GASP ...Shimon Fogel is a Jew ...

"GASP ...Shimon Fogel is a Jew ..."

No: "Shimon Koffler Fogel is the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, formerly the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy"

And the point is that Fogel's office explains his extremely loaded language.
As if you didn't get it.
What is *your* point for pretending such ignorance?

He heads a Jewish group ?

That does not mean he has no right to speak, or be listened to, but it does mean he is not objective, but instead is an advocate, which again, is obvious.

Simple as that. He's a one trick pony.

as your own post shows
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113424939#post45
you know exactly how the technique of faulty generalization to all from one specific case is used. You chastise people who even vaguely appear to use it.

In this case, I pointed out that this one person was CEO of the Center for Jewish & Israeli Affairs in Canada, and you made out that I was chastising him for being a "Gasp...A Jew". So you knowingly and deliberately introduced a racist meme, pointing the innuendo at me, tho' what I posted had no connection with *your* racist meme. Then you pretended to be too dense, thick, to know what you were doing. It was *you* who introduced the racist meme, then tried to pin it on me. And I don't like that.

I was beginning to wonder if you didn't like Canadians.

I've nothing against Shimon Fogel.
All I did was point out that he's a high ranking lobbyist for an Israeli/Jewish interest. Nothing more.

... is the head of ANY Jewish group considered capable of expressing a point?

... what about any member of a Jewish group?

... or, for that matter, any Jew?


and ... conversely ...

Are the opinions of the heads of any Islamic group or their members similarly dismissible?

The OP gives an example of the CEO of a Israeli/Jewish group (not just 'Jewish', but both) writing an op-ed.
The capability isn't in question.
All I did was point out that the writer of the op-ed, which used VERY loaded language re. I/P issues, had such a position.

Don't tell me that you think this kind of fact is irrelevant. For example, if a CEO of a lobby group for Arab/Hamas interests wrote an op-ed on this subject and it was posted here without this information included, surely you'd feel righteous about correcting for this deficiency? Surely you'd think that people who *complained* about your providing this supplementary info were, shall I say, somehow warped? Or not?

If you follow the link (posted here) bottom of the article , clear as daylight...

'Shimon Fogel is CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.'

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Fogel+Hamas+greatest+barrier+Mideast+peace/7657235/story.html#ixzz2EQYNrQht

So what, *really*, is your problem?

Israel vs Palestinian narrative??

Human Shields
Published:
1 Jan 2011

On 6 October 2005, Israel's High Court of Justice ruled that it was illegal for the army to use Palestinian civilians during military actions. The court ruled on a petition submitted by Adalah in the name of B'Tselem and six other human rights organizations in 2002. The petition followed the army's use of Palestinian civilians as human shields since the beginning of the second intifada, primarily during operations carried out in densely populated Palestinian areas, as occurred in Operation Defensive Shield.

The method was the same each time: soldiers picked a civilian at random and forced him to protect them with his body, and do dangerous tasks for them. For example, soldiers have ordered Palestinians to:

enter buildings to check if they are booby-trapped, or to remove the occupants;
remove suspicious objects from roads;
stand inside houses where soldiers set up military positions, so that Palestinians would not fire at them;
and walk in front of soldiers to shield them from gunfire, while the soldiers point a gun to their backs and sometimes fire over their shoulders.

The soldiers in the field did not initiate this practice; rather, the order to use civilians as a means of protection was made by senior army officials.

http://www.btselem.org/human_shields

And soldiers who are caught doing so are formally disciplined.

Meanwhile, the policy of Hamas is not only to place offensive military weapons in heavily populated areas putting the entire population in harm's way, but to purposely draw fire onto civilians to deliberately produce casualties for propaganda purposes.

The soldiers in the field did not initiate this practice; rather, the order to use civilians as a means of protection was made by senior army officials.


**The order to use civilians was made by senior army officials.

Last edited Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)

In Hamas, they would have been called heroes.

The hypocrisy belongs to the author of the OP you posted.