Israel land grab law 'ends hope of two-state solution'

**سيف الله** · 02-08-2017

Salaam

With Trump in power, Netanyahu has a free hand.

Israel land grab law 'ends hope of two-state solution'

Land grab law 'allows theft, stalls peace process'

Law that retroactively legalises settler homes on private Palestinian land widely condemned as legitimising theft.

Israel's land grab law that retroactively legalises thousands of settlement homes in the occupied West Bank legitimises theft, violates international law and ends the prospect of a two-state solution, according to politicians, legal experts and human rights groups.

The so-called "Regulation Bill" instantly drew wide condemnation as it was voted in by members of the Knesset late on Monday with a 60 to 52 majority.

The law applies to about 4,000 settlement homes in the West Bank for which settlers could prove ignorance that they had built on privately owned Palestinian land and had received encouragement from the Israeli state to do so.

Three Israeli NGOs - Peace Now, Yesh Din and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel - and numerous Palestinians said they intend to petition the Supreme Court to cancel the law.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Tuesday in a statement: "This bill is in contravention of international law and will have far reaching legal consequences for Israel."

The EU's foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said in a statement that the bloc "condemns" the law and urges against its implementation "to avoid measures that further raise tensions and endanger the prospects for a peaceful solution to the conflict".

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the law was an aggression against the Palestinian people.

"That bill is contrary to international law," Abbas said following a meeting with French President Francois Hollande in Paris. "This is an aggression against our people that we will be opposing in international organisations.

"What we want is peace ... but what Israel does is to work toward one state based on apartheid."

Hollande called on Israel to go back on the law, saying it would "pave the way for an annexation, de-facto, of the occupied territories, which would be contrary to the two-state solution".

Hours before Abbas' meeting with Hollande, Saeb Erekat, secretary general of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, told the Associated Press news agency that the law puts "the last nail in the coffin of the two-state solution".

Calling the move "theft", Erekat said the ruling showed "the Israeli government trying to legalise looting Palestinian land".

The Arab League also accused Israel of "stealing the land" from Palestinians.

"The law in question is only a cover for stealing the land and appropriating the property of Palestinians," said the head of the Cairo-based organisation, Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

Palestinian owners will be compensated financially or with other land, but cannot negotiate their terms.

The law is a continuation of "Israeli policies aimed at eliminating any possibility of a two-state solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state", Aboul Gheit said.

Jordan, one of the few Arab states to have diplomatic ties with Israel, also denounced what it called "a provocative law likely to kill any hope of a two-state solution".

According to the UN envoy for the Middle East peace process, Nickolay Mladenov, the law crosses a "very thick red line" towards annexation of the occupied West Bank, and sets a "very dangerous precedent".

Speaking to the AFP news agency, he said: "This is the first time the Israeli Knesset legislates in the occupied Palestinian lands and particularly on property issues."

He also raised the possibility the law could open Israel up to potential prosecution at the International Criminal Court, a threat Israel's own top government lawyer, attorney general Avichai Mandelblit, has also warned of.

Mladenov called for strong international condemnation of the legislation but declined to criticise the US after President Donald Trump's administration refused to comment on it.

Trump is more sympathetic to Israel's settlement policies than previous US presidents; the Israeli government has approved plans to build thousands of new homes on occupied territory since the far-right leader settled into the White House.

"I think that is a very preliminary statement," Mladenov said. "Obviously they do need to consult, this is a new administration that has just come into office and they should be given the time and the space to find their policies."

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the US was likely to discuss the law with Netanyahu when the Israeli prime minister visits on February 15, but did not comment further in a press briefing on Tuesday.

David Harris, head of AJC, the global Jewish advocacy organisation, said that "Israel's High Court can and should reverse this misguided legislation" ahead of Netanyahu's meeting with Trump in February.

That was also the message from Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who said last week: "The chance that it will be struck down by the Supreme Court is 100 percent."

'Against all international laws'

International law considers all settlements to be illegal, but Israel distinguishes between those it sanctions and those it does not, dubbed outposts.

A Palestinian Cabinet minister also called on the international community for support.

"Nobody can legalise the theft of the Palestinian lands. Building settlements is a crime, building settlements is against all international laws," said Palestinian Tourism and Antiquities Minister Rula Maayaa. "I think it is time now for the international community to act concretely to stop the Israelis from these crimes."

Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, called the law "unacceptable" and urged the international community to act immediately.

"This is an escalation that would only lead to more instability and chaos," Rdeneh said.

Palestinians want the occupied West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip - territories Israel occupied in the 1967 Middle East war - for their future state.

The international community views settlements as illegal and an obstacle to reaching peace.

Shortly before leaving office, US President Barack Obama allowed the UN Security Council to pass a resolution declaring settlements illegal.

Tobias Ellwood, Britain's Middle East minister, also condemned the land grab bill, saying it "is of great concern that the bill paves the way for significant growth in settlements deep in the West Bank".

Yuval Shany, an international law professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said the law violates basic rights, interferes with property rights and is discriminatory because it regulates only the transfer of land from Palestinians to Jews.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/israel-land-grab-law-ends-hope-state-solution-170207143602924.html

**MuhammadHamza1** · 07-11-2017

Originally Posted by ethnhunt

I know...truth always hurts! Good luck with your illusions.

Believe me, the world is not going to wait for you.

You can talk with me.

**ethnhunt** · 07-11-2017

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

The man (Mr. Peled) who is saying why Palestinians did not accept the UN partition,
I will let one of your own men,answer you.

Yes, I know who he is. He is a well known revisionist of history. I even tried to read his book. The book can never be taken seriously because he contradicts everybody! He even contradict Mr. Chomsky! No respectable historian would even publish a review of his book. No university anywhere in the West would even consider his book for a reading material. He is totally discredited person.

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

Watch it whole. It is worth the time.

I watched ...most of it. It was painful to watch. He is making things up as he goes. Do you realize that there are literary many dozens of people both Israelis or not, Jewish or not, that actually witnessed the same events he is talking about and they completely contradict his views. Mr. Peled is being totally dishonest.

Look at how Mr. Peled describes himself, - as an “Israeli writer and peace activist living in the US.” He also notes that he is the author of “The General’s Son, The Journey of an Israeli in Palestine.” As the title of his book so helpfully indicates, his main claim to fame is that he is a “general’s son,” the general being Matti Peled. The kind of “peace” Peled pursues is reflected in his Twitter profile picture, which is definitely worth a thousand words: a red hat sporting the slogan “MAKE ISRAEL PALESTINE AGAIN.”, - and with this proclamation you have his agenda, which clearly is, - destroy Jewish-majority Israel and create Muslim-majority Palestine.

His entire presentation in the link you posted is bogus. I'll be happy to take this apart for you if you wish. Please post specifically what you want to talk about.

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

You can talk with me.

Absolutely, - we can discuss anything you wish as it pertains to this topic.

**MuhammadHamza1** · 07-12-2017

Originally Posted by ethnhunt

Yes, I know who he is. He is a well known revisionist of history. I even tried to read his book. The book can never be taken seriously because he contradicts everybody! He even contradict Mr. Chomsky! No respectable historian would even publish a review of his book. No university anywhere in the West would even consider his book for a reading material. He is totally discredited person.

I watched ...most of it. It was painful to watch. He is making things up as he goes. Do you realize that there are literary many dozens of people both Israelis or not, Jewish or not, that actually witnessed the same events he is talking about and they completely contradict his views. Mr. Peled is being totally dishonest.

Look at how Mr. Peled describes himself, - as an “Israeli writer and peace activist living in the US.” He also notes that he is the author of “The General’s Son, The Journey of an Israeli in Palestine.” As the title of his book so helpfully indicates, his main claim to fame is that he is a “general’s son,” the general being Matti Peled. The kind of “peace” Peled pursues is reflected in his Twitter profile picture, which is definitely worth a thousand words: a red hat sporting the slogan “MAKE ISRAEL PALESTINE AGAIN.”, - and with this proclamation you have his agenda, which clearly is, - destroy Jewish-majority Israel and create Muslim-majority Palestine.

His entire presentation in the link you posted is bogus. I'll be happy to take this apart for you if you wish. Please post specifically what you want to talk about.

Absolutely, - we can discuss anything you wish as it pertains to this topic.

You need to realize that in modern era,we must search for evidences.
Eye witnesses are not trustworthy.
The reason being,that anyone can claim to be eye witnesses,or even lie that they were eye witnesses.A perfect example in this regard,are the So called eyewitnesses of the Holocaust.They rather make a mockery of themselves with the lies they spit.So we must look for evidences and that also from credible organizations.
So how can you say
That his conclusions do not match those of several eyewitnesses.
A recent example is when certain eyewitnesses testified against Bashar al Assad.Later it was found,that they were not eyewitnesses but some people sent by Qatar.

**ethnhunt** · 07-12-2017

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

You need to realize that in modern era,we must search for evidences.
Eye witnesses are not trustworthy.
The reason being,that anyone can claim to be eye witnesses,or even lie that they were eye witnesses.

I agree that one absolutely MUST have evidence. I also agree that not ALL eyewitnesses are credible. However, you seem to be making a one-sided generalization here, implying that there is no standard by which we, the people, can judge the veracity of an eyewitness or an event. In the environment of a Western society we have an approach that is habitually used by the courts of law to make a determination what IS and what is NOT believable. I do, in all of my posts, follow this approach.

We may have two eyewitnesses claiming two different and often conflicting scenarios. Clearly only one scenario is credible. Which one? In the Western courts we do not just look for evidence to substantiate the eyewitness testimony, we look for the preponderance of evidence. It is not enough to say, that “I saw this or that…’. We look for consequences, we look for what came before and after, and most importantly we look for motive, - an agenda. In the end we must rationalize if this agenda fits what is in the best for all involved. In other words we must balance the truth with credibility, evidence and what is the best interests of the society. OK?

With aforementioned in mind, I must tell you that I can and will present my case to you in that light. I will NEVER tell you that ‘I have an eyewitness who saw something’ and based on that I declare myself to be right and declare you to be wrong. I will never do that. I will present and overwhelming evidence to support ALL of what I post here.

In the end, it is the best argument that carries the day.

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

A perfect example in this regard,are the So called eyewitnesses of the Holocaust.They rather make a mockery of themselves with the lies they spit.So we must look for evidences and that also from credible organizations.

Are you saying that the Holocaust has been misrepresented? If you do, then you have a problem.

There is simply no way to disagree with what is taken to be an acceptable historical narrative. So, - NO, - the Holocaust is an extremely BAD example of your assertions regarding the eyewitnesses. I caution you not to go there!

The evidence is overwhelming with pictures, videos, eyewitnesses, court documents, - etc. – all coming from different countries with conflicting political systems, yet all in agreement! Like I said, - do not go there!

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

So how can you say
That his conclusions do not match those of several eyewitnesses.
A recent example is when certain eyewitnesses testified against Bashar al Assad. Later it was found, that they were not eyewitnesses but some people sent by Qatar.

Look, - I am not here to discuss anything regarding Mr. Assad. Further, you can’t connect what one eyewitness said with what another eyewitness might say. In this case, eyewitness accounts are secondary issues.

When I said that I can bring eyewitness accounts, I meant to say that I will argue for the credibility of those eyewitness. I have no idea how credible the eyewitness was in reference to Assad. However, I can and will put Mr. Peled and his reputation to shame. I will put up Mr. Peled's reputation against a number of people who completely and totally disagree with his accounts of history. Those people have reputations that Mr. Peled will never stand up too.

However, I am willing to make it simple, - let’s not bring eyewitnesses into this. I stipulate that Mr. Peled has a right to his opinion. I challenge you to look at the history as you know it, and ask the following question, - what Israel as a country, in your opinion, should do in regards to Palestinian Arabs, considering what has been happening after 1948.

Mr. Peled says that Israel violates human rights of Palestinian Arabs and I agree, - it does happen. My point is this, - Israel has no good choice here and is forced to do it or does it in self-defense. Mr. Peled says that Israel existence is illegitimate and attempt to substantiate his views with revisionist history, i.e. the history that never happen, history that he simply does not understand or misinterprets or the history that he invented.

I say that Israel and the Jews have a much better claim to the land they live on then any other ethnic group in the same area, save for the Druze perhaps. Jewish claim is historic, religious and most important enshrined in a legal process that the World has signed off on. I am sure that there are other issues, and I will entertain them if you point them out.

Forget the eyewitness, - forget Mr. Peled. Look at the evidence and try to support your views. Look at the intent, look at what IS in the best interest of the people, - all people. Ok?

**MuhammadHamza1** · 07-18-2017

Originally Posted by ethnhunt

I agree that one absolutely MUST have evidence. I also agree that not ALL eyewitnesses are credible. However, you seem to be making a one-sided generalization here, implying that there is no standard by which we, the people, can judge the veracity of an eyewitness or an event. In the environment of a Western society we have an approach that is habitually used by the courts of law to make a determination what IS and what is NOT believable. I do, in all of my posts, follow this approach.

We may have two eyewitnesses claiming two different and often conflicting scenarios. Clearly only one scenario is credible. Which one? In the Western courts we do not just look for evidence to substantiate the eyewitness testimony, we look for the preponderance of evidence. It is not enough to say, that “I saw this or that…’. We look for consequences, we look for what came before and after, and most importantly we look for motive, - an agenda. In the end we must rationalize if this agenda fits what is in the best for all involved. In other words we must balance the truth with credibility, evidence and what is the best interests of the society. OK?

With aforementioned in mind, I must tell you that I can and will present my case to you in that light. I will NEVER tell you that ‘I have an eyewitness who saw something’ and based on that I declare myself to be right and declare you to be wrong. I will never do that. I will present and overwhelming evidence to support ALL of what I post here.

In the end, it is the best argument that carries the day.

Are you saying that the Holocaust has been misrepresented? If you do, then you have a problem.

There is simply no way to disagree with what is taken to be an acceptable historical narrative. So, - NO, - the Holocaust is an extremely BAD example of your assertions regarding the eyewitnesses. I caution you not to go there!

The evidence is overwhelming with pictures, videos, eyewitnesses, court documents, - etc. – all coming from different countries with conflicting political systems, yet all in agreement! Like I said, - do not go there!

Look, - I am not here to discuss anything regarding Mr. Assad. Further, you can’t connect what one eyewitness said with what another eyewitness might say. In this case, eyewitness accounts are secondary issues.

When I said that I can bring eyewitness accounts, I meant to say that I will argue for the credibility of those eyewitness. I have no idea how credible the eyewitness was in reference to Assad. However, I can and will put Mr. Peled and his reputation to shame. I will put up Mr. Peled's reputation against a number of people who completely and totally disagree with his accounts of history. Those people have reputations that Mr. Peled will never stand up too.

However, I am willing to make it simple, - let’s not bring eyewitnesses into this. I stipulate that Mr. Peled has a right to his opinion. I challenge you to look at the history as you know it, and ask the following question, - what Israel as a country, in your opinion, should do in regards to Palestinian Arabs, considering what has been happening after 1948.

Mr. Peled says that Israel violates human rights of Palestinian Arabs and I agree, - it does happen. My point is this, - Israel has no good choice here and is forced to do it or does it in self-defense. Mr. Peled says that Israel existence is illegitimate and attempt to substantiate his views with revisionist history, i.e. the history that never happen, history that he simply does not understand or misinterprets or the history that he invented.

I say that Israel and the Jews have a much better claim to the land they live on then any other ethnic group in the same area, save for the Druze perhaps. Jewish claim is historic, religious and most important enshrined in a legal process that the World has signed off on. I am sure that there are other issues, and I will entertain them if you point them out.

Forget the eyewitness, - forget Mr. Peled. Look at the evidence and try to support your views. Look at the intent, look at what IS in the best interest of the people, - all people. Ok?

I am sorry I was away for abit.
So pleaae pardon me.
As for Holocaust.
I dare you to.

**ethnhunt** · 07-18-2017

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

I am sorry I was away for abit.
So pleaae pardon me.

...no problem.

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

As for Holocaust. I dare you to.

I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that you dare me to produce evidence of Holocaust??? Hmm...if so, - would the evidence from official sources in Russian Federation, US Holocaust Memorial in Washington, Holocaust Memorial Center (Yad Vashem) in Jerusalem along with countless sites from Poland, Germany, France, Canada even Australia, etc. etc. would do?

I hope you realize that the pictures along and videos are totally conclusive. Do you really want to go there and feel embarrassed in the process? Do you want to peruse the documents from Nuremberg trials?

Israelis have documented evidence on 1.6 million dead, - including names, pictures, eyewitness accounts that are corroborated by the German archives. As it turned out the Nazis kept the up-to-date files on how many they murdered and the manner in which they murdered them. Those documents were used in Nuremberg during the trials in 1945-1948.

The Russians have countless videos of the concentration camp with testimonies of German solders attesting to the murders of Jews and Slavs.

The Russians count about 7 million Jewish dead in camps and ghettos. The Americans count about 6 million, which is taken to be an official count. By the way, the count is not a supposition, - it is from available documentation.

Anyway, perhaps this link will be the only thing you will require.

https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antis...and-distortion

I can do more...

**MuhammadHamza1** · 07-20-2017

Let us set the basics.
Do you think that if there is no(take Holocaust out of your mind for now) Scientific proof,
Just because a Government produces documents,
It is the truth?
I can also go on...
With regards to documental and Scientific proof.
But first answer that question.

Sent from my SM-G313H using IslamicBoard mobile app

What I mean is that,
Can a Government not fake documents?
I am implying that Scientific study has to be used as evidence and not discarded.
Which it is in this case.
As for Scientific evidence,
See the videos below.

Sent from my SM-G313H using IslamicBoard mobile app

Firstly.
The argument I mostly get after showing these videos,is that how can you trust only one man?
The answer is:
1)-There are many Holocaust Deniers.
2)-If he is only one crazy man,Refuting him shall not be a problem.
https://youtu.be/mYCwaIt-GUM
https://youtu.be/_c9oIVwDM6Q
More are coming...

Sent from my SM-G313H using IslamicBoard mobile app

This is the best argument I have produced.
He was the Chemist,who was sent by the US Government itself.
https://youtu.be/zKqu93-wGGE

Sent from my SM-G313H using IslamicBoard mobile app

And as far as the figure 6 Million is concerned,
I agree.
Around 6 Million Jews were killed DURING THE WHOLE COURSE OF THE WAR.
And majority of which,were caused by EPIDEMICS.
There were also Jewish killings in Soviet Union,but they were MOSLTY killed by their own people.The Bolsheviks had killed 66 Million of their own people.
Also,There were Jews who were deported from Germany to Soviet Union,and then they were killed.
But I challange you to produce me one Nazi Document that shows that Hitler was aware of these killings.
I am not a fanatic Hitler Supporter.
But we should not lie about anyone.

Sent from my SM-G313H using IslamicBoard mobile app

This is long video but worrh it.1 hour and 20 minute long. https://youtu.be/mmrHBT5h-BA

Sent from my SM-G313H using IslamicBoard mobile app

My argument is simply this.
Governments can fake documents.Therefore,
there must be some secondary evidence to support them.
And in the case of Holocaust,The Scientific evidence and Even Common Sense,proves that the documents regarding Holocaust are false.
It also proves,that we should be vigilant of what the Governments preach us and teach us in our Textbooks.

Sent from my SM-G313H using IslamicBoard mobile app

Also there are Nazi Documents which clearly show that Hitler wanted to settle the Jewish issue 'after the war.'
It is to be noted that the Nazis were extremely confident of their ultimate triumph.As is shown from their documents.
Goebells even said:
"The end of the red Terror is very near."

Sent from my SM-G313H using IslamicBoard mobile app

**سيف الله** · 07-21-2017

Salaam

Israel role in fomenting chaos in the middle east. It was all part of the plan

**Futuwwa** · 07-22-2017

Originally Posted by ethnhunt

Well…well…So, - you just abdicate and call it a day…Please note that I never simply rejected your views. I told you WHY I reject them. You are welcome to argue in order to support your views. But you choose not too…why? I can (and do) substantiate EVERYTHING I ever wrote in response to you. Can you do the same? So far you have not been able to do that.

I can, I have, and I choose to do no further. I did substantiate my views while we were actually talking, you simply rejected everything I said as plainly untrue. A scorched-earth, deny-everything game any idiot can play. A game two can play. Go on, provide an academic-publication-level citation for every single assertion you've made in this entire thread, or concede defeat

I don't abdicate, I choose not to play. A winning move in the right context, as the famous movie quote goes.

I was going to reply to you, but your behaviour reminded me of why I got fed up with trying to have a serious discussion with you in the first place. Your outright lies regarding the actual academic standing of Chomsky and Finkelstein is not only representative of your disdain of those you disagree with, but your dishonesty and evident lack of interest in honest discussion. You called Chomsky an academic clown and degrees gotten under him not worth the paper printed on. When I pointed out that no, he's actually the world's most cited academic, you made a creative "clarification" that you only meant a clown regarding his political dissent. Which was a nice try, but no cigar. Your original statement referred to his actual academic work, otherwise the point about degrees gotten under him (which would be in the field of linguistics, his actual academic field) being worthless wouldn't be applicable.

I'm done wasting my time on you. You can choose to learn something from how our exchange ended up like it did, or you can try to spin it as a win by walkover for you. Frankly, I find the latter far more probable. If so, you'll get the last word in, good luck making the most of it. Toodles.

**ethnhunt** · 07-22-2017

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

Let us set the basics.
Do you think that if there is no (take Holocaust out of your mind for now) Scientific proof,
Just because a Government produces documents,
It is the truth?
I can also go on...
With regards to documental and Scientific proof.
But first answer that question.

…and

What I mean is that,
Can a Government not fake documents?
I am implying that Scientific study has to be used as evidence and not discarded.
Which it is in this case.
As for Scientific evidence,
See the videos below.

LOL! What science are you talking about? There is no science to speak off as it pertains to Holocaust. You have absolutely no idea what the term ‘scientific proof’ actually stands for. I can see it, given how you attempt to use this term. Tell me what are your scientific credentials? I bet you have none!

When it comes to Holocaust, all we, and I mean ‘we’ the people of the planet, have is this, - the eyewitness accounts, the pictures, the videos, the authenticated documents from the Nazis, - that is all!

No science can ever stand up to this. You can never say that the gas chambers was never there or that they were not used to kill as many as stipulated, and you can never say that the diseases killed the Jews. Because the legally acceptable definition of proof does not need the science to convict the Nazis of the crime of killing the 6 million Jews.

Let me put it to you in a way that you are capable of understanding, - when I have a testimony of the person who operated the gas chambers,
and the documents from the Nazis indicating how many Jews were murdered in those gas chambers,
and the testimony from the factory that manufactured the gas,
and the testimony from the people who delivered the gas pellets,
and the testimony of the Allied military personal that discovered the gas chambers, and testimony of people that analyzed the efficacy of Ziclon B, - the gas used in those chambers,
and the testimony of the Jews that worked in those gas chambers,
and the videos of the process as filmed by the Nazis.

I DO NOT NEED SCIENCE TO CONVICT! Get it?

Now, - back to your question, - yes, - the Government of a country with no legal checks and balances is very capable of deceiving the public. You may look at the former USSR for a good example of that. However, as we say in a legal business, it all goes to the intent! Why would US Government manufacture 3000 kg of documents, as they were used in Nuremberg trials that decisively, beyond ANY DOUBT shown that the murder of 6 million Jews happened and the manner in which they were murdered, so that the public may be deceived????

Even USSR had no reason to deceive the world when it came to the atrocities of Nazis. Give me one good reason that may stand up in court in front of reasonable people?

You can’t. But do not feel bad, - nobody can!

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

Firstly.
The argument I mostly get after showing these videos,is that how can you trust only one man?
The answer is:
1)-There are many Holocaust Deniers.
2)-If he is only one crazy man, Refuting him shall not be a problem.

Are you kidding? You post the videos done by David Irwing! You may as well post the videos by Kim Jong-un waxing about the how North Korea is a paradise for people to live in. LOL!

Let me say a few word about Mr. Irwing, - the laughing stock of history. The UK judge concluded that Irving was “anti-Semitic and racist” and “associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism”.

Irving had “deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”, the judge added.

A self-trained historian – Irving did not even have an undergraduate degree in the subject – he had immersed himself in the Nazi period in a career that spanned decades.

He had caused a stir in 1963 with his first book about the Allied bombing of Dresden and enjoyed portraying himself as an embattled outsider who was able to unearth rare documents and who enjoyed jousting with the academic establishment.
His two-volume study, Hitler’s War, caused more controversy with its claim that the Führer did not know about the Final Solution.

Hitler in his book ‘My straggle’ advocated for precisely that, - the final solution! Hitler did sign an order for the T-4 euthanasia program in which as many as 100,000 German citizens who were thought to be ‘unworthy of life’ were murdered. When the German population caught on to what the Nazis were doing they protested and Hitler was forced to publicly back down and cancel the program (although it continued secretly in the camps). Having been embarrassed by a written order once, Hitler would be wary of doing it again.

No, - there is no Hitler’s signature on any available documents, but Hitler was either present when those decisions were made, as per multiple testimonies at Nuremberg, or the high ranking Nazis officials were the originators of the documents. Those officials, like Goring, Himmler, Bormann, etc. had their positions secured by the direct order from Hitler. You connect the dots!

So, - Mr. Irwing has no case. He is an illiterate dilettante. He cannot be taken seriously by anybody. However you found it useful to post Irving’s videos! What does it tell you about yourself?

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

This is the best argument I have produced.
He was the Chemist,who was sent by the US Government itself.

Wow, - another joke! Mr. Leuchter , - the chemist in your video, is another make-believe scientist. He is best known as author of the "Leuchter report," a pseudoscientific document that alleges there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. In the past, he had been contracted by governmental authorities of several states of the United States to improve the design of instruments for capital punishment, but he no longer does so. Leuchter was criminally prosecuted for misrepresenting himself to penitentiaries as an "engineer," despite having no credentials whatever in engineering; Leuchter plea bargained with the district attorney's office, and received no jail time, but two years probation and a criminal conviction. He has also been accused of running a "death row shakedown," in which Leuchter threatened to testify for the defense in capital cases if he was not given contracts for his services by the state.

There goes another of your so-called evidence! Why do you post without research? This is embarrassing for you as a person, as it portrays you as less then intelligent!

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

And as far as the figure 6 Million is concerned,
I agree.
Around 6 Million Jews were killed DURING THE WHOLE COURSE OF THE WAR.
And majority of which,were caused by EPIDEMICS.
There were also Jewish killings in Soviet Union,but they were MOSLTY killed by their own people.The Bolsheviks had killed 66 Million of their own people.
Also,There were Jews who were deported from Germany to Soviet Union,and then they were killed.
But I challange you to produce me one Nazi Document that shows that Hitler was aware of these killings.
I am not a fanatic Hitler Supporter.
But we should not lie about anyone.

OK…here you go…the following is from a BBC report.

“…In February 1943 Auschwitz camp building authorities complained, the company that built the crematoria equipment, that they needed ventilation blowers 'most urgently'. Why the urgency, if this was an air-raid shelter, morgue, or delousing chamber? Deniers hypothesize that the urgency was a result of official fears that the camp would be hit with a typhus epidemic, which would cause a tremendous spike in the death toll. Without the proper ventilation system, the crematoria would not be able to operate.

Deniers try to bolster their argument about the typhus by pointing to documents which show that at this point in time the planned monthly incineration rate of Auschwitz had been boosted to 120,000 bodies. Deniers claim this was because of the typhus epidemic. However, the camp's projected population was 150,000. For the deniers' explanation to make sense, in one month an epidemic would have to kill four-fifths of Auschwitz's population and the Germans would have to repopulate the camp with 120,000 people. This claim exceeded the absolute worst case epidemiological scenario.

On 6 March 1943, one of the civilian employees working on the construction of Crematorium 2 referred to the air extraction system of 'Auskleidekeller [undressing cellar] 2'. No normal morgue could require an undressing room, particularly one that was 50 yards long. In that same month, there were at least four additional references to Auskleidekeller. It is telling that civilians who, according to the deniers, were in Birkenau to work on underground morgues, repeatedly referred not to morgues but to the ventilation of the 'undressing cellars'.

In the same letter the employee asked about preheating the areas that would be used as the gas chamber. If these were morgues they should be cooled, not preheated. Heating a gas chamber, on the other hand, would speed the gassing process by more quickly vaporising the gas from the Zyklon B.

A letter dated 31 March 1943, regarding Crematorium 3, spoke of it as having a Gastür, a gas door. Deniers argue that this could mean many things. But the inventory attached to the handover documents for the crematorium states that it had a Gasdichtetür, a 'gas-tight door'. One might argue about the meaning of Gastür, but it is hard to squabble over a gas-tight door.

Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper. Their location in the concrete matches with eyewitness testimony, aerial photos from 1944, and a ground photo from 1943. The physical evidence shows unmistakably that the Zyklon holes were cast into the concrete when the building was constructed.

There is much additional evidence affirming Auschwitz/Birkenau's role as a killing centre. There is no reputable evidence that affirms the deniers' claims…”

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

My argument is simply this.
Governments can fake documents.Therefore,
there must be some secondary evidence to support them.
And in the case of Holocaust,The Scientific evidence and Even Common Sense,proves that the documents regarding Holocaust are false.
It also proves,that we should be vigilant of what the Governments preach us and teach us in our Textbooks.

Also there are Nazi Documents which clearly show that Hitler wanted to settle the Jewish issue 'after the war.'
It is to be noted that the Nazis were extremely confident of their ultimate triumph.As is shown from their documents.
Goebells even said:
"The end of the red Terror is very near."

I told you not to go ‘there’. But you did. Here is the proof for you:

“…The Auschwitz-Birkenau Death Books do not reflect the nearly 900,000 Jews who were murdered in the gas chambers upon arrival at the camp. Only those prisoners who were inducted into the slave labor pool (including some 230,000 Jews) were given numbers and only those prisoners were listed in the death certificates in the Death Books…”

“…The Death Books were compilations of the death certificates of those prisoners who were registered and given numbers and who died in Auschwitz-Birkenau between July 29, 1941, and December 31, 1943. Although several volumes did not survive the war, 346 of them did survive in the Gestapo office in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

The death certificates record the date of issue, first and last names, date, time and place of death, date and place of birth, and cause of death. The cause of death was usually fictitious. In January 1945, when the Russians liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau they took the Death Books back with them to Moscow where their existence was unknown until they were released in 1989 for use by researchers. In 1991 they were repatriated to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum…”

"...Franciszek Piper, a Polish scholar and historian, conducted extensive research on the total number of people that were sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau from all over Europe from 1940 to 1945. Piper concluded that the total number of people who were sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau was at least 1,305,000. This figure included Jews, Gypsies, Soviet prisoners-of-war and non-Jewish prisoners of other nationalities. Inside this figure the total number of Jews sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau was about 1,095,000, of which at least 865,000 were murdered immediately.

The remaining Jews—some 230,000—were admitted to the camp as slave laborers.[9] Of those people admitted as slave laborers, some 188,000 were transferred to other camps and so were not directly murdered in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Among these were Anne Frank and her sister, Margot, who died in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp and Elie Wiesel who was liberated in Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany.

Piper was able to trace the fate of the Jewish transports that arrived in Auschwitz-Birkenau. For instance, on August 10, 1943, a transport of about 3,000 Polish Jews from Sosnowitz, Poland: “Following the selection, 100 men, given Nos. 136303-136412 and 195 women, given Nos. 54332-54526, are admitted to the camp. The other almost 2,700 people are killed in the gas chambers.”

For more, look here: https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ab2-death-books/

“…Benjamin Ferencz, the Chief Prosecutor in the Einsatzgruppen trial, added up the number in the 194 Einsatzgruppen reports. Some of the reports were not clear as to the numbers of Jews murdered, for instance, they simply stated that a town or area was “free of Jews.” Ferencz added up all the actual numbers and used the number ‘1’ for any description of murder which gave no actual number. He found that the numbers totaled over 1,000,000 Jewish men, women and children.

Given the way Ferencz had to count vague entries, is clear that the number is higher than the stark statistics in the reports.

A more recent and comprehensive study of the numbers reported in the OSRs confirms and increases Ferencz’s back of the envelope calculations. The figures below were compiled in combination with the Jäger and Stahlecker reports, which were submitted outside the OSR reporting process. Duplications and typographical errors have been removed. Meticulous calculations reveal the following as of December 1942:

Einsatzgruppe A: 363,337
Einsatzgruppe B: 134,000
Einsatzgruppe C: 118,341
Einsatzgruppe D: 91,728
Higher SS and Police Leaders and staff: 445,325

The total number of Jews murdered is at least 1,152,731 across the four Einsatzgruppen units and the Higher SS and Police Leaders and their staff.[4] It is important to remember that these numbers refer to all the victims, not just the Jews, although the vast majority of them were Jewish men, women and children.

The above number does not reflect the figures for the majority of the murders committed by local collaborator units under the control of the Einsatzgruppen, civil administrations, or the Romanian and Hungarian armies. Further, the figures do not include about 1,000,000 Jews who were worked to death or died of disease, cold or starvation in the ghettos or camps. Most responsible Holocaust scholars think that up to about 2,500,000 Jews may have been murdered in the East by the Germans by one method or another…”

For more look here: https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denia...number-killed/

The above is just but 2 examples of documented atrocities that totally debunk the claims of Holocaust deniers. Ask yourself this question, - what company do you keep? Do you want to be ridiculed in public for the views that you cannot support? I warned you not to go there…

If you really want the dose of reality, google ‘Nuremberg Trials’ or for a simpler fix look here:

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/

The above will stand up in any court room in a free world. And that is as good of an evidence as it needs to be, as it fulfills the burden of proof beyond the reasonable doubt. If you insist to ‘not believe it’ then your logic is not your friend, and your ability to reason comes into question. As a result, nobody, - no educated person, would want to discuss anything with you.

I recommend basic education to cure your ills, but I am inclined to give you a benefit of a doubt. Perhaps you simply failed to do a basic research, right?

**Abz2000** · 07-22-2017

Allah knows best, it is more important to seek the truth and follow it instead of demeaning oneself by debating on the basis of falsehood and absurdly irrational and illogical statements such as "I who claim to be agnostic claim that "G-d" revealed a meaningless law for racists who reject the wisdom and authority of "G-d", and those same racists are right in their unjust practices because they are sanctioned by G-d whom I and the both reject.
It might make sense to debate with a person who actually mistakenly believes in their false position in order to clarify the truth, but it's really very shallow when people attempt to wrangle based on what they themselves believe or claim to believe as being complete falsehood and vanities unless they are using the premise of the person they are debating for the sake of rationalizing through rhetoric, but when someone who claims to be an agnostic comes and tries debating Muslims based on statements which neither individual accepts as being true, you can be certain that it's a troll trying to bog you down and waste your time. You're better off spending that time in Allah's way.

Definition: G-d
www.jewfaq.org/defs/g-d.htm
G-d: A way of avoiding writing a name of G-d, to avoid the risk of the sin of erasing or defacing the Name.

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic;

One is not expected to refute over and over again the totally and absurdly illogical claims of "history" back to Adam, Muslims liberated the land from Roman polytheist occupiers who had expelled the Jews, and they established the worship of the One God and respect towards all of God's messengers in the region with the latest message from God (which superseded the previous laws which jews themselves accept as being inapplicable) in place of pagan man-god worship, and later allowed the Jews back in only to be harassed and plotted against by a bunch of racist trolls who have no understanding of justice.
I'm certain that there are a lot of native american relics all over north central america, would the americans give the land to the native tribes and move back to England?

And never will they seek it (death) because of what their own hands have sent forth, and Allah does not guide a people unjust.

And if at any time you are incited from Satan by an incitement, seek refuge with Allah, verily He is the hearing, the knowing.

Best thing to say is: repent before the wrath of Allah arrives upon the unjust.

**ethnhunt** · 07-22-2017

Originally Posted by Futuwwa

I can, I have, and I choose to do no further. I did substantiate my views while we were actually talking, you simply rejected everything I said as plainly untrue. A scorched-earth, deny-everything game any idiot can play. A game two can play. Go on, provide an academic-publication-level citation for every single assertion you've made in this entire thread, or concede defeat

Ok…I took the time to re-read your posts. I still see no substance in your assertions. All you do is to say, that Chomsky is famous and therefore his political views are somehow credible. This is all you say! Yes, Chomsky is famous, but his politics are not. I do not reject Chomsky scholarship. I reject Finkelstein’s scholarship! You failed to read my post.

I reject Chomsky politics because it leads to the demise of Israel, by ‘other’ means. Anybody, who understand the Palestinian Authority strategy would understand that Chomsky advocates the same eventuality, - the Middle East without Israel. Chomsky does it in a more subtle way then Finkelstein, perhaps because he is much smarter then Finkelstein. Still, in a final analysis, no argument that Chomsky, or you, can be put forward if it leads to the de-facto replacement of Israel by another purely Arab state.

Is it really that difficult for you to see? Why do you accuse me of “…scorched-earth, deny-everything game…”? Did I not just now substantiate my point ONCE AGAIN? What “…scorched-earth…”?

Originally Posted by Futuwwa

I don't abdicate, I choose not to play. A winning move in the right context, as the famous movie quote goes.

Winning move??? You are funny! Playing is hard! Again, where are your thoughts? Not Mr. Chomsky’s thoughts, - YOURS! Where is your logic, where is your argument, as it pertains to Israeli-Palestinians conflict? I see no views of your own, - all you say is what others say. I know, - it is easier that way.

Originally Posted by Futuwwa

I was going to reply to you, but your behavior reminded me of why I got fed up with trying to have a serious discussion with you in the first place. Your outright lies regarding the actual academic standing of Chomsky and Finkelstein is not only representative of your disdain of those you disagree with, but your dishonesty and evident lack of interest in honest discussion. You called Chomsky an academic clown and degrees gotten under him not worth the paper printed on. When I pointed out that no, he's actually the world's most cited academic, you made a creative "clarification" that you only meant a clown regarding his political dissent. Which was a nice try, but no cigar. Your original statement referred to his actual academic work, otherwise the point about degrees gotten under him (which would be in the field of linguistics, his actual academic field) being worthless wouldn't be applicable.

You are getting your information from ‘MIT news’ that were published in1992! Yes, Chomsky is sited often in a field of humanities and linguistics, - nothing else! Not politics! He is not an expert on Middle East. He has an opinion on Middle Eastern affairs, just like you do. And his opinion is not any more useful than yours or mine.

You are better off quoting Yasser Arafat, - at least Mr. Arafat had a practical, if not academic, insight into the Arab-Israeli problems. Or you might quote from current PA president, Mr. Abbas who has a more academic insight here since his Ph.D. thesis, entitled “The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement”, gives him credibility, although I am saying it with sarcasm. Both of those individuals have more to say then Mr. Chomsky, simply due to their credentials in the field.

I disagree with Chomsky’s work as it pertains to Artificial Intelligence. I also disagree with his political views. I am not qualified to comment on his work in linguistics. However I am not alone, - he has his critics in his own field.

“…Chomsky remains the most influential figure in theoretical linguistics, known to the public for his ideas that language is a cognitive system and the realisation of an innate faculty. While those ideas enjoy a wide currency, many linguists reject them. His theories have come under criticism from those, such as the cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, who were once close to him. Paul Postal, one of Chomsky’s earliest colleagues, stresses the tendency for the grandiloquence of Chomsky’s claims to increase as he addresses non-specialist audiences.

Frederick Newmeyer, a supporter of Chomsky’s ideas until the mid-1990s, notes: “One is left with the feeling that Chomsky’s ever-increasingly triumphalistic rhetoric is inversely proportional to the actual empirical results that he can point to.”

Chomsky’s first book on politics, American Power and the New Mandarins (1969) grew from protest against the Vietnam war. But Chomsky went beyond the standard left critique of US imperialism to the belief that “what is needed [in the US] is a kind of denazification.” This diagnosis is central to Chomsky’s political output. While he does not depict the US as an overtly repressive society—instead, it is a place where “money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print and marginalise dissent”—he does liken America’s conduct to that of Nazi Germany. In his newly published Imperial Ambitions, he maintains that “the pretences for the invasion [of Iraq] are no more convincing than Hitler’s.”

In The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (1994), Chomsky considered whether the west should bomb Serb encampments to stop the dismemberment of Bosnia, and by an absurdly tortuous route concluded “it’s not so simple.” By the time of the Kosovo war, this prophet of the amoral quietism of the Major government had progressed to depicting Milosevic’s regime as a wronged party: “Nato had no intention of living up to the scraps of paper it had signed, and moved at once to violate them.”

After 9/11, Chomsky deployed fanciful arithmetic to draw an equivalence between the destruction of the twin towers and the Clinton administration’s bombing of Sudan—in which a pharmaceutical factory, wrongly identified as a bomb factory, was destroyed and a nightwatchman killed. When the US-led coalition bombed Afghanistan, Chomsky depicted mass starvation as a conscious choice of US policy, declaring that “plans are being made and programmes implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next couple of weeks… very casually, with no particular thought about it.” His judgement was offered without evidence.

In A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor and the Standards of the West (2000), Chomsky wryly challenged advocates of Nato intervention in Kosovo to urge also the bombing of Jakarta, Washington and London in protest at Indonesia’s subjugation of East Timor. If necessary, citizens should be encouraged to do the bombing themselves, “perhaps joining the Bin Laden network.” Shortly after 9/11, the political theorist Jeffrey Isaac wrote of this thought experiment that, while it was intended metaphorically, “One wonders if Chomsky ever considered the possibility that someone lacking in his own logical rigour might read his book and carelessly draw the conclusion that the bombing of Washington is required.”

This episode gives an indication of the destructiveness of Chomsky’s advocacy even on issues where he has been right. Chomsky was an early critic of Indonesia’s brutal annexation of East Timor in 1975 in the face of the indolence, at best, of the Ford administration. The problem is not these criticisms, but Chomsky’s later use of them to rationalise his opposition to western efforts to halt genocide elsewhere. (Chomsky buttresses his argument, incidentally, with a peculiarly dishonest handling of source material. He manipulates a self-mocking reference in the memoirs of the then US ambassador to the UN, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, by running separate passages together as if they are sequential and attributing to Moynihan comments he did not make, to yield the conclusion that Moynihan took pride in Nazi-like policies. The victims of cold war realpolitik are real enough without such rhetorical expedients.)

If Chomsky’s political writings expressed merely an idée fixe, they would be a footnote in his career as a public intellectual. But Chomsky has a dedicated following among those of university education, and especially of university age, for judgements that have the veneer of scholarship and reason yet verge on the pathological. He once described the task of the media as “to select the facts, or to invent them, in such a way as to render the required conclusions not too transparently absurd—at least for properly disciplined minds.” There could scarcely be a nicer encapsulation of his own practice.”

I am saying AGAIN, - that Chomsky the linguist is a world’s famous academic. Chomsky the political scientists is not. In my opinion, and that is MY OPINION to which I am entitled, and as a graduate of MIT, I feel that studying under Chomsky is not a credible path to a successful career, given Chomsky’s, as an arm-chaired political scientist, sunken reputation. OK? You may disagree and I am fine with that.

Originally Posted by Futuwwa

I'm done wasting my time on you. You can choose to learn something from how our exchange ended up like it did, or you can try to spin it as a win by walkover for you. Frankly, I find the latter far more probable. If so, you'll get the last word in, good luck making the most of it. Toodles.

I am around if you change your mind. Cheers…

**MuhammadHamza1** · 07-23-2017

My reaction after reading your post.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...4YQ8WfVeoOes7g

**MuhammadHamza1** · 07-23-2017

Let us break down what you have written one by one.
1)-The Trial of David Irvings.
You people have criminalized Holocaust denial in most European countries.What are you afraid of?
Now the trial.
You make me laugh.
In a society that criminalizes Holocaust denial,you think the Court will do justice?
Do you think the courts are impartial?
If you think I am a stupid man by saying above mentioned things,
Then end the debate and refute those facts with actual evidences not some quotes of some people.
Also,How about this?
https://youtu.be/nyeSdtEiEk8

Should the Courts have not allowed Holocaust Denial under free speech?
Courts are not impartial.
There is also an easy way,
You can prove what I posted wrong.

An example of how courts are not impartial is shown by the fact that Ernst Zundell was not allowed to show all his evidence to court during his first trial.What are you afraid of?
And then this happened.
https://youtu.be/G_EMnWi38JA

And as for the trial,
Listen to This.
https://youtu.be/TzxI93ECcJE

**MuhammadHamza1** · 07-23-2017

This is the nail in the coffin.I am not saying it is the fianl one.

**ethnhunt** · 07-24-2017

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

Let us break down what you have written one by one.
1)-The Trial of David Irvings.
You people have criminalized Holocaust denial in most European countries.What are you afraid of?

Afraid???? The people of Europe are not afraid. They feel however, that the SHAME of having the Nazis run Germany and perpetrating one of the worst genocides in the history of the planet (perhaps Timur 650 years did worst) is something worth reflecting upon.

This reflection is an admission of the guilt and the statement that the Nazis are not coming back. So the parliaments of Germany and a few others took steps by making Nazi ideology and their propaganda illegal. Holocaust denial is a part of that propaganda, because it says that the crime never happened, but it did!

This is not about fear. This is about the lesson that history taught the Germans. Remember that people who do not make peace with their past will never have any future. I commend the Germans for enacting the law that prohibits the Nazi salute and prohibits the denial of Holocaust.

The Germans know much better than Mr Irwing what Holocaust really was. Countless German historians and experts are in agreement that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews. This is supported by overwhelming data from German archives dating back to the times of World War 2. You cannot argue against this. This is why Mr. Irwing lost all his law challenges in courts. He has NO CASE!

Your videos you posted are total nonsense. What are you doing here, - you are posting the videos of Irwing repeating his dogma and then you are posting the videos of a person who calls himself and chemist, but he has no degree and no knowledge, the person who was successfully prosecuted in court for fraud, and you want me to take THAT as a SOLID evidence???? Are you kidding or you think that I am stupid?

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

Now the trial.
You make me laugh.
In a society that criminalizes Holocaust denial,you think the Court will do justice?
Do you think the courts are impartial?
If you think I am a stupid man by saying above mentioned things,
Then end the debate and refute those facts with actual evidences not some quotes of some people.

The courts in the Western system of jurisprudence are as impartial as any court can possibly be. The courts are separated from the politics. The judges, by definition, do not care for political implications, they only care for the law. And the law only cares for evidence and what is in the best interest of the public, i.e. the public policy.

Can you understand that the Holocaust evidence is so solid that any law school student can try the case in any country in the West and WIN! You do not even have to be a lawyer and WIN!

Can you understand that the people who committed the crimes ADMITTED their actions in public and their testimony were supported by written evidence from archives with necessary signatures? It was further supported by eyewitness accounts that were in TOTAL agreement with evidence and testimonies. Further supported by videos shot by Germans at the time!!!!!

It was impossible for Mr. Irwing and the ‘company’ to argue against this, even though he tried…and failed.

In the British legal system, it is not enough to admit the wrongdoing. There are must be the preponderance of the evidence corroborating the wrongdoing. The confession is only a part, - a small part of the total picture. There is also an appeal process, whereby an impartial Court of Appeals looks at the case on evidence ONLY.

Tried to understand what I am saying to you! The above mentioned procedure has been followed to the letter in all Holocaust denial cases. I would like you to look at the case of Mr. Demyanuk, who was tried and released by Israeli court for the luck of evidence on appeal! He was a guard in one of the camps.

Western process is as full-proof as you can possible make it full-proof. When you say that the courts are biased or NOT impartial, you are appearing less then intelligent, - a person who is simpleminded. I hope that you are smarter than this. By implying that Western legal system is faulty you are saying that YOU know better. Well, - I would really like to know what you would suggest here, - go ahead, - make it better! Best minds that our civilization has generated made that system and it works very well.

Originally Posted by MuhammadHamza1

Should the Courts have not allowed Holocaust Denial under free speech?
Courts are not impartial.
There is also an easy way,
You can prove what I posted wrong.

An example of how courts are not impartial is shown by the fact that Ernst Zundell was not allowed to show all his evidence to court during his first trial.What are you afraid of?
And then this happened.

Zundell had no evidence to show! Zundell’s documents were deemed to be an insult to the court and the memory of the victims. The judge looked at it and had a good laugh. Let me give you an analogy here, - Zundell’s ‘evidence’ were like you trying to tell the judge that you did not steel the goods while holding the goods in your hand and the tape of your doing the deed are being broadcast on the TV. Still, - Zundell appealed!

This was NEVER the case of Free Speech. You have no idea what you ARE TALKING ABOUT. Look it up… Zundeell appeals all the way to Canadian Supreme Court. His case was heard, He was never denied his constitutional rights. The Judge found that Zundell’s book, when examined, "misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities."

It seems to me that you have no education when it comes to law. Your ability to think in a logical manner is highly suspect. You do no research when you post. You are blind to the indisputable facts. You are arrogantly claim that ‘you know better’ than all of us put together. I feel sorry for you…

**Abz2000** · 07-25-2017

@ethnhunt I know people don't normally ask you for this kind of favour...Would you be kind enough to send me the latest copy of the hasbara handbook, I require it for additional research and the thread I'm posting on here:

Iman vs Propaganda

Sincerely,

Abz

**Freedom** · 07-25-2017

Terrorism will never work against Israel. At this point, the Palestinians should be grateful for any concessions Israel grants. It's clear the rest of the Arab and Muslim world are not gonna come to "save" the Palestinians...ever. Plus, if the roles were reversed, the Arabs would have long ago slaughtered the rebelling inhabitants. That's clear from the way we see Arab rulers (Saddam, Assad, Mubarak, Baghdadi, Sisi, Gaddafi, etc) treat their inhabitants who rebel. Now imagine how bad they would treat infidel jews during rebellion.

**Abz2000** · 07-25-2017

Originally Posted by Freedom

Terrorism will never work against Israel. At this point, the Palestinians should be grateful for any concessions Israel grants. It's clear the rest of the Arab and Muslim world are not gonna come to "save" the Palestinians...ever. Plus, if the roles were reversed, the Arabs would have long ago slaughtered the rebelling inhabitants. That's clear from the way we see Arab rulers (Saddam, Assad, Mubarak, Baghdadi, Sisi, Gaddafi, etc) treat their inhabitants who rebel. Now imagine how bad they would treat infidel jews during rebellion.

You will indeed find that Muslims (the real ones and not the agent provocateur hypocrites who work for secularists to stir confusion) are just, and that they will respond to injustice with firm up to equal magnitude retaliation even if it means martyrdom in the process, so do not for a second think that playing the unjust tyrant card will bring you or your families security. I've witnessed too many unjust killings of children by the israeli jewish zionists to really care about just upto equal retaliation and it's consequences. Neither heaven, not earth will shed a tear for you oh unjust creeping yahood serpent scum.

**Freedom** · 07-25-2017

Originally Posted by Abz2000

You will indeed find that Muslims (the real ones and not the agent provocateur hypocrites who work for secularists to stir confusion) are just, and that they will respond to injustice with firm up to equal magnitude retaliation even if it means martyrdom in the process, so do not for a second think that playing the unjust tyrant card will bring you or your families security. I've witnessed too many unjust killings of children by the israeli jewish zionists to really care about just upto equal retaliation and it's consequences. Neither heaven, not earth will shed a tear for you oh unjust creeping yahood serpent scum.

I'm not a Jew, but from what I seen, the Jews treat Palestinians better than Arabs treat other Arabs.