David Norris' presidential bid scupperd by Israel

My name is URL

yekahS wrote: »

Norris not only tries to play down the seriousness of his partner raping the child, he also tries to blame the victim, saying Nawi was caught in a trap. Despicable and foolish actions.

He didn't try to blame the victim. When he mentioned the guy being lured into a trap he was referring to how the police treated the arrest, by not allowing the guy to employ the services of a lawyer before they took a statement in which he admitted to the charges.

Jeboa Safari

In relation to the op, here's what the blogger who broke the story had to say:

Gazing upon the Wreckage of the Norris Campaign

Posted by The System Works on July 30, 2011

Two milestones have been reached on this blog of late. One is the rather minor matter that this piece marks my fiftieth posting.

The other is that the story broke on this site on Monday July 24th has since gone national. After gathering interest for a number of days on Politics.ie and among Facebook friends, including some journalists and politicians, on Friday evening David Norris’s director of communications, Jane Cregan, and director of elections, Derek Murphy, resigned from Mr Norris’s campaign team. More have joined them today. Murphy and Cregan did not specify why they resigned, but Stephen Collins left readers in no doubt on the today’s Irish Times that it was due to knowledge of Ezra Nawi’s conviction for sex with a male Palestinian minor in Israel getting to the Irish public. Little did I know innocently blogging on Monday that Norris’s letter appealing for clemency in his lover’s sexual offence case would be leaked today. The letter is worth reading for the arrogance on display alone. Norris drops the fact that he got a double-first at undergrad level, and claims he can give ‘expert evidence’ to the esteemed judges on the High Court of Jerusalem while talking at length about other irrelevant legal systems. To any decent person, Norris’s actions must rival much of what was revealed in the Cloyne and Ryan Reports in their evil. Unfortunately, classic anti-Semitic motifs among Norris supporters, that I care not to link to, are on display all over Ireland in depicting this as an Israeli conspiracy. No, people: I was the conspirator.

After it all, I’m left pondering a few things. I was able to put damning evidence on Nawi and his relationship with Norris together in a few hours of searching Google and LexisNexis. What was wrong with the Irish media that the pieces were not put together years ago, or even after the Helen Lucy Burke Affair? Clearly if David Norris were an English politician this would never have been the case. Either the Irish media are more respectful of our private lives, or they are marred by timidity. This is a another triumph of the blogosphere, which has really come into its own after the financial crisis of 2008.

Then there are the people in the Norris campaign team, and Norris himself. I have no illusions that these people were not aware of the ticking bomb. The fact that Cregan and Murphy immediately resigned on the news coming out, rather than putting up some kind of fight, is telling. I am only reminded of John Edwards in the 2008 US Presidential election. How could a man continue campaigning knowing he could never keep the affair a secret, much less the resulting child, all behing the back of a dying wife? Was it arrogance? Delusions of grandeur and invincibility? Can we compare this with Norris?

When I get through all the hate mail, I might come back with an answer.

What needs to be known about my findings on Norris and Nawi

Posted by The System Works on August 1, 2011

Due to the vile anti-Semitic bile coming out of many of David Norris’s defenders (and some people who are just deranged), I am compelled to make certain matters more clear on my original story on David Norris and Ezra Nawi, and the process that went into publicizing it. It should be known that the only contact I had with any Israelis, in posting the original piece on Monday, was getting some friends to help with the translation of Hebrew material. That is all. The Israeli Embassy obviously got wind of the story eventually (I posted it on their Facebook wall, after all) but many Irish journalists and personalities knew about this from me before they did. When the story broken here gained momentum, it was only a matter of time before evidence of Norris’s assistance to Nawi came out. Norris openly admitted years ago to helping Nawi and his Arab lover when they were in legal difficulties abroad (even in relation to matters like work permits). Unless he used self-destructing paper or smoke signals for secrecy, once the story went national the gritty details could never have been kept secret. I never had those papers, and never claimed to have them.

My views on many issues are very different from those held by David Norris, and not just on Israel. They are in fact very different from all those in the Irish Presidential race. That is why I am not supporting any candidate. I happen to think the battle of ideas is far more exciting than the fight for bums on seats in some parliament, and currently have no membership in any political party (though I have in the past). I would have thought my heterodox views would have been irrelevant given the important nature of the story. If I came by information like this on any person running for office, I would publish it in whatever way I could.

This is despite the motives of the person who inspired me to do the research in the first place. Here is something I have been emphatic about from the beginning: My friend is a trade unionist. That is what I meant by saying ‘labour movement’ when I spoke to the media. It does not necessarily mean Labour Party. However, recently it hit home that the person is fond of Michael D. Higgins and canvassed for him many elections ago. That has unnerved me a bit.

Nevertheless, I have absolutely no regrets about what has occurred. I am in fact quite glad about it, when I think David Norris could very well have been President before the relationship with Ezra Nawi became widely known. Can you imagine what the political and news climate would be like in Ireland and abroad if the information were to get out when David Norris could have been Ireland’s national Head of State?

Some people have made an issue out of nothing on hearing I am going to Israeli sources for more information on Nawi and his relationship with Norris. Yes, indeed I am. It doesn’t mean Israeli sources were behind the original piece I wrote, like many are insinuating. I have been caught upon something big, and much like in the case of the Dude (a.k.a. Jeffrey Lebowski) it has been mostly unintentional. I want to converse directly with people on the ground, particularly the Jewish community of Judah and Shomron who have fought with Nawi for many years. This is for my own interest, but no doubt if I should publish what I learn it will be of interest to many readers.

http://thesystemworks.wordpress.com/

Monty Burnz

Due to the vile anti-Semitic bile...

I wonder is he doing the usual trick of conflating 'anti-Israel' with 'anti-Semitic'? As with the deliberate confusion of rape and statutory rape, this diminishes actual anti-Semitism.

Firewalkwithme

I've been waiting to see what the OP's response would be as this thread clearly died a death when the true source of the letter became known to you. I guess your silence speaks volumes but regardless, I'll ask anyway, not that I expect an sensible response....

I'd like to ask 'My name is URL' and the others who championed this ludicrous theory, given what has since come to light about the actual source of the discovery of the letter in question will you now admit that you were wrong?

My name is URL

The source of the discovery hasn't been made public, has it? Only the guy who brought the whole thing to light has said it's a 'friend' of his who shall 'remain nameless'. Furthermore, the 'friend' only brought up the fact that Ezra was arrested for charges relating to another matter altogether, namely political activity.

He never mentioned where he obtained details about the actual letters from. Unless I missed that.

I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong if I'm shown to be wrong.

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

The source of the discovery hasn't been made public, has it? Only the guy who brought the whole thing to light has said it's a 'friend' of his who shall 'remain nameless'. Furthermore, the 'friend' only brought up the fact that Ezra was arrested for charges relating to another matter altogether, namely political activity.

He never mentioned where he got the actual letters from. Unless I missed that.

I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong if I'm shown to be wrong.

Ah so it's just a safe bet it was the Israeli government because....?

Cause in all of the posts here, you've yet to actually show a scrap of evidence that Israel was involved at all, beyond your bias against them.

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

Ah so it's just a safe bet it was the Israeli government because....?

Cause in all of the posts here, you've yet to actually show a scrap of evidence that Israel was involved at all, beyond your bias against them.

Can you prove I have a bias against Israel?

Firewalkwithme

My name is URL wrote: »

The source of the discovery hasn't been made public, has it? Only the guy who brought the whole thing to light has said it's a 'friend' of his who shall 'remain nameless'. Furthermore, the 'friend' only brought up the fact that Ezra was arrested for charges relating to another matter altogether, namely political activity.

He never mentioned where he got the actual letters from. Unless I missed that.

I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong if I'm shown to be wrong.

You have been shown to be wrong. It was not what you claimed it was in your OP.

Try reading back over the blog post and you will see how he uncovered the letter.

Still, you have answered my question (not that I didn't know the answer already). You just won't admit that you were wrong particularly since it's Israel you accused and they must always be at fault, even when they are not, well, in your mind anyway :rolleyes:

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

Can you prove I have a bias against Israel?

So what's your reason for accusing them of being involved when you had (and still have) zero evidence to support that accusation?

Also there's plenty of evidence of you bias in this very thread.
You describe Israel as "petty" and Israelis as "slimy scumbags".
And this seemingly is your only basis for accusing them of realising the letter.

Firewalkwithme

My name is URL wrote: »

Can you prove I have a bias against Israel?

Yes, very easily.

I could just read your OP and use boards handy search feature to see that is blindingly obvious.

Just to clarify, I'm no big fan of how Israel conduct their business and I almost always seem to end up arguing against them but there are times you just have to admit you were wrong. This is one of those times I'm afraid.

My name is URL

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

they must always be at fault, even when they are not, well, in your mind anyway :rolleyes:

The motives behind the leak remain the same regardless. I'll admit that I have no evidence to support my prior claim that Israel are responsible for it, if it makes you feel any better.

King Mob wrote: »

So what's your reason for accusing them of being involved when you had (and still have) zero evidence to support that accusation?

Because at the time of me starting this thread it was being reported that the Israeli embassy leaked the letters.

Gordon

(lol, sorry but I saw the thread title and read 'Chuck Norris' and got really excited that he was running for president! )

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

Because at the time of me starting this thread it was being reported that the Israeli embassy leaked the letters.

No, at the start it was reported that the letter was leaked from the embassy, not by the embassy.

You however decided that it was on order from the Israeli government for the express purpose of getting to Norris.
What evidence did you have of this?

Firewalkwithme

My name is URL wrote: »

The motives behind the leak remain the same regardless. I'll admit that I have no evidence to support my prior claim that Israel are responsible for it, if it makes you feel any better.

Because at the time of me starting this thread it was being reported that the Israeli embassy leaked the letters.[/QUOTE]

The motive seem to have quite rightly been to inform voters about who their potential next president could be, whatever the source was, I applaud it.

But it's nice to see you admit you have nothing to back up your claim, perhaps you could edit your OP accordingly?

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

No, at the start it was reported that the letter was leaked from the embassy, not by the embassy.

You however decided that it was on order from the Israeli government for the express purpose of getting to Norris.
What evidence did you have of this?

Are you fooking kidding me? Leaked from the embassy and not by it.. wtf does that even mean?

I obviously had no evidence.. do you realise what forum this is? If I had any evidence I wouldn't be posting it here would I? In fact if I had any evidence I wouldn't be posting it at all. I started the thread because media sources were claiming that the leak came from the Israeli embassy. You can be as anal and pedantic as you like on the matter.

ed2hands

Is it the case now that posters are frowned upon and virtually accused of racism and asked to apologise for putting forth theories on a theory forum without these oft quoted scraps/shreds of evidence?

And this in the circumstances of what happened and the parties involved?

C'mon:)

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

Are you fooking kidding me? Leaked from the embassy and not by it.. wtf does that even mean?

The file could have been kept at and by the embassy but leaked by an individual not under orders from his government.

You made the leap that it was an Israeli government plot based on your own bias and nothing else.

My name is URL wrote: »

I obviously had no evidence.. do you realise what forum this is?

Ah I forgot you can make up total fiction and declare it as fact on the conspiracy forum....
In that case, this entire thing has been because the Israeli embassy was framed by anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.
Wow, that much easier and enjoyable than the facts...

My name is URL wrote: »

If I had any evidence I wouldn't be posting it here would I? In fact if I had any evidence I wouldn't be posting it at all. I started the thread because media sources were claiming that the leak came from the Israeli embassy. You can be as anal and pedantic as you like on the matter.

But you made the positive claim that the Israeli government were behind it.
What did you make this claim when you couldn't back it up?
Do you still think that they are behind it, and if so what reason do you have to believe this?

King Mob

ed2hands wrote: »

Is it the case now that posters are frowned upon and virtually accused of racism and asked to apologise for putting forth theories on a theory forum without these oft quoted scraps/shreds of evidence?

And this in the circumstances of what happened and the parties involved?

C'mon:)

Well considering that the conspiracy theory/fiction was only put forward because Israel was tangentially connected to the story, and was therefore assumed to be behind it, then yea the accusations of bigotry are well founded.

And do you think it's ok to make such accusations, not based on facts or evidence, but simply because of nationality or heritage?

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

Well considering that the conspiracy theory/fiction was only put forward because Israel was tangentially connected to the story, and was therefore assumed to be behind it, then yea the accusations of bigotry are well founded.

The accusations (or in less emotive terms the THEORIES) themselves were well founded. Your accusations of bigotry are not in my view.

King Mob wrote: »

And do you think it's ok to make such accusations, not based on facts or evidence, but simply because of nationality or heritage?

Ahaha. And you gave me crap for asking loaded questions! This one's a humdinger. Hats off.
Do expect me to answer this trollish garbage or was it rhetorically phrased to further your claims that some of us are bigots and are immoral for positing theories on a theory forum?

Lab_Mouse

Gordon wrote: »

(lol, sorry but I saw the thread title and read 'Chuck Norris' and got really excited that he was running for president! )

keep it up gordon and you'll be talking to yourself in prison:)

King Mob

ed2hands wrote: »

The accusations (or in less emotive terms the THEORIES) themselves were well founded. Your accusations of bigotry are not in my view.

Founded on what? Url has already admitted that he hasn't a scrap of actual evidence and seemingly the only reason you guys think Israel are involved is because you think they are always up to such things and are therefore assuming that they must be involved here.

Making an assumption based on nationality, heritage or race is bigotry.

ed2hands wrote: »

Ahaha. And you gave me crap for asking loaded questions! This one's a humdinger. Hats off.
Do expect me to answer this trollish garbage or was it rhetorically phrased to further your claims that some of us are bigots and are immoral for positing theories on a theory forum?

You can ignore the question as loaded if you're not honest enough to answer it.
However it's clear that you don't think such a thing is ok to do, but are ignoring the fact that's what's done in the OP and in many other threads on this forum.

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

You can ignore the question as loaded if you're not honest enough to answer it.

That's also loaded.. and childish really.

the only reason you guys think Israel are involved is because you think they are always up to such things and are therefore assuming that they must be involved here.

Are you taking the piss now? I have already said that the reason I believed, at the time of starting this thread - that Israel* were involved, is because news reports at the time were stating that the leak came from the Israeli embassy. The leak pertained to a guy who is no friend of Israel and his ties to a person running for president. What would be the logical conclusion to form based on the above?

*by 'Israel', I mean the government or anybody employed by them in their embassy here.

And let's not forget that Israel* do not have the cleanest of records when it comes to foreign diplomacy.. but I suppose that basing an opinion which takes into account the not-so-gleaming history of a nation is also bigoted, right?

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

That's also loaded.. and childish really.

These questions are only loaded because you don't want to give the obvious, honest answers to them.

My name is URL wrote: »

I have already said that the reason I believed, at the time of starting this thread - that Israel* were involved, is because news reports at the time were stating that the leak came from the Israeli embassy.

Nowhere in the news reports you posted had any information that could suggest that such a leak was ordered by the Israeli government.
That was your assumption based on your own bias.

My name is URL wrote: »

The leak pertained to a guy who is no friend of Israel and his ties to a person running for president. What would be the logical conclusion to form based on the above?

I wouldn't form any sort of conclusion beyond the facts unlike you.

My name is URL wrote: »

*by 'Israel', I mean the government or anybody employed by them in their embassy here.

So would an Israeli employee acting on his own intuitive and not acting on orders from their government count then?
Because that's not what you were claiming.

My name is URL wrote: »

And let's not forget that Israel* do not have the cleanest of records when it comes to foreign diplomacy.. but I suppose that basing an opinion which takes into account the not-so-gleaming history of a nation is also bigoted, right?

And this is your bias showing thus proving my point.
Because you think Israel have been involved in shady things in the past and they are mentioned in the news article, you conclude that it must be an Israeli plot.

Basing a conclusion solely on someone's or something's nationality is bigotry.

humanji

OK King Mob, give it a rest. This is a Conspiracy Theory forum and the theory that Israeli government was behind it was a valid one. It's not racist to think so. It was proven wrong (to all intents and purposes), but it was only a theory.

Stop putting words into peoples mouths. If you've a problem with what someone says, then report it.

King Mob

humanji wrote: »

This is a Conspiracy Theory forum and the theory that Israeli governmentwas behind it was a valid one.

The only reason put forward to distinguish the theory from total fantasy is that it had the word "Israel" near it.
If there are other reasons I'd love to hear them, I've certainly been asking for them.

I would also love to hear how assuming it was a plot by Israel simply because they are Israel isn't biased and bigoted.

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

The only reason put forward to distinguish the theory from total fantasy is that it had the word "Israel" near it.
If there are other reasons I'd love to hear them, I've certainly been asking for them.

I would also love to hear how assuming it was a plot by Israel simply because they are Israel isn't biased and bigoted.

Because the letter written by Norris was written to an Israeli court. Which means that when the letter was released, it was likely that someone in that Israeli court or with access to it released the letter. The Conspiracy was basically "If Israel released the letter, why now?"

In future, please report any instances of bigotry on the forum instead of challenging them on-thread, as it does nothing but cause arguments. Report them, and we'll decide if action should be taken or not.

King Mob

Barrington wrote: »

Because the letter written by Norris was written to an Israeli court. Which means that when the letter was released, it was likely that someone in that Israeli court or with access to it released the letter.

And at the time of the initial story I suggested the letter could have been released by such a person on his own initiative without orders from the government.
Or it could have been requested by someone requesting Norris's correspondence and used a contact in the embassy either illicitly or by actual channels.
but these possibilities were ignored, in my opinion because they do not afford people the opportunity to accuse Israel of more wrong doing.

Barrington wrote: »

The Conspiracy was basically "If Israel released the letter, why now?"

No it wasn't.
The claim was that the letter was realised by the Israeli government for the purposes of getting to people they didn't like.
There was no "if".

Di0genes

Barrington wrote: »

Because the letter written by Norris was written to an Israeli court. Which means that when the letter was released, it was likely that someone in that Israeli court or with access to it released the letter. The Conspiracy was basically "If Israel released the letter, why now?"

In future, please report any instances of bigotry on the forum instead of challenging them on-thread, as it does nothing but cause arguments. Report them, and we'll decide if action should be taken or not.

May I ask why do we see Israel as a monotheistic fascist state?

There have been several different Israeli Governments since this case went to Trial.

Why do we believe a country can act like this? If this occured in a French court, and the document was released would it be a "French Plot"? Or in America A "USA Plot"

Can we not presume that individuals within a state can act with impunity, without deciding that the actions of individuals within a state automatically co convict the state that they live in?

Is there any evidence this was a "Israeli plot" aside from the facts that the case was being heard in a Israeli court?

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

And at the time of the initial story I suggested the letter could have been released by such a person on his own initiative without orders from the government.
Or it could have been requested by someone requesting Norris's correspondence and used a contact in the embassy either illicitly or by actual channels.
but these possibilities were ignored, in my opinion because they do not afford people the opportunity to accuse Israel of more wrong doing.


No it wasn't.
The claim was that the letter was realised by the Israeli government for the purposes of getting to people they didn't like.
There was no "if".

It's a Conspiracy Theory forum, there is always an "if".

Di0genes wrote: »

May I ask why do we see Israel as a monotheistic fascist state?

There have been several different Israeli Governments since this case went to Trial.

Why do we believe a country can act like this? If this occured in a French court, and the document was released would it be a "French Plot"? Or in America A "USA Plot"

Can we not presume that individuals within a state can act with impunity, without deciding that the actions of individuals within a state automatically co convict the state that they live in?

Is there any evidence this was a "Israeli plot" aside from the facts that the case was being heard in a Israeli court?

How different is that to threads where Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama's governments are accused of being the same, and that the whole Republican V Democrat thing is just for show?

And on that note:

Barrington wrote: »

In future, please report any instances of bigotry on the forum instead of challenging them on-thread, as it does nothing but cause arguments. Report them, and we'll decide if action should be taken or not.

Any more discussion about this on-thread and infractions may be handed out. If you're that upset about it, either PM me or don't post.

King Mob

Barrington wrote: »

It's a Conspiracy Theory forum, there is always an "if".

Not according to the OP.