In addition to comments on a PoliticsPa article [Anthony Williams to Run for Mayor of Philly], the

conflict was played-out on two websites related to Josh Shapiro [reader poll and facebook page];
reorganized chronologically, this is what transpired:

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 13, 2014 at 2:23 pm

@ DD:
[--Comments again interspersed]
Im not going to even look at anything on Breitbart let alone any links from it. Its a propaganda site. As
for your other links, broken by carriage returns, I cant follow them from my cell phone, and there is no
reason to keep posting them that way.
You are dismissive of primary data quoted by a cite you dont like, eh? Are there any other sites that
receive comparable scorn from you? You peg yourself as a typically modern lib *not classical+ by selfcensoring the need to review data that might disturb your [faulty] assumptions; nevertheless, will cite
each datapoint individually and eschew a Breitbart-URL.
0) Your could scenario is ridiculous. One strike would not prevent Israels retaliation and Irans
destruction. Iran would not risk letting its only nuclear weapon leave the country. They want it as a
deterrent against invasion.
Israel would want to ensure American public-opinion was not alienated and, thus, a clandestine
approach that would prompt people such as yourself to wish that the US not support Israel [in the
absence of a smoking-gun] could easily be predicted. Thus, prophylaxis is preferable, and the capacity
for Iran to make more than one bomb already exists; indeed, it does not fear invasion *for defense+
from any of its neighbors, unlike the situation a decade ago. Thus, my could scenario is reality-based.
You have also failed to address the gravamen of my comment regarding Irans perception of America as
the Big-Deviland its implications.
{warm-up complete}
1) I did discount it. Obamas policy was to let Egypt and Iran handle their own internal disputes, and
honor the election results. Interference by the U.S. would have generated more anti-American
sentiment. Sound policy.
You are not citing Obamas actions correctly; BHO declared Mubarak should step-down. Therefore, you
did not correctly cite history and your conclusion *sound policy+ must be rendered inoperative *to
quote a Nixonian concept].
usnews.com/news/articles/2011/02/04/obama-administration-urges-mubarak-to-step-down
{strike one}
2) He is not the only high-ranking officer in the world, and his statements do not undermine the high
civilian count. The U.N. count is the most reliable official record. Many of the strikes kill only civilians
when no military targets are in the area (like the boys killed on the beach). The policy has been to target
homes of suspected Hamas members, wiping out their entire families, even though the suspected

members werent there. Even if the family members made it out alive, the destruction of the homes are
collective punishment. The high civilian death toll is empirical evidence of Israels flawed policy.
You were duped, willingly or unwillingly. You characterize the civilian death toll as high without
reference to the missile-attacks upon Israel that preceded the bombing of places from which missiles
were sent; you failed to acknowledge the need to silence the missiles.
In addition, the boys on the beach claim was a hoax, as per forensic analysis.
You depict an oxymoron when you claim Israel wiped out entire families when they werent present;
Israel thereforeby your parlancecouldnt have wiped-out entire families. Also, it is not collective
punishment to target specific sites.
You have failed to discount the specific human shield claim and you have failed to acknowledge the
heinous plan to use the tunnels to invade southern Israel on Rosh Hashanah.
thomaswictor.com/timeline-hamas-gaza-beach-operation/
{strike two}
3) The relocation of Churchill was not a metaphor. You are just making that up.
You have failed to discount the specific citation from BHOs book attacking colonialismand its
implications; and I didnt make-up the relocation from the Oval Office, as per your citation.
{strike three, one out}
4) YOU are the one that used towns and villages. YOUR QUOTE: This quote is from an article written
by an Israeli-critic: The 600-odd rockets that had accurately targeted towns and villages were almost all
successfully intercepted by Iron Domes Tamir missiles a nearly 90% success rate, according to the
Israel Defense Forces. So, you are now complaining about your own quote? Thats pretty bad. My
arithmetic is just fine. Statistically, 10% is a very large sample size. Most statistical projections are done
with a fraction of a percent. The expected death toll would be in the low dozens. Shelters are still
cheaper than Iron Dome, which isnt worth the expense.
I used the quote *from a leftie+ to introduce the rockets *undeniable+which you still havent
confronted. Also, if you had watched videos of the Iron Dome system, you would note that there is an
instantaneous decision made as soon as a missile is detected as to its target, and only those that
threaten civilians are intercepted; when you play-percentages, you again ignore the fact that Israel must
bat 1000 whereas the Arabs can always return to attack again. And Israel also used shelters, whereas
Hamas not only DIDNT use them, but placed civilians @ military targets to protect them.
Hamas admitted it DID use schools and hospitals in Gaza Strip as human shields to launch rocket
attacks on Israel but claims it was mistake. Furthermore, the Israeli military captured a Hamas
manual on urban warfare called Introduction to the City War that extols the benefits of civilian
deaths and openly admits that Israel tries to avoid them.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753176/Hamas-DID-use-schools-hospitals-Gaza-Strip-human-shieldslaunch-rocket-attacks-Israel-admits-says-mistake.html#ixzz3IyXc3CRI
nypost.com/2014/08/05/hamas-manual-details-civilian-death-plan-israel/

{strike one, one out}

5) I read the article months ago. I didnt save the link. There are plenty of other articles about
Netanayahu sabotaging peace efforts. Here is one: mebriefing.com/?p=720
Your article contains two fatal-defects [let alone the fact that this was Peres acting without
corroboration, even from Livni, his party-colleague+: the details of the Peres-Abbas agreement were
not revealed by Peres and Tony Blair wrecked the agreement. The former suggests this octogenarian
may have faulty memory and the latter is counterintuitive, for his emissary-role was intended to pursue
such leads aggressively. Thus, your narrative is apocryphal absent any provision of any detail,
particularly from Peres.
{strike two, one out}
6) Supporting Obama on domestic policies does not mean one supports Obama on foreign policies. You
are drawing a line that doesnt exist. Your attempts to bring in Hitler are silly.
Your attempt to compartmentalize would silence criticism of human rights violations if a perp also was
abiding by other policies that you like; this itself violates multiple international norms, for everyone is to
be called-out if aberrations exist, regardless of whatever good may be done elsewhere. Therefore, it
seems you would not have interrupted the Shoah after having learned of the atrocities being conducted
by the Nazis; far from being silly, this serves as a condemnation of your entire ethical-construct.
{strike three, two out}
7) Its YOUR claim, not mine, that Israelis opposing your policies makes one anti-Semitic. Do a Google
search for Netanyahus current approval rating. Its YOUR faulty logic that would conclude Obama is unAmerican. You are so dumb that you dont even understand your own logic and made up definitions,
when their conclusions are revealed.
If you knew anything about Israeli politics, you would know that its parliamentary system is based upon
multiparty elections and coalition-building; thus, polling doesnt correlate with the American R vs. D
system. Notwithstanding your embedded insults, you should know that BB is contemplating holding
early elections *in 15+ to ride the tide of his current popularity.
{strike one, two out}
8) Obama should absolutely diverge from what the Israeli government views as its self-interest if
those interests are against American interests or if he believes the Israeli government is engaged in a
policy against their own interests in the long term. His job is not to nod his head in agreement with
foreign leaders and let them dictate US policy. The dangerous appeasement going on is politicians
buckling to pressure from Israel.
You have just admitted that BHO perceives American and Israeli interestsfrom his [warped]
perspectiveto be divergent; this has never been admitted publicly and, again, places him as an outlier
when compared with all of his predecessors. Instead, he should not accommodate the neo-Nazis in
Tehran *assuming, of course, you dont disagree with the multiple anti-Israel quotes that emanate
regularly from the mullahs].
{strike two, two out}

9) As for the jstreet article you posted, I agree with it, and you misrepresented the death of the child.
The child was killed after jumping out his window. The article does NOT say that he was throwing rocks
or joined the group of kids who were throwing rocks. Merely, he was killed went soldiers fired at a group
of kids. (Note: soldiers shouldnt be lethally firing on kids throwing rocks.) Also, the kids were
confronting: Israeli soldiers after days of house searches and arrests.
Rock-throwing can kill *ref. stoning to death+ and, thus, cannot be tolerated; whatever oppression
may have been appreciated and served as the grievance, none existed with regard to the Israeli.
{strike three, three out, inning over}
I havent discussed Joshs positions with him regarding Israel. However, Im confident he is a stronger
supporter of Israels policies than you are and would vote to increase aid to them if given the
opportunity. I have zero doubt that he would vote for everything Israel asked for. I have zero hope of
convincing him to agree with J-Street. I would vote for him anyway because hes right on the other
issues, and he serious person who wouldnt call the President (or a group like J-Street) anti-Semitic over
a difference in policy approach. Sestak, Toomey and the other potential candidates all parrot Israeli
talking points as well, so Israel is a non-issue to make a decision because all the candidates have the
same basic position.
Sestak doesnt parrot Israeli talking-points, at least he didnt when I heard him @ Rosemont and he
hasnt when interviewed on MSNBC periodically. Essentially, you accommodate genocide in what you
compose and, in the process, fail to address the ongoing strife that Israelis face on a daily basis from all
of her borders [including the Mediterranean.
{you lose, on top of your not having rectified prior aberrations}

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 14, 2014 at 6:08 am

@ DD:
I probed the beach-incident further and IDed uncertainty, but you cannot claim that the hyperlink I
provided wasnt accurate due to the behavior of From *who spoke locally, years ago, and seemed too
aligned to the GOP-Establishment for my tastes].
Indeed, rather than attempt to follow your logic that the Israelis would want to kill-off kids on a beach to
achieve some fanciful military goal, I provide a disinterested compilation of all the conjured media-hype
by the Arabs [notoriously including the Al-Dura creation] as illustrative of how, for example, the media
based on Gaza were prohibited from filming those who were firing missiles @ Israel.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict
Thus, I dont accept your sweeping rejection of my views due to your ability to quote a problematic
third-party who doubts this one sources input; furthermore, conceptually, the use of the media for
political purposes is well-documented and has duped people such as yourself to unjustifiably condemn
Israel.

THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you
would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are
acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles
and tunnels.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 14, 2014 at 10:53 am

@ DD:
PS: Your real news-sources ignored Jonathan Grubers quotes about ObamaDontCare, so you may not
wish to adhere to their credibility, reflexly.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 14, 2014 at 1:30 pm

@ DD:
As has been your pattern, you ignored the thrust of my prior comment:
THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you
would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are
acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles
and tunnels.
BHO is a anti-Semite because he is allowing Iran to nuke-up; this cannot be relegated to merely a policydebate; he is also attacking Jews for wanting to live in Jerusalem unjustifiably, blaming Israel for the
failure of peace-talks from which the PA walked-away.
I find your formulation of what happened on the beach not to be credible because there would be no
military justification to bomb kids playing on a beach; on the other hand, war is hell and you have
failed to address the intentional targeting of civilians documented on Wikipedia [including the fanciful
Jenin "massacre"].
All the Dems are running-away from Gruber, including Pelosi who has conveniently forgotten she had
praised him, years ago; he has revealed the strategy that was employed to lie to Americans [via the
media], emblematic of elitists who, like Warren, are lionized by libs.
Claims of anti-Arab bigotry [or "Islamophoba"] shroud people from facing unpleasant truths regarding
the threat being promulgated by those who wish to establish a worldwide caliphate; dont think that
your throat would be spared, regardless of whatever you now throat in their defense.
Because of your recognized deficit in retention-skills, I will repeat the fundamental reason for the Gazan
incursion; please confirm/deny this assertion:
THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you
would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are

acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles
and tunnels.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 14, 2014 at 3:32 pm

@ DD:
BHO is allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon because he has abandoned US/UN policy; it is
irrelevant to claim it is inevitable, Israel may also have one, and/or that Russia is complicit.
BHO has also leaked info that has continued to damage Israel, including the potential for Israeli jets to
refuel in Kazakhstan *and, lest we forget, the chickensh*t/coward quote+; The Obama administration
provided a New York Times reporter exclusive access to a range of high-level national security officials
for a book that divulged highly classified information on a U.S. cyberwar on Irans nuclear program,
internal State Department emails show. This is not the conduct of a friend.
Thats why I depict BHO as anti-Semitic; one must call-a-spade a spade based upon undeniable data.
Claim bigotry/racism to your hearts content, but dont keep evading the facts.
The Islamists in Gaza are linked with those in Egypt/Sinai and, in-turn, with those in Syria/Iraq; note that
Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State got married yesterday, as others are expressing fealty to their goals.
Therefore, the PR-warfare against Israel is, indeed, a subset of the overall initiative against Western
Judeo-Christian History/Ethics.
Far from attempting to terrorize the Gazans, the Gazans have been trying to terrorize the Israelis; you
have not only ignored the Missiles [that flew before/during/after the incursion], but you have ignored
the Tunnels [that were to be used to invade multiple celebrants of Rosh Hashanah, killing/kidnapping
Jews].
You can run *Whether or not Hamas uses human shields is completely irrelevant+, but you cannot
hide *Israel faces numerous existential threats+; you will not be able to find an Islamist leader who
denies the plan to kill all non-believers [recalling the Munchausen patients tombstone: See, I told ya
so!+.
Finally, if anyone needs counseling, it is a petulant BHO; one can anticipate an exacerbation after he is
forced to sign the Keystone-Pipeline bill next week.
Because of your ongoing pattern of a recognized deficit in cognition [retention-skills], I will repeat the
fundamental reason for the Gazan incursion; please confirm/deny this assertion:
THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you
would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are
acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles
and tunnels.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 14, 2014 at 3:57 pm

@ DD:
BTW, notwithstanding your denials, President Obama personally crafted a major Obamacare deception
with Jonathan Gruber at one of Grubers numerous White House meetings, according to a 2012 Gruber
interview with PBS.
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/the-frontline-interviewjonathan-gruber/
dailycaller.com/2014/11/14/president-crafted-obamacare-deception-with-gruber-at-white-housemeeting/

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 15, 2014 at 7:15 am

@ DD:
I really cannot feel sorry for you, nor can I cover-up your ignorance; after having evaded the central
query, you finally [partially] confronted the central-question regarding the Israeli incursion into Gaza:
THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you
would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are
acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles
and tunnels.
You wrote, The attacks from Gaza are completely justified as a response to Israels occupation and
blockades, just as the American revolutionaries fought the injustices of British rule.
Defect #1: The Israelis are not occupying the Gaza Strip; Sharon pulled-out unilaterally almost a
decade ago.
Defect #2: The Israelis have tried to restrict the import of matriel carrying military import; after the
relaxation of such limitations [c/o BHO], the steel used to reinforce the tunnels was permitted to be
imported, yielding a sophisticated network that was to have been employed to invade hundreds of
Southern-Israel communities [including schools], through which innocent Jewish civilians were to be
slaughtered/kidnapped.
Most people would consider the plan to be terroristic, although you would probably continue to side
with the Islamists ["Hamas"], in this case, thereby again affixing upon your breast the identical label of
anti-Semite being sported by BHO *for having aided/abetted this scheme ahead-of-time, forcing BB to
relent after the Flotilla incident].
This strategic defensive-move has absolutely no relationship to British policy in Colonial America;
England wasnt imposing restrictions in self-defense and, thus, to attempt to wrap yourself around the
flag of patriotism recalls that infamous phrase that labels that rhetorical-claim to be the last refuge of
the scoundrel.

Retreating, somewhat, you added a disclaimer: However, the attacks are completely misguided
because they are ineffective and dont advance their cause. So, tactically, they arent justified, only their
right to fight their oppressors is.
Charming. So you claim the thousands of missiles that rained upon Israel [extending not only to Tel Aviv,
but also to Jerusalem+ were ineffective in killing enough Jews, despite their having spread terrorism
among the civilian population; Jewish life is so cheap in your mind that being traumatized over the years
[and having to reside in bomb-shelters] really was an insufficient inconvenience to suit your tastes, eh?
Then, grudgingly, you admit Hamas shouldnt use human shields, but then quickly add what you
mistakenly perceive as a neutralizing counterclaim [lest you subject yourself to the charge that you
relented in any shape or form] thusly: However, Israel shouldnt blame the deaths all the non-shield
humans that Israel indiscriminately kills on Hamas. Find a quote where this posture was ever struck by
the IDF, as it resolutely acted to defend its citizenry [channeling its name].
Finally, you lapse into the classic defense used episodically by the Arabs [in-between triumphant claims]:
Israels response to missiles and tunnels was overkill and not justified, due to its disproportionate
nature. Israel had a right to respond, but their response was wrong. Who the HECK are you to reach
that determination, when you [functioning in your familiar "Ugly American" capacity] reside comfortably
in PA [which, thus far, has been relatively free of terrorism]?
Your posting was a Shanda, and the second question posed to Josh by a thinking-reporter [after he is
asked to disclaim BHO's Iranian-Nuke behavior] should be whether he concurs with anything an
individual such as yourself [running-interference for him, here, on PoliticsPA] has posted.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 16, 2014 at 7:30 am

@ DD:
Youre the guy who *unjustifiably+ complained that I didnt scrutinize the hyperlinks I had cited; you are
guilty of this behavior for the UN still considers Gaza occupied even though Hamas admits its not,
given that Israel hasnt been there since 2005.
blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2012/01/27/un-we-still-consider-gaza-occupied-by-israel/
In fact, the comments illustrate the convoluted lingo that led to the UNs having reached this conclusion;
further, the UNs anti-Israel bias has been a pattern that has led to retractions, even by their authors [re:
Goldstone Report].
I have no problem with Israels having exerted its right to control movement across its borders in the
face of terrorism [and one wishes BHO would uphold his constitutional responsibility in like-fashion]; per
your citation [which, although it arises from a leftie-source, I do not reject out-of-hand as you do when
the word "Breitbart" is either mentioned or conjured in your mind], Israel reacted to what this surgeon
had said and, thus, probably felt he would enhance the danger facing Israel from Gaza were he to go
there and there is no reason why he couldnt enter Gaza via Egypt *unless, of course, he wanted to
provoke Israel into doing something that could be politicized against Israel, eh?].

One resource contains a disinterested summary of these issues noting, for example, how the UNRWA
violated *for "operational" purposes+ the UNs definition of a Refugee; perhaps you may wish to apply
your critical thinking-skills, for a change, instead of adhering to polemics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict
The bottom-line point is that Israels policy towards Gaza does not meet the definition of Military
occupation, for Israel intuitively is not able to exert effective provisional control of a certain ruling
power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of
the actual sovereign; you cannot assert otherwise [even invoking the "twisted" section of your mind]
for, otherwise, you would have to account for the ascendancy of Hamas and other Islamists [and it's
counter-intuitive that Israel would control a region from which thousands of missiles would have been
launched against Israel's population centers].
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
THEREFORE, Defect #1 remains operational, and you have yet to tackle the others; THEREFORE, your
disingenuousness remains exposed.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 14, 2014 at 3:44 pm

@ DD:
This is as appropriate as any other website to link our prior colloquy:
politicspa.com/reader-poll-shapiro-favorite-in-2016/61749/comment-page-1/#comment-921906
You may have been running-interference for him, but anyone with federal ambitions must answer for
BHOs anti-Israel/pro-Iran posturing, antithetical both to prior policy and common sense.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 15, 2014 at 7:41 am

Lest anyone think DD [and BHO] can shake the appellation anti-Semite, note this cross-posting [and
weep}:
*
@ DD:
I really cannot feel sorry for you, nor can I cover-up your ignorance; after having evaded the central
query, you finally [partially] confronted the central-question regarding the Israeli incursion into Gaza:

THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you
would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are
acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles
and tunnels.
You wrote, The attacks from Gaza are completely justified as a response to Israels occupation and
blockades, just as the American revolutionaries fought the injustices of British rule.
Defect #1: The Israelis are not occupying the Gaza Strip; Sharon pulled-out unilaterally almost a
decade ago.
Defect #2: The Israelis have tried to restrict the import of matriel carrying military import; after the
relaxation of such limitations [c/o BHO], the steel used to reinforce the tunnels was permitted to be
imported, yielding a sophisticated network that was to have been employed to invade hundreds of
Southern-Israel communities [including schools], through which innocent Jewish civilians were to be
slaughtered/kidnapped.
Defect #3: Most people would consider the plan to be terroristic, although you would probably
continue to side with the Islamists ["Hamas"], in this case, thereby again affixing upon your breast the
identical label of anti-Semite being sported by BHO *for having aided/abetted this scheme ahead-oftime, forcing BB to relent after the Flotilla incident].
Defect #4: This strategic defensive-move has absolutely no relationship to British policy in Colonial
America; England wasnt imposing restrictions in self-defense and, thus, to attempt to wrap yourself
around the flag of patriotism recalls that infamous phrase that labels that rhetorical-claim to be the
last refuge of the scoundrel.
Retreating, somewhat, you added a disclaimer: However, the attacks are completely misguided
because they are ineffective and dont advance their cause. So, tactically, they arent justified, only their
right to fight their oppressors is.
Defect #5: Charming. So you claim the thousands of missiles that rained upon Israel [extending not only
to Tel Aviv, but also to Jerusalem+ were ineffective in killing enough Jews, despite their having spread
terrorism among the civilian population; Jewish life is so cheap in your mind that being traumatized over
the years [and having to reside in bomb-shelters] really was an insufficient inconvenience to suit your
tastes, eh?
Then, grudgingly, you admit Hamas shouldnt use human shields, but then quickly add what you
mistakenly perceive as a neutralizing counterclaim [lest you subject yourself to the charge that you
relented in any shape or form+ thusly: However, Israel shouldnt blame the deaths all the non-shield
humans that Israel indiscriminately kills on Hamas.
Defect #6: Find a quote where this posture was ever struck by the IDF, as it resolutely acted to defend its
citizenry [channeling its name].
Finally, you lapse into the classic defense used episodically by the Arabs [in-between triumphant claims]:
Israels response to missiles and tunnels was overkill and not justified, due to its disproportionate
nature. Israel had a right to respond, but their response was wrong.

Defect #7: Who the HECK are you to reach that determination, when you [functioning in your familiar
"Ugly American" capacity] reside comfortably in PA [which, thus far, has been relatively free of
terrorism]?
Your posting was a Shanda, and the second question posed to Josh by a thinking-reporter [after he is
asked to disclaim BHO's Iranian-Nuke behavior] should be whether he concurs with anything an
individual such as yourself [running-interference for him, here, on PoliticsPA] has posted.
*
DDs ignorance cannot be blamed on lack of knowledge, for he has faithfully typed the vile that spews
forth from Arabs who would continue to deny Israels right to live, corrupting the David and Goliath
roles in the process; look @ a map, DD.
Rather, DDs exposure to the label anti-Semite links him to BHOs *for the ADL's definition he
employed includes adopting a political posture that would demonstrably yield deaths of groups of
Jews"].
Some would claim that having tracked him across numerous pages of PoliticsPA [albeit having ignored
following-up on numerous C-R-A-P he has posted] constituted a monumental waste-of-time; to the
contrary, having assisted him to have exposed his prejudices has served to protect PoliticsPa readers,
for he will continue to be stalked [and this page will be cited regularly in the process], lest anyone
consider him to serve as a credible evaluator of the passing-scene.

David Diano says: November 15, 2014 at 10:27 am

RobertYou are just a bigot. Your posts and attacks calling Obama an anti-Semite show how much you have lost
your mind. Seek help.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 15, 2014 at 11:46 am

@ DD:
Checkand Mate!
[When a debater has neither the facts nor the law, he/she argues ad-hominem.]
DD, get accustomed to noting this hyperlink, for it will follow-you around.
www.politicspa.com/pa-sen-supporter-launches-ready-for-shapiro/61843/#comments

Anyone who appears to believe you will be reminded that you have 0 credibility.

David Diano says: November 15, 2014 at 12:05 pm

RobertGet accustomed to people realizing that you are a bigot. By tying your whole premise to claiming Obama
is an anti-Semite (and by extension any supporter of his is one) you reveal the depths of your prejudices
and irrationality.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 15, 2014 at 12:12 pm

@ DD:
By demonstrating the double-whammy of failed-blogging [typing lies and not being able to document
assertions+, you ultimately show that Im correct and youre wrong; by injecting invective, you reveal
your own prejudices.

David Diano says: November 15, 2014 at 1:19 pm

RobertStating that Obama is an anti-Semite is a lie (and thinking youve proven it shows how delusional you
are). You are in the same league with the birthers.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 15, 2014 at 2:37 pm

Lest anyone think DD *and BHO+ can shake the appellation anti-Semite, fact-check this cross-posting
[and weep]:
*
@ DD:

I really cannot feel sorry for you, nor can I cover-up your ignorance; after having evaded the central
query, you finally [partially] confronted the central-question regarding the Israeli incursion into Gaza:
THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you
would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are
acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles
and tunnels.
You wrote, The attacks from Gaza are completely justified as a response to Israels occupation and
blockades, just as the American revolutionaries fought the injustices of British rule.
Defect #1: The Israelis are not occupying the Gaza Strip; Sharon pulled-out unilaterally almost a
decade ago.
Defect #2: The Israelis have tried to restrict the import of matriel carrying military import; after the
relaxation of such limitations [c/o BHO], the steel used to reinforce the tunnels was permitted to be
imported, yielding a sophisticated network that was to have been employed to invade hundreds of
Southern-Israel communities [including schools], through which innocent Jewish civilians were to be
slaughtered/kidnapped.
Defect #3: Most people would consider the plan to be terroristic, although you would probably
continue to side with the Islamists ["Hamas"], in this case, thereby again affixing upon your breast the
identical label of anti-Semite being sported by BHO *for having aided/abetted this scheme ahead-oftime, forcing BB to relent after the Flotilla incident].
Defect #4: This strategic defensive-move has absolutely no relationship to British policy in Colonial
America; England wasnt imposing restrictions in self-defense and, thus, to attempt to wrap yourself
around the flag of patriotism recalls that infamous phrase that labels that rhetorical-claim to be the
last refuge of the scoundrel.
Retreating, somewhat, you added a disclaimer: However, the attacks are completely misguided
because they are ineffective and dont advance their cause. So, tactically, they arent justified, only their
right to fight their oppressors is.
Defect #5: Charming. So you claim the thousands of missiles that rained upon Israel [extending not only
to Tel Aviv, but also to Jerusalem+ were ineffective in killing enough Jews, despite their having spread
terrorism among the civilian population; Jewish life is so cheap in your mind that being traumatized over
the years [and having to reside in bomb-shelters] really was an insufficient inconvenience to suit your
tastes, eh?
Then, grudgingly, you admit Hamas shouldnt use human shields, but then quickly add what you
mistakenly perceive as a neutralizing counterclaim [lest you subject yourself to the charge that you
relented in any shape or form+ thusly: However, Israel shouldnt blame the deaths all the non-shield
humans that Israel indiscriminately kills on Hamas.
Defect #6: Find a quote where this posture was ever struck by the IDF, as it resolutely acted to defend its
citizenry [channeling its name].
Finally, you lapse into the classic defense used episodically by the Arabs [in-between triumphant claims]:
Israels response to missiles and tunnels was overkill and not justified, due to its disproportionate
nature. Israel had a right to respond, but their response was wrong.

Defect #7: Who the HECK are you to reach that determination, when you [functioning in your familiar
"Ugly American" capacity] reside comfortably in PA [which, thus far, has been relatively free of
terrorism]?
Your posting was a Shanda, and the second question posed to Josh by a thinking-reporter [after he is
asked to disclaim BHO's Iranian-Nuke behavior] should be whether he concurs with anything an
individual such as yourself [running-interference for him, here, on PoliticsPA] has posted.
*
DDs ignorance cannot be blamed on lack of knowledge, for he has faithfully typed the vile that spews
forth from Arabs who would continue to deny Israels right to live, corrupting the David and Goliath
roles in the process; look @ a map, DD.
Rather, DDs exposure to the label anti-Semite links him to BHOs *for the ADL's definition he
employed includes adopting a political posture that would demonstrably yield "deaths of groups of
Jews"].
Some would claim that having tracked him across numerous pages of PoliticsPA [albeit having ignored
following-up on numerous C-R-A-P he has posted] constituted a monumental waste-of-time; to the
contrary, having assisted him to have exposed his prejudices has served to protect PoliticsPa readers,
for he will continue to be stalked [and this page will be cited regularly in the process], lest anyone
consider him to serve as a credible evaluator of the passing-scene.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 16, 2014 at 7:37 am

@ DD:
As Reagan used to say, There you go again; ad-hominem doesnt work *because I dropped the effort
after I no longer had a remedy after the party-control switch of the Commissioners [and no one
challenged the points that were included in the provision of "context" that this document contained].
Elsewhere [and here], I disposed of your attempt to defend the indefensible, namely, that Israel is
occupying the Gaza Strip, notwithstanding the unilateral withdrawal therefrom in 05; again, the other
numbered-Defects in your posting remain operational, particularly your reprehensible *and, again,
counter-intuitive] effort to invoke the American Revolution to swath Palestinian Terrorism in
Patriotism.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 16, 2014 at 7:27 am

@ DD:

Youre the guy who *unjustifiably+ complained that I didnt scrutinize the hyperlinks I had cited; you are
guilty of this behavior for the UN still considers Gaza occupied even though Hamas admits its not,
given that Israel hasnt been there since 2005.
blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2012/01/27/un-we-still-consider-gaza-occupied-by-israel/
In fact, the comments illustrate the convoluted lingo that led to the UNs having reached this conclusion;
further, the UNs anti-Israel bias has been a pattern that has led to retractions, even by their authors [re:
Goldstone Report].
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-warcrimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html
I have no problem with Israels having exerted its right to control movement across its borders in the
face of terrorism [and one wishes BHO would uphold his constitutional responsibility in like-fashion]; per
your citation [which, although it arises from a leftie-source, I do not reject out-of-hand as you do when
the word "Breitbart" is either mentioned or conjured in your mind], Israel reacted to what this surgeon
had said and, thus, probably felt he would enhance the danger facing Israel from Gaza were he to go
there and there is no reason why he couldnt enter Gaza via Egypt *unless, of course, he wanted to
provoke Israel into doing something that could be politicized against Israel, eh?].
One resource contains a disinterested summary of these issues noting, for example, how the UNRWA
violated *for "operational" purposes+ the UNs definition of a Refugee; perhaps you may wish to apply
your critical thinking-skills, for a change, instead of adhering to polemics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict
The bottom-line point is that Israels policy towards Gaza does not meet the definition of Military
occupation, for Israel intuitively is not able to exert effective provisional control of a certain ruling
power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of
the actual sovereign; you cannot assert otherwise [even invoking the "twisted" section of your mind]
for, otherwise, you would have to account for the ascendancy of Hamas and other Islamists [and it's
counter-intuitive that Israel would control a region from which thousands of missiles would have been
launched against Israel's population centers].
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
THEREFORE, Defect #1 remains operational, and you have yet to tackle the others; THEREFORE, your
disingenuousness remains exposed.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 16, 2014 at 3:30 pm

@ DD:
The oppression in Gaza is due to the policies of Hamas, which surely Israel [NOT an "occupying
power"+ havent been able to alter; do you also condone the terror-tunnels as another method of
protesting Israels existence?

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 16, 2014 at 3:53 pm

@ DD:
[To elaborate a bit further on my freedom-of-speech litigation, I could have filed a streamed-down
Complaint, but the situation was so remote [due to many episodes of judicial delay] and the change-ofparty was so definitive *no remedy remained+ that the point had been madebut the situation was
mooted.]
It is desirable to recap on this page the posting that has led to your having claimed Israel occupies
Gaza, despite the fact that [1]No Israelis are on the premises and [2]Gazans have access westward to
Egypt. You are again reminded that this is the tip-of-the-latest-iceberg of disparate undocumented
claims you have made on this page:
THEREFORE, rather than cherry-pick one point, deal with the larger issues raised [such as whether you
would justify the ongoing missile attacks from Gaza and the use of human-shields that are
acknowledged by both sides] and recognize the justification Israel had when dealing with the missiles
and tunnels.
You wrote, The attacks from Gaza are completely justified as a response to Israels occupation and
blockades, just as the American revolutionaries fought the injustices of British rule.
Defect #1: The Israelis are not occupying the Gaza Strip; Sharon pulled-out unilaterally almost a
decade ago.
Defect #2: The Israelis have tried to restrict the import of matriel carrying military import; after the
relaxation of such limitations [c/o BHO], the steel used to reinforce the tunnels was permitted to be
imported, yielding a sophisticated network that was to have been employed to invade hundreds of
Southern-Israel communities [including schools], through which innocent Jewish civilians were to be
slaughtered/kidnapped.
Defect #3: Most people would consider the plan [to use the tunnels to invade Southern Israel on Rosh
Hashanah+ to be terroristic, although you would probably continue to side with the Islamists
["Hamas"], in this case, thereby again affixing upon your breast the identical label of anti-Semite being
sported by BHO [for having aided/abetted this scheme ahead-of-time, forcing BB to relent after the
Flotilla incident].
Defect #4: This strategic defensive-move has absolutely no relationship to British policy in Colonial
America; England wasnt imposing restrictions in self-defense and, thus, to attempt to wrap yourself
around the flag of patriotism recalls that infamous phrase that labels that rhetorical-claim to be the
last refuge of the scoundrel.
Retreating, somewhat, you added a disclaimer: However, the attacks are completely misguided
because they are ineffective and dont advance their cause. So, tactically, they arent justified, only their
right to fight their oppressors is.

Defect #5: Charming. So you claim the thousands of missiles that rained upon Israel [extending not only
to Tel Aviv, but also to Jerusalem+ were ineffective in killing enough Jews, despite their having spread
terrorism among the civilian population; Jewish life is so cheap in your mind that being traumatized over
the years [and having to reside in bomb-shelters] really was an insufficient inconvenience to suit your
tastes, eh?
Then, grudgingly, you admit Hamas shouldnt use human shields, but then quickly add what you
mistakenly perceive as a neutralizing counterclaim [lest you subject yourself to the charge that you
relented in any shape or form+ thusly: However, Israel shouldnt blame the deaths all the non-shield
humans that Israel indiscriminately kills on Hamas.
Defect #6: Find a quote where this posture was ever struck by the IDF, as it resolutely acted to defend its
citizenry [channeling its name].
Finally, you lapse into the classic defense used episodically by the Arabs [in-between triumphant claims]:
Israels response to missiles and tunnels was overkill and not justified, due to its disproportionate
nature. Israel had a right to respond, but their response was wrong.
Defect #7: Who the HECK are you to reach that determination, when you [functioning in your familiar
"Ugly American" capacity] reside comfortably in PA [which, thus far, has been relatively free of
terrorism]?

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 16, 2014 at 4:25 pm

@ DD:
I will continue to remind you of your deceit [and support for anti-Semite BHO], if for no other reason
than because you have not defended your [blatantly false] assertions; these issues are directly relevant
to how Josh will handle his relationship with the guy whom he endorsed early-onthe POTUS.

David Diano says: November 16, 2014 at 6:58 pm

RobertKeep repeating that you think Obama is an anti-Semite and that anyone who supports him in any
capacity is one also. Under your delusions, there are a lot of anti-Semitic rabbis.
Since you are a Republican (tea-party, nutjob), you dont get to vote in the Dem senate primary, so none
of this matters to you until the Summer/Fall of 2016. And, youll just pick Toomey anyway.
BTW, ask Toomey to come out and claim that Obama is an anti-Semite and see if he agrees with you.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 16, 2014 at 9:06 pm

@ DD:
I never concluded that all supporters of BHO are anti-Semites; on the other hand, your postings [and
misrepresentations, absent facts...such as when you unilaterally decided the iron-dome defense wasn't
"cost-effective"] place you into that category, as well.

David Diano says: November 16, 2014 at 11:25 pm

RobertYou seem to be confusing anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 16, 2014 at 11:37 pm

@ DD:
Therefore, are you an anti-Zionist?

David Diano says: November 17, 2014 at 1:40 am

RobertNo. Youve incorrectly equated any opposition to Israeli policy as anti-Semitism, without any distinction.
Im neither pro-Israel nor anti-Israel. Im fine with the existence of a the state of Israel as a Jewish
homeland, but not at the expense of the Palestinians prevented from having their own state. So,
Zionism is okay as part of a two-state solution, but not a one-state solution that continually takes land
from the Palestinians and occupies them.
My position is that I support a non-aggressive Israel, and not its current policies and leaders. I believe
these people are actually hurting Israel by working against peace and engaging in war crimes against
innocent Palestinians. They are working against peace and promoting a cycle of violence with
disproportionate responses.
I feel that the U.S. should not support them and their military policies, until/unless they make real
progress on a two-state solution. This may require new leaders and a peaceful direction for Israel.
People like you are actually the most dangerous to Israel because your bigotry against non-Jews in the
mid-East prevents progress and blinds you from accepting peace from former adversaries.

@ The Reader:
DD has admitted he condones terrorism against Israeli Jews: The Hamas rockets are the result of
Israels policies.
One would hope that all Dems who are public figures and/or who advocate for the Dem-Party would
repudiate his oeuvre [here and elsewhere].
http://www.politicspa.com/anthony-williams-to-run-for-mayor-of-philly/61826/comment-page1/#comment-922710

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 17, 2014 at 9:36 am

@ DD:
I support BB, when he concurs with one AFTER Israel is recognized.
Your negative-mindread failed, once more.
Did you watch the video?
Do you still support Hamas?

David Diano says: November 17, 2014 at 9:16 am

Robert
So, you are saying that you are opposed to a two state solution, and you are for denying Palestinians
their own state.
This is why the fighting goes on.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 17, 2014 at 5:31 am

@ DD:

Before you hear Josh rebuke you [and debunk your paradigm of the Middle East], you may wish to
watch the following brief [spoon-fed] video on the history of the Middle East conflict; you will then
appreciate why you generate so many Defects in your postings *now, including the phrase, "Im fine
with the existence of a the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland, but not at the expense of the
Palestinians prevented from having their own state."].
viral.buzz/muslim-conflict-video-all-you-need-to-know-in-5-minutes/
In the process, you will be reminded of the overarching legality of the 48 Partition, which Arabs have
consistently opposed [militarily, diplomatically, etc.] thereafter; you will also be reminded of the pre-67
posture that existed among those you condone [opposing Israel's existence before the defensive war
that yielded expanded Israeli control], when your two-state solution existed [but didn't satisfy the Arabs'
desire to wipe-Israel-off-of-the-map].
Excerpts from the Hamas Covenant might prove enlightening:
Article Seventeen:
[After praising Muslim women, notwithstanding the enslavement thereof by Islamists
worldwide+.*Y+ou find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns,
films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist
organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups
and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have
ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist
targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the
absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role
in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of
life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated.
Article Twenty-Two:
[After having claimed Jews "were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of
the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there+.With their money they formed secret
societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the
purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to
control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to
exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
Article Twenty-Eight:
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil
and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on
the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other
sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and
according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting
consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in
all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.
avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
You are lying *note double entendre+ with this organization and, thus, you have fleas.

David Diano says: November 17, 2014 at 12:46 pm

RobertYou keep referring to Netanyahu as BB, when his nickname is Bibi, and his initials are BN. It just makes
you look even dumber.
The recognition of Israel is a false precondition because there will always be elements opposed to it, at
the same time there will be elements in Israel opposed to the Palestinians having a state.
This false precondition is purposeful to prevent a solution and perpetuate the current situation of
Israels occupation and expansion.
If Hamas disbanded, disarmed and announced full support for Israel tomorrow, Netanyahu would
manufacture a different excuse to delay a two-state solution.
Its all a land grab, where the formerly oppressed gain near absolute power and transform into the
oppressors.
Once a two-state solution is reached, elements like Hamas will be crushed to keep the hard-won peace
and state for Palestine. So, the precondition is really a post-condition that will enforced by beneficiaries
of their own state.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 17, 2014 at 3:14 pm

@ DD:
Camp David II disproved your assertions for, after 8 years of Oslo, the PA couldnt enact a definitive
peace-treaty; again, you have failed to disclaim support for the missile-attacks by Hamas, plus its
admission that it has used humans as shields.
You can postulate to your hearts content regarding the empty promises that could be proffered and
that Hamas would abrogate its Covenant in the process but Israel should not be expected to base its
continued existence upon such pledges, particularly in light of the track-record of those promulgating
them [such as denying the existence of King David, etc.].
Cite one authority for your underlying assumption ["Once a two-state solution is reached, elements like
Hamas will be crushed to keep the hard-won peace and state for Palestine"] or retract it.

David Diano says: November 17, 2014 at 3:48 pm

RobertMore than half of Gazans are under 25 years old, and most of the other major players are new, as well
as changes in the mid-East, and an overall fatigue with the status quo.
So, the past is not relevant as a claim that peace cant be achieved (except to people like you who are
the enemies of peace and look for any excuse to avoid it).
I dont care if Hamas drops its Covenant as they will be marginalized to the point of no power in a
peaceful two-state solution. Stopping the process over their ravings is like countries not signing treaties
with us because we allow the KKK to have marches. Hamas will become the new Palestines KKK, hateful
but toothless.
Who the f*ck cares what their opinion is of King David? You deny global warming and basic science.
I deny the existence of God, and consider the Bible to be a work of fiction laced with a few historical
characters and distorted take on events.
Hamas has no useful purpose in a two-state solution, without occupations, settlement expansion,
blockades, etc. to rally their support.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 17, 2014 at 5:08 pm

@ DD:
Your irreverence knows no boundssave for your ignorance.
Although you continue to eschew providing authorities to support your opinions, your rejection of
history is contravened by Santayana, who wrote (in The Life of Reason, 1905): Those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Israel doesnt have the luxury to err even once.
Thus, the past is relevant as a claim that peace cant be achieved because Arafat failed to counteroffer
after having been given ALMOST the entire store *with the rest proffered @ Taba by Clinton as he
exited]; you demonstrate again your arrogance for, although you dont care if Hamas drops its
Covenant, everyone else in the neighborhood does *and other Islamists would rapidly fill the vacuum+.
You may not care what their opinion is of King David, but their denial of the archaeological record
[that they haven't destroyed, try as they might] bespeaks the inability to create trust [notwithstanding
their instruction in anti-Semitism within their schools, media and mosques].
One would hope that, even an individual who denies the existence of God, and consider*s+ the Bible to
be a work of fiction laced with a few historical characters and *a+ distorted take on events would be
able to muster a sense of sensitivity to the billions of people who think otherwise; your secularprogressive religiosity precludes even keeping the door of alternative views open even ajar, so sad.
That you despise the Judeo-Christian Ethic explains your obeisance to Hamas.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 17, 2014 at 6:24 pm

A Toomey-Shapiro race would predictably produce a high-level debate, based both on political ideology
and ethical practicality; although I would support Toomey [as has been done for two election-cycles, c/o
Guzzardi], I would not cringe [unlike a potential reaction to Sestak, with whom I disagree profoundly]
were Josh to be elected.
The theme of my input on this webpage has been, however, that Josh should distance himself from
BHOs brand of anti-Semitism; he and Marcel Groen [MontCo Dem-Chair] have been publicly and
privately berated during the past half-decade for their silence.
I recognize that such stridency may appear premature; nevertheless, Josh has a war-chest and has
already accrued sufficient fiscal-achievements to allow him to anticipate re-election next year [although,
as a Republican, I'll want to assess our Courthouse slate disinterested].
He presents himself well although, when we were confronted with a voting-machine that had not
registered a vote of an individual [who had entered and left without choosing anyone], he ignored my
input [based on having read the updated instruction-book provided to the Judge of Elections] that a
blank write-in vote could be cast to even-up the stats [preferring to follow input from the county
elections-officials, delivered via 'phone+; he was, on the one hand, not an active listener but, on the
other hand, determined to accomplish a focused-goal expeditiously.
It should be recalled that he worked for Hoeffel and, thus, has DC-experience; with AG-Kane facing
investigations of allegedly-politicized behavior and with Treasurer-McCord bowing-out, it would seem
he wouldnt be perceived as leap-frogging more senior individuals, were he to enter the race.

David Diano says: November 17, 2014 at 7:25 pm

Robert1) Its not a question of remembering the past, but rather a question of understanding it, and the
present to produce the future. You are trapped in the past.
2) Arafat is dead. Hes irrelevant.
3) You assume a permanent supply of Islamists, but thats an insufficient reason to delay peace, as
existence and control are separate questions.
4) Israeli children are taught to hate/fear Arabs as well. There will always be haters on both sides. But,
the majority want peace. Pakistan and India have problems too (as well as nukes) but they are able to
manage.

5) Of course they are all delusional in their believe of the supernatural. Im sensitive to their right to
self-delusion, but Im not going to pick sides based on preferring one delusion to another.
I dont despise the Judeo-Christian ethic. I just dont agree with the basis that it comes from a deity
(particularly one that designates eating shellfish as a sin, or cares if you mix meat and milk).
6) The Toomey campaign is probably a lot more interested in your cash than your advice.
7) Your theme is insanity to claim Obama is anti-Semitic. The silence is likely an attempt to avoid
wasting time on your delusions.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: November 17, 2014 at 8:38 pm

@ DD:
You again exhibit ignorance regarding the fundamental forces at-play in the Middle East; you should
consider reading the hyperlinks that are generated daily @ the Daily Alert website.
You are retreating from rejecting the past to claiming one must understand the past; this is a
distinction without a difference, for one gains an understanding only after having studied history.
Arafats death is not irrelevant, for his legacy lives-on; furthermore, nothing he said/did has been
repudiated by current PA-leadership.
I am not assuming a permanent supply of Islamists, although you should know Tens of millions of
Muslims all over the world sympathize with the goals or tactics of terrorist groups or both. *Before
you recoil @ the fact that this is a Breitbart piece, note the dozens of hyperlinks therefrom to primarydata, providing a country-by-country tabulation that undermines the theory that there are just a few
Islamists.] Recruitment is burgeoning in Iraq/Syria, as well, exceeding prior American projections.
breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/04/myth-tiny-radical-minority
My efforts to confront you have again borne fruit, as you have been forced to manifest your moralequivalency by typing a lie ["Israeli children are taught to hate/fear Arabs as well."] You will not be able
to prove this claim.
You have also pronounced the religiously-faithful to be delusional; yes, regardless of whatever you
may cherry-pick from the 613 Commandments in the Torah, you are attacking the Judeo-Christian Ethic.
And, finally, through it all, you remain adamant in your refusal to condemn Hamas for its missile attacks
and plan to infiltrate Southern Israel on Rosh Hashanah to kill/kidnap Jewish Children; your postings are
a Shanda.