what could be seen as a payoff for making his installation as patriarch possible. The land's buyer is concealing his identity, apparently fearing international criticism of Israel for continuing to sponsor the acquisition of property in East Jerusalem.

Said by the one who is deliberately, and dishonestly, putting words in my mouth - even worse, the exact opposite of what the quote states.

This is just shameful

You clearly lost it and are about to have an implosion, I suggest deep breaths in a paper bag before you make any more distortions.

[wat0n]

You have lost your brain if you actually believe that anyone except for you is incapable to read basic English punctuation. Papadimas statement ends where his statement ends. The rest of the statements are not quoted to him. You are a funny person.

Joke's on you, that's the lead paragraph of the article and thus states the main issues of the article. Including, for instance, who's making the claims, if the article is about someone claiming something about a newsworthy occurrence like in this case.

As for the rest... Honestly, as Lightman said your tendency to distort what others say is annoying but at least it is quite clear that this is what you're doing as you are being way too blatant at it this time.

[Lightman]

Not as a multi-national state, but as a German state. You are confused about history, the multi-national element of Switzerland is the important thing here not its name.

I'll have to read up on that. I'm hardly an expert on Swiss history, it seems.

Selective memory, selective reading and an attempt to undermine events is a well-known trait of nationalist apologists, here you go:

Patriarch Ireneos was refused recognition for more than 2 years from 2002-2005, this meant that the Church's bank accounts were frozen and that The Orthodox Church could not maintain the Tomb of Jesus Christ as it was forbidden access to its own bank accounts. His successor Patriarch Theophilos was refused recognition for another 2 years from 2005-2007 in a blatant attempt to wrangle property out of them, your silence on the subject is deafening despite the fact that I kindly requested from you to provide your opinion.

Reading these articles, the Israeli government's actions do sound at least somewhat suspect.

You said this in the other forum as well a couple of months ago and here you are saying it again, it takes a special kind of person to misrepresent PM's from several years ago but to your dismay I still have the PM's and can publish them since you talk about them openly, the reason I contacted you was because you claimed that Southern Europeans are hybrids between Northern European and Sub-Saharan Africans and I asked you whether you identify as a Sicilian since you seemed to me to have completely forgot your father's Italian ancestry and fully become a zionist apologist who yearns to be considered something better than just a Sicilian, to a nationalist like me this is quite cowardly, but that's just me.

False. Specifically claimed that there is no such thing as a "pure white" race, and that Arabs and Sicilians almost certainly intermarried during the Arab occupation of Sicily (my family probably has some Arab ancestors). I did not say this to denigrate Southern Europeans, because I don't think there's anything wrong or shameful with having non-European ancestry, because I am not a racist. I said this to demonstrate a point about whiteness being mostly a social judgment, not a genetic reality. For some strange reason, you lost your shit in response to this and began claiming I was pretending to be a Jew because being a Jew would make me whiter than being an Italian. This is obviously fucking ridiculous to anyone who understands how race works in the United States, and is also fucking ridiculous to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, who could tell I was in no way trying to be "better than a Sicilian," whatever the fuck that means. I don't talk about Italy very much here, because, as you may notice, Italy, unlike Israel, doesn't come up in every third fucking thread.

I genuinely do not understand what about my comment so deeply offended you, and why you started this ridiculous feud by insinuating that I am some sort of fake Jew or something.

It frustrates me how difficult it is to talk to you, because you're occasionally interesting, but you read what I write in the most ridiculous way and insist I defend positions I have explicitly stated I don't hold.

[noemon]

False. Specifically claimed that there is no such thing as a "pure white" race, and that Arabs and Sicilians almost certainly intermarried during the Arab occupation of Sicily (my family probably has some Arab ancestors).

Mass explicitly claimed that Southern Europeans are hybrids between Northern Europeans with Black Africans and you explicitly said:

Maas is right.

I did not say this to denigrate Southern Europeans, because I don't think there's anything wrong or shameful with having non-European ancestry, because I am not a racist. I said this to demonstrate a point about whiteness being mostly a social judgment, not a genetic reality.

Mingling with Arabs is not shameful at all(I married a Persian and handed over my sister to a Turk), taking the 2 poles of Northern Europe and Sub-Sahara Africa as the defining poles(high & low) of human species is denigrating to the entire human race though and it only makes sense within an American racialist white narrative, "white" for you is a measure, for me it is not.

The Meds are not hybrids compared to "Whites" and Africans, they are the conglomeration of whatever they are and that conglomeration has absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between these 2 "pure" non-existent poles.

For some strange reason, you lost your shit in response to this and began claiming I was pretending to be a Jew because being a Jew would make me whiter than being an Italian. This is obviously fucking ridiculous to anyone who understands how race works in the United States, and is also fucking ridiculous to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, who could tell I was in no way trying to be "better than a Sicilian," whatever the fuck that means. I don't talk about Italy very much here, because, as you may notice, Italy, unlike Israel, doesn't come up in every third fucking thread.

Being Walter Sobchak is quite fashionable in the US and I had the feeling that you were just another Walter Sobchak because I had heard you talking of your father being Sicilian but I could not remember hearing you talking about being Jewish and so I asked you, you said you were Jewish, I apologised for my misunderstanding and yet you bring this up every time you get stuck to a corner like a cry-baby. What kind of person divulges and misrepresents things told to him in private?

It frustrates me how difficult it is to talk to you

If you were not constrained by your zionist apologetics maybe we could actually discuss seriously, but you believe that you can actually discredit me with a private message I sent you 2 years ago. Listen dude I have been here 10 years already, I have already made up my mind about what kind of people each and every one here is and you will not change my mind especially when you employ tactics that I consider utterly pathetic. There is a line between the on-topic subject, the tangents and personal material. You did not come here to discuss about anything on-topic, not even the tangents that were carried off.
I actually just finished that entire thread as well and these same pathetic tactics were employed in there too. Seems to me that you have not changed at all since then.

At the end of the day if I ask you or if you ask yourself why have you taken issue with me in here, you will not be able to answer the question, being a nationalist apologist is not a bad word in my dictionary which I wear proudly from my own self, but being dishonest about it, is.

[Lightman]

Wow, you even doctored the quote.

The full quote, for context:

As much as it pains me to agree with Maas, he is basically right; there is no biological reality to a "pure white" race. I am not saying that there are no group genetic heritages, but the idea that skin color rigidly divides humanity is unscientific. If you do believe in a rigid racial divide, Southern Europeans certainly aren't 100% white; do you really think there was no intermixture between the Moors and the Spanish? Or the Arabs and the Sicilians?

If you read this as me saying "there are two racial poles, the top being Northern Europe, the bottom being sub-Saharan Africa," then your problem is not with me, but with your reading comprehension skills.

Being Walter Sobchak is quite fashionable in the US

What the fuck are you even talking about? Being Jewish is "fashionable" in the US. Ridiculous.

because I had heard you talking of your father being Sicilian but I could not remember hearing you talking about being Jewish and so I asked you, you said you were Jewish, I apologised for my misunderstanding and yet you bring this up every time you get stuck to a corner like a cry-baby. What kind of person divulges and misrepresents things told to him in private?

you aggressively accused me of lying about my race, said something weird about "Jewish assumption of the Virgin Lightman" (still not entirely sure what the fuck you meant by that), accused me of buying into Hollywood Jewish narratives. I have no memory of you apologizing for it. I don't really appreciate lying.

I made a post here disputing an untrue historical claim. I know it must be very fun to dismiss most every Jew here as a rabid Zionist, but I don't think any objective observer would categorize my posts here that way. You say I lack nuance, and yet I've made several concessions to your argument because I actually care about the historical record and whatnot.

Anyway, you are correct in that this is off-topic.

[noemon]

Wow, you even doctored the quote.

There are limits on bullshit, try to stay within acceptable limits. I did not doctor the quote, I only kept the relevant bit and the reason why I took issue with your claims.

Here look at me taking the relevant part once again:

If you do believe in a rigid racial divide, Southern Europeans certainly aren't 100% white;

As I told you in that other thread:

Second, if you do believe in a rigid social divide are Northern Europeans 100% white?

And why would anyone make such an assumption in the first place? "White" is not a measure that makes sense to me in any way, "white" is completely Nazi bull which are sustained in the US racial wars and which have been re-exported to Europe.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Being Jewish is "fashionable" in the US. Ridiculous.

Being Walter Sobchak is quite clear, it requires no further explanation or analysis. Saul Goodman is yet another such character.

you aggressively accused me of lying about my race, said something weird about "Jewish assumption of the Virgin Lightman" (still not entirely sure what the fuck you meant by that), accused me of buying into Hollywood Jewish narratives. I have no memory of you apologizing for it. I don't really appreciate lying.

I do not appreciate lying either or pitiful attempts such as these, this pathetic attempt was made by you 2 months ago and again in that thread as well which is quite ridiculous, so let me just put it to rest along with your claims that you "did not understand this weird thing...."

I made a post here disputing an untrue historical claim.

No you didn't dispute an unhistorical claim, you disputed a statement which you eventually agreed with and you said that Muslims have been antisemitic but you have not provided any example of acts caused by antisemitism, since you did not want to concede that one you started these insults that we are dealing with right now. Apparently this is important to you as it is an integral part of the zionist arsenal of straws.

I know it must be very fun to dismiss most every Jew here as a rabid Zionist, but I don't think any objective observer would categorize my posts here that way.

Whether you are a zionist apologist that is up to others to decide, not for you and this is not subject to this thread but to your historical stance in the forum. The fact that you keep taking issue with me when there are crazy people in the forum to deal with does not support your line of thinking.

You say I lack nuance, and yet I've made several concessions to your argument because I actually care about the historical record and whatnot.

Only the fact that you see conceding to reality as a praiseworthy act that is subject to an exchange is ridiculous enough. This does not matter to me one bit, exchanging things as in a bazaar where you concede and I concede something back. These times between us are long gone.

The fact that you lack nuance is quite obvious, you keep talking about me and my PM instead of the subject divulging private information to the public that discredits you not only as a poster but as a person and the worst bit is that you are not even being honest about it.

Joke's on you

You have actually lost your brain completely. I understand English is not your primary language in Chile, but the statement that Israeli ministers are responsible for the accusations is not quoted to Papadimas on the article. These distortions are quite obvious to people with basic english command and you are ridiculing yourself by insisting otherwise.

[Lightman]

Second, if you do believe in a rigid social divide are Northern Europeans 100% white?

As anyone who has basic reading comprehension skills could have seen, no, I do not believe that Northern Europeans are 100% genetically white, because I don't think there is a coherent genetic category called "white." You choose to read my posts in the most obtuse ways possible.

Being Walter Sobchak is quite clear, it requires no further explanation or analysis. Saul Goodman is yet another such character.

Oh my god, you know absolutely nothing about American life if you think, on the basis of two fictional characters, it is common for people to claim Jewish ancestry in order to be fashionable. The only ancestry people regularly claim for fashion purposes in the US is Native American. "Fashionable Jewry" is just not a phenomenon that exists here. I don't care if you can maybe find some obscure example of someone pretending to be Jewish, it's simply not a common thing.

No you didn't dispute an unhistorical claim, you disputed a statement which you eventually agreed with and you said that Muslims have been antisemitic but you have not provided any example of acts caused by antisemitism, since you did not want to concede that one you started these insults that we are dealing with right now. Apparently this is important to you as it is an integral part of the zionist arsenal of straws.

You said there were no pogroms before the establishment of Israel. Objectively false. I know you like playing loose with historical fact (ever come up with any evidence for those mass Greek expulsions from France, Italy, and Spain?), but this is truly ridiculous.

Whether you are a zionist apologist that is up to others to decide, not for you and this is not subject to this thread but to your historical stance in the forum. The fact that you keep taking issue with me when there are crazy people in the forum to deal with does not support your line of thinking.

Nope, I don't owe you a fucking quota of anti-Zionist posts, Noemon. I owe you nothing.

Only the fact that you see conceding to reality as a praiseworthy act that is subject to an exchange is ridiculous enough. This does not matter to me one bit, exchanging things as in a bazaar where you concede and I concede something back. These times between us are long gone.

I didn't say it was praiseworthy; you concede nothing ever, and then go ahead and insist that I am somehow un-nuanced. It's such a ridiculous, dishonest reading of my posts.

Anyway, fuck this, I'm out.

[noemon]

As anyone who has basic reading comprehension skills could have seen, no, I do not believe that Northern Europeans are 100% genetically white, because I don't think there is a coherent genetic category called "white." You choose to read my posts in the most obtuse ways possible.

I do not see why "white" should in any way be used to make any statement whatsoever and the conversation is from 2 years ago, you resurrected it. "White" that is American white is nothing, it's not any kind of measure for anything and anybody.

I don't care if you can maybe find some obscure example of someone pretending to be Jewish, it's simply not a common thing.

Who cares? That is the impression I got from you 2 years ago, I explained myself in the PM, I apologised for it yet you insist bringing this up like a child. Pathetic.

You said there were no pogroms before the establishment of Israel. Objectively false.

The definition of pogrom is when an attack happens caused by anti-semitism none of the examples provided here were caused by anti-semitism. If you have any such attacks you are welcome to bring them forward but accusing a people the Muslims without any evidence whatsoever is quite pathetic and it is zionist straws to divert attention from the Israeli racism against Muslims today like the OP's for example. Doubly pathetic.

I owe you nothing.

Me either, so do not beg me to consider you something you are not because I owe you nothing just as well and especially you.
But for the record I will just say that being rational and humane is something that a person does for his own self not for others and not for an exchange or to be given laurels. I do not believe though you can grasp these concepts anyway, people who misrepresent private information cannot be expected to comprehend codes of conduct.

you concede nothing ever, and then go ahead and insist that I am somehow un-nuanced. It's such a ridiculous, dishonest reading of my posts.

I concede things regularly and apologise for my mistakes as well, but I do not exchange favours and lie to make you feel better with yourself, nor will I ever, you on the contrary divulge, misrepresent PM's from 2 years and go as far as to blatantly lie about them as well.:

I don't really appreciate lying.

Now that it is proven that you did, it is a wonder that you still had the face to show up.

ever come up with any evidence for those mass Greek expulsions from France, Italy, and Spain

But your issue now is the Greeks in Spain...if it makes you feel any better, Greeks were not persecuted in Spain, they were persecuted, in Cyprus, Corsica, Constantinople, Soviet Russia, Turkey, Egypt, Toronto, Nebraska, Corinth and modern day Israel.

I did provide evidence for all these events but unlike you I did not claim that these events happened because of anti-hellenism.