In the traveler's latest post, he claims that my comment: "Are You really asking for integrity from lew, Kim? Good luck with that?" is abusive and a personal attack. Maybe he suffers from short (or long) term memory deficit.
If someone is caught lying, isn't that sufficient reason to question their integrity? To wit:
In October past, lew said:
"What more is there to say except, in response to his last question, if at anytime during that 64 years, the Palestinian leaders had come to Isrealileaders (sic) and sad (sic) that they were sorry and they wanted to be friends and decent neighbors and to live together in peace, then the nascent country of Palestine would now be, alongside Israel, a garden spot of technology and culture in the mid-East instead of what it is."
I cited the Jewish Virtual Library, of all places and quoted the following letter:
"LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:
September 9, 1993
Prime Minister of Israel
Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:
The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.
The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators
In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
The Palestine Liberation Organization"
to which the traveler replied:
"I printed an opinion- mine- which you have somehow mis-characterized as a lie."
It is clear that this person has conflated opinion with historical FACT.
Most of my comments and thoughts are annotated. When I am broaching a sensitive subject, I often double source my contentions.
Earlier this year, I caught him, again being lazy and sloppy with his words, and commented:
" you may scoff at my comment concerning 620 commandments or 613, and in your mind you are thinking why is this guy making such a big deal over seven commandments, and the answer, REALLY, is quite simple. It is indicative of the sloppy way you approach intellectual matters. Accuracy is irrelevant to you."
to which he replied:
"In this case, you have the wrong target. Since I have always been a secular Jew, probably since my circumcision, I can't imagine I would ever have mentioned anything about Hebrew Laws or Hebrew, so whoever mentioned the 600 or so thingies that you are clinging to as an insult, it wasn't me and it doesn't offend me."
When confronted with his own words, a second case of lying, he had no reply:
"Although Mizvahs are the complete set of rules (620 of them) - both positive and negative, given in the Torah, in casual usage, a mitzvah is a good deed. And these are important.
NOVEMBER 18, 2011 05:42 AM"
In lew's "mind" secular jew means through an accident of birth, he is a jew in name only and need know nothing of the religion, nor the historical record of his lineage.
One might think a "COL, USA (Ret)" might be more careful with his words and contentions (or maybe not).
In his latest screed, he wishes to know why israel is singled out for criticism. I would ask why in yearly polls taken in Europe for years, the question as to the greatest threat to world peace consistently yield the result: A. america, and B. israel.
Furthermore, I apologize to those who have seen this visual representation of why much of the world views israel as such a mendacious threat to the world and the region:
For a look at the current state of the region's only "democracy, we go to Ron HaCohen:
by Ran HaCohen, May 28, 2012
"The “race riots” in Tel Aviv last week — a mass demonstration that turned into a pogrom against about 60,000 asylum seekers, an overwhelming majority of them from Eritrea, the rest mostly from Sudan (Darfur and South Sudan) and a few other African countries — gives a revealing glimpse into Israeli realities under the current fascist government.
The predominant speakers at the demonstration in the poor southern part of Tel Aviv, where most of the asylum seekers and migrant workers are concentrated, were two Knesset members: Michael Ben-Ari (of the far-right National Union), who urged the Jewish rabble to take law into its own hands (“the time for words is over”), and Miri Regev (Likud), who described the “Sudanese” (contrary to the facts, many ignorant Israelis subsume all Africans under “Sudanese”) as “cancer.”
Ben-Ari is a former (?) member of the Orthodox, fascist-racist Kach movement, which is outlawed in Israel and considered a terrorist organization in the United States. Miri Regev, on the other hand, was the spokesperson of the Israeli army during the Second Lebanon War (2006). Trained and experienced in lying and inciting against the “enemy from without,” she now turns her talents against the “enemy from within.” Just a few years ago, the far-right former Col. Effi Eitam defined Israeli Arab citizens as a “cancer,” now Regev is using — without any apology even in hindsight — the same image (quite popular among neo-Nazis against Jews, by the way) against asylum seekers."
"What’s the sense of keeping thousands of people who cannot be deported to their failed home countries without a work permit, pushing them to hunger, theft, and robbery? Government spokesmen are quite open about that: “If we let them work, more will come.” We see again the “solution” traditionally suggested and implemented toward the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza: do not treat them well; dispossess them, deprive them of land, work opportunities, and human rights; and they’ll go away (or evaporate). And if — surprise surprise — they turn to violence, that’s even better: portray them as terrorists and “Let the Army Win.” After all, there’s no problem the Israeli army cannot solve.