More Israeli war crimes

[Renskay 36]

57 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I disagree, he posted an entirely unfounded anti-semitic trope. At best it was ignorance, but above he doubles down calling what is largely accepted as a racial slur that led to ethnic cleansing as

Whether it is ignorance or anti-semitism, it is clearly wrong. It does neither you or him no credit if you can't recognise that. Weskers plays put it in far more context. In 1996 he wrote Blood Libel, a Norwich Playhouse commission. This play, together with The Merchant, explored a Christian society infected by antisemitism. Blood Libel is about William of Norwich, a 12-year-old whose murder in 1144 was attributed to the Jews. This rumour resonated throughout medieval Europe. As Wesker sought to underline with this drama, the medieval Christian fantasy of the Jew as child-murderer was an element that contributed in part to the Holocaust. In his review of The Merchant, Michael Billington wrote, “Wesker’s point comes across clearly: that anti-Jewish prejudice is ingrained in English life.” Both plays examine the past and also seem to suggest that little has changed.

 

I thought we weren't supposed to mention this topic?

I'm ok with just letting it lie but instead of just letting it settle you are ready to give a history lesson of the whole thing but when I just reference it as an event in history you report me, when I suggest there is evidence that it's not entirely as you claimed (which there is) you report me again.

It seems you're perfectly happy for this subject to be presented but you'd prefer it was exclusively on your terms and anyone who questions the interpretation you have they are now "anti-semetic".

As I said you have given me a lot to think about with this whole interaction.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Renskay

[BigFish 1,988]

6 minutes ago, Renskay said:

I thought we weren't supposed to mention this topic?

I'm ok with just letting it lie but instead of just letting it settle you are ready to give a history lesson of the whole thing but when I just reference it as an event in history you report me, when I suggest there is evidence that it's not entirely as you claimed (which there is) you report me again.

It seems you're perfectly happy for this subject to be presented but you'd prefer it was exclusively on your terms and anyone who questions the interpretation you have they are now "anti-semetic".

As I said you have given me a lot to think about with this whole interaction.

Your original post was an anti-semitic trope, rather than admit your mistake or acknowledge your purpose you doubled down on claiming it was a historical fact, when there is no contemporary evidence for this at all. Norwich's place in the rise of European anti-semitism is historically interesting but that wasn't your intention, was it?

[Renskay 36]

1 minute ago, BigFish said:

Your original post was an anti-semitic trope, rather than admit your mistake or acknowledge your purpose you doubled down on claiming it was a historical fact, when there is no contemporary evidence for this at all. Norwich's place in the rise of European anti-semitism is historically interesting but that wasn't your intention, was it?

So contemporary evidence and post modern value judgements take precedence for an incident that happened in the 1100s rather than accounts written documenting the incident in detail from the time period? 

Do you not realise how mad you sound in your accusations of Anti-Semitism here?

[Herman 9,776]

James Cleverly is Minister Of State For Middle East. Probably explains a lot.

[Herman 9,776]

Anyway here is basically what happens every time.

The Israeli government steals a lot more land of an already impoverished Palestinian people.

The poorly armed Palestinian people fight back against this.

The very well armed Israeli government over-react bombing already war damaged areas, refugee camps, media centres etc.

The West responds that Israel has a right to protect itself ignoring the fact they started the new rounds of fighting.

Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Nothing will ever change until the West, especially the US, admits that this really stinks.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

Anyway here is basically what happens every time.

The Israeli government steals a lot more land of an already impoverished Palestinian people.

The poorly armed Palestinian people fight back against this.

The very well armed Israeli government over-react bombing already war damaged areas, refugee camps, media centres etc.

The West responds that Israel has a right to protect itself ignoring the fact they started the new rounds of fighting.

Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Nothing will ever change until the West, especially the US, admits that this really stinks.

Nailed it. The West has shamefully backed the wrong horse for years. Something about insanity being doing the same thing and expecting different results springs to mind.

[BigFish 1,988]

8 hours ago, Renskay said:

So contemporary evidence and post modern value judgements take precedence for an incident that happened in the 1100s rather than accounts written documenting the incident in detail from the time period? 

Do you not realise how mad you sound in your accusations of Anti-Semitism here?

I wrote you used that you posted an antisemitic trope. That is incontrovertible. Rather than learn something you doubled down on that trope, partially researching what you call an "event" to confirm what you thought you found. I just pointed out that there is no evidence whatsover, or rather the only evidence there is relies entirely on the antisemitic writings of a Monk who was not even resident in Norwich at the time, writing nearly three decades after the event. You may think it is ok to make unfounded assertions that medieval Jews ritually sacrificed Christian adolescent boys on an annual basis and drank their blood but it really isn't. It is antisemitism, pure and simple.

Edited May 18, 2021 by BigFish

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

It is by no means certain the boy was murdered.

[BigFish 1,988]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

It is by no means certain the boy was murdered.

Quite agree PC, the only thing that is certain is that it is part of a widespread antisemitic slur

[Renskay 36]

12 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

It is by no means certain the boy was murdered.

No it is not disputed that the young boy was murdered. Even sources from Jewish academics acknowledge that the boy's murdered body was found in Mousehold Heath (Thorpe Wood).

On the 24th March, 1144 a woodsman named Henry de Sprowston found the corpse of the young boy in the wood with a shaven head, thorn marks on his scalp and puncture wounds on the side of his body.

A local priest named Godwin Sturt came to examine the boy and recognised him as his wife's nephew.

A Chapel was even constructed in honour of the young boy originally named The Chapel of Saint William in the Wood.

What is disputed about this incident is not the young boy's death but the assertion of guilt of who exactly killed young William.

There is evidence from local people collected by Thomas of Monmouth, a monk who moved to Norwich to the same Abbey the boy was martyred at 4-6 years after the event took place in a ranged period of 1148-150 and the conclusions he drew from the collected evidence.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Renskay

[Renskay 36]

8 hours ago, BigFish said:

I wrote you used that you posted an antisemitic trope. That is incontrovertible. Rather than learn something you doubled down on that trope, partially researching what you call an "event" to confirm what you thought you found. I just pointed out that there is no evidence whatsover, or rather the only evidence there is relies entirely on the antisemitic writings of a Monk who was not even resident in Norwich at the time, writing nearly three decades after the event. You may think it is ok to make unfounded assertions that medieval Jews ritually sacrificed Christian adolescent boys on an annual basis and drank their blood but it really isn't. It is antisemitism, pure and simple.

I posted a reference to a historical event which you specifically interpreted as "antisemetic".

I investigated the history of the particular event after you made such an elaborate song and dance about how inaccurate I was being and found out there is indeed evidence which suggests that it's not like you claimed and you interpret this as "doubling-down" on "anti-semitism"

You repeatedly state there is "no evidence whatsoever" to explain the conclusions of the people at the time but your own evidence which you use to suggest as an accurate representation is a semi-fictional play from the 90's. The idea that you can get a more accurate account of a historical event from something published about 850 years after it occurred is quite frankly absurd.

This monk you referenced as writing these "antisemetic" writings "three decades" later actually wrote his first account in 1150, just 6 years after the event occurred in 1144, and the work was refined with more detail until 1172 in it's final volume.

He had first-hand accounts from people who knew the boy personally, such as family, friends, monks who were also even present, at the same abbey Thomas himself worked at, in examining the body themselves.

There is even testimony from local people such as the sheriff of Norwich who claimed the Jewish community bribed him to a pact of silence about the incident and even reports of several people in the community with first-hand knowledge being offered bribes from the Jewish community to maintain their silence - the boy's own brother attests he was offered a bribe.

If an attempt at accurate historical accounts is deemed as "anti-semitism" maybe you need to rethink your own definitions of the accusation.

 

[BigFish 1,988]

15 minutes ago, Renskay said:

No it is not disputed that the young boy was murdered. Even sources from Jewish academics acknowledge that the boy's murdered body was found in Mousehold Heath (Thorpe Wood).

On the 24th March, 1144 a woodsman named Henry de Sprowston found the corpse of the young boy in the wood with a shaven head, thorn marks on his scalp and puncture wounds on the side of his body.

A local priest named Godwin Sturt came to examine the boy and recognised him as his wife's nephew.

A Chapel was even constructed in honour of the young boy originally named The Chapel of Saint William in the Wood.

What is disputed about this incident is not the young boy's death but the assertion of guilt of who exactly killed young William.

There is evidence from local people collected by Thomas of Monmouth, a monk who moved to the Norwich to the same Abbey the boy was martyred at 4-6 years after the event took place in a ranged period of 1148-150 and the conclusions he drew from the collected evidence.

 

Let it go now, hasn't the penny dropped yet.

Thomas of Monmouth is the only source, it took him over two decades to come up with his story and the Abbey was trying to drum up lucrative business of serving pilgrims to a shrine to their "martyred saint".

There is no evidence, zip, nada, nothing.

What there is eveidence of is antisemitism that for some reason you seem so very keen to perpetuate

[Renskay 36]

2 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Let it go now, hasn't the penny dropped yet.

Thomas of Monmouth is the only source, it took him over two decades to come up with his story and the Abbey was trying to drum up lucrative business of serving pilgrims to a shrine to their "martyred saint".

There is no evidence, zip, nada, nothing.

What there is eveidence of is antisemitism that for some reason you seem so very keen to perpetuate

"it took him over two decades to come up with his story"

Thomas of Monmouth wrote his account of the event in 1150, this is not two decades after the event but perhaps this is your own failure at mathematics.

"There is no evidence, zip, nada, nothing."

It's very amusing how you can suggest there is no evidence repeatedly but any reference to that evidence you label anti-semitic and remove entirely from the forum.

[Renskay 36]

On 16/05/2021 at 20:31, Renskay said:

 To this point, I recall  a video clip of Shulamit Aloni - Former Member of the Israeli government stating in a interview "Anti-semitism is a trick" used to silence argument against Israel.

 

This video speaks louder and louder to me every day.

[BigFish 1,988]

19 minutes ago, Renskay said:

"it took him over two decades to come up with his story"

Thomas of Monmouth wrote his account of the event in 1150, this is not two decades after the event but perhaps this is your own failure at mathematics.

"There is no evidence, zip, nada, nothing."

It's very amusing how you can suggest there is no evidence repeatedly but any reference to that evidence you label anti-semitic and remove entirely from the forum.

Thomas of Monmouth didn't complete "The Life and Passion of William of Norwich" until 1172 (28 years later), and he didn't even arrive in Norwich until years after the supposed events he wrote about. Neither the Sheriff or ecclesiastical courts had take any interest in this and no one was ever brought to justice.

Meanwhile the Blood libel that you are so keen to repeat without context has clear evidence as one of the most pernicious examples of antisemitism.

Edited May 18, 2021 by BigFish

[Renskay 36]

On 18/05/2021 at 17:47, BigFish said:

Thomas of Monmouth didn't complete "The Life and Passion of William of Norwich" until 1172 (28 years later), and he didn't even arrive in Norwich until years after the supposed events he wrote about. Neither the Sheriff or ecclesiastical courts had take any interest in this and no one was ever brought to justice.

Meanwhile the Blood libel that you are so keen to repeat without context has clear evidence as one of the most pernicious examples of antisemitism.

The accusations had been around the City since the event took place till far beyond the day Monmouth arrived. He documented the claims by recording the evidence and published multiple volumes of The Life and Passion of William of Norwich. 

The first of which being in 1150 - just 6 years after the event.

"Neither the Sheriff or ecclesiastical courts had take any interest "

The Sheriff of Norwich , John de Caineto, acknowledged on his deathbed he had been bribed by the Jewish community to a pact silence to not mention the event.

“It is said that Erlward did nothing further except continue on his way to his own home in the city. With the coast clear, the two Jews returned and simply hung the sack holding William’s body on a tree and galloped home, still in panic. Aware that there was now a witness to the disposal of the body, the Jewish leaders decided that they needed to obtain the protection of the City Sheriff, John de Caineto, who as the King’s representative, was obliged to act on the Jew’s behalf for they were his source of ready money. In return for a willing bribe offered by the Jews, de Caineto instructed Aelward not to divulge anything he might have seen in Thorpe Wood”.

 

On 18/05/2021 at 17:18, BigFish said:

the Abbey was trying to drum up lucrative business of serving pilgrims to a shrine to their "martyred saint".

It really is so hypocritical to me that you will make such hay out of a reference to a historical event which there is evidence against the Jewish community by calling it slanderous and labelling "libel" but when you openly blaspheme the church with this statement going so far as to suggest they would martyr a murdered child just for the sake of profit you care not a peep.

To me this really is grotesque and unlike with the case involving William of Norwich, it has absolutely no evidence to back it up. To suggest the construction of a Chapel and the desire of Martyrdom of an innocent boy for wholly cynical and unfaithful reasons. This is completely anti-Christian sentiment.

Yet you can just baselessly throw out these accusations against men of God, men of the Church and the people of Norwich.

To you it's perfectly acceptable to slander them. Blaspheme them even. 

But for me to reference history I am supposedly committing the act of "libel" on a whole religion.

Grotesque.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Renskay

[BigFish 1,988]

7 minutes ago, Renskay said:

The accusations had been around the City since the event took place till far beyond the day Monmouth arrived. He documented the claims by recording the evidence and published multiple volumes of The Life and Passion of William of Norwich. 

The first of which being in 1950 - just 6 years after the event.

"Neither the Sheriff or ecclesiastical courts had take any interest "

The Sheriff of Norwich , John de Caineto, acknowledged on his deathbed he had been bribed by the Jewish community to a pact silence to not mention the event.

“It is said that Erlward did nothing further except continue on his way to his own home in the city. With the coast clear, the two Jews returned and simply hung the sack holding William’s body on a tree and galloped home, still in panic. Aware that there was now a witness to the disposal of the body, the Jewish leaders decided that they needed to obtain the protection of the City Sheriff, John de Caineto, who as the King’s representative, was obliged to act on the Jew’s behalf for they were his source of ready money. In return for a willing bribe offered by the Jews, de Caineto instructed Aelward not to divulge anything he might have seen in Thorpe Wood”.

 

It really is so hypocritical to me that you will make such hay out of a reference to a historical event which there is evidence against the Jewish community by calling it slanderous and labelling "libel" but when you openly blaspheme the church with this statement going so far as to suggest they would martyr a murdered child just for the sake of profit you care not a peep.

To me this really is grotesque and unlike with the case involving William of Norwich, it has absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Yet you can just baselessly throw out accusations against men of God, men of the Church, the people of Norwich and to you it's perfectly acceptable to slander them. Blaspheme them even. 

But for me to reference history I am supposedly committing the act of "libel" on a whole religion.

Grotesque.

So to support your original post you use a website on myths and folk tales. This you call history. This you call evidence. Oh, the irony.

Face it you have one source of which there is only one original and no evidence. Yet you still perpetuate what is called the Blood Libel, a particularly pernicious antisemitic trope.

And yes, "men of God" could make a good living out of saints, relics and martyrs in medieval Europe. Thomas was William's sacrist, it made good sense to hype up the story to increase his income.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

2 hours ago, Renskay said:

No it is not disputed that the young boy was murdered. Even sources from Jewish academics acknowledge that the boy's murdered body was found in Mousehold Heath (Thorpe Wood).

On the 24th March, 1144 a woodsman named Henry de Sprowston found the corpse of the young boy in the wood with a shaven head, thorn marks on his scalp and puncture wounds on the side of his body.

A local priest named Godwin Sturt came to examine the boy and recognised him as his wife's nephew.

A Chapel was even constructed in honour of the young boy originally named The Chapel of Saint William in the Wood.

What is disputed about this incident is not the young boy's death but the assertion of guilt of who exactly killed young William.

There is evidence from local people collected by Thomas of Monmouth, a monk who moved to the Norwich to the same Abbey the boy was martyred at 4-6 years after the event took place in a ranged period of 1148-150 and the conclusions he drew from the collected evidence.

 

 

As far as I am aware there were some marks on the boy's body that indicated violence, but no certainty as to whether they were the result of murder, an assault  not meant to end in death but which did so, or even some kind of accident. That it was murder was an assumption only, based purely on those marks, since there was no hard evidence of any of the obvious usual pointers - a murder weapon, or a murderer, or an obvious suspect or an obvious motive. But in the heated atmosphere that quickly developed the assumption became as accepted as a fact.

[Renskay 36]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

So to support your original post you use a website on myths and folk tales. 

The quote I cited is from Thomas of Monmouth's original work "Vita et passio Sancti Willemi martyris Norwicensis" which is translated from it's original Latin by another clergyman from Norfolk Augustus Jessop in a separate book called "The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich", published in 1896, which also provides sceptical rational arguments to each piece of evidence in the case diligently, but since the extent of your research involved putting the quote in Google maybe that's all *you* could find.

Quote

Face it you have one source of which there is only one original and no evidence. 

There is a multitude of evidence involving multiple parties who present correlating evidence and eyewitness testimony claims. Just because this information has been gathered and reported in one specific book  does not make it "only one original" source of evidence. Since this book was written by a man of the clergy is reason for it to be considered more credible, not less so. It is a source of testimony from the people of the area from the time the incident occurred and for some reason in your fanatical attempts to discredit it, to your mind these first-hand reports of people from the area of the time whom are most likely to present an accurate version of events are less credible than the people who accuse "anti-Semitism" hundreds of years later.

Quote

And yes, "men of God" could make a good living out of saints, relics and martyrs in medieval Europe. Thomas was William's sacrist, it made good sense to hype up the story to increase his income.

and here yet again to use your terminology you "double down" on your Anti-Christian sentiment and slander Christians.

Suggesting that men of God are so terribly flawed that I am to assume wrongdoing on their part as first instinct by your suggestion of their character instead of holy men who wished to do right by a young innocent boy who did nothing wrong but nevertheless was slain.

Worse yet, you suggest they would go through the guise of propagating a story with "no evidence" for the sake of profit.

This is libellous against Christians but in our day and age you can just throw out these assertions with no basis but when I present well argued points in regard to history you think my voice should be silenced.

This has been an eye opener of a conversation indeed.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Renskay

[Renskay 36]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

As far as I am aware there were some marks on the boy's body that indicated violence, but no certainty as to whether they were the result of murder, an assault  not meant to end in death but which did so, or even some kind of accident. That it was murder was an assumption only, based purely on those marks, since there was no hard evidence of any of the obvious usual pointers - a murder weapon, or a murderer, or an obvious suspect or an obvious motive. But in the heated atmosphere that quickly developed the assumption became as accepted as a fact.

The logical assumption a person could draw from a child left dead with strange marks and puncture wounds all over their body is that they did not do it to themselves. It is actually quite disingenuous to suggest a person left in such a state was not murdered. This is why the claim the boy was murdered is not disputed by any party whatsoever. The disputed aspect of the story is who the guilty party may have been.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

5 hours ago, Renskay said:

You repeatedly state there is "no evidence whatsoever" to explain the conclusions of the people at the time but your own evidence which you use to suggest as an accurate representation is a semi-fictional play from the 90's. The idea that you can get a more accurate account of a historical event from something published about 850 years after it occurred is quite frankly absurd.

This monk you referenced as writing these "antisemetic" writings "three decades" later actually wrote his first account in 1150, just 6 years after the event occurred in 1144, and the work was refined with more detail until 1172 in it's final volume.

 

 

 

This is Thomas of Monmouth? You place more reliance on him than did Jessopp and MR James, who edited his writings in the nineteenth century. Jessopp said the monk was both deceived and a deceiver, and James regarded him as a gullible rogue. In effect they were saying he purveyed fake news.

[BigFish 1,988]

2 hours ago, Renskay said:

The quote I cited is from Thomas of Monmouth's original work "Vita et passio Sancti Willemi martyris Norwicensis" which is translated from it's original Latin by another clergyman from Norfolk Augustus Jessop in a separate book called "The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich", published in 1896, which also provides sceptical rational arguments to each piece of evidence in the case diligently, but since the extent of your research involved putting the quote in Google maybe that's all *you* could find.

There is a multitude of evidence involving multiple parties who present correlating evidence and eyewitness testimony claims. Just because this information has been gathered and reported in one specific book  does not make it "only one original" source of evidence. Since this book was written by a man of the clergy is reason for it to be considered more credible, not less so. It is a source of testimony from the people of the area from the time the incident occurred and for some reason in your fanatical attempts to discredit it, to your mind these first-hand reports of people from the area of the time whom are most likely to present an accurate version of events are less credible than the people who accuse "anti-Semitism" hundreds of years later.

and here yet again to use your terminology you "double down" on your Anti-Christian sentiment and slander Christians.

Suggesting that men of God are so terribly flawed that I am to assume wrongdoing on their part as first instinct by your suggestion of their character instead of holy men who wished to do right by a young innocent boy who did nothing wrong but nevertheless was slain.

Worse yet, you suggest they would go through the guise of propagating a story with "no evidence" for the sake of profit.

This is libellous against Christians but in our day and age you can just throw out these assertions with no basis but when I present well argued points in regard to history you think my voice should be silenced.

This has been an eye opener of a conversation indeed.

 

Ah, you are back to your single unreliable, uncorroborated source-Thomas. Why did Thomas write this? Simple answer is that because he was told to by Bishop William Turbe. William was largely forgotton for five years until the trial of Sir Simon de Novers. This knight was unable to repay his heavy debts and so murdered his creditor, who happens to be the the "Eleazer" your source refers to above. That of course was not his name, it is a mistranslation of the Latin version of "may God save". So your source cannot even correctly name the actors in these so called events accurately. At Novers trial it was the Bishop who dragged up the story of William for the defence. He blamed the victim, saying the accused couldn't be convicted until the Jews were convicted of the boys death. He did this in front of King Stephen, but did the king act on this, did he prosecute the Jews. NO BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. From this point the nasty antisemitic trope of the Blood Libel you continue to peddle began in England.

[kirku 1,334]

Well, that was interesting. You learn something new every day.

Renskay, you're quite clearly on the wrong side of this one.

Edited May 19, 2021 by kirku

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

45 minutes ago, kirku said:

Well, that was interesting. You learn something new every day.

Renskay, you're quite clearly on the wrong side of this one.

Stick around. Next week the topic is: 'Julian of Norwich - woman with a man's name. Was she the Caitlyn Jenner of the 14th century?'

[Herman 9,776]

29 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Stick around. Next week the topic is: 'Julian of Norwich - woman with a man's name. Was she the Caitlyn Jenner of the 14th century?'

"All shall be well in the end and if things are not well then it's not the end."

Julian of Norwich/Tom Hanks/Wittertainment.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Stick around. Next week the topic is: 'Julian of Norwich - woman with a man's name. Was she the Caitlyn Jenner of the 14th century?'

She could be Principal Boy in Panto😀

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

diversion and using the anti semitic trope abound the Hasbarra community is here to stamp on anything that looks as if those devils had actually planned this action to save a fraudsters guilty backside and keep him on as president for a while.

Palestine is occupied by Zionists who steal land, and every time they do it, their preferred victims are being slaughtered whilst the worlds media and s..ts like not so Clerverly and Jendrich are faking concern and then accusing protesters here of being anti Semitic when the attack the murderous actions by Zionists.

They make out that Zionism is a religion and that it is anti Semitic to criticize such a murderous political idea which should be classed as terrorism, just as the actions of Saudi Arabia in Yemen is terrorism and the action of the Myanmar generals is terrorism. Terrorism against civilians of a state.

In this case its the state of Palestine and its inhabitants that are terrorized by an incomer who tore up the Balfour declaration they signed up to when the world community granted them neighbourly access to Palestine, to sharer with the Palestinians. Nowhere did it say murder invade and steal land and invite people who have other homes throughout the world to come to East Jerusalem and deprive Palestinians of their home's.

The UK US Germany and others keep these murderous Zionist alive and well armed. Rather than demanding an end to the reoccurring violence, roadblocks and a fenced in Ghaza, they pay for and make the bombs, ensure that the Nahkba/ Holocaust carries on against mainly children who make up half of the casualties.

Time to sit down and start talking to people, not their bought and pacified leaders who agree with this ongoing violence. Time for a ceasefire and sanctions on the Zionist regime that uses election after election and actions like we have seen the last two weeks, to keep their very own Adolf Netanyahu out of jail for a little longer.

There is no secure peaceful future in Palestine, unless the Balfour declaration is implemented in full, in a one state solution that acknowledges the rights and deeds of Palestinians that have equal birthrights to anybody else.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/05/what-is-left-for-palestine/comment-page-1/#comments

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

Operation Claw is a Turkish onslaught in Iraqi Kurdistan that lasted from May 2019 to June 2020. Hundreds of people were killed or wounded in that operation. These operations, of course, are only the latest flare-ups in Turkey’s 40-year war with Kurdish militants, which has led to the deaths of around 20,000 Kurdish civilians and the destruction of between 2,500 and 4,000 Kurdish villages.

The OP, a know fanboy of Turkey, has failed to mention the persecution of Kurds yet sheds crocodile tears for the terrorists embedded in the civilian population in Gaza.

Operation Claw-Lightning is a follow-up to Operation Claw, started by Turkey on 23 April, but we are yet to see any form of public outrage or street protest in the west. That's because Turkey is not Israel and anti-semitism runs deep in the progressive left.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,187]

55 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Operation Claw is a Turkish onslaught in Iraqi Kurdistan that lasted from May 2019 to June 2020. Hundreds of people were killed or wounded in that operation. These operations, of course, are only the latest flare-ups in Turkey’s 40-year war with Kurdish militants, which has led to the deaths of around 20,000 Kurdish civilians and the destruction of between 2,500 and 4,000 Kurdish villages.

The OP, a know fanboy of Turkey, has failed to mention the persecution of Kurds yet sheds crocodile tears for the terrorists embedded in the civilian population in Gaza.

Operation Claw-Lightning is a follow-up to Operation Claw, started by Turkey on 23 April, but we are yet to see any form of public outrage or street protest in the west. That's because Turkey is not Israel and anti-semitism runs deep in the progressive left.

A good idea, why don't you organise a protest?

I believe there have been protests in France, if that counts as the west 

 

[Herman 9,776]

I think he's too busy organising a protest for the Uighurs.