You just don't get it. I don't think the post is at all true, all I did was use your logic.
No, AUP. I do get it. As I explained above, you did NOT use my logic: criticizing the UN is NOT the same as a blood libel against the jews; the reporter I quoted is NOT a hack; the news story you used--a man involved in a sex scandal--is NOT the same as the establishment of quasi-official pedophile rings under UN cooperation.
Of course, as I said, you will CLAIM that it's just a "satire", or "suing my own logic", etc., but that's just the excuse. In reality, it was your excuse for repeating the ancient blood libel while then saying, "just joking".
And, once again, you accuse me of being an anti-semite like David Irving.
Yup. You are.
Despite my repeated requests that this libel is not made of me, because there is no basis for it whatsoever,
Oh, I dunno. You are on record, for instance, saying that the Arabs were justified in attacking israel (with the explicit intent to butcher all the jews) in 1948. You called two-year-old victims of suicide bombings "extremists" for the sole reason they were orthodox jews. You claimed "zionists" (read: jews) control and influence the US media, a rather obvious re-stating of the age-old "the jews control the newspapers" libel, blaming the same people for the same "crime", only with a slight change in the label. Whenever you mention israel, you call it either "Palestine" or "israel/Palestine"--the same thing as, oh, always referring to (say) Australia as "Australia/occupiedaboriginalterritory".
In general, you excuse and "understand" every outrage and attack on the jewish state, and consider it--alone of all the nations in the world--illegitimate. And now, you topped it all off with a crude, disgusting "satire" which--by golly, what a coincidence--choose to "satirize" by repeating an age-old antisemitic libel.
Finally, and above all, you are obsessed, indeed almost monomaniacal, with the whole subject. I am an israeli and a jew; naturally I am interested in the subject. But you are an Austrlian, never been to the middle east, have little if anything to do with anybody there. Are we really supposed to believe that your incessant, unending criticism of israel--without showing anything remotely like the same level of concern or criticism to nations which are far, far worse--is out of some sort of objective love of "human rights"?
This is not having "no basis whatsoever" for accusations of antisemitism, AUP. Rather, this is the behavior of a man who would LOVE to rant against the dirty jews directly, but knows that those who do so are not usualy invited back to dinner. So, instead, you use rather obvious euphemisms in your monomanical attacks on them. But it isn't convincing, not for a second.
you call up some strange psychic powers that allow you to discern what I am really thinking.
You remind me of the old jewish joke:
--"He wanted to punch me in the face."
--"How can you be sure?"
--"Well, if he hadn't WANTED to, he wouldn't have done it, would he?"
You are acting all surprised, as if figuring out what people think from what they write, say, or do is some sort of mysterious psychic power. It is no more "psychic" to figure out you hate jews from what you write than it is to figure out you don't like me from that succint, two words, "f--k you" post you recently wrote in reply to me (or was it Mycroft's?) posts.
This 'mask fell' is a libel, and I have raised merry hell every time you have made it,
Of course you did. And captain whatshisname was shocked--SHOCKED!--to find out there was gambling going on at Rick's, too. But that's hardly a reason to accept either your or his claims at face value, now is it?
and you just keep making it.
Yup. Because it's true. Your "raising merry hell" in denial is, simply put, no concern of mine whatever.
And every time you make it, it damn well hurts.
Awwwwwww.
So when are you going to stop.
I don't think I shall, actually. And, if it hurts so much, perhaps altering your behavior--apologizing for saying that the Arabs were "justified"in in trying to kill my family in 1948, for instance--might be in order.
I am not like David Irving,
Yes, you are. In particular, like David Irving, you are the master of insinuation. Only rarely does Irving openly say "the holocaust never happened", or openly identify the "traditional enemies of truth" as "the jews", what he obviously means. It is just sheer "objectivity" and "moral indignation" that leads him to emphasize and overblow every Allied blunder or every jewish saying against Germany and minimize or excuse every German crime.
You do the same. Only rarely--when you slip--do you openly come out and say the Arabs should have butchered the jews, or that the "zionists" control the media, or that suicide bombers' victims had it coming. You usually work by insinuation: it's just by sheer chance that every israeli action is pointed out in the worst possible light, while all Arab crimes and intentions go unnoticed or are excused.
But, as a reporter in Irving's trial said about it, the biggest disappointment of the David Irving trial was "his intelligence, which supposedly made him so dangerous. He is not convincing, not for a second." Same with you. Of course, it is an exagerration to say anybody is "disappointed" by your intelligence--that would require somebody having a high regard for it in the first place--but in both cases, your identical, obvious, and none-too-smart methods are rather obvious, and are not fooling anybody.
