Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

You,

Quote:

And I am saying your grammar is terrible...way below average.

Okay, I have over 91,000 posts on a2k. Prove that my 'grammar is terrible and way below average' compared to all the posters on a2k?

If you're using your personal standard, you can forget it; it's not worth the cyberspace you'll waste. Your credibility is near zero on most subjects - even though you think you're smart and without weaknesses.

Get others on a2k to agree with you; almost anyone else besides oralboy, BillRM, and those others who seem to be your companions in ignorance.

You don't know how to 'give up' on issues that are not important.

You are not particularly proficient...and I will continue to point out your errors.

Point out mine if you choose.

That is a particularly poorly constructed sentence, ci.

Difference between this and that


This and these are used to talk about people and things which are close to the speaker.

Can you put this book on that table? (Here the book is lying in a position close to the speaker but the table isn’t.)

Do you like these ear-rings?

Is this your pen?

Can you help me tie this knot?

We use that and those to talk about people and things which are more distant from the speaker. That and those are also used to talk about people and things which are not present.

Can you put this chair in that corner over there?

That was an interesting story you told us yesterday.

Is that your car parked over there?

This and these can also refer to situations which are going on.

I like this song.

Listen to this message. (NOT Listen to that message.)

That and those can refer to experiences which have just finished.

Who said that?

That is used in expressions like that’s it and that’s that.

Okay. That’s it. I’m leaving now.

Well, that’s that. Another day’s work finished.

On the telephone

On the telephone, British people use this to identify themselves, and that to ask about the hearer’s identity.

Hello. This is Jane. Is that Ruth?

Americans may also use this to ask about the hearer’s identity.

Hello. This is Alice. Who is this?

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are not particularly proficient...and I will continue to point out your errors.

Point out mine if you choose.

OK.

Frank Apisa wrote:

That is a particularly poorly constructed sentence, ci.

This is a particularly poorly constructed sentence.

This may help.

Quote:

Difference between this and that


This and these are used to talk about people and things which are close to the speaker.

Can you put this book on that table? (Here the book is lying in a position close to the speaker but the table isn’t.)

Do you like these ear-rings?

Is this your pen?

Can you help me tie this knot?

We use that and those to talk about people and things which are more distant from the speaker. That and those are also used to talk about people and things which are not present.

Can you put this chair in that corner over there?

That was an interesting story you told us yesterday.

Is that your car parked over there?

This and these can also refer to situations which are going on.

I like this song.

Listen to this message. (NOT Listen to that message.)

That and those can refer to experiences which have just finished.

Who said that?

That is used in expressions like that’s it and that’s that.

Okay. That’s it. I’m leaving now.

Well, that’s that. Another day’s work finished.

On the telephone

On the telephone, British people use this to identify themselves, and that to ask about the hearer’s identity.

Hello. This is Jane. Is that Ruth?

Americans may also use this to ask about the hearer’s identity.

Hello. This is Alice. Who is this?

Read more at http://www.englishpractice.com/improve/difference-7/#67koXsGMt1ASdkb7.99

As you had just quoted CI you should have used this, not that.

Now can we stop this bullshit and talk about Israel?

Change of Priorities
Hamas, started in 1980s as an Islamic Resistance Movement against the Israeli occupation. The famous scenes of children and youth resisting Israeli soldiers with nothing more than stones changed the rules of the game. The relatively "peaceful" resistance was often met with brutal force from the Israeli army, and members of the Knesset questioned IDF practices in breaking the bones of those little children. Hamas was so effective that it probably was one of the reasons why Israel was forced into signing Oslo Accords with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Hamas was perhaps more effective as a resistance movement than a ruling power. As a resistance movement, it could always act as an informal army of the Palestinian cause, inflicting damage on Israel without giving an excuse to Israel for retaliation on Palestinian population.

After seizing power in 2007, it became increasingly evident that Hamas's priorities changed. Survival and sustaining its position in power became Hamas's first priority. The Palestinian cause had to take a back seat. In pursuing its own agenda, new words and titles replaced old ones. Instead of talking about restoring Palestinian rights, the news talked about lifting Gaza's blockade. Instead of demanding returning occupied lands and ensuring the right of return to Palestinian refugees, the new narrative was about the Fatah and Hamas dispute and the opening of Rafah crossing with Egypt! Hamas has reduced the Palestinian cause from one where Palestinians deserve a viable State to live on like any other nation, to a series of petty quarrels and disputes over side issues.

From Huff Post; Hamas doesn't care about the Palestinians.

Censured over shelter deaths, Israel declares seven-hour Gaza truce
Reuters By By Nidal al-Mughrabi and Dan Williams
1 hour ago
United Nations worker gestures after what witnesses said was an Israeli air strike outside a U.N.-run school, where displaced Palestinians take refuge, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip .


By Nidal al-Mughrabi and Dan Williams

Ten dead in strike on school in new Gaza fighting Reuters

GAZA/JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel said it would unilaterally hold fire in most of the Gaza Strip on Monday to facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid and allow some of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by an almost four-week-old war to go back to home.

you Nazi scumbag, can't you go catch cancer or something?

I was pointing to ci's sentence...and I said, "That is a poorly constructed sentence"...which is correct.

If I had said "This is a poorly constructed sentence", it could have meant that I was pointing to my own sentence...and that would have made my sentence a poorly constructed sentence.

The network of tunnels that snake underneath the border between Gaza and Egypt are dark, dingy and dangerous, but they have proved invaluable to transport supplies and fuel past the Israeli blockade. One commodity to be smuggled inside impoverished Gaza, though, is raising eyebrows: KFC fried chicken.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that a local Gazan delivery company, al-Yamama, offers to spirit KFC buckets from an Egyptian KFC 35 miles away through the tunnels for about $30 (100 shekels).

Frank Apisa wrote:

I was pointing to ci's sentence...and I said, "That is a poorly constructed sentence"...which is correct.

If I had said "This is a poorly constructed sentence", it could have meant that I was pointing to my own sentence...and that would have made my sentence a poorly constructed sentence.

You just won't admit when you're wrong even when it's been clearly explained to you. That could account for why you're living from one paycheck to another and CI can afford to travel around the world at the drop of a hat. You should either have said 'this is' or 'that was.'

Back to Israel, the tunnels supposedly used by terrorists just to attack Israel are an important life line, and used for all manner of things.

Quote:

The network of tunnels that snake underneath the border between Gaza and Egypt are dark, dingy and dangerous, but they have proved invaluable to transport supplies and fuel past the Israeli blockade. One commodity to be smuggled inside impoverished Gaza, though, is raising eyebrows: KFC fried chicken.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that a local Gazan delivery company, al-Yamama, offers to spirit KFC buckets from an Egyptian KFC 35 miles away through the tunnels for about $30 (100 shekels).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/gaza-kfc-smuggler-al-yamama_n_3286299.html

In any case, the silver lining in this particular Israeli adventure will almost certainly be that unbridled acceptance of what Israel does by American politicians will come under more intense scrutiny by the voting public. At least I hope there is a silver lining...and that it takes a form of the sort I am suggesting.

The United Nations was right to speak out against an Israeli attack near a UN-run school in Gaza, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said.

Palestinian officials said at least 10 people died in the attack on Sunday.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the attack "a moral outrage and a criminal act".

Mr Cameron would not say if he agreed with those words. He thought it was "an appalling loss of life", adding that civilians must not be targeted.

He told BBC Breakfast there had to to be an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire", adding that the "fastest way to stop this conflict" would be if Hamas rocket attacks on Israel stopped.

His comments follow a row between Ed Miliband and Downing Street after the Labour leader said Mr Cameron was "wrong" not to oppose Israel's attacks.

Speaking about the recent attack, Mr Cameron said the UK government had been "very clear that there needs to be an immediate, comprehensive, humanitarian ceasefire and that we want this conflict to stop - and we obviously think that it's an appalling the loss of life".

Asked about Mr Ban's comments that the strike was a "moral outrage", the prime minister said: "I think the UN is right to speak out in the way that it has because international law is very clear that there mustn't be the targeting of civilians or the targeting of schools, if that's what's happened."

Pressed on whether international law had been broken, Mr Cameron added: "I'm not an international lawyer... but international law is very, very clear that use of force always has to be proportionate and civilians should not be targeted."

But Mr Miliband suggested at the weekend that the prime minister was out of step with public feeling in Britain, stressing: "The government needs to send a much clearer message to Israel that its actions in Gaza are unacceptable and unjustifiable.

"What I want to hear from David Cameron is that he believes that Israel's actions in Gaza are wrong and unjustified, and we haven't heard that from him. I think that's what the British public are thinking as they are seeing these tragic events unfolding on our television screens."

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, the silver lining in this particular Israeli adventure will almost certainly be that unbridled acceptance of what Israel does by American politicians will come under more intense scrutiny by the voting public. At least I hope there is a silver lining...and that it takes a form of the sort I am suggesting.

I'm with you on that. Over here, where are leadership has usually slavishly followed America's lead, David Cameron has been shamed into speaking out. Although it may not seem much, it is the most critical thing a British prime minister has said about Israel since the ending of the British mandate.

Quote:

The United Nations was right to speak out against an Israeli attack near a UN-run school in Gaza, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said.

Palestinian officials said at least 10 people died in the attack on Sunday.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the attack "a moral outrage and a criminal act".

Mr Cameron would not say if he agreed with those words. He thought it was "an appalling loss of life", adding that civilians must not be targeted.

He told BBC Breakfast there had to to be an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire", adding that the "fastest way to stop this conflict" would be if Hamas rocket attacks on Israel stopped.

His comments follow a row between Ed Miliband and Downing Street after the Labour leader said Mr Cameron was "wrong" not to oppose Israel's attacks.

Speaking about the recent attack, Mr Cameron said the UK government had been "very clear that there needs to be an immediate, comprehensive, humanitarian ceasefire and that we want this conflict to stop - and we obviously think that it's an appalling the loss of life".

Asked about Mr Ban's comments that the strike was a "moral outrage", the prime minister said: "I think the UN is right to speak out in the way that it has because international law is very clear that there mustn't be the targeting of civilians or the targeting of schools, if that's what's happened."

Pressed on whether international law had been broken, Mr Cameron added: "I'm not an international lawyer... but international law is very, very clear that use of force always has to be proportionate and civilians should not be targeted."

But Mr Miliband suggested at the weekend that the prime minister was out of step with public feeling in Britain, stressing: "The government needs to send a much clearer message to Israel that its actions in Gaza are unacceptable and unjustifiable.

"What I want to hear from David Cameron is that he believes that Israel's actions in Gaza are wrong and unjustified, and we haven't heard that from him. I think that's what the British public are thinking as they are seeing these tragic events unfolding on our television screens."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28638491

In May next year we're having a general election which is still too close to call, but Ed Miliband could be prime minister. Ed has been leading the criticism of Israel, and being Jewish himself, can say so without fears of being labelled an anti Semite.

I see you answer my comparison with a crude personal attack.

Your anti-Semitsm is vile and beyond the pale, and I am right to denounce you as the Nazi scum that you actually are.

If "Nazi scum" is the worst insult you can muster,

Please explain how my criticism of the actions of Israel makes me an anti-semite.

If "Nazi scum" is the worst insult you can muster,

please explain why Israel is using Nazi tactics and philosophy as I have outlined.

Please explain why you raped a four year old child this morning.