To Steven Glass

1. The problem with your answer is that NIF has apparently not got the guts to call for a boycott of goods and services emanating from the West Bank – but is prepared to give money to other organisations to do just that.

Why doesn’t NIF spend its money itself and in its own name actively calling for such a boycott – rather than giving its money to others to do its dirty work for it?

2. Your answer is very evasive. All my question required was a simple “Yes” or “No” . Whether it is relevant or not is for others to determine.

Come on Steven – does NIF receive money from overseas governments or government agencies? Yes or No.

Your continuing refusal to answer this question will only entitle readers to draw their own conclusions.

If I’ve given the impression in any of my posts that I’m against your right to criticise Israel, or anything else you feel passionate about, then let me clarify my position for you. i fully support your right to criticise Israel, just as I support your right to criticise Libya. But sending in NATO warplanes to kill Gaddafi in the name of democracy does cross a line for me (and no, I’m not blaming you or the NIF for anything happening in Libya).

The recycled redundant regurgitation of the dominant argument of the Declaration of Independence, a dialectic “saviour ” tattooed on Mr. Glass’ relentless postings, has reached the respectable level of having a park bench dedicated to this personal quest on futility.
It should be a special bench where the birds are feeding the sitting loyal NIF advocates.

I would honestly attack a worthy idea, rather than the person sweating to produce one.

Show me a racisist comment for I can show you debilitatingly senseless
barracking for offensive anti Jewish comments under the guise of NIF “idealism”.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/the_russell_tribunal_on_palestine_a_legal_farce_and_total_failure

Michael Sfard, legal advisor for NIF- and EU-funded grantees such as Breaking the Silence, presented at the 2010 Barcelona session on the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, and was listed in the original program for Cape Town. He was replaced by his legal associate Emily Schaeffer, who also represents several NIF grantees, including PHR-I and Yesh Din. Also, in the London session of the RToP (Nov. 2010), officials from NIF-linked groups Machsom Watch and CWP, participated.

1. Yes. It is a legitimate form of political opposition to the occupation. You are free to oppose it. The freedom to take a political position that is different from the political position of those who advocate against buying products from the settlements is a freedom guaranteed under the Declaration of Independence.

2. Not relevant for reasons already given at considerable length.

As Mr Waldman’s posts keep getting sillier, attacking me and making overtly racist comments rather than sensibly debating the issues, responding to them becomes less and less necessary. I do however need to point out that the allegation that NIF supported the Russell Tribunal is incorrect.

You’re probably right! That’s why I’d like to be able to speak out against it, were it to happen, even though I don’t live in Israel! But from your earlier posts it seems you don’t think I (or you) should do so.

Steven Glass seems to insist on the farcical determinism that a Declaration of ideals is IN FACT a statement of immediacy, an incontestable evidence of attained FACTS. Attenuating intervening circumstances, such as the “incidental” viscerally anti Zionist arab presence in Israel propper and environs, does NOT seem to be included in Steven Glass’ and his fellow NIF mannics’ calculations. What is , in actual FACT, most incongruous is that the same Steven Glass relies on mere official statements, such as those constantly employed by NIF/NIFAu with blind reference to the same Declaration of Independence, as constant deflecting retorts to any criticism, a tactic meant to elevate NIF, a clearly anti Zionist detractory entity, to the arrogantly false stature of upholders to soemthing, indeed, precious to genuine Zionsits. I must resort once again to the “banality” of a Steven Glass immersed in sophisms of irrelevant reductions.And, since he is happy to fill in endless paragraphs of selfdeception, one wonders if this type of redundant entertainment is realy worth pursuing.
Just for a record known to all, NIF supported the palestinian so called Tribunal. For someone like Judge Goldstone to dismiss this concoction of miserable anti Semitic bile,this exerecise in hatred, it is clear that we are dealing here with the extremmes of disfunction. For anyone,including Steven Glass, to attempt at defending the same NIF, I could only wonder if healthy rationale does prevail in some Jewish centrifugal quarters, NIF and their advocates glaringly among them.

There are two questions I asked you that you have failed to answer:

1. Why is NIF prepared to fund organisations that seek to boycott goods and services produced by Jews who live in the West Bank but bitterly opposes such a boycott if those Jews live in Tel Aviv or Haifa.

Do you call that “equal rights” as the Declaration of Independence proclaims?

2. Does any of the funds NIF receives from overseas come from foreign governments or foreign government agencies.?