Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Dave Kersting: Popular Anti-Arab Racism- it's so commonplace, few even think of it as hate
...I would not reveal the target ethnicity:
I would just substitute words for random ethnicities. After I had read about
three or four of the anti-Arab comments (as anti-black, anti-Chinese,
anti-white), the guy told me that this could not possibly be found on the
Berkeley campus: it was openly racist, and would not be allowed, so what was
my point? I had at least a hundred similar comments about "Arabs."
I would just substitute words for random ethnicities. After I had read about
three or four of the anti-Arab comments (as anti-black, anti-Chinese,
anti-white), the guy told me that this could not possibly be found on the
Berkeley campus: it was openly racist, and would not be allowed, so what was
my point? I had at least a hundred similar comments about "Arabs."
someone wrote:
> The US
> has a long history in recent years of vilifying and demonizing Islam,
> particularly Arab culture, in ways that have nothing to do with Israel
> or its interests.
Dave Kersting replies:
It is inconceivable that US prejudice against Arabs and Muslims can be distinguished from the Zionist anti-Arab hate speech, political-cartoon caricatures, and movie stereotypes that have flooded our society for the past thirty years at least. If this has become more generalized lately, it is only a sign of Zionist success and progressive/US-Palestinian lethargy. I have never found a negative image of Arabs - in the 1960s, '70s, '80s, or '90s that was NOT directly related to Zionist propaganda and stereotypes. That racism was unique in America, and it was just one sign of Zionist subversion of progressive or liberal thought in the US. It was inevitable that such long-simmering racism - just as open and obvious as the wrong of a "Jewish" state forced into Palestine - would bloom into full-fledged ethnic-profiling and other "Patriot Act" regressions. What we see today is just the result of decades of gradual conditioning toward anti-Arab racism. For example, when I arrived on the UC Berkeley campus in 1980 I was appalled to discover openly racist statements about "Arabs," "the Arabs," "the Arab nations," and "the Arab world" on the information-tables of The Jewish Student Board and Hillel Students. I came from Wisconsin, which just happens to have a state law against negative racist stereotyping - clearly defined and described. So racist wordings are avoided by one and all. But California has no such law, and pamphlets and leaflets which would be illegal in Wisconsin were (and probably still are) quite common in Berkeley. Naturally, no individual or group has had the sense to exploit the massive public-relations windfall this offers against Zionism. The American Zionist Association and the World Zionist Organization apparently understand this, because their openly racist works have been all over the Jewish tables in Berkeley, though they were never seen in Wisconsin (not while I was there anyway).
Most interesting was the fact that no one seemed to notice or care. The Zionists had fully succeeded in making it seem as though racism against "the Arabs" was somehow not the same as identical racism against "the Asians" or "the Latinos," or "the whites," or "the blacks," or (of course) "the Jews." When I first saw that stuff I thought it was great to see that the Zionists were sticking their necks so deep into the noose - making their racism so obvious - but I soon discovered that no one, certainly not the leftists or the Palestinians, had any idea what a windfall of political advantage this offered. All were mainly determined to deny that anyone could notice anything significant that they themselves had overlooked.
I collected a thick folder of this stuff, and finally I took it to the Student Association (which funds those student groups and provides table-space), and I asked if they did not have some rule against funding openly racist organizations or literature. They said they certainly did. I asked how they define racist speech, and they said they don't know. (Here is where having a state law helps with the wording.) Another question or two produced the reply "We know it when we see it." I asked "WHO knows it? Who is the person who makes such rulings?" They said I should talk to the budget director - the one who writes the checks. Fine. Pass the buck to him. So I went and read my stuff to him - but first I told him that I did not want to carry this too far, right away, so I would not reveal the target ethnicity: I would just substitute words for random ethnicities. After I had read about three or four of the anti-Arab comments (as anti-black, anti-Chinese, anti-white), the guy told me that this could not possibly be found on the Berkeley campus: it was openly racist, and would not be allowed, so what was my point? I had at least a hundred similar comments about "Arabs." I presented all this information to various leftist student groups and the General Union of Palestinian Students, and all I got was a lot of blather. No one could comprehend anything with "victory" in it. I even took a survey course in the Sociology Department, and I did my final "survey project" on this issue. Students in Sproul Plaza were asked to rate the degree of racism in various comments, in which the ethnicity would be random and incidental. The survey showed that comments which named "Arabs," would be rated as far less racist than identical comments naming other ethnicities. It simply fit the pattern.
I could go on and on with evidence. The fact is that Zionism has placed a huge and fatal hole in the progress we all thought we were making on the issue of racism in general. It is utterly no surprise at all that, when ethnic profiling made its big comeback, the first target ethnicity is Middle Eastern types. Our taxes have been freely murdering "the Arabs" without protest from anyone (except a few very lonely individuals), all our lives. When, in all our egalitarianism, we are taught to make an exception for one particular ethnicity, we are being taught a most insidious kind of racism - racism in the guise of egalitarianism, albeit with one "natural" exception. The whole concept of equality is negated, even as the word is held in sacred esteem.
There is no way that any "current" anti-Arab or anti-Muslim prejudice can be NOT deeply infused with that long-standing Zionist-led racism against "the Arabs."
> The US
> has a long history in recent years of vilifying and demonizing Islam,
> particularly Arab culture, in ways that have nothing to do with Israel
> or its interests.
Dave Kersting replies:
It is inconceivable that US prejudice against Arabs and Muslims can be distinguished from the Zionist anti-Arab hate speech, political-cartoon caricatures, and movie stereotypes that have flooded our society for the past thirty years at least. If this has become more generalized lately, it is only a sign of Zionist success and progressive/US-Palestinian lethargy. I have never found a negative image of Arabs - in the 1960s, '70s, '80s, or '90s that was NOT directly related to Zionist propaganda and stereotypes. That racism was unique in America, and it was just one sign of Zionist subversion of progressive or liberal thought in the US. It was inevitable that such long-simmering racism - just as open and obvious as the wrong of a "Jewish" state forced into Palestine - would bloom into full-fledged ethnic-profiling and other "Patriot Act" regressions. What we see today is just the result of decades of gradual conditioning toward anti-Arab racism. For example, when I arrived on the UC Berkeley campus in 1980 I was appalled to discover openly racist statements about "Arabs," "the Arabs," "the Arab nations," and "the Arab world" on the information-tables of The Jewish Student Board and Hillel Students. I came from Wisconsin, which just happens to have a state law against negative racist stereotyping - clearly defined and described. So racist wordings are avoided by one and all. But California has no such law, and pamphlets and leaflets which would be illegal in Wisconsin were (and probably still are) quite common in Berkeley. Naturally, no individual or group has had the sense to exploit the massive public-relations windfall this offers against Zionism. The American Zionist Association and the World Zionist Organization apparently understand this, because their openly racist works have been all over the Jewish tables in Berkeley, though they were never seen in Wisconsin (not while I was there anyway).
Most interesting was the fact that no one seemed to notice or care. The Zionists had fully succeeded in making it seem as though racism against "the Arabs" was somehow not the same as identical racism against "the Asians" or "the Latinos," or "the whites," or "the blacks," or (of course) "the Jews." When I first saw that stuff I thought it was great to see that the Zionists were sticking their necks so deep into the noose - making their racism so obvious - but I soon discovered that no one, certainly not the leftists or the Palestinians, had any idea what a windfall of political advantage this offered. All were mainly determined to deny that anyone could notice anything significant that they themselves had overlooked.
I collected a thick folder of this stuff, and finally I took it to the Student Association (which funds those student groups and provides table-space), and I asked if they did not have some rule against funding openly racist organizations or literature. They said they certainly did. I asked how they define racist speech, and they said they don't know. (Here is where having a state law helps with the wording.) Another question or two produced the reply "We know it when we see it." I asked "WHO knows it? Who is the person who makes such rulings?" They said I should talk to the budget director - the one who writes the checks. Fine. Pass the buck to him. So I went and read my stuff to him - but first I told him that I did not want to carry this too far, right away, so I would not reveal the target ethnicity: I would just substitute words for random ethnicities. After I had read about three or four of the anti-Arab comments (as anti-black, anti-Chinese, anti-white), the guy told me that this could not possibly be found on the Berkeley campus: it was openly racist, and would not be allowed, so what was my point? I had at least a hundred similar comments about "Arabs." I presented all this information to various leftist student groups and the General Union of Palestinian Students, and all I got was a lot of blather. No one could comprehend anything with "victory" in it. I even took a survey course in the Sociology Department, and I did my final "survey project" on this issue. Students in Sproul Plaza were asked to rate the degree of racism in various comments, in which the ethnicity would be random and incidental. The survey showed that comments which named "Arabs," would be rated as far less racist than identical comments naming other ethnicities. It simply fit the pattern.
I could go on and on with evidence. The fact is that Zionism has placed a huge and fatal hole in the progress we all thought we were making on the issue of racism in general. It is utterly no surprise at all that, when ethnic profiling made its big comeback, the first target ethnicity is Middle Eastern types. Our taxes have been freely murdering "the Arabs" without protest from anyone (except a few very lonely individuals), all our lives. When, in all our egalitarianism, we are taught to make an exception for one particular ethnicity, we are being taught a most insidious kind of racism - racism in the guise of egalitarianism, albeit with one "natural" exception. The whole concept of equality is negated, even as the word is held in sacred esteem.
There is no way that any "current" anti-Arab or anti-Muslim prejudice can be NOT deeply infused with that long-standing Zionist-led racism against "the Arabs."
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
up to the top
DK is a fucking retarded idiot.
SF.INDYMEDIA NOW A NEO-NAZI GUTTER
The only place you will find more OBSESSIVE HATRED of israel articles than this site are on whtie supremecist and neo-nazis sites.
The lunatics who run sf.indymedia.org now have made it their mission to flood as many articles that apoligize for anti-semitism and demonize zionism/israel as possible. THis is now a really sick, vile, disgusting website.
Adolf Hitler October 1933:
"The Jews Control the world"
(Insert anti-Jew propaganda here.)
Islamic Conference in Malaysia October 15 2003
Mahatir Mohammad:
"The Jews Control the World"
(Insert anti-Jew propaganda here.)
Response from other Islamic leaders this week? A standing ovation.
Response from san fran peace activists? Silence, approval, and the blaming of Israel.
SF.INDYMEDIA NOW A NEO-NAZI GUTTER
The only place you will find more OBSESSIVE HATRED of israel articles than this site are on whtie supremecist and neo-nazis sites.
The lunatics who run sf.indymedia.org now have made it their mission to flood as many articles that apoligize for anti-semitism and demonize zionism/israel as possible. THis is now a really sick, vile, disgusting website.
Adolf Hitler October 1933:
"The Jews Control the world"
(Insert anti-Jew propaganda here.)
Islamic Conference in Malaysia October 15 2003
Mahatir Mohammad:
"The Jews Control the World"
(Insert anti-Jew propaganda here.)
Response from other Islamic leaders this week? A standing ovation.
Response from san fran peace activists? Silence, approval, and the blaming of Israel.
you wouldn't blame Jews, but you would blame Israel
things such as: the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the massacres at the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps
brutalities committed against the Shia population of South Lebanon by the IDF and its surrogates, after the Shias initially welcomed them
the ongoing settlement and fragmentation of the West Bank into an openly apartheid system where Israeli "settlers" get the best land and water, with roads, housing and commericial areas built for them only, while Palestinians live in squalid surroundings
the defense of this system through an oppressive IDF presence where the movement of Palestinians is strictly controlled through checkpoints, and the construction of a wall to permanently establish this system
while Israel recruits Jews from all over the world with financial inducements to "settle" the West Bank, while denying Palestinians the right to return to places where they lived for generations
and, the refusal of Israel that requires it to accept a return to the 1967 borders and the dismantlement of the "settlements", as advocated in the Saudi plan last year and the agreement on the left just announced earlier this week
things such as: the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the massacres at the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps
brutalities committed against the Shia population of South Lebanon by the IDF and its surrogates, after the Shias initially welcomed them
the ongoing settlement and fragmentation of the West Bank into an openly apartheid system where Israeli "settlers" get the best land and water, with roads, housing and commericial areas built for them only, while Palestinians live in squalid surroundings
the defense of this system through an oppressive IDF presence where the movement of Palestinians is strictly controlled through checkpoints, and the construction of a wall to permanently establish this system
while Israel recruits Jews from all over the world with financial inducements to "settle" the West Bank, while denying Palestinians the right to return to places where they lived for generations
and, the refusal of Israel that requires it to accept a return to the 1967 borders and the dismantlement of the "settlements", as advocated in the Saudi plan last year and the agreement on the left just announced earlier this week
Dave Kersting posted a very clear and reasoned argument about anti-Arab racism and the Zionist role in promoting it. Apparent Zionist troll "fucking idiot" doesn't even try to refute what Dave wrote, so he calls him names and mentions other people who have said bad things about Jews -- as if that had anything to do with what Dave Kersting wrote -- so as to not have to deal with all the well-argued critiques of Israel and Zionism that have been posted here and elsewhere.
Of course there's also a lot of shit on this board, and the posts by right-wingers and Zionists like "fucking idiot" are a large part of it.
Of course there's also a lot of shit on this board, and the posts by right-wingers and Zionists like "fucking idiot" are a large part of it.
David Kersting today, somebody else tomorrow. Attacking the person, slandering him/her is what people like the one calling him/herself "SF Indymedia now a neo-nazi Gutter" does best. Not only do they attack a reasoned and balanced argument as per the one above, but they find it essential to criticize SF Indymedia as well. For shame!
Fine, you want someone to waste their damn time refuting the bullshit people like David Kersting put out?
David Kersting says: It is inconceivable that US prejudice against Arabs and Muslims can be distinguished from the Zionist anti-Arab hate speech,
EDUCATED RESPONSE: First of all, who is "the zionist" he speaks of? What is his definition of a "zionist" when he uses this term? Which "zionists" are doing this? Is he saying that everyone who supports israel's existence does this? Or is it some mystery group? or is it "the jews?" who care about israel's survival?
David Kersting says: political-cartoon caricatures, and movie stereotypes that have flooded our society for the past thirty years at least.
EDUCATED RESPONSE: Oh, so "movie stereotypes?" So he's saying that "zionists" in hollywood use the movies to intentionallly cast negative stereotypes? Which "zionists" exactly? The jews who run hollywood, is that what he's saying? Or people in hollywood who are in solidarity with israel's safety? Who are these accusations being made against, exactly? It is dishonest to just say "the zionists" as that term appears to just a boogieman term for "anyone who doesn't like terrorists."
David Kersting says: If this has become more generalized lately, it is only a sign of Zionist success and progressive/US-Palestinian lethargy.
EDUCATED RESPONSE: "Zionist success?" What does that mean? Again, who is this mysterious character, exactly?
David Kersting says: I have never found a negative image of Arabs - in the 1960s, '70s, '80s, or '90s that was NOT directly related to Zionist propaganda and stereotypes.
EDUCATED RESPONSE: It isn't the fault of "the zionist" (whoever that is) that if you have to name one negative stereotype about "the arabs" it would relate to terrorism. The most famous terrorism attacks are from people who are arab. It's not "The arabs" who are doing it, but specific human beings who are arab. It is wrong to stereotype, it is wrong to generalize, but it is not the fault of "the zionists" that if peole were told to say what they think of if they think of arabs in a negative light, it would be terrorism. That's kind of like saying zionists promote that the sun is hot and uncomfortable, and therefore if tons of people think the sun is hot and uncomfortable, it's "zionist propaganda."
David Kersting says: That racism was unique in America,
EDUCATED RESPONSE: Apparently david kersting thinks that america has always been a racism-free place and no one would have ever noticed that arab people were involved in tons of the major terrorism had those evil "zionists" not gone out of hteir way to allegedly point it out.
David Kersting says: and it was just one sign of Zionist subversion of progressive or liberal thought in the US. It was inevitable that such long-simmering racism -
EDUCATED RESPONSE: He sure likes to use "zionist" a lot. I'm still wondering exactly who "the zionists" are that he refers to.
David Kersting says: just as open and obvious as the wrong of a "Jewish" state forced into Palestine
EDUCATED RESPONSE: Hmm, why did he put JEWISH in quotes? Why were quotes needed there? And, there are MUSLIM states "forced" all over the place, what's the big deal about one tiny Jewish one? Why is he singling out that a jewish state was "forced" to exist, yet not all the muslim states? How come some people can do something, but another can't?
David Kersting says: - would bloom into full-fledged ethnic-profiling and other "Patriot Act" regressions. What we see today is just the result of decades of gradual conditioning toward anti-Arab racism.
EDUCATED RESPONSE: Anti-arab racism is wrong. Disliking countries like iraq, iran, syria, lebanon, saudia arabia, pakistan, etc. because they are run by total assholes REGARLESS of their religion or race, is not.
David Kersting says: For example, when I arrived on the UC Berkeley campus in 1980 I was appalled to discover openly racist statements about "Arabs," "the Arabs," "the Arab nations," and "the Arab world" on the information-tables of The Jewish Student Board and Hillel Students.
EDUCATED RESPONSE: Racist statements about "the arabs" is wrong. But when speaking of arab countries, perhaps david k can enlighten us as to a polically correct way to point out that they SUCK?
David Kersting then rambles in circles about laws, to fill some article space.
David Kersting says: Most interesting was the fact that no one seemed to notice or care. The Zionists had fully succeeded in making it seem as though racism against "the Arabs" was somehow not the same as identical racism against "the Asians" or "the Latinos," or "the whites," or "the blacks," or (of course) "the Jews."
EDUCATED RESPONSE: To blame "zionists" for some americans speaking in racist overtones is pretty dishonest. America was a racist place for hundreds of years in a row. But according to david, the main reason some people might have negative stereotypes about the "arab world" is because some peopel who support israel's existence are fooling them into it? Saudia Arabia, the heart of "the arab" world, discriminates blatantly and openly against women. Is it the fault of "the zionists" if people have a problem with that?
David Kersting says: I could go on and on with evidence. The fact is that Zionism has placed a huge and fatal hole in the progress we all thought we were making on the issue of racism in general.
EDUCATED RESPONSE: No, that's not a fact. Racism has existed since the dawn of time. Zionism, the support in the existence of a jewish homeland, has not placed a "huge and fatal" hole in anything. That some people who are "zionists" - like some people who are ANYTHING, may speak in racist overtones, in no way proves or makes it a "fact" that you can therefore claim that "zionism" is the cause of anti-arab racism. It's an idiotic and dishonest leap in logic. TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH, zionism is the support in the existence of a jewish homeland. So, he's built up his strawman and now concludes that the support in the existence of a jewish homeland is the cause of racism against arabs. It's a DISHONEST leap in logic, sorry.
David Kersting says: It is utterly no surprise at all that, when ethnic profiling made its big comeback, the first target ethnicity is Middle Eastern types.
EDUCATED RESPONSE: That might have something to do with Osama Bin Laden pulling off the biggest successful terrorist attack against the U.S. of all time, you misleading jackass.
David Kersting says: Our taxes have been freely murdering "the Arabs" without protest from anyone (except a few very lonely individuals), all our lives.
EDUCATED RESPONSE: Oh, so now David feels it's ok to generalze? First, everyone must be treated as individuals (CORRECT). But now he's claiming that our taxes murder "the arabs?" No, our taxes do not murder "the arabs." Last I checked, "the arabs" are still alive. Funny how david k preaches to not generalize, and then goes right ahead and does so.
David Kersting says: There is no way that any "current" anti-Arab or anti-Muslim prejudice can be NOT deeply infused with that long-standing Zionist-led racism against "the Arabs."
EDUCATED RESPONSE: "ANY" current ant-arab prjudice? So none would exist if it wasn't for "the zionists?" right david? So americans would NEVEr, EVER be racist against arabs if it wasn't for those zionists, eh? What an idiot thing to say.
EDUCATED RESPONSE CONCLUSION: Most people of any race or religion don't like the way lots of arab countries are run, and lots of people don't like islamic fundamentalist ideas. India isn't run by "zionists" and they haven't had a particularly good time with "the muslims." That land was torn from india and turned into pakistan, a muslim state, while islamic fundametalist groups in india CONTINUES to harrass india is not the fault of "the zionists." DAVID IS RIGHT in that obviously people who care about israel's survival aren't particularly big fans of countries you leftists seem to live - syria, iran, lebanon, and other such wonderful, peace-loving, fair nations (hahahahahahaha). DAVID IS RIGHT that some groups or individuals aren't fans of "the arab world" (which I would assume is to imply the political and religious leaders, not the 99.9% of arabs who are just regular ordinary people like everyone else). But DAVID IS WRONG in that this entire article serves basically just to spread hte propaganda that this non-descript boogieman group called "the zionists" are all racist and spread racism, and in fact are the main cause of one particular brand of it.
It was basically a stupid article.
Here says: " The most famous terrorism attacks are from people who are arab. It's not "The arabs" who are doing it, but specific human beings who are arab."
Here is why David Kersting may be correct in his assumption.
The most notorious attacks by people of European heritage are not as famous as alleged attacks by people of an Arab heritage on purpose.
They are not publicized and are ignored while attackers of an Arab race are focused on.
as horrific as some attacks by people of Arab descent are they are as horrific as attacks by Zionism targeting the Arab race thus pursuing their preplanned geo political strategy to carve their lands.
Here is why David Kersting may be correct in his assumption.
The most notorious attacks by people of European heritage are not as famous as alleged attacks by people of an Arab heritage on purpose.
They are not publicized and are ignored while attackers of an Arab race are focused on.
as horrific as some attacks by people of Arab descent are they are as horrific as attacks by Zionism targeting the Arab race thus pursuing their preplanned geo political strategy to carve their lands.
Jerk #1, RWF:
"you would blame Israel: things such as: the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the massacres at the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps"
- Response: the main culprits in and the sole perpetrators of the Sabra & Shatilla massacre are the Christian Phalangist militia. Will RWF ever get this into his thick head?
"brutalities committed against the Shia population of South Lebanon by the IDF and its surrogates, after the Shias initially welcomed them"
- Response: it was the so called South Lebanese Army which committed any brutalities against Shiites in south Lebanon, not the IDF. The Qana incident was an accident, regardless of the vicious distortions of all "anti Zionists".
"the ongoing settlement and fragmentation of the West Bank into an openly apartheid system where Israeli "settlers" get the best land and water, with roads, housing and commercial areas built for them only, while Palestinians live in squalid surroundings"
- Response: It's the Palestinian intifada and violence which has made the Israelis bar them from commercial areas and roads. Prior to the intifada the Palestinians had access to most of these places.
"the defense of this system through an oppressive IDF presence where the movement of Palestinians is strictly controlled through checkpoints, and the construction of a wall to permanently establish this system"
- Response: see my previous remark. Can RWF kindly exercise the gray matter in his brain and share with us what he would have done were he in the Israelis' place, having to deal with all the violence and atrocities perpetrated by the Palestinians on an never ending, continuous, ongoing basis? Let's see if s/he has a better idea to deal with that sort of situation.
The last RWF remark is the most moronic of them all...what a grand finale:
"and, the refusal of Israel that requires it to accept a return to the 1967 borders and the dismantlement of the "settlements", as advocated in the Saudi plan last year and the agreement on the left just announced earlier this week"
- Response: why doesn't this character blame the Palestinians for their refusal to completely cease all the violence which has prevented Israel from agreeing to return almost completely to the '67 borders (with some small alterations) in the first place?
Why didn't someone tell this deluded individual that the "agreement on the left" wasn't even reached by authorized Israeli government agents, therefore it was null and void even prior to its announcement?
Jerk #2, "...> "
"as horrific as some attacks by people of Arab descent are they are as horrific as attacks by Zionism targeting the Arab race thus pursuing their preplanned geo political strategy to carve their lands."
- Response: unmitigated and unadulterated horseshit. Wrong on all counts.
"you would blame Israel: things such as: the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the massacres at the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps"
- Response: the main culprits in and the sole perpetrators of the Sabra & Shatilla massacre are the Christian Phalangist militia. Will RWF ever get this into his thick head?
"brutalities committed against the Shia population of South Lebanon by the IDF and its surrogates, after the Shias initially welcomed them"
- Response: it was the so called South Lebanese Army which committed any brutalities against Shiites in south Lebanon, not the IDF. The Qana incident was an accident, regardless of the vicious distortions of all "anti Zionists".
"the ongoing settlement and fragmentation of the West Bank into an openly apartheid system where Israeli "settlers" get the best land and water, with roads, housing and commercial areas built for them only, while Palestinians live in squalid surroundings"
- Response: It's the Palestinian intifada and violence which has made the Israelis bar them from commercial areas and roads. Prior to the intifada the Palestinians had access to most of these places.
"the defense of this system through an oppressive IDF presence where the movement of Palestinians is strictly controlled through checkpoints, and the construction of a wall to permanently establish this system"
- Response: see my previous remark. Can RWF kindly exercise the gray matter in his brain and share with us what he would have done were he in the Israelis' place, having to deal with all the violence and atrocities perpetrated by the Palestinians on an never ending, continuous, ongoing basis? Let's see if s/he has a better idea to deal with that sort of situation.
The last RWF remark is the most moronic of them all...what a grand finale:
"and, the refusal of Israel that requires it to accept a return to the 1967 borders and the dismantlement of the "settlements", as advocated in the Saudi plan last year and the agreement on the left just announced earlier this week"
- Response: why doesn't this character blame the Palestinians for their refusal to completely cease all the violence which has prevented Israel from agreeing to return almost completely to the '67 borders (with some small alterations) in the first place?
Why didn't someone tell this deluded individual that the "agreement on the left" wasn't even reached by authorized Israeli government agents, therefore it was null and void even prior to its announcement?
Jerk #2, "...> "
"as horrific as some attacks by people of Arab descent are they are as horrific as attacks by Zionism targeting the Arab race thus pursuing their preplanned geo political strategy to carve their lands."
- Response: unmitigated and unadulterated horseshit. Wrong on all counts.
Population of Palestine 1881
470,000 Arabs 24,000 Jews
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/Jewish_Yishuv_settlement_1881_1914.htm
According to Jewish (& Christian) religious texts Jewish culture arose in an area of modern day Iraq.
http://www.jbuff.com/c041603.htm
http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/hcajsummaries.php3?part=one
http://philologos.org/bpr/files/e004.htm
Jewish people have dispersed widely since that time. At one point several thousand years ago a short-lived Jewish state existed in the area that is now Palestine.
The apparent indigenous people of Palestine (Palestinian Arabs) have continually inhabited the area for all recorded history.
When Theodore Hertzl, the founder of Zionism, decided in the late 18th century that Jews needed a homeland he chose Palestine as the site. Perhaps the ancient Jewish state provided the justification for this brazen land grab.
Assisted by the British Empire the Zionists began a campaign of mass migration. Conflicts between Jews and Arabs predictably created headaches for the British who wanted to wash their hands of the whole debacle.
In 1948 the UN handed over about half of Palestine to the Jews.
Israel was born.
Arab resentment and hostility remained but with US support Israel has still managed to annex further large tracts of remaining Palestinian land.
If you are wondering why Palestinians cannot get justice the following facts may help explain why "champions of democracy" turn a blind eye.
Five out the ten richest Australian are Jewish.
Three of them give huge donations to both the "tweedle-dum" and "tweedle-dee" parties that dominate our "democracy".
The other two both contribute generously to Jewish causes both in Australia and Israel.
There are no Palestinian Australians in the richest two hundred in this country.
Does that sound familiar?
Is it co-incidental that the west would help establish and support the only non-Muslim state in this otherwise Muslim region with the largest oil reserves on earth?
Is the fog lifting yet?
I suppose these observations make me a Nazi and Islamofascist?
http://www.stopthewall.org/
470,000 Arabs 24,000 Jews
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/Jewish_Yishuv_settlement_1881_1914.htm
According to Jewish (& Christian) religious texts Jewish culture arose in an area of modern day Iraq.
http://www.jbuff.com/c041603.htm
http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/hcajsummaries.php3?part=one
http://philologos.org/bpr/files/e004.htm
Jewish people have dispersed widely since that time. At one point several thousand years ago a short-lived Jewish state existed in the area that is now Palestine.
The apparent indigenous people of Palestine (Palestinian Arabs) have continually inhabited the area for all recorded history.
When Theodore Hertzl, the founder of Zionism, decided in the late 18th century that Jews needed a homeland he chose Palestine as the site. Perhaps the ancient Jewish state provided the justification for this brazen land grab.
Assisted by the British Empire the Zionists began a campaign of mass migration. Conflicts between Jews and Arabs predictably created headaches for the British who wanted to wash their hands of the whole debacle.
In 1948 the UN handed over about half of Palestine to the Jews.
Israel was born.
Arab resentment and hostility remained but with US support Israel has still managed to annex further large tracts of remaining Palestinian land.
If you are wondering why Palestinians cannot get justice the following facts may help explain why "champions of democracy" turn a blind eye.
Five out the ten richest Australian are Jewish.
Three of them give huge donations to both the "tweedle-dum" and "tweedle-dee" parties that dominate our "democracy".
The other two both contribute generously to Jewish causes both in Australia and Israel.
There are no Palestinian Australians in the richest two hundred in this country.
Does that sound familiar?
Is it co-incidental that the west would help establish and support the only non-Muslim state in this otherwise Muslim region with the largest oil reserves on earth?
Is the fog lifting yet?
I suppose these observations make me a Nazi and Islamofascist?
http://www.stopthewall.org/
You first pose a question in the present tense: Who are the real terrorists? Any fair minded observer who learns the entire range of facts knows that terrorism overwhelmingly emanates from the Palestinians and barely from Israeli Jews in the disputed territories.
The map you enclosed is replete with intentional falsehoods: the Jewish settlements in Jerusalem. Hebron, Safed and Tiberias are referred to as having been established 1881-1914. This is false. There have (or had, in Hebron's case) been an unbroken Jewish presence in those cities for hundreds of years!
Now lo and behold, the map shows the disputed territories had been almost vacant of all the Arab settlements that *have come into existence during the 20th century! What's more, it shows there were several Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria - prior to the first wave of mass Jewish immigration to the land (1st Aliyah)!!!
As for Jewish culture arising in what's today Iraq, there is no truth to this claim. What really happened? A monotheistic God is said to have revealed himself to Abraham the Patriarch, whose ENTIRE surroundings in UR (an ancient city in today's Iraq) were polytheistic, and commanded him to migrate to Cana'an. Abraham never formed any Jewish culture in Iraq.
Earl E. Bird: "At one point several thousand years ago a short-lived Jewish state existed in the area that is now Palestine."
- You're intentionally downsizing the duration of Jewish existence. Go study the real history.
The first Jewish state ruled by kings was established 1025 BCE and existed till 929 BCE when King Solomon died; then the kingdom split into two independent kingdoms. The northern one lasted till 722 BCE, the latter fell in 585 BCE.
The second period of Jewish *total* independence lasted from 142 BCE (when Simeon the Hasmonite rose to power) till about 65 BCE when the Romans overran the land.
Palestine is historical Israel. Go learn how Israel was renamed "Palestine" in 135 AD.
Your attempt to minimize historical Jewish independence is laughable.
Earl E. Bird: "The apparent indigenous people of Palestine (Palestinian Arabs) have continually inhabited the area for all recorded history."
- What drivel. Are you trying to up the comedy factor? Arabs only came to Palestine in about 636 AD and they are not indigenous to the land and they. Your fairy tale peddling won't work here.
You mixed up the 18th century for the consequent century when speaking of Herzl. Secondly, Palestine was the *default* choice for the Jewish homeland's location, not one site out of several or many like you're trying to insinuate.
No matter how much you lie, there was simply *no* Zionist land grab. But your accusation is not a surprise coming from a Jew hater who's intent on ignoring the original and genuine land grab committed by the Arabs in the 7th century AD ...
Earl E. Bird says the Zionists began a campaign of mass migration, assisted by the British Empire. In truth the British actually hindered Jewish migration to Palestine much more than encouraging or assisting it, and on the other hand turned a blind eye to illegal Arab migration into the land.
You continue to state erroneously that In 1948 the UN handed over about half of Palestine to the Jews, but it occurred in 1947. The local Arabs rejected the other half that was set aside for an Arab Palestinian state, the Jews accepted their share of the deal; the Arabs continued terrorizing the Jews in Palestine, and ultimately, when Israel declared independence, the local Arabs and 5 neighboring Arab states invaded the nascent Jewish state in order to innihalate it.
You proceed to say "Arab resentment and hostility remained" - unjustifiable at that. Then I guess you fast forward to June 1967 and say "with US support Israel has still managed to annex further large tracts of remaining Palestinian land.", ignoring the fact these territories were never exclusively Palestinian (remember the map, Earl?). How "clever" on your part.
Then you proceed to blame Jews worldwide (!!) for what you perceive as the perpetual inability of the Palestinians to "get justice"! So the cat's finally out of the bag. You reveal yourself as a Jew hater.
No, your vicious idiotic "observations" don't make you an Islamofascist or necessarily a Nazi (though the latter may be true). But you are undoubtedly an anti-Semitic lowlife crackpot.
The map you enclosed is replete with intentional falsehoods: the Jewish settlements in Jerusalem. Hebron, Safed and Tiberias are referred to as having been established 1881-1914. This is false. There have (or had, in Hebron's case) been an unbroken Jewish presence in those cities for hundreds of years!
Now lo and behold, the map shows the disputed territories had been almost vacant of all the Arab settlements that *have come into existence during the 20th century! What's more, it shows there were several Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria - prior to the first wave of mass Jewish immigration to the land (1st Aliyah)!!!
As for Jewish culture arising in what's today Iraq, there is no truth to this claim. What really happened? A monotheistic God is said to have revealed himself to Abraham the Patriarch, whose ENTIRE surroundings in UR (an ancient city in today's Iraq) were polytheistic, and commanded him to migrate to Cana'an. Abraham never formed any Jewish culture in Iraq.
Earl E. Bird: "At one point several thousand years ago a short-lived Jewish state existed in the area that is now Palestine."
- You're intentionally downsizing the duration of Jewish existence. Go study the real history.
The first Jewish state ruled by kings was established 1025 BCE and existed till 929 BCE when King Solomon died; then the kingdom split into two independent kingdoms. The northern one lasted till 722 BCE, the latter fell in 585 BCE.
The second period of Jewish *total* independence lasted from 142 BCE (when Simeon the Hasmonite rose to power) till about 65 BCE when the Romans overran the land.
Palestine is historical Israel. Go learn how Israel was renamed "Palestine" in 135 AD.
Your attempt to minimize historical Jewish independence is laughable.
Earl E. Bird: "The apparent indigenous people of Palestine (Palestinian Arabs) have continually inhabited the area for all recorded history."
- What drivel. Are you trying to up the comedy factor? Arabs only came to Palestine in about 636 AD and they are not indigenous to the land and they. Your fairy tale peddling won't work here.
You mixed up the 18th century for the consequent century when speaking of Herzl. Secondly, Palestine was the *default* choice for the Jewish homeland's location, not one site out of several or many like you're trying to insinuate.
No matter how much you lie, there was simply *no* Zionist land grab. But your accusation is not a surprise coming from a Jew hater who's intent on ignoring the original and genuine land grab committed by the Arabs in the 7th century AD ...
Earl E. Bird says the Zionists began a campaign of mass migration, assisted by the British Empire. In truth the British actually hindered Jewish migration to Palestine much more than encouraging or assisting it, and on the other hand turned a blind eye to illegal Arab migration into the land.
You continue to state erroneously that In 1948 the UN handed over about half of Palestine to the Jews, but it occurred in 1947. The local Arabs rejected the other half that was set aside for an Arab Palestinian state, the Jews accepted their share of the deal; the Arabs continued terrorizing the Jews in Palestine, and ultimately, when Israel declared independence, the local Arabs and 5 neighboring Arab states invaded the nascent Jewish state in order to innihalate it.
You proceed to say "Arab resentment and hostility remained" - unjustifiable at that. Then I guess you fast forward to June 1967 and say "with US support Israel has still managed to annex further large tracts of remaining Palestinian land.", ignoring the fact these territories were never exclusively Palestinian (remember the map, Earl?). How "clever" on your part.
Then you proceed to blame Jews worldwide (!!) for what you perceive as the perpetual inability of the Palestinians to "get justice"! So the cat's finally out of the bag. You reveal yourself as a Jew hater.
No, your vicious idiotic "observations" don't make you an Islamofascist or necessarily a Nazi (though the latter may be true). But you are undoubtedly an anti-Semitic lowlife crackpot.
Dr. Gerhard Falk and his ilk are crackpots too. It's commonplace for anti-Semites like Earl E. Bird to cite these bizarre and eccentric Jews to try make a case against all Jews.
It's also evident that Earl E. Bird didn't entirely read the material in the URLs he clipped, or has abysmal reading comprehension skills. That too isn't a surprise.
It's also evident that Earl E. Bird didn't entirely read the material in the URLs he clipped, or has abysmal reading comprehension skills. That too isn't a surprise.
Yes and it's a pleasure to engage with you my amiable amigo.
The beauty of pre 1948 historical interpretations is that they are free of revisionism driven by current political expediencies.
The Modern World Encyclopaedia (1934) cites the evolution of the tribes into Davids monarchy as c.1000 BC (I'd avoid BCE in modern English, it is a loaded zionistic term assuming some sort of superiority).
The Northern Kingdom survived until c 750-722 BC while the S. Kingdom fell a little later (585 BC? your citation?).
After the fall of Babylon Judah was re-established as more of a religious state than a political one. It was effectively a Persian, then Greek, then Roman Greek territory. Hardly a state! Though zealous, we should not 'guild the lily'. If it was an autonomous state, why the failed rebellions?
After a degree of autonomy within the Roman Empire the last faint trace of the Jewish state was finally and totally extinguished after a failed rebellion in 67 BC.
As for Palestine having no indigenous people, how would you explain the archaeological record that predates the Jews by many thousands of years. If not Arabs, Martians? Apes? Neanderthals?
Really you must qualify your assertions and provide some evidence and references.
Now would you like to address the issue of Jews representing about 5% of the population of Palestine before the zionist land grab began? I didn't deny ongoing Jewish inhabitation. No need to get excited. I was just noting the cultural composition.
"You mixed up the 18th century for the consequent century when speaking of Herzl"
Yes. Does that disqualify me as a reliable witness?
Similarly, "You continue to state erroneously that In 1948 the UN handed over about half of Palestine to the Jews, but it occurred in 1947."
Well that changes everything. Doesn't it?
I guess you're just frustrated. How else could we explain such pedantry? I'll try to work through your irrational anger and try to deal with some of the substance of your rebuttal later.
The beauty of pre 1948 historical interpretations is that they are free of revisionism driven by current political expediencies.
The Modern World Encyclopaedia (1934) cites the evolution of the tribes into Davids monarchy as c.1000 BC (I'd avoid BCE in modern English, it is a loaded zionistic term assuming some sort of superiority).
The Northern Kingdom survived until c 750-722 BC while the S. Kingdom fell a little later (585 BC? your citation?).
After the fall of Babylon Judah was re-established as more of a religious state than a political one. It was effectively a Persian, then Greek, then Roman Greek territory. Hardly a state! Though zealous, we should not 'guild the lily'. If it was an autonomous state, why the failed rebellions?
After a degree of autonomy within the Roman Empire the last faint trace of the Jewish state was finally and totally extinguished after a failed rebellion in 67 BC.
As for Palestine having no indigenous people, how would you explain the archaeological record that predates the Jews by many thousands of years. If not Arabs, Martians? Apes? Neanderthals?
Really you must qualify your assertions and provide some evidence and references.
Now would you like to address the issue of Jews representing about 5% of the population of Palestine before the zionist land grab began? I didn't deny ongoing Jewish inhabitation. No need to get excited. I was just noting the cultural composition.
"You mixed up the 18th century for the consequent century when speaking of Herzl"
Yes. Does that disqualify me as a reliable witness?
Similarly, "You continue to state erroneously that In 1948 the UN handed over about half of Palestine to the Jews, but it occurred in 1947."
Well that changes everything. Doesn't it?
I guess you're just frustrated. How else could we explain such pedantry? I'll try to work through your irrational anger and try to deal with some of the substance of your rebuttal later.
There are so many inconsistencies I could be here all night but I really can't let these ones go!
"Now lo and behold, the map shows the disputed territories had been almost vacant of all the Arab settlements that *have come into existence during the 20th century!"
That map was about immigration only...plenty more interesting maps here http://www.passia.org/ . Your deviousness is quite apparent.
"Earl E. Bird says the Zionists began a campaign of mass migration, assisted by the British Empire. In truth the British actually hindered Jewish migration to Palestine much more than encouraging or assisting it, and on the other hand turned a blind eye to illegal Arab migration into the land."
The British "hindered" you but yet you still managed a massive influx? Of course it wasn't all smooth sailing and so when they tired of the troubles and tried to stem the flow the zionists gave the world its first taste of modern terrorism. Stern Gang, King David Hotel etc. etc. Yes it's all coming back now. Isn't Sharon a terrorist from way back? Part of the 'war of terror'?
By your own assesment Jewish states in Palestine accounted for a period of 517 years out of a archaeological history of 10,000 plus years. The last Jewish state existed 2067 years ago. (I owned this place once. Sold it a while ago but so what? It still belongs to me I reckon.)
"Now lo and behold, the map shows the disputed territories had been almost vacant of all the Arab settlements that *have come into existence during the 20th century!"
That map was about immigration only...plenty more interesting maps here http://www.passia.org/ . Your deviousness is quite apparent.
"Earl E. Bird says the Zionists began a campaign of mass migration, assisted by the British Empire. In truth the British actually hindered Jewish migration to Palestine much more than encouraging or assisting it, and on the other hand turned a blind eye to illegal Arab migration into the land."
The British "hindered" you but yet you still managed a massive influx? Of course it wasn't all smooth sailing and so when they tired of the troubles and tried to stem the flow the zionists gave the world its first taste of modern terrorism. Stern Gang, King David Hotel etc. etc. Yes it's all coming back now. Isn't Sharon a terrorist from way back? Part of the 'war of terror'?
By your own assesment Jewish states in Palestine accounted for a period of 517 years out of a archaeological history of 10,000 plus years. The last Jewish state existed 2067 years ago. (I owned this place once. Sold it a while ago but so what? It still belongs to me I reckon.)
For more information:
http://www.passia.org/
Islam only came to Palestine in about 636 AD. The Palestinian who converted were already there.
to Palestine, you moron (yes, an ad hominem which is not a rebuttal). There weren't any Christian Arabs yet.
The inhabitants in Palestine at the time weren't called by others and never called themselves "Palestinians". Deal with it, you reprobate.
Next thing you'll say Arabic was commonplace in Palestine right before the Arabs invaded, or the language of the land was "Palestinian." You enjoy being ridiculous.
The inhabitants in Palestine at the time weren't called by others and never called themselves "Palestinians". Deal with it, you reprobate.
Next thing you'll say Arabic was commonplace in Palestine right before the Arabs invaded, or the language of the land was "Palestinian." You enjoy being ridiculous.
So who does control the world? I hope it is controlled by an equal number of morons from all of the various lands of the world.
"Anti-bullshit" : That's a relative term. Indicative of how polarised opinions are on this issue. Obviously we will never agree, even on the "facts". You're right 100% and anyone who differs must be wrong because you've got a stream of invective and abuse to prove it.
If I was anti-semitic I would sit back and enjoy the fight.
It is a bit harder to defend against the "anti-Jew" charge if I am an "anti-jew" simply by supporting the Palestinian position and pointing out the ways in which justice has been denied to them.
Playing the racism card in this instance is like dealing from the bottom of the deck. I live in a multi-racial country and it's never bothered me before. Not like our primitive feudalistic legal system where "justice" goes to the highest bidder bothers me anyway. Justice issues not race are fundamental to my perspective.
For instance, I fully support the Aboriginal people of this land. Even though they were violently and genocidally disposessed two hundred years ago I still recognise their sovereignty. I realise the same type of land theft occurred in the US 400 years ago. After we have recognise the unquestionable sovereignty of these nations perhaps we can go further back in time (like 1900 years) and investigate the valididty of the Jewish land claim in Palestine.
While my experiences, such as this one with you, have led to some unflattering opinions I still can't say I hate Jews in general. I have got a problem with what people like you have done and are doing to the Palestinians.
The fact that the ramifications of this conflict have, and continue to, impact on me entitles me, I believe, to have an opinion and express it. This conflict is now global. Provincial "ownership" of this issue is merely that.
I'm afraid I don't have any more free time to spend in the vortex of your anally retained anger and besides, I'm sure your friends are missing your charming repartee.
Adieu.
If I was anti-semitic I would sit back and enjoy the fight.
It is a bit harder to defend against the "anti-Jew" charge if I am an "anti-jew" simply by supporting the Palestinian position and pointing out the ways in which justice has been denied to them.
Playing the racism card in this instance is like dealing from the bottom of the deck. I live in a multi-racial country and it's never bothered me before. Not like our primitive feudalistic legal system where "justice" goes to the highest bidder bothers me anyway. Justice issues not race are fundamental to my perspective.
For instance, I fully support the Aboriginal people of this land. Even though they were violently and genocidally disposessed two hundred years ago I still recognise their sovereignty. I realise the same type of land theft occurred in the US 400 years ago. After we have recognise the unquestionable sovereignty of these nations perhaps we can go further back in time (like 1900 years) and investigate the valididty of the Jewish land claim in Palestine.
While my experiences, such as this one with you, have led to some unflattering opinions I still can't say I hate Jews in general. I have got a problem with what people like you have done and are doing to the Palestinians.
The fact that the ramifications of this conflict have, and continue to, impact on me entitles me, I believe, to have an opinion and express it. This conflict is now global. Provincial "ownership" of this issue is merely that.
I'm afraid I don't have any more free time to spend in the vortex of your anally retained anger and besides, I'm sure your friends are missing your charming repartee.
Adieu.
from "Summary of major events leading to the creation of the nation of Israel" (15 pages)
Truman Library - Recognition of Israel Docs:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/docs.php
on Self Determination
from "Summary of major events leading to the creation of the nation of Israel" (15 pages)
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/docs.php
[http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/folder4/isd10-7.jpg]
Earl E. Bird:"
"Anti-bullshit" : That's a relative term. Indicative of how polarised opinions are on this issue. Obviously we will never agree, even on the "facts". You're right 100% and anyone who differs must be wrong because you've got a stream of invective and abuse to prove it."
- Ah, I wasn't aware you espouse relativism in history and that you don't even agree the history of Israel is comprised of facts, not fairy tales (I can't say I'm surprised). Guess you found an elegant way to come down from the tree you climbed up. You didn't forget to throw in some sarcasm, as if it validates your "facts" from before whatsoever.
Every reader and/or contributor sufficiently honest realized you were brazenly anti-Semitic, and crass at that.
Earl E. Bird:
"I fully support the Aboriginal people of this land. Even though they were violently and genocidally disposessed two hundred years ago I still recognise their sovereignty. I realise the same type of land theft occurred in the US 400 years ago. After we have recognise the unquestionable sovereignty of these nations perhaps we can go further back in time (like 1900 years) and investigate the valididty of the Jewish land claim in Palestine."
- "We" can go back even 1400 years in time and conclude the Jewish land claim in Palestine was valid alright - more valid than that of the Arab conquerors who invaded the land some 33 years later - provided "we" are willing to take the givens of history as given, not play dumb like you have.
Earl E. Bird:
"While my experiences, such as this one with you, have led to some unflattering opinions I still can't say I hate Jews in general. I have got a problem with what people like you have done and are doing to the Palestinians."
- Pray tell, O stooge with his head perpetually up his rear, what have I done to the Palestinians?
Let me say this: even at the best of circumstances it would be wrong to create a Palestinian state in any of the disputed territories, because logic indicates that the territory more suitable for a full fledged Palestinian state is Jordan, whose populace is nearly 80% Palestinian, with a huge continuous (not bi-sected) territory. At present, unconditional support of Palestinian statehood and Palestinians is stupid and *immoral*. Neutral, fair minded pundits who have researched about the whole range of facts pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, learned them and abhor the very frequent and sorry resort to moral equivalency in the Arab-Israeli conflict by so many Western observers and believe there are absolutes in morality, have concluded that most Palestinians aid and abet the terrorists from among their ranks, that the Palestinian terror groups are NOT interested in peace with Israel under any circumstances and as long as their leadership is comprised of undemocratic persons who answer to Arafat and/or pander to Palestinian terror groups and do not really lead, there will be no progress toward either peace or a Palestinian state, because Arafat and the terror organizations will sabotage any peace process regardless of how piously Israel adheres to the "road map" or any other plan. Therefore, the Palestinians do not deserve any state on the disputed territories until they can put forth a rational pragmatic leadership that not only breaks away once and for all from the use of terror as a tool to advance its goals, but also unconditionally truly cracks down thoroughly on all Palestinian terrorist infrastructure after they have reached a realization that terror not only "compromises the Palestinian interests" but is first and foremost IMMORAL and WRONG; and seeks a genuine peaceful co-existence by Israel's side rather than on its ruins and renounces their alleged right-of-return, which is the destruction of Israel proper and driving out its Jews by other words, and convinces the Palestinian masses that there is no "right of return" nor should there be.
Earl E. Bird:
"The fact that the ramifications of this conflict have, and continue to, impact on me entitles me, I believe, to have an opinion and express it. This conflict is now global. Provincial "ownership" of this issue is merely that. "
- How touching! As if you're living anywhere near the Middle East, let alone Israel. Your miserable psyche is your part that's influenced; YOU are the one impacting it by whipping up your primitive, stupid and boring (to me at least) anti-Jewish libels and canards and trying to make them fly and pass as respectable at different fora, foolishly unaware that picking on Jews (you don't even realize you're doing just that) nowadays - as opposed to 1939 for example - means getting into a quarrel, just like you would with other people.
Earl E. Bird:
"I'm afraid I don't have any more free time to spend in the vortex of your anally retained anger and besides, I'm sure your friends are missing your charming repartee."
- Thanks so much. Get lost. Please don't return unless you resolve not to spout anti-Semitic bollocks here.
"Anti-bullshit" : That's a relative term. Indicative of how polarised opinions are on this issue. Obviously we will never agree, even on the "facts". You're right 100% and anyone who differs must be wrong because you've got a stream of invective and abuse to prove it."
- Ah, I wasn't aware you espouse relativism in history and that you don't even agree the history of Israel is comprised of facts, not fairy tales (I can't say I'm surprised). Guess you found an elegant way to come down from the tree you climbed up. You didn't forget to throw in some sarcasm, as if it validates your "facts" from before whatsoever.
Every reader and/or contributor sufficiently honest realized you were brazenly anti-Semitic, and crass at that.
Earl E. Bird:
"I fully support the Aboriginal people of this land. Even though they were violently and genocidally disposessed two hundred years ago I still recognise their sovereignty. I realise the same type of land theft occurred in the US 400 years ago. After we have recognise the unquestionable sovereignty of these nations perhaps we can go further back in time (like 1900 years) and investigate the valididty of the Jewish land claim in Palestine."
- "We" can go back even 1400 years in time and conclude the Jewish land claim in Palestine was valid alright - more valid than that of the Arab conquerors who invaded the land some 33 years later - provided "we" are willing to take the givens of history as given, not play dumb like you have.
Earl E. Bird:
"While my experiences, such as this one with you, have led to some unflattering opinions I still can't say I hate Jews in general. I have got a problem with what people like you have done and are doing to the Palestinians."
- Pray tell, O stooge with his head perpetually up his rear, what have I done to the Palestinians?
Let me say this: even at the best of circumstances it would be wrong to create a Palestinian state in any of the disputed territories, because logic indicates that the territory more suitable for a full fledged Palestinian state is Jordan, whose populace is nearly 80% Palestinian, with a huge continuous (not bi-sected) territory. At present, unconditional support of Palestinian statehood and Palestinians is stupid and *immoral*. Neutral, fair minded pundits who have researched about the whole range of facts pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, learned them and abhor the very frequent and sorry resort to moral equivalency in the Arab-Israeli conflict by so many Western observers and believe there are absolutes in morality, have concluded that most Palestinians aid and abet the terrorists from among their ranks, that the Palestinian terror groups are NOT interested in peace with Israel under any circumstances and as long as their leadership is comprised of undemocratic persons who answer to Arafat and/or pander to Palestinian terror groups and do not really lead, there will be no progress toward either peace or a Palestinian state, because Arafat and the terror organizations will sabotage any peace process regardless of how piously Israel adheres to the "road map" or any other plan. Therefore, the Palestinians do not deserve any state on the disputed territories until they can put forth a rational pragmatic leadership that not only breaks away once and for all from the use of terror as a tool to advance its goals, but also unconditionally truly cracks down thoroughly on all Palestinian terrorist infrastructure after they have reached a realization that terror not only "compromises the Palestinian interests" but is first and foremost IMMORAL and WRONG; and seeks a genuine peaceful co-existence by Israel's side rather than on its ruins and renounces their alleged right-of-return, which is the destruction of Israel proper and driving out its Jews by other words, and convinces the Palestinian masses that there is no "right of return" nor should there be.
Earl E. Bird:
"The fact that the ramifications of this conflict have, and continue to, impact on me entitles me, I believe, to have an opinion and express it. This conflict is now global. Provincial "ownership" of this issue is merely that. "
- How touching! As if you're living anywhere near the Middle East, let alone Israel. Your miserable psyche is your part that's influenced; YOU are the one impacting it by whipping up your primitive, stupid and boring (to me at least) anti-Jewish libels and canards and trying to make them fly and pass as respectable at different fora, foolishly unaware that picking on Jews (you don't even realize you're doing just that) nowadays - as opposed to 1939 for example - means getting into a quarrel, just like you would with other people.
Earl E. Bird:
"I'm afraid I don't have any more free time to spend in the vortex of your anally retained anger and besides, I'm sure your friends are missing your charming repartee."
- Thanks so much. Get lost. Please don't return unless you resolve not to spout anti-Semitic bollocks here.
Earl E. Bird:
" "Anti-bullshit" : That's a relative term. Indicative of how polarised opinions are on this issue. Obviously we will never agree, even on the "facts". You're right 100% and anyone who differs must be wrong because you've got a stream of invective and abuse to prove it."
- Ah, I wasn't aware you espouse relativism in history and that you don't even agree the history of Israel is comprised of facts, not fairy tales (I can't say I'm surprised). Guess you found an elegant way to come down from the tree you climbed up. You didn't forget to throw in some sarcasm, as if it validates your "facts" from before whatsoever.
Every reader and/or contributor sufficiently honest realized you were brazenly anti-Semitic, and crass at that.
Earl E. Bird:
"I fully support the Aboriginal people of this land. Even though they were violently and genocidally disposessed two hundred years ago I still recognise their sovereignty. I realise the same type of land theft occurred in the US 400 years ago. After we have recognise the unquestionable sovereignty of these nations perhaps we can go further back in time (like 1900 years) and investigate the valididty of the Jewish land claim in Palestine."
- "We" can go back even 1400 years in time and conclude the Jewish land claim in Palestine was valid alright - more valid than that of the Arab conquerors who invaded the land some 33 years later - provided "we" are willing to take the givens of history as given, not play dumb like you have.
Earl E. Bird:
"While my experiences, such as this one with you, have led to some unflattering opinions I still can't say I hate Jews in general. I have got a problem with what people like you have done and are doing to the Palestinians."
- Pray tell, O stooge with his head perpetually up his rear, what have I done to the Palestinians?
I can only say this: even at the best of circumstances it would be wrong to create a Palestinian state in any of the disputed territories, because logic indicates that the territory more suitable for a full fledged Palestinian state is Jordan, whose populace is nearly 80% Palestinian, with a huge continuous (not bi-sected) territory. At present, unconditional support of Palestinian statehood and Palestinians is stupid and *immoral*. Neutral, fair minded pundits who have researched about the whole range of facts pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, learned them and abhor the very frequent and sorry resort to moral equivalency in the Arab-Israeli conflict by so many Western observers and believe there are absolutes in morality, have concluded that most Palestinians aid and abet the terrorists from among their ranks, that the Palestinian terror groups are NOT interested in peace with Israel under any circumstances and as long as their leadership is comprised of undemocratic persons who answer to Arafat and/or pander to Palestinian terror groups and do not really lead, there will be no progress toward either peace or a Palestinian state, because Arafat and the terror organizations will sabotage any peace process regardless of how piously Israel adheres to the "road map" or any other plan. Therefore, the Palestinians do not deserve any state on the disputed territories until they can put forth a rational pragmatic leadership that not only breaks away once and for all from the use of terror as a tool to advance its goals, but also unconditionally truly cracks down thoroughly on all Palestinian terrorist infrastructure after they have reached a realization that terror not only "compromises the Palestinian interests" but is first and foremost IMMORAL and WRONG; and seeks a genuine peaceful co-existence by Israel's side rather than on its ruins and renounces their alleged right-of-return, which is the destruction of Israel proper and driving out its Jews by other words, and convinces the Palestinian masses that there is no "right of return" nor should there be.
Earl E. Bird:
"The fact that the ramifications of this conflict have, and continue to, impact on me entitles me, I believe, to have an opinion and express it. This conflict is now global. Provincial "ownership" of this issue is merely that. "
- How touching! As if you're living anywhere near the Middle East, let alone Israel. Your miserable psyche is your part that's influenced; YOU are the one impacting it by whipping up your primitive, stupid and boring (to me at least) anti-Jewish libels and canards and trying to make them fly and pass as respectable at different fora, foolishly unaware that picking on Jews (you don't even realize you're doing just that) nowadays - as opposed to 1939 for example - means getting into a quarrel, just like you would with other people.
Earl E. Bird:
"I'm afraid I don't have any more free time to spend in the vortex of your anally retained anger and besides, I'm sure your friends are missing your charming repartee."
- Thanks so much.
Get lost. Please don't return unless you resolve not to spout anti-Semitic bollocks here.
" "Anti-bullshit" : That's a relative term. Indicative of how polarised opinions are on this issue. Obviously we will never agree, even on the "facts". You're right 100% and anyone who differs must be wrong because you've got a stream of invective and abuse to prove it."
- Ah, I wasn't aware you espouse relativism in history and that you don't even agree the history of Israel is comprised of facts, not fairy tales (I can't say I'm surprised). Guess you found an elegant way to come down from the tree you climbed up. You didn't forget to throw in some sarcasm, as if it validates your "facts" from before whatsoever.
Every reader and/or contributor sufficiently honest realized you were brazenly anti-Semitic, and crass at that.
Earl E. Bird:
"I fully support the Aboriginal people of this land. Even though they were violently and genocidally disposessed two hundred years ago I still recognise their sovereignty. I realise the same type of land theft occurred in the US 400 years ago. After we have recognise the unquestionable sovereignty of these nations perhaps we can go further back in time (like 1900 years) and investigate the valididty of the Jewish land claim in Palestine."
- "We" can go back even 1400 years in time and conclude the Jewish land claim in Palestine was valid alright - more valid than that of the Arab conquerors who invaded the land some 33 years later - provided "we" are willing to take the givens of history as given, not play dumb like you have.
Earl E. Bird:
"While my experiences, such as this one with you, have led to some unflattering opinions I still can't say I hate Jews in general. I have got a problem with what people like you have done and are doing to the Palestinians."
- Pray tell, O stooge with his head perpetually up his rear, what have I done to the Palestinians?
I can only say this: even at the best of circumstances it would be wrong to create a Palestinian state in any of the disputed territories, because logic indicates that the territory more suitable for a full fledged Palestinian state is Jordan, whose populace is nearly 80% Palestinian, with a huge continuous (not bi-sected) territory. At present, unconditional support of Palestinian statehood and Palestinians is stupid and *immoral*. Neutral, fair minded pundits who have researched about the whole range of facts pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, learned them and abhor the very frequent and sorry resort to moral equivalency in the Arab-Israeli conflict by so many Western observers and believe there are absolutes in morality, have concluded that most Palestinians aid and abet the terrorists from among their ranks, that the Palestinian terror groups are NOT interested in peace with Israel under any circumstances and as long as their leadership is comprised of undemocratic persons who answer to Arafat and/or pander to Palestinian terror groups and do not really lead, there will be no progress toward either peace or a Palestinian state, because Arafat and the terror organizations will sabotage any peace process regardless of how piously Israel adheres to the "road map" or any other plan. Therefore, the Palestinians do not deserve any state on the disputed territories until they can put forth a rational pragmatic leadership that not only breaks away once and for all from the use of terror as a tool to advance its goals, but also unconditionally truly cracks down thoroughly on all Palestinian terrorist infrastructure after they have reached a realization that terror not only "compromises the Palestinian interests" but is first and foremost IMMORAL and WRONG; and seeks a genuine peaceful co-existence by Israel's side rather than on its ruins and renounces their alleged right-of-return, which is the destruction of Israel proper and driving out its Jews by other words, and convinces the Palestinian masses that there is no "right of return" nor should there be.
Earl E. Bird:
"The fact that the ramifications of this conflict have, and continue to, impact on me entitles me, I believe, to have an opinion and express it. This conflict is now global. Provincial "ownership" of this issue is merely that. "
- How touching! As if you're living anywhere near the Middle East, let alone Israel. Your miserable psyche is your part that's influenced; YOU are the one impacting it by whipping up your primitive, stupid and boring (to me at least) anti-Jewish libels and canards and trying to make them fly and pass as respectable at different fora, foolishly unaware that picking on Jews (you don't even realize you're doing just that) nowadays - as opposed to 1939 for example - means getting into a quarrel, just like you would with other people.
Earl E. Bird:
"I'm afraid I don't have any more free time to spend in the vortex of your anally retained anger and besides, I'm sure your friends are missing your charming repartee."
- Thanks so much.
Get lost. Please don't return unless you resolve not to spout anti-Semitic bollocks here.
"Get lost. Please don't return unless you resolve not to spout anti-Semitic bollocks here. "
We Zionists have the monopoly on racist bullshit and revisionist lies at this site. So don't try reason with us, we're just stupid fascists who deserve the lesson we're about to get.
We Zionists have the monopoly on racist bullshit and revisionist lies at this site. So don't try reason with us, we're just stupid fascists who deserve the lesson we're about to get.
1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001
2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000
3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.
4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.
6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969
8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.
9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
9a. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."
10. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
11. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.)
12. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.
13. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
15. "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"
17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
19. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.
20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.
21. "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
22. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.
23. "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.
24. "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]
2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000
3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.
4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.
6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969
8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.
9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
9a. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."
10. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
11. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.)
12. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.
13. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
15. "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"
17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
19. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.
20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.
21. "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
22. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.
23. "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.
24. "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]
A) Is that what your mental capacity amounts to? Posting quotes? That's a no-brainer and sissy technique used by dipshits. You didn't say anything to the point, much less the points I've discussed with Mr. Earl.
B) I have no racism, you buffon. Are you a psychic?
B) I have no racism, you buffon. Are you a psychic?
Rabbi Yaacov Perrin at the funeral of Baruch Goldstein:
"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
[NYT Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]
=========================================
"....my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain."
-Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, p263
=========================================
"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
[NYT Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]
=========================================
"....my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain."
-Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, p263
=========================================
"We Zionists have the monopoly on racist bullshit and revisionist lies at this site. So don't try reason with us, we're just stupid fascists who deserve the lesson we're about to get."
That's a neat and amusing column of strawmen knocked down, my chap. It's also an incredible act of "anti-Zionist" projection.
I just can't figure out what lesson you allude to. I did ask you whether you're a psychic, didn't I?
That's a neat and amusing column of strawmen knocked down, my chap. It's also an incredible act of "anti-Zionist" projection.
I just can't figure out what lesson you allude to. I did ask you whether you're a psychic, didn't I?
So, presumably your silence means you recognise Native American sovereignty?
And you resent quotes. Yes, the "sissy technique" can be bruising when it hit's the mark. Maybe we should add some of your quotes to that list?
You resent sources that don't toe the zionazi line and you only trust history lessons delivered by the rabbbi. They are the 'real' facts after all.
"I have no racism"...do you mean to spare? It's all used up on Arabs and Palestinians and non-Jews?
Instead of mindless abuse, try addressing the issues. Oh yeah, that's impossible when you rely on racially based propaganda.
"Is that what your mental capacity amounts to? Posting abuse"?
"I suppose these observations make me a Nazi and Islamofascist?" Yes they do because they don't concur with the views of Anti-bullshit who is the highest and final authority on anything to do with Jews.
We Zionists have the monopoly on racist bullshit and revisionist lies at this site. So don't try reason with us, we're just stupid fascists who deserve the lesson we're about to get.
What an ugly little keyboard monkey you are, full of piss and vinegar.
And you resent quotes. Yes, the "sissy technique" can be bruising when it hit's the mark. Maybe we should add some of your quotes to that list?
You resent sources that don't toe the zionazi line and you only trust history lessons delivered by the rabbbi. They are the 'real' facts after all.
"I have no racism"...do you mean to spare? It's all used up on Arabs and Palestinians and non-Jews?
Instead of mindless abuse, try addressing the issues. Oh yeah, that's impossible when you rely on racially based propaganda.
"Is that what your mental capacity amounts to? Posting abuse"?
"I suppose these observations make me a Nazi and Islamofascist?" Yes they do because they don't concur with the views of Anti-bullshit who is the highest and final authority on anything to do with Jews.
We Zionists have the monopoly on racist bullshit and revisionist lies at this site. So don't try reason with us, we're just stupid fascists who deserve the lesson we're about to get.
What an ugly little keyboard monkey you are, full of piss and vinegar.
Imitating me won't save your day, dear dipshit.
What should I have addressed? You didn't ask me to address anything specific. Your horseshit skills are remarkable.
Funny stooge, you never asked me whether I recognize or not Native American sovereignty. Is that you, Mr Earl, posting under another handle?
I have no racism because I'm not racist, Your Obtuseness.
You're eager to tarnish me with a racist label because you can't stand the fact I've called your rather naked nauseating anti-Semitism and other crap. If I used racist propaganda I would have used Kahanist sources.
I never attended any classes taught by Rabbis, you jerk. You're a fucking amusing antizio-nazi asshole, so deal with it.
Your drivel quoted: " "I suppose these observations make me a Nazi and Islamofascist?" Yes they do because they don't concur with the views of Anti-bullshit who is the highest and final authority on anything to do with Jews. "
- You're a fucking anti-Semite, you obtuse knucklehead.
You're a fucking knucklehead because you can't deal with FACTS and TRUTH on many things to do with Jews. My views aren't what matter; historical facts do. You refuse to accept that the Arabs have a weaker case than the Jews' concerning historical Israel. Such an acceptance will threaten your world view.
Please take your repugnant racism to a neo-Nazi forum. I'm sure you'll be heartily welcomed there by your comrades-in-mind (and arms?).
What should I have addressed? You didn't ask me to address anything specific. Your horseshit skills are remarkable.
Funny stooge, you never asked me whether I recognize or not Native American sovereignty. Is that you, Mr Earl, posting under another handle?
I have no racism because I'm not racist, Your Obtuseness.
You're eager to tarnish me with a racist label because you can't stand the fact I've called your rather naked nauseating anti-Semitism and other crap. If I used racist propaganda I would have used Kahanist sources.
I never attended any classes taught by Rabbis, you jerk. You're a fucking amusing antizio-nazi asshole, so deal with it.
Your drivel quoted: " "I suppose these observations make me a Nazi and Islamofascist?" Yes they do because they don't concur with the views of Anti-bullshit who is the highest and final authority on anything to do with Jews. "
- You're a fucking anti-Semite, you obtuse knucklehead.
You're a fucking knucklehead because you can't deal with FACTS and TRUTH on many things to do with Jews. My views aren't what matter; historical facts do. You refuse to accept that the Arabs have a weaker case than the Jews' concerning historical Israel. Such an acceptance will threaten your world view.
Please take your repugnant racism to a neo-Nazi forum. I'm sure you'll be heartily welcomed there by your comrades-in-mind (and arms?).
A Zionist is someone who thinks that, while anti-Semitism is racist, pro-Semitism is not.
(a zero-bandwidth reminder)
You're a fucking knucklehead because you can't deal with FACTS and TRUTH (!!)
Please enclose a URL to (the genuine) Webster's definition of a Zionist so as to prove you're not lying. If you fail to do so I'll take it to mean you're lying.
(The clown epithet was an ad hominem, not a rebuttal.)
(The clown epithet was an ad hominem, not a rebuttal.)
"Zionism is a political and national movement that is NOT TO BE EQUATED WITH JUDAISM" - from "Summary of major events leading to the creation of the nation of Israel" (15 pages)
Truman Archives - Documents on the Recognition of Israel (inc dynamite)
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/docs.php
[http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/folder4/isd10-5.jpg
&
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/folder4/isd10-5.jpg]
Anti-bullshit : "I'm not racist"
Let's test that assertion shall we "dear chap"?
You support the concept of Israel because Jews had a state there 1400 years (by your zealous estimation, any non-zionist would put it at about 2100 years ago). Can you imagine the geo-political chaos if we used this fatuous land claim as a precedent in international law? You must be either certifiably insane or a zionist.
The issue of Native American sovereignty is relevant in testing your "not racist" theory. If you don't support it there goes the Israeli claim but if you do support it then I guess the US wont have a spare $100 billion to spend on Israel. Woops there goes Israel! It's just a little test of your consistency isn't it? If you're not racist, the standards you apply to Jews must also apply to others. So would you like to answer the question? Are you going to recognise the sovereignty of ALL peoples and nations disposessed and conquered within the last 1400 years? Well asshole?
But the Jews are a special case aren't they? Gods chosen people. After wwII the only decent thing was to give them someone elses land? Those nasty little Palestinian Arabs, they're stupid little sub-humans, they won't mind at all? Yes it was a magnanimous gesture by the wealthy and powerful heavyweight UN nations to give away someone elses land wasn't it?
Perhaps a few thousand square miles in Texas would have made a more appropriate site for a Jewish state. After all, the locals wouldn't have minded.Right?
And now anyone who finds this whole process distasteful is a "anti-semite", "a jew hater" and "a Nazi". To me, the real inheritors of the Nazi legacy are those, like you, who attempt to silence people who recognise the inherent hypocrisy and try to stop the Jewish holocaust against Palestinians. They don't call you ZIONAZIS for nothing.
And who gets the most bile? Someone who points out that Palestinians can't expect justice in western societies because the so-called democratic societies aren't democratic at all.
Are you going to dispute the facts of Jewish influence as outlined by Mr. Bird? How can a fact be racist, asshole?
"You're eager to tarnish me with a racist label". I think I'll just turn that quote back on you. You're eager to tarnish me with a racist label.
Reality is buddy that you are no better than Hitler yourself and Israel is the modern Nazi state.
Let's test that assertion shall we "dear chap"?
You support the concept of Israel because Jews had a state there 1400 years (by your zealous estimation, any non-zionist would put it at about 2100 years ago). Can you imagine the geo-political chaos if we used this fatuous land claim as a precedent in international law? You must be either certifiably insane or a zionist.
The issue of Native American sovereignty is relevant in testing your "not racist" theory. If you don't support it there goes the Israeli claim but if you do support it then I guess the US wont have a spare $100 billion to spend on Israel. Woops there goes Israel! It's just a little test of your consistency isn't it? If you're not racist, the standards you apply to Jews must also apply to others. So would you like to answer the question? Are you going to recognise the sovereignty of ALL peoples and nations disposessed and conquered within the last 1400 years? Well asshole?
But the Jews are a special case aren't they? Gods chosen people. After wwII the only decent thing was to give them someone elses land? Those nasty little Palestinian Arabs, they're stupid little sub-humans, they won't mind at all? Yes it was a magnanimous gesture by the wealthy and powerful heavyweight UN nations to give away someone elses land wasn't it?
Perhaps a few thousand square miles in Texas would have made a more appropriate site for a Jewish state. After all, the locals wouldn't have minded.Right?
And now anyone who finds this whole process distasteful is a "anti-semite", "a jew hater" and "a Nazi". To me, the real inheritors of the Nazi legacy are those, like you, who attempt to silence people who recognise the inherent hypocrisy and try to stop the Jewish holocaust against Palestinians. They don't call you ZIONAZIS for nothing.
And who gets the most bile? Someone who points out that Palestinians can't expect justice in western societies because the so-called democratic societies aren't democratic at all.
Are you going to dispute the facts of Jewish influence as outlined by Mr. Bird? How can a fact be racist, asshole?
"You're eager to tarnish me with a racist label". I think I'll just turn that quote back on you. You're eager to tarnish me with a racist label.
Reality is buddy that you are no better than Hitler yourself and Israel is the modern Nazi state.
You cannot handle it when someone turns your flame back on you.
You start ranting, wet your pants, and run away crying.
Nazi asshole. Just what I suspected.
1400 years - you dickhead!
You start ranting, wet your pants, and run away crying.
Nazi asshole. Just what I suspected.
1400 years - you dickhead!
Got that, asswipe?You made those anti-Semitic remarks from the beginning, rife with libel and canards, you jack ass.
I exposed your bullshit concerning historical Israel in both the time and territory dimensions. You got mad almost since the beginning, only your madness has steadily intensified, you bigoted fucktard.
You've have made very few points, you yell like the fucking crazed loon that you are, reflexively peppering your bigoted offal with straw men, lies and distortions.
How funny, a Nazi asswipe accusing me of being Nazi. Giggle, chuckles (as Angie says every now and then).
Go suck Hitler's and your genocidal Australian ancestors dick, you white supremacist whack-job.
I exposed your bullshit concerning historical Israel in both the time and territory dimensions. You got mad almost since the beginning, only your madness has steadily intensified, you bigoted fucktard.
You've have made very few points, you yell like the fucking crazed loon that you are, reflexively peppering your bigoted offal with straw men, lies and distortions.
How funny, a Nazi asswipe accusing me of being Nazi. Giggle, chuckles (as Angie says every now and then).
Go suck Hitler's and your genocidal Australian ancestors dick, you white supremacist whack-job.
You bigoted, ignorant moron.
You can't refute the content so resort to abuse. I suppose that's all a knuckle dragger like you can do when confronted with facts and a morally and intellectually superior argument.
You are a pathetic, weak-spined cretin. I only need to drag out this thread when you try to intimidate contributors.
Tell mummy you need a diaper change.
You can't refute the content so resort to abuse. I suppose that's all a knuckle dragger like you can do when confronted with facts and a morally and intellectually superior argument.
You are a pathetic, weak-spined cretin. I only need to drag out this thread when you try to intimidate contributors.
Tell mummy you need a diaper change.
This white supremacist asswipe who honestly tries to cling to historical truth regarding many peoples except for the Jews is calling me a moron. hehehehe.
What's there to refute, the Palestinians have a weaker case in the land of Israel. Their leadership is very tainted by anti-democracy and terrorism if nothing else (I'm not even discussing the concept of Palestinian "peoplehood").
Anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli Jack asses like yourself don't seek peace in the Mideast. You seek the creation of a Palestinian state ASAP and you don't care a whit if it works vigorously to destroy Israel proper, ethnically cleanse the Israeli Jews and annex Israel. Human rights of the Palestinians UNDER ARAFAT OR OTHER LEADERS OF THE HAMAS BRAND? Be damned! What do you care, what only matters to you is the end of Zionism. You've ignored all the points I've made about Palestinian support of terror and resistance to real compromise above and then turn around and insert instances of other historical injustices into the exchange, hoping the points I've made about the very present go away.
You see, it's not one missing link in your moral spine...you lack many links in that department, you racist asshole. You exposed your bigotry and hatred right from the beginning; you can't sidestep this point.
I bet you will drag this thread out any time I debate with some other "anti-Zionist", for you're in your own turf here among them, you dick-headed crybaby loser.
What's there to refute, the Palestinians have a weaker case in the land of Israel. Their leadership is very tainted by anti-democracy and terrorism if nothing else (I'm not even discussing the concept of Palestinian "peoplehood").
Anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli Jack asses like yourself don't seek peace in the Mideast. You seek the creation of a Palestinian state ASAP and you don't care a whit if it works vigorously to destroy Israel proper, ethnically cleanse the Israeli Jews and annex Israel. Human rights of the Palestinians UNDER ARAFAT OR OTHER LEADERS OF THE HAMAS BRAND? Be damned! What do you care, what only matters to you is the end of Zionism. You've ignored all the points I've made about Palestinian support of terror and resistance to real compromise above and then turn around and insert instances of other historical injustices into the exchange, hoping the points I've made about the very present go away.
You see, it's not one missing link in your moral spine...you lack many links in that department, you racist asshole. You exposed your bigotry and hatred right from the beginning; you can't sidestep this point.
I bet you will drag this thread out any time I debate with some other "anti-Zionist", for you're in your own turf here among them, you dick-headed crybaby loser.
Still can't answer any of the questions?
A bit more subterfuge and some further irrelevance. Tell me more about the 1400 year old land claim. That cracked me up.
A bit more subterfuge and some further irrelevance. Tell me more about the 1400 year old land claim. That cracked me up.
Lots of hysterical obfuscation and bigoted history denial madness from you so far.
You've distorted my claims and the truth, you fucking anti-Semitic liar. I initially claimed that total Jewish independence was initially gained in 1025 BCE when the united kingdom of Israel was formed.
Till then, the tribes enjoyed partial independence to varying degrees and willingly abstained from creating a central ruling class.
The Jewish presence in the Land of Israel goes back at least to 1214 BCE, when under Moses's leadership the tribes conquered some of trans-Jordan (the "East Bank"). A year later they invaded Cana'an.
The Egyptian monarch Merneptah confirms Israelite presence in the land in his stela dating ~1210 BCE. The Merneptah Stela implies Israel was well established by the end of the 13th century BCE and could not have come into being later as some scholars have asserted. In the stela, Israel is identified by as a socioethnic unity powerful enough to be mentioned along with other major city-states that were also neutralized by Merneptah. If anyone needs evidence, let me enclose a URL. Just don't let the Christian thing whip up negative associations. I've read the contents and found them utterly scientific. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a015.html
Now crybaby, will your missing moral links compel you to ignore the evidence and keep ranting about how the Jewish claim to the land is supposedly inferior to the Arab just because the native Americans won't get to enjoy the same?
Just so you know...the issue of Australian Aboriginals and North American natives is wholly academic and moot, since on the practical level most of their lands will never be returned to them. That's why I didn't see fit to "answer" you. Theoretically speaking, though, they have a very potent case for having their lands returned back to them by their "Anglo-Saxon" colonizers. On the same note, I would rather have the all Palestinians within the disputed territories transfered to Jordan so as to try and achieve real peace and undue the giant historical lie the Palestinians have perpetrated on the entire globe, yet I'm realistic enough to recognize that it won't fly, so I resign myself to advocating against creating an anti-democratic and terroristic Palestinian thugacracy which would bully its citizens as well as terrorize and war against Israel. People who have been told the historical facts, like yourself, but keep calling for speedily and unconditionally forming a Palestinian state are fucking wicked dickheads who would not dream of committing the same insanity back in their own countries.
Now either put up or shut up where the Jewish historical case for the disputed territories is concerned, you neo-Nazi fucktard. No more stunts and sidestepping.
You've distorted my claims and the truth, you fucking anti-Semitic liar. I initially claimed that total Jewish independence was initially gained in 1025 BCE when the united kingdom of Israel was formed.
Till then, the tribes enjoyed partial independence to varying degrees and willingly abstained from creating a central ruling class.
The Jewish presence in the Land of Israel goes back at least to 1214 BCE, when under Moses's leadership the tribes conquered some of trans-Jordan (the "East Bank"). A year later they invaded Cana'an.
The Egyptian monarch Merneptah confirms Israelite presence in the land in his stela dating ~1210 BCE. The Merneptah Stela implies Israel was well established by the end of the 13th century BCE and could not have come into being later as some scholars have asserted. In the stela, Israel is identified by as a socioethnic unity powerful enough to be mentioned along with other major city-states that were also neutralized by Merneptah. If anyone needs evidence, let me enclose a URL. Just don't let the Christian thing whip up negative associations. I've read the contents and found them utterly scientific. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a015.html
Now crybaby, will your missing moral links compel you to ignore the evidence and keep ranting about how the Jewish claim to the land is supposedly inferior to the Arab just because the native Americans won't get to enjoy the same?
Just so you know...the issue of Australian Aboriginals and North American natives is wholly academic and moot, since on the practical level most of their lands will never be returned to them. That's why I didn't see fit to "answer" you. Theoretically speaking, though, they have a very potent case for having their lands returned back to them by their "Anglo-Saxon" colonizers. On the same note, I would rather have the all Palestinians within the disputed territories transfered to Jordan so as to try and achieve real peace and undue the giant historical lie the Palestinians have perpetrated on the entire globe, yet I'm realistic enough to recognize that it won't fly, so I resign myself to advocating against creating an anti-democratic and terroristic Palestinian thugacracy which would bully its citizens as well as terrorize and war against Israel. People who have been told the historical facts, like yourself, but keep calling for speedily and unconditionally forming a Palestinian state are fucking wicked dickheads who would not dream of committing the same insanity back in their own countries.
Now either put up or shut up where the Jewish historical case for the disputed territories is concerned, you neo-Nazi fucktard. No more stunts and sidestepping.
Your fumbling with ancient history to justify a modern holocaust answers your own questions.
I'd say you've hoisted yourself with your own petard.
I'd say you've hoisted yourself with your own petard.
Here's a few of those questions again...(in case you've got A.D.H.D.)
^^^^^^^^^^
So, presumably your silence means you recognise Native American sovereignty?
Your response "the Jewish claim to the land is supposedly inferior to the Arab just because the native Americans won't get to enjoy the same? "
What sort of shit are you trying to talk here? The Jewish claim is tenuous at best, and faulty at root, because it ignores thousands of years of Palestinian culture on either side of the glory days of the "Jewish Empire in Israel". The way you blithely sweep away this cultural history indicates how deep your racism is.
The sheer arrogance is spectacular.
Treatment of Aboriginals, Arabs and Native Americans has been criminal in all three contexts. Somehow in your twisted mind you can manage to rationalise it where it serves your racist and morally corrupt agenda.
In relation to Aboriginals and Native Americans the issue "is wholly academic and moot" as "their lands will never be returned to them".
Yes, the racist and genocidal warriors of manifest destiny have absolutely no intention of relinquishing stolen property or compensating the victims of crime. This comes from the same bastions of Christian virtue who helped facillitate the Zionazi conquest and pillage of Palestine.
We know what kind of evil and corruption we're dealing with here.
To the victors the spoils, and fuck all to those still suffering the physical, emotional, spiritual and social repercussions of the orgy of murder and theft.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And you resent quotes. Yes, the "sissy technique" can be bruising when it hit's the mark. Maybe we should add some of your quotes (about evil Arabs) to that list?
"Arafat's gang or the Islamist terroristic circles". You mean the freedom fighters and resistors of genocide?
"barbaric Islamist Palestinian terror "
"anti-democratic and terroristic Palestinian thugacracy "
"(people who) keep calling for speedily and unconditionally forming a Palestinian state are fucking wicked dickheads"
"I would rather have the all Palestinians within the disputed territories transfered to Jordan " before or after the gas chambers Adolf?
These quotes from your last two posts only. Fucking Brilliant.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I have no racism"...do you mean to spare? It's all used up on Arabs and Palestinians and non-Jews?
That's a good one. You ooze it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You support the concept of Israel because Jews had a state there 1400 years (by your zealous estimation, any non-zionist would put it at about 2100 years ago). Can you imagine the geo-political chaos if we used this fatuous land claim as a precedent in international law?
Are we talking a special case? The 'CHOSEN PEOPLE'?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you're not racist, the standards you apply to Jews must also apply to others. So would you like to answer the question? Are you going to recognise the sovereignty of ALL peoples and nations disposessed and conquered within the last 1400 years? Well asshole?
Special case?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes it was a magnanimous gesture by the wealthy and powerful heavyweight UN nations to give away someone elses land wasn't it?
Special Case?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps a few thousand square miles in Texas would have made a more appropriate site for a Jewish state. After all, the locals wouldn't have minded. Right?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you going to dispute the facts of Jewish influence as outlined by Mr. Bird?
May explain some of the mysterious machinations of the UN?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My personal favorite is worth asking again and again and again...
Are you going to recognise the sovereignty (and attendant land rights) of ALL peoples and nations disposessed and conquered within the last 1400 years?
I know, I know. Special Case.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll brace myself while you respond with another rant, some more abuse, spit the pacifier out...squall some...wet your pants...assume the foetal position.
Yeah, I've your number buddy. Bedwetters for Zion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And this blubbering plaintive cry of yours...
"You've ignored all the points I've made about Palestinian support of terror and resistance to real compromise above and then turn around and insert instances of other historical injustices into the exchange, hoping the points I've made about the very present go away."
I think that might be an hallucination on your part. I can't find them. All that I could find was you having a bawl when Palestinians had the audacity to defend themselves from, and even retaliate to, Israels US backed Neo-Nazis.
"You've ignored all the points I've made" tell it to the Palestinians pal.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What surprises me is that some Palestinians are willing to recognise the 1948 borders and even the 1967 borders.
Such amazing generosity when they are legally and morally entitled to an autonomous Palestinian state based on pre-1947 borders.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On an earlier post you resort to Christian scholars to defend your claim but canned me when I referred to Jewish sites to confirm the geographical birthplace of Judaism.
Special Case? Mental Case?
^^^^^^^^^^
So, presumably your silence means you recognise Native American sovereignty?
Your response "the Jewish claim to the land is supposedly inferior to the Arab just because the native Americans won't get to enjoy the same? "
What sort of shit are you trying to talk here? The Jewish claim is tenuous at best, and faulty at root, because it ignores thousands of years of Palestinian culture on either side of the glory days of the "Jewish Empire in Israel". The way you blithely sweep away this cultural history indicates how deep your racism is.
The sheer arrogance is spectacular.
Treatment of Aboriginals, Arabs and Native Americans has been criminal in all three contexts. Somehow in your twisted mind you can manage to rationalise it where it serves your racist and morally corrupt agenda.
In relation to Aboriginals and Native Americans the issue "is wholly academic and moot" as "their lands will never be returned to them".
Yes, the racist and genocidal warriors of manifest destiny have absolutely no intention of relinquishing stolen property or compensating the victims of crime. This comes from the same bastions of Christian virtue who helped facillitate the Zionazi conquest and pillage of Palestine.
We know what kind of evil and corruption we're dealing with here.
To the victors the spoils, and fuck all to those still suffering the physical, emotional, spiritual and social repercussions of the orgy of murder and theft.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And you resent quotes. Yes, the "sissy technique" can be bruising when it hit's the mark. Maybe we should add some of your quotes (about evil Arabs) to that list?
"Arafat's gang or the Islamist terroristic circles". You mean the freedom fighters and resistors of genocide?
"barbaric Islamist Palestinian terror "
"anti-democratic and terroristic Palestinian thugacracy "
"(people who) keep calling for speedily and unconditionally forming a Palestinian state are fucking wicked dickheads"
"I would rather have the all Palestinians within the disputed territories transfered to Jordan " before or after the gas chambers Adolf?
These quotes from your last two posts only. Fucking Brilliant.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I have no racism"...do you mean to spare? It's all used up on Arabs and Palestinians and non-Jews?
That's a good one. You ooze it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You support the concept of Israel because Jews had a state there 1400 years (by your zealous estimation, any non-zionist would put it at about 2100 years ago). Can you imagine the geo-political chaos if we used this fatuous land claim as a precedent in international law?
Are we talking a special case? The 'CHOSEN PEOPLE'?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you're not racist, the standards you apply to Jews must also apply to others. So would you like to answer the question? Are you going to recognise the sovereignty of ALL peoples and nations disposessed and conquered within the last 1400 years? Well asshole?
Special case?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes it was a magnanimous gesture by the wealthy and powerful heavyweight UN nations to give away someone elses land wasn't it?
Special Case?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps a few thousand square miles in Texas would have made a more appropriate site for a Jewish state. After all, the locals wouldn't have minded. Right?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you going to dispute the facts of Jewish influence as outlined by Mr. Bird?
May explain some of the mysterious machinations of the UN?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My personal favorite is worth asking again and again and again...
Are you going to recognise the sovereignty (and attendant land rights) of ALL peoples and nations disposessed and conquered within the last 1400 years?
I know, I know. Special Case.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll brace myself while you respond with another rant, some more abuse, spit the pacifier out...squall some...wet your pants...assume the foetal position.
Yeah, I've your number buddy. Bedwetters for Zion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And this blubbering plaintive cry of yours...
"You've ignored all the points I've made about Palestinian support of terror and resistance to real compromise above and then turn around and insert instances of other historical injustices into the exchange, hoping the points I've made about the very present go away."
I think that might be an hallucination on your part. I can't find them. All that I could find was you having a bawl when Palestinians had the audacity to defend themselves from, and even retaliate to, Israels US backed Neo-Nazis.
"You've ignored all the points I've made" tell it to the Palestinians pal.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What surprises me is that some Palestinians are willing to recognise the 1948 borders and even the 1967 borders.
Such amazing generosity when they are legally and morally entitled to an autonomous Palestinian state based on pre-1947 borders.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On an earlier post you resort to Christian scholars to defend your claim but canned me when I referred to Jewish sites to confirm the geographical birthplace of Judaism.
Special Case? Mental Case?
My responses are bracketed:
Jerk #1, RWF:
"you would blame Israel: things such as: the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the massacres at the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps"
- Response: the main culprits in and the sole perpetrators of the Sabra & Shatilla massacre are the Christian Phalangist militia. Will RWF ever get this into his thick head?
[RWF REPLY: the Israels controlled the area at the time, and allowed Christian Phalangists to enter the camps and carry out the massacres, standing aside and doing nothing as they occurred, as has been documented many times, including by the Israelis themselves.]
"brutalities committed against the Shia population of South Lebanon by the IDF and its surrogates, after the Shias initially welcomed them"
- Response: it was the so called South Lebanese Army which committed any brutalities against Shiites in south Lebanon, not the IDF. The Qana incident was an accident, regardless of the vicious distortions of all "anti Zionists".
[RWF REPLY: Some of these brutalities were conducted in detention facilities operated by the IDF, were torture was common. The South Lebanese Army was a creation of Israel, armed and trained by the IDF. It is impossible to imagine that the SLA conducted any operations without the approval of the IDF, and the IDF clearly exercised no effort to restrain the SLA's attempt to brutally pacify the populace. As for Qana, it's always an accident, isn't it?]
"the ongoing settlement and fragmentation of the West Bank into an openly apartheid system where Israeli "settlers" get the best land and water, with roads, housing and commercial areas built for them only, while Palestinians live in squalid surroundings"
- Response: It's the Palestinian intifada and violence which has made the Israelis bar them from commercial areas and roads. Prior to the intifada the Palestinians had access to most of these places.
[RWF REPLY: Truly comical. First, it ignores the settlement issue entirely, because no one can deny that Israel has a policy of subsidizing "settlements" on the West Bank by religious fanatics. The seizure of land for them in the West Bank and Gaza has been taking place since 1977, which predates the first intifada by about a decade. None of these facilities were constructed for use for Palestinians. Settlements continued to be built during the Oslo period of the mid-1990s, regardless of whether there was violence or not. The association of these actions by Israel with violence on the part of the Palestinians is specious, and designed to justify the continued expropriation of the West Bank.]
"the defense of this system through an oppressive IDF presence where the movement of Palestinians is strictly controlled through checkpoints, and the construction of a wall to permanently establish this system"
- Response: see my previous remark. Can RWF kindly exercise the gray matter in his brain and share with us what he would have done were he in the Israelis' place, having to deal with all the violence and atrocities perpetrated by the Palestinians on an never ending, continuous, ongoing basis? Let's see if s/he has a better idea to deal with that sort of situation.
[RWF REPLY: This is really quite easy to answer. I would announce my intention to accept the Saudi Plan of 2002, and request an immediate conference with the Arab League to execute this agreement. As a result, all settlements would be removed from the West Bank and Gaza. The IDF would be withdrawn from the occupied territories, and the "war on the settlements" would be concluded. (Note: Haaretz has already suggested such a withdrawal in Gaza.) The "right of return" would be addressed through pre-existing legal mechanisms already developed in talks over the years between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In return, Israel, the Saudis and Jordan would create a joint anti-terrorism organization to address threats common to all. Personally, I would not find this completely satisfactory (I believe that, ultimately, there will be a one state solution), but it would satisfy the great majority of Israelis, Palestinians and others who want the conflict to end. And, as a side benefit, it would also the US to extradicate itself from Iraq.]
The last RWF remark is the most moronic of them all...what a grand finale:
"and, the refusal of Israel that requires it to accept a return to the 1967 borders and the dismantlement of the "settlements", as advocated in the Saudi plan last year and the agreement on the left just announced earlier this week"
- Response: why doesn't this character blame the Palestinians for their refusal to completely cease all the violence which has prevented Israel from agreeing to return almost completely to the '67 borders (with some small alterations) in the first place?
Why didn't someone tell this deluded individual that the "agreement on the left" wasn't even reached by authorized Israeli government agents, therefore it was null and void even prior to its announcement?
[RWF REPLY: But, anti-jerk, what about the Saudi Plan? You just sort of jumped over that one. A tough one, isn't it, because the Saudis offered what Israel purported wanted for 50 years, acceptance by Arab governments. But that's not the goal anymore, is it, now that the Cold War is over? Instead, the goal is expansion.
As for the negotiations in 2000 before Clinton left office, both you and I know that the "small alterations", the departure from a plan which would call for return to the 1967 borders, were designed to make the Palestinian state unviable, by fragmenting it and depriving it of some of the best land and water.
As for the "agreement on the left", it's irrelevant as to how it was negotiated (and, it is interesting to note, that the "democratic" Israeli response is to advocate prohibiting such communications between members of the Knesset and Palestinians in the future), as Ariel Sharon can accept it tomorrow, if he were so inclined, and, indeed, it has been common in the past for political leaders to create such opportunities through surrogates. Finally, as I have already mentioned, Israel finds itself in the occupied terrotories for the purpose of expansion (5 new illegal settlements approved by the Israelis today, after an announcement that bids for 323 new units were issued last week), and protection of the existing ones.]
Jerk #1, RWF:
"you would blame Israel: things such as: the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the massacres at the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps"
- Response: the main culprits in and the sole perpetrators of the Sabra & Shatilla massacre are the Christian Phalangist militia. Will RWF ever get this into his thick head?
[RWF REPLY: the Israels controlled the area at the time, and allowed Christian Phalangists to enter the camps and carry out the massacres, standing aside and doing nothing as they occurred, as has been documented many times, including by the Israelis themselves.]
"brutalities committed against the Shia population of South Lebanon by the IDF and its surrogates, after the Shias initially welcomed them"
- Response: it was the so called South Lebanese Army which committed any brutalities against Shiites in south Lebanon, not the IDF. The Qana incident was an accident, regardless of the vicious distortions of all "anti Zionists".
[RWF REPLY: Some of these brutalities were conducted in detention facilities operated by the IDF, were torture was common. The South Lebanese Army was a creation of Israel, armed and trained by the IDF. It is impossible to imagine that the SLA conducted any operations without the approval of the IDF, and the IDF clearly exercised no effort to restrain the SLA's attempt to brutally pacify the populace. As for Qana, it's always an accident, isn't it?]
"the ongoing settlement and fragmentation of the West Bank into an openly apartheid system where Israeli "settlers" get the best land and water, with roads, housing and commercial areas built for them only, while Palestinians live in squalid surroundings"
- Response: It's the Palestinian intifada and violence which has made the Israelis bar them from commercial areas and roads. Prior to the intifada the Palestinians had access to most of these places.
[RWF REPLY: Truly comical. First, it ignores the settlement issue entirely, because no one can deny that Israel has a policy of subsidizing "settlements" on the West Bank by religious fanatics. The seizure of land for them in the West Bank and Gaza has been taking place since 1977, which predates the first intifada by about a decade. None of these facilities were constructed for use for Palestinians. Settlements continued to be built during the Oslo period of the mid-1990s, regardless of whether there was violence or not. The association of these actions by Israel with violence on the part of the Palestinians is specious, and designed to justify the continued expropriation of the West Bank.]
"the defense of this system through an oppressive IDF presence where the movement of Palestinians is strictly controlled through checkpoints, and the construction of a wall to permanently establish this system"
- Response: see my previous remark. Can RWF kindly exercise the gray matter in his brain and share with us what he would have done were he in the Israelis' place, having to deal with all the violence and atrocities perpetrated by the Palestinians on an never ending, continuous, ongoing basis? Let's see if s/he has a better idea to deal with that sort of situation.
[RWF REPLY: This is really quite easy to answer. I would announce my intention to accept the Saudi Plan of 2002, and request an immediate conference with the Arab League to execute this agreement. As a result, all settlements would be removed from the West Bank and Gaza. The IDF would be withdrawn from the occupied territories, and the "war on the settlements" would be concluded. (Note: Haaretz has already suggested such a withdrawal in Gaza.) The "right of return" would be addressed through pre-existing legal mechanisms already developed in talks over the years between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In return, Israel, the Saudis and Jordan would create a joint anti-terrorism organization to address threats common to all. Personally, I would not find this completely satisfactory (I believe that, ultimately, there will be a one state solution), but it would satisfy the great majority of Israelis, Palestinians and others who want the conflict to end. And, as a side benefit, it would also the US to extradicate itself from Iraq.]
The last RWF remark is the most moronic of them all...what a grand finale:
"and, the refusal of Israel that requires it to accept a return to the 1967 borders and the dismantlement of the "settlements", as advocated in the Saudi plan last year and the agreement on the left just announced earlier this week"
- Response: why doesn't this character blame the Palestinians for their refusal to completely cease all the violence which has prevented Israel from agreeing to return almost completely to the '67 borders (with some small alterations) in the first place?
Why didn't someone tell this deluded individual that the "agreement on the left" wasn't even reached by authorized Israeli government agents, therefore it was null and void even prior to its announcement?
[RWF REPLY: But, anti-jerk, what about the Saudi Plan? You just sort of jumped over that one. A tough one, isn't it, because the Saudis offered what Israel purported wanted for 50 years, acceptance by Arab governments. But that's not the goal anymore, is it, now that the Cold War is over? Instead, the goal is expansion.
As for the negotiations in 2000 before Clinton left office, both you and I know that the "small alterations", the departure from a plan which would call for return to the 1967 borders, were designed to make the Palestinian state unviable, by fragmenting it and depriving it of some of the best land and water.
As for the "agreement on the left", it's irrelevant as to how it was negotiated (and, it is interesting to note, that the "democratic" Israeli response is to advocate prohibiting such communications between members of the Knesset and Palestinians in the future), as Ariel Sharon can accept it tomorrow, if he were so inclined, and, indeed, it has been common in the past for political leaders to create such opportunities through surrogates. Finally, as I have already mentioned, Israel finds itself in the occupied terrotories for the purpose of expansion (5 new illegal settlements approved by the Israelis today, after an announcement that bids for 323 new units were issued last week), and protection of the existing ones.]
QANA:
Israel was using a drone (which was captured on film by a Norweigan soldier in the camp) with respect to Qana, and it knew damn well where its shells were landing. To call it an "accident" is an outright lie. But, hey, what's 106 dead refugees, hmm? And in a UN compound at that! Israel got its PR people to work immediately, and presto, another "accident". Hell, not!
SABRA AND SHATILA:
And how convenient that the Christian Phalange were the ones carrying out the horrors at Sabra and Shatila. It's convenient to forget that these murderers were trained and financed by Israel, were driven to the camps by Israeli soldiers, (who closed off the camps so that escape was impossible), had their path of terror lit by Israeli flares, received food and water from Israeli soldiers over the course of the three days of rape and murder, and when a handful of refugees hysterically approached Israeli soldiers who were guarding the closed camp and told them what was happening, the soldiers did not help them. In fact, Israel, even after being told what was happening, allowed the Phalange to remain there to finish the job.
So don't dare talk to us about Sabra and Shatila and place the blame only on the Phalange. They were there with Israel's full knowledge, consent, and blessing.
What the hell did Israel think they were going to do there? Have a damn tea party or something? Give it up. No one believes this crap, and you're only making yourself look like a bloody fool by ignoring the reality of one of the most. horrendous acts of evil carried out against a defenceless people.
Of course, let's not forget it was Sharon the Wicked, wasn't it, who ranted about 2,000 armed "terrorists" being in the camp. And how many were found?
Israel was using a drone (which was captured on film by a Norweigan soldier in the camp) with respect to Qana, and it knew damn well where its shells were landing. To call it an "accident" is an outright lie. But, hey, what's 106 dead refugees, hmm? And in a UN compound at that! Israel got its PR people to work immediately, and presto, another "accident". Hell, not!
SABRA AND SHATILA:
And how convenient that the Christian Phalange were the ones carrying out the horrors at Sabra and Shatila. It's convenient to forget that these murderers were trained and financed by Israel, were driven to the camps by Israeli soldiers, (who closed off the camps so that escape was impossible), had their path of terror lit by Israeli flares, received food and water from Israeli soldiers over the course of the three days of rape and murder, and when a handful of refugees hysterically approached Israeli soldiers who were guarding the closed camp and told them what was happening, the soldiers did not help them. In fact, Israel, even after being told what was happening, allowed the Phalange to remain there to finish the job.
So don't dare talk to us about Sabra and Shatila and place the blame only on the Phalange. They were there with Israel's full knowledge, consent, and blessing.
What the hell did Israel think they were going to do there? Have a damn tea party or something? Give it up. No one believes this crap, and you're only making yourself look like a bloody fool by ignoring the reality of one of the most. horrendous acts of evil carried out against a defenceless people.
Of course, let's not forget it was Sharon the Wicked, wasn't it, who ranted about 2,000 armed "terrorists" being in the camp. And how many were found?
Angie:
===============
"the Christian Phalange...had their path of terror lit by Israeli flares"
================
Correct - -I have footage if anyone happens to be interested.
===============
"the Christian Phalange...had their path of terror lit by Israeli flares"
================
Correct - -I have footage if anyone happens to be interested.
I'm devastated.
RWF: the Israels controlled the area at the time, and allowed Christian Phalangists to enter the camps and carry out the massacres, standing aside and doing nothing as they occurred, as has been documented many times, including by the Israelis themselves.
~ Reply: There was a mutual understanding between the Israelis and the Phalangists prior to the latter entry that the Phalangists are to clear the 2 camps of Palestinian terrorists i.e. armed PLO members. The Israelis never agreed to let them massacre or murder non-combatants. The rampaging Phalangists weren't in the Israelis' sight, so the latter couldn't know the former were massacring. I'm afraid some Israelis, i.e. extreme anti-Sharon leftists, might have twisted what had really occurred. I also suspect it wasn't the first time these leftist circles lied where rightwing Israeli leaders were concerned.
RWF: Some of these brutalities were conducted in detention facilities operated by the IDF, were torture was common. The South Lebanese Army was a creation of Israel, armed and trained by the IDF. It is impossible to imagine that the SLA conducted any operations without the approval of the IDF, and the IDF clearly exercised no effort to restrain the SLA's attempt to brutally pacify the populace. As for Qana, it's always an accident, isn't it?
~ Reply: I beg to differ on your assertion it's impossible to imagine such a thing. I already explained above what happened with the Phalangists in Sabra & Shatila, so I certainly can picture the SLA committing many brutalities unbeknownst to the IDF. It's not like the SLA members were being watching 24/7 with binoculars, telescopes and night vision accesories by the IDF wherever they went. There were many Christians in the SLA ranks who had scores to settle with Shiites, whether for personal or ethno-religious reasons. Let's bear in mind the age old rivalry between Lebanese Christians and Muslims is what started off the Lebanese civil war to begin with.
Your sarcasm regarding Qana indicated to me that you can't refute the facts.
RWF: Truly comical. First, it ignores the settlement issue entirely, because no one can deny that Israel has a policy of subsidizing "settlements" on the West Bank by religious fanatics. The seizure of land for them in the West Bank and Gaza has been taking place since 1977, which predates the first intifada by about a decade. None of these facilities were constructed for use for Palestinians. Settlements continued to be built during the Oslo period of the mid-1990s, regardless of whether there was violence or not. The association of these actions by Israel with violence on the part of the Palestinians is specious, and designed to justify the continued expropriation of the West Bank.
~ Reply: Ha, comedy? I explained why the Palestinians were barred from many roads and commercial areas. You're insinuating my explanation was simplistic, but there was just nothing to oversimplify.
RWF: This is really quite easy to answer. I would announce my intention to accept the Saudi Plan of 2002, and request an immediate conference with the Arab League to execute this agreement. As a result, all settlements would be removed from the West Bank and Gaza. The IDF would be withdrawn from the occupied territories, and the "war on the settlements" would be concluded. (Note: Haaretz has already suggested such a withdrawal in Gaza.) The "right of return" would be addressed through pre-existing legal mechanisms already developed in talks over the years between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In return, Israel, the Saudis and Jordan would create a joint anti-terrorism organization to address threats common to all. Personally, I would not find this completely satisfactory (I believe that, ultimately, there will be a one state solution), but it would satisfy the great majority of Israelis, Palestinians and others who want the conflict to end. And, as a side benefit, it would also the US to extradicate itself from Iraq.
~ Reply: what needs to be done against Palestinian terror is to coerce Arafat's regime into crushing the terror groups, disbanding them, collecting all their weapons, arresting the members among them who don't take up arms against the Palestinian police force and put them on trial, send them to prison to serve long terms. More importantly, the PA needs to discard their "revolving door" policy re arrests and introduce serious prison protocols, i.e. to make their prisons real jails, not "hotels" for those Palestinian inmates who didn't try undermine Arafat personally, like they have been. Until Arafat's regime agrees to launch this crackdown and renounce terror as a political tool one and for all, I encourage the Israelis in their anti-terroristic struggle.
RWF: anti-jerk, what about the Saudi Plan? You just sort of jumped over that one. A tough one, isn't it, because the Saudis offered what Israel purported wanted for 50 years, acceptance by Arab governments. But that's not the goal anymore, is it, now that the Cold War is over? Instead, the goal is expansion.
~ Reply: Israel wanted more than merely acceptance by Arab governments. The Saudi plan was actually a "test balloon". The Saudis didn't really mean it seriously. Besides, Is RWF implying that the Palestinians should be absolved of their responsibility to launching their stupid intifada once the Saudis announced a certain initiative? Also, Arafat - who always pulls all the strings, mind you - had no intention of giving up the "right of return" + covets complete control of the Temple Mount, therefore negotiations that might have taken place would have reached a dead-end anyway. The bottom line is that regardless of the Saudis' honesty, the Palestinians bolted the Camp David negotiations because the Israelis refused to grant them the "right of return" and found an excuse (Sharon's visit on the Temple Mount) to start their pre-prepared genocidal campaign.
RWF: As for the negotiations in 2000 before Clinton left office, both you and I know that the "small alterations", the departure from a plan which would call for return to the 1967 borders, were designed to make the Palestinian state unviable, by fragmenting it and depriving it of some of the best land and water.
~Reply: I know no such thing because you're parroting a lie. The small alterations were meant to let Israel annex 4 small blocs of Jewish communities adjacent to the Green Line.
RWF: As for the "agreement on the left", it's irrelevant as to how it was negotiated (and, it is interesting to note, that the "democratic" Israeli response is to advocate prohibiting such communications between members of the Knesset and Palestinians in the future), as Ariel Sharon can accept it tomorrow, if he were so inclined, and, indeed, it has been common in the past for political leaders to create such opportunities through surrogates. Finally, as I have already mentioned, Israel finds itself in the occupied terrotories for the purpose of expansion (5 new illegal settlements approved by the Israelis today, after an announcement that bids for 323 new units were issued last week), and protection of the existing ones.
~ Reply: For you it is certainly irrelevant, but you, like myself, are just an observer, not a side in the conflict. Plus you're indirectly showing disdain to the democratic process. What should be prohibited is that members of the opposition try to reach binding agreements with Palestinians or Arab states without authorization. Ariel won't accept it, first and foremost because the "right of return" is not unequivocally renounced there by the Palestinians side in no uncertain terms. Beilin himself admitted that the Palestinians insisted on having 30000 Arabs "return" to Israel proper (in addition to the 300000 that have already infiltrated Israel illegally) and that he accepted this demand. As to creating windows of opportunity, it must be noted that even Rabin didn't adapt the Oslo Accord of a decade ago willingly - and this concerns an agreement negotiated secretly by members of his own party - the power that be in Israel at the time. Rabin felt Beilin and Peres put him in front of a fait accompli by showing him the draft of the Oslo Accords. He felt that if he won't embrace the draft the world, the US, The Israeli Left and even his own party will blame him for missing a golden opportunity at peace making, even though the Oslo draft was severely flawed in terms of lack of mechanisms to force the Palestinians to abide by the agreement. That's why Rabin wasn't enthusiastic about the Oslo Accord to begin with.
~ Reply: There was a mutual understanding between the Israelis and the Phalangists prior to the latter entry that the Phalangists are to clear the 2 camps of Palestinian terrorists i.e. armed PLO members. The Israelis never agreed to let them massacre or murder non-combatants. The rampaging Phalangists weren't in the Israelis' sight, so the latter couldn't know the former were massacring. I'm afraid some Israelis, i.e. extreme anti-Sharon leftists, might have twisted what had really occurred. I also suspect it wasn't the first time these leftist circles lied where rightwing Israeli leaders were concerned.
RWF: Some of these brutalities were conducted in detention facilities operated by the IDF, were torture was common. The South Lebanese Army was a creation of Israel, armed and trained by the IDF. It is impossible to imagine that the SLA conducted any operations without the approval of the IDF, and the IDF clearly exercised no effort to restrain the SLA's attempt to brutally pacify the populace. As for Qana, it's always an accident, isn't it?
~ Reply: I beg to differ on your assertion it's impossible to imagine such a thing. I already explained above what happened with the Phalangists in Sabra & Shatila, so I certainly can picture the SLA committing many brutalities unbeknownst to the IDF. It's not like the SLA members were being watching 24/7 with binoculars, telescopes and night vision accesories by the IDF wherever they went. There were many Christians in the SLA ranks who had scores to settle with Shiites, whether for personal or ethno-religious reasons. Let's bear in mind the age old rivalry between Lebanese Christians and Muslims is what started off the Lebanese civil war to begin with.
Your sarcasm regarding Qana indicated to me that you can't refute the facts.
RWF: Truly comical. First, it ignores the settlement issue entirely, because no one can deny that Israel has a policy of subsidizing "settlements" on the West Bank by religious fanatics. The seizure of land for them in the West Bank and Gaza has been taking place since 1977, which predates the first intifada by about a decade. None of these facilities were constructed for use for Palestinians. Settlements continued to be built during the Oslo period of the mid-1990s, regardless of whether there was violence or not. The association of these actions by Israel with violence on the part of the Palestinians is specious, and designed to justify the continued expropriation of the West Bank.
~ Reply: Ha, comedy? I explained why the Palestinians were barred from many roads and commercial areas. You're insinuating my explanation was simplistic, but there was just nothing to oversimplify.
RWF: This is really quite easy to answer. I would announce my intention to accept the Saudi Plan of 2002, and request an immediate conference with the Arab League to execute this agreement. As a result, all settlements would be removed from the West Bank and Gaza. The IDF would be withdrawn from the occupied territories, and the "war on the settlements" would be concluded. (Note: Haaretz has already suggested such a withdrawal in Gaza.) The "right of return" would be addressed through pre-existing legal mechanisms already developed in talks over the years between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In return, Israel, the Saudis and Jordan would create a joint anti-terrorism organization to address threats common to all. Personally, I would not find this completely satisfactory (I believe that, ultimately, there will be a one state solution), but it would satisfy the great majority of Israelis, Palestinians and others who want the conflict to end. And, as a side benefit, it would also the US to extradicate itself from Iraq.
~ Reply: what needs to be done against Palestinian terror is to coerce Arafat's regime into crushing the terror groups, disbanding them, collecting all their weapons, arresting the members among them who don't take up arms against the Palestinian police force and put them on trial, send them to prison to serve long terms. More importantly, the PA needs to discard their "revolving door" policy re arrests and introduce serious prison protocols, i.e. to make their prisons real jails, not "hotels" for those Palestinian inmates who didn't try undermine Arafat personally, like they have been. Until Arafat's regime agrees to launch this crackdown and renounce terror as a political tool one and for all, I encourage the Israelis in their anti-terroristic struggle.
RWF: anti-jerk, what about the Saudi Plan? You just sort of jumped over that one. A tough one, isn't it, because the Saudis offered what Israel purported wanted for 50 years, acceptance by Arab governments. But that's not the goal anymore, is it, now that the Cold War is over? Instead, the goal is expansion.
~ Reply: Israel wanted more than merely acceptance by Arab governments. The Saudi plan was actually a "test balloon". The Saudis didn't really mean it seriously. Besides, Is RWF implying that the Palestinians should be absolved of their responsibility to launching their stupid intifada once the Saudis announced a certain initiative? Also, Arafat - who always pulls all the strings, mind you - had no intention of giving up the "right of return" + covets complete control of the Temple Mount, therefore negotiations that might have taken place would have reached a dead-end anyway. The bottom line is that regardless of the Saudis' honesty, the Palestinians bolted the Camp David negotiations because the Israelis refused to grant them the "right of return" and found an excuse (Sharon's visit on the Temple Mount) to start their pre-prepared genocidal campaign.
RWF: As for the negotiations in 2000 before Clinton left office, both you and I know that the "small alterations", the departure from a plan which would call for return to the 1967 borders, were designed to make the Palestinian state unviable, by fragmenting it and depriving it of some of the best land and water.
~Reply: I know no such thing because you're parroting a lie. The small alterations were meant to let Israel annex 4 small blocs of Jewish communities adjacent to the Green Line.
RWF: As for the "agreement on the left", it's irrelevant as to how it was negotiated (and, it is interesting to note, that the "democratic" Israeli response is to advocate prohibiting such communications between members of the Knesset and Palestinians in the future), as Ariel Sharon can accept it tomorrow, if he were so inclined, and, indeed, it has been common in the past for political leaders to create such opportunities through surrogates. Finally, as I have already mentioned, Israel finds itself in the occupied terrotories for the purpose of expansion (5 new illegal settlements approved by the Israelis today, after an announcement that bids for 323 new units were issued last week), and protection of the existing ones.
~ Reply: For you it is certainly irrelevant, but you, like myself, are just an observer, not a side in the conflict. Plus you're indirectly showing disdain to the democratic process. What should be prohibited is that members of the opposition try to reach binding agreements with Palestinians or Arab states without authorization. Ariel won't accept it, first and foremost because the "right of return" is not unequivocally renounced there by the Palestinians side in no uncertain terms. Beilin himself admitted that the Palestinians insisted on having 30000 Arabs "return" to Israel proper (in addition to the 300000 that have already infiltrated Israel illegally) and that he accepted this demand. As to creating windows of opportunity, it must be noted that even Rabin didn't adapt the Oslo Accord of a decade ago willingly - and this concerns an agreement negotiated secretly by members of his own party - the power that be in Israel at the time. Rabin felt Beilin and Peres put him in front of a fait accompli by showing him the draft of the Oslo Accords. He felt that if he won't embrace the draft the world, the US, The Israeli Left and even his own party will blame him for missing a golden opportunity at peace making, even though the Oslo draft was severely flawed in terms of lack of mechanisms to force the Palestinians to abide by the agreement. That's why Rabin wasn't enthusiastic about the Oslo Accord to begin with.
Exactly what "facts" about Qana are not being refuted?
I remember Shimon Peres apologizing for the Qana shelling and referring to it as an accident.
You know where you can shove your lies up.
No pompous rants now, please.
You know where you can shove your lies up.
No pompous rants now, please.
Nobody with a brain cares a damn what Peres says. He also said that the bomb dropped on the sleeping apartment building in July 2002, which killed fourteen people, including nine children, was "self defence". Hehehe.
You have not addressed the documented proof that Israel was using a drone with respect to Qana. Why not? Are you telling us it didn't happen despite pictures to the contrary? Naughty, naughty, anti-jerk!
You have not addressed the documented proof that Israel was using a drone with respect to Qana. Why not? Are you telling us it didn't happen despite pictures to the contrary? Naughty, naughty, anti-jerk!
Angie: "Nobody with a brain cares a damn blah blah blah... was using a drone blah blah blah"
I forgot you your skull contains something that passes for a brain but in fact isn't a brain.
I guess if Uri says something, than that something occurred. If Peres said something, Angie won't trust him because he's not pro-Palestinian/anti Zionist enough in Angie's book.
I forgot you your skull contains something that passes for a brain but in fact isn't a brain.
I guess if Uri says something, than that something occurred. If Peres said something, Angie won't trust him because he's not pro-Palestinian/anti Zionist enough in Angie's book.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with my efficient brain, anti-jerk. One of these days I may even compile a list of the crap Peres has spewed over the years.
And as for what Uri thinks with respect to Qana, I have no idea although I could (and will) ask him.
I am surprised, however, that someone of your alleged knowledge of the situation should be unaware of this very important factor. There was a drone. Israel knew what it was doing and, as usual, cared not a damn.
Before you return to the board ranting like a maniac and besmirching my most efficient functioning brain, check out Qana, okay? It's no fun watching you continue to make a fool of yourself, lad. No fun at all.
And I have a most wonderful life, thank you, so suggesting I get one is redundant.
And as for what Uri thinks with respect to Qana, I have no idea although I could (and will) ask him.
I am surprised, however, that someone of your alleged knowledge of the situation should be unaware of this very important factor. There was a drone. Israel knew what it was doing and, as usual, cared not a damn.
Before you return to the board ranting like a maniac and besmirching my most efficient functioning brain, check out Qana, okay? It's no fun watching you continue to make a fool of yourself, lad. No fun at all.
And I have a most wonderful life, thank you, so suggesting I get one is redundant.
You should learn when to shut the fuck up, namely when you are ahead of yourself. You already reached that point some time before.
No amount of research will do good for this debate because the conclusions you've made out of the known facts are baloney. Your poor excuse for a brain- substtute somehow made you certain of an untrue fact, namely that I was unaware of the drone's presence, you asshole. I ~was~ aware if it.
The problem is that you just insist on connecting the wrong dots to prove something that wasn't true, i.e. premeditated Israeli pan to massacre wholesale.
Peres has definitely spewed lots of crap over the years, but hardly any over the Qana incident.
So keep it, you vile liar.
No amount of research will do good for this debate because the conclusions you've made out of the known facts are baloney. Your poor excuse for a brain- substtute somehow made you certain of an untrue fact, namely that I was unaware of the drone's presence, you asshole. I ~was~ aware if it.
The problem is that you just insist on connecting the wrong dots to prove something that wasn't true, i.e. premeditated Israeli pan to massacre wholesale.
Peres has definitely spewed lots of crap over the years, but hardly any over the Qana incident.
So keep it, you vile liar.
Tell us where I've lied. It's a favourite word of yours, isn't it? Everyone here is lying except you. NOT!!
I said there was a drone, and there was a drone.
You've admitted you knew there was a drone.
So what's the damn problem? Drone not working? It worked well enough for pictures to be take of it on its journey into the camp.
You really are sinking further into the gutter every time you come on here, man. Either towards me or anyone else, you've just gotten more and more vulgar.
If that's how you wish to debate, why would anyone even bother?
We are not going to be intimidated by the likes of you and your penchant for personal attacks.
I said there was a drone, and there was a drone.
You've admitted you knew there was a drone.
So what's the damn problem? Drone not working? It worked well enough for pictures to be take of it on its journey into the camp.
You really are sinking further into the gutter every time you come on here, man. Either towards me or anyone else, you've just gotten more and more vulgar.
If that's how you wish to debate, why would anyone even bother?
We are not going to be intimidated by the likes of you and your penchant for personal attacks.
Hey Anti Bullshit, relax. I'm on your side. These guys really don't know shit about the history of the region or the conflict or what Zionism really is. But you're not getting anywhere with your personal atttacks on them. It really doesn't do your arguments any good. When you start name-calling, you've lost the debate. I iunderstqand your anger. Anti-Zionism is very often a thinly-veiled mask for anti-Semitism, and i think some of their posts prove that. But don't sink to their level. You've got your facts straight, so stick to them and leave out the name-calling.
As for the rest of you, let's get a few things straight.
1) Zionism is, quite simply, the movement for the establishment of a Jewish nation, and therefore support for Israel's right to exist. It began as an answer to centuries of persection of Jews And not just in Europe, but in Arab countries as well. Roughly 40% of Israel's Jewish population are migrants from Arab countries and their descendants. Zionism is about the Jews regaining a nation of their own in order to acheive the self-determination they could never have in other lands. That is a dream shared by nearly every ethnic group on Earth. Is the desire for self-determination racist? The lack of self-determination has nearly resulted in the destruction of the Jewish people numerous times. The Holocaust was the last straw. It was made very clear to Jews that they are viewed as outsiders and foreigners in Europe, despite being present there for 2000 years. After 2 out of every 3 Jews in Europe was murdered, no one was going to take that chance again. Hence Israel.
2) Of course there are, or rather were, indigenous peoples in Israel. But the Palestinians are not them. ry. The Palestinians are Arabs who, as was pointed out, did not arrive to settle the land until the 7th century. The native and indigenous Jewish tribes had been driven out of their homeland by Europeans, namely Romans. Ironically, it is because of Europeans that Jews returned to Israel en masse. Jews may themselves have been an offshoot of the Canaanites, a group of tribes that banded together on religious principles and conquered the others, much the way Alexander conquered the various Greek city-states. Regardless, attempting to trace Jewish history beyond ancient Israel is a fruitless endeavour. If they are indigenous to any other place, the evidence is lost to history. But language gives you all the clues one needs. The name "Jew" refers, in origin, to the land Judah (later Judea). It originally simply meant an inhabitant of Judea and was a truncated version of "Judean", i.e. Judean=Jew. Judaism was simply the name for the religious beliefs and practices of those inhabitants. The same process can be seen at work with the Arabs. "Arab" is short for "Arabian", which by definition refers to Arabia. It is in Arabia that Arabs are indigenous, and no where else. That is why they are called Arabs. It really is that simple.
Arabs are not indigenous to any country outside of the Arabian peninsula. Egypt is today an Arab country, yet is was not the Arabs who built the pyramids and put pharoahs on the throne of Egypt. The same is true of Mesopotamia and throughout the Middle East.
So let's stick to the facts in this sticky argument, shall we?
As for the rest of you, let's get a few things straight.
1) Zionism is, quite simply, the movement for the establishment of a Jewish nation, and therefore support for Israel's right to exist. It began as an answer to centuries of persection of Jews And not just in Europe, but in Arab countries as well. Roughly 40% of Israel's Jewish population are migrants from Arab countries and their descendants. Zionism is about the Jews regaining a nation of their own in order to acheive the self-determination they could never have in other lands. That is a dream shared by nearly every ethnic group on Earth. Is the desire for self-determination racist? The lack of self-determination has nearly resulted in the destruction of the Jewish people numerous times. The Holocaust was the last straw. It was made very clear to Jews that they are viewed as outsiders and foreigners in Europe, despite being present there for 2000 years. After 2 out of every 3 Jews in Europe was murdered, no one was going to take that chance again. Hence Israel.
2) Of course there are, or rather were, indigenous peoples in Israel. But the Palestinians are not them. ry. The Palestinians are Arabs who, as was pointed out, did not arrive to settle the land until the 7th century. The native and indigenous Jewish tribes had been driven out of their homeland by Europeans, namely Romans. Ironically, it is because of Europeans that Jews returned to Israel en masse. Jews may themselves have been an offshoot of the Canaanites, a group of tribes that banded together on religious principles and conquered the others, much the way Alexander conquered the various Greek city-states. Regardless, attempting to trace Jewish history beyond ancient Israel is a fruitless endeavour. If they are indigenous to any other place, the evidence is lost to history. But language gives you all the clues one needs. The name "Jew" refers, in origin, to the land Judah (later Judea). It originally simply meant an inhabitant of Judea and was a truncated version of "Judean", i.e. Judean=Jew. Judaism was simply the name for the religious beliefs and practices of those inhabitants. The same process can be seen at work with the Arabs. "Arab" is short for "Arabian", which by definition refers to Arabia. It is in Arabia that Arabs are indigenous, and no where else. That is why they are called Arabs. It really is that simple.
Arabs are not indigenous to any country outside of the Arabian peninsula. Egypt is today an Arab country, yet is was not the Arabs who built the pyramids and put pharoahs on the throne of Egypt. The same is true of Mesopotamia and throughout the Middle East.
So let's stick to the facts in this sticky argument, shall we?
Hey Anti Bullshit, relax. I'm on your side. These guys really don't know shit about the history of the region or the conflict or what Zionism really is. But you're not getting anywhere with your personal atttacks on them. It really doesn't do your arguments any good. When you start name-calling, you've lost the debate. I iunderstqand your anger. Anti-Zionism is very often a thinly-veiled mask for anti-Semitism, and i think some of their posts prove that. But don't sink to their level. You've got your facts straight, so stick to them and leave out the name-calling.
As for the rest of you, let's get a few things straight.
1) Zionism is, quite simply, the movement for the establishment of a Jewish nation, and therefore support for Israel's right to exist. It began as an answer to centuries of persection of Jews And not just in Europe, but in Arab countries as well. Roughly 40% of Israel's Jewish population are migrants from Arab countries and their descendants. Zionism is about the Jews regaining a nation of their own in order to acheive the self-determination they could never have in other lands. That is a dream shared by nearly every ethnic group on Earth. Is the desire for self-determination racist? The lack of self-determination has nearly resulted in the destruction of the Jewish people numerous times. The Holocaust was the last straw. It was made very clear to Jews that they are viewed as outsiders and foreigners in Europe, despite being present there for 2000 years. After 2 out of every 3 Jews in Europe was murdered, no one was going to take that chance again. Hence Israel.
2) Of course there are, or rather were, indigenous peoples in Israel. But the Palestinians are not them. ry. The Palestinians are Arabs who, as was pointed out, did not arrive to settle the land until the 7th century. The native and indigenous Jewish tribes had been driven out of their homeland by Europeans, namely Romans. Ironically, it is because of Europeans that Jews returned to Israel en masse. Jews may themselves have been an offshoot of the Canaanites, a group of tribes that banded together on religious principles and conquered the others, much the way Alexander conquered the various Greek city-states. Regardless, attempting to trace Jewish history beyond ancient Israel is a fruitless endeavour. If they are indigenous to any other place, the evidence is lost to history. But language gives you all the clues one needs. The name "Jew" refers, in origin, to the land Judah (later Judea). It originally simply meant an inhabitant of Judea and was a truncated version of "Judean", i.e. Judean=Jew. Judaism was simply the name for the religious beliefs and practices of those inhabitants. The same process can be seen at work with the Arabs. "Arab" is short for "Arabian", which by definition refers to Arabia. It is in Arabia that Arabs are indigenous, and no where else. That is why they are called Arabs. It really is that simple.
Arabs are not indigenous to any country outside of the Arabian peninsula. Egypt is today an Arab country, yet is was not the Arabs who built the pyramids and put pharoahs on the throne of Egypt. The same is true of Mesopotamia and throughout the Middle East.
So let's stick to the facts in this sticky argument, shall we?
As for the rest of you, let's get a few things straight.
1) Zionism is, quite simply, the movement for the establishment of a Jewish nation, and therefore support for Israel's right to exist. It began as an answer to centuries of persection of Jews And not just in Europe, but in Arab countries as well. Roughly 40% of Israel's Jewish population are migrants from Arab countries and their descendants. Zionism is about the Jews regaining a nation of their own in order to acheive the self-determination they could never have in other lands. That is a dream shared by nearly every ethnic group on Earth. Is the desire for self-determination racist? The lack of self-determination has nearly resulted in the destruction of the Jewish people numerous times. The Holocaust was the last straw. It was made very clear to Jews that they are viewed as outsiders and foreigners in Europe, despite being present there for 2000 years. After 2 out of every 3 Jews in Europe was murdered, no one was going to take that chance again. Hence Israel.
2) Of course there are, or rather were, indigenous peoples in Israel. But the Palestinians are not them. ry. The Palestinians are Arabs who, as was pointed out, did not arrive to settle the land until the 7th century. The native and indigenous Jewish tribes had been driven out of their homeland by Europeans, namely Romans. Ironically, it is because of Europeans that Jews returned to Israel en masse. Jews may themselves have been an offshoot of the Canaanites, a group of tribes that banded together on religious principles and conquered the others, much the way Alexander conquered the various Greek city-states. Regardless, attempting to trace Jewish history beyond ancient Israel is a fruitless endeavour. If they are indigenous to any other place, the evidence is lost to history. But language gives you all the clues one needs. The name "Jew" refers, in origin, to the land Judah (later Judea). It originally simply meant an inhabitant of Judea and was a truncated version of "Judean", i.e. Judean=Jew. Judaism was simply the name for the religious beliefs and practices of those inhabitants. The same process can be seen at work with the Arabs. "Arab" is short for "Arabian", which by definition refers to Arabia. It is in Arabia that Arabs are indigenous, and no where else. That is why they are called Arabs. It really is that simple.
Arabs are not indigenous to any country outside of the Arabian peninsula. Egypt is today an Arab country, yet is was not the Arabs who built the pyramids and put pharoahs on the throne of Egypt. The same is true of Mesopotamia and throughout the Middle East.
So let's stick to the facts in this sticky argument, shall we?
Hey Anti Bullshit, relax. I'm on your side. These guys really don't know shit about the history of the region or the conflict or what Zionism really is. But you're not getting anywhere with your personal atttacks on them. It really doesn't do your arguments any good. When you start name-calling, you've lost the debate. I iunderstqand your anger. Anti-Zionism is very often a thinly-veiled mask for anti-Semitism, and i think some of their posts prove that. But don't sink to their level. You've got your facts straight, so stick to them and leave out the name-calling.
As for the rest of you, let's get a few things straight.
1) Zionism is, quite simply, the movement for the establishment of a Jewish nation, and therefore support for Israel's right to exist. It began as an answer to centuries of persection of Jews And not just in Europe, but in Arab countries as well. Roughly 40% of Israel's Jewish population are migrants from Arab countries and their descendants. Zionism is about the Jews regaining a nation of their own in order to acheive the self-determination they could never have in other lands. That is a dream shared by nearly every ethnic group on Earth. Is the desire for self-determination racist? The lack of self-determination has nearly resulted in the destruction of the Jewish people numerous times. The Holocaust was the last straw. It was made very clear to Jews that they are viewed as outsiders and foreigners in Europe, despite being present there for 2000 years. After 2 out of every 3 Jews in Europe was murdered, no one was going to take that chance again. Hence Israel.
2) Of course there are, or rather were, indigenous peoples in Israel. But the Palestinians are not them. ry. The Palestinians are Arabs who, as was pointed out, did not arrive to settle the land until the 7th century. The native and indigenous Jewish tribes had been driven out of their homeland by Europeans, namely Romans. Ironically, it is because of Europeans that Jews returned to Israel en masse. Jews may themselves have been an offshoot of the Canaanites, a group of tribes that banded together on religious principles and conquered the others, much the way Alexander conquered the various Greek city-states. Regardless, attempting to trace Jewish history beyond ancient Israel is a fruitless endeavour. If they are indigenous to any other place, the evidence is lost to history. But language gives you all the clues one needs. The name "Jew" refers, in origin, to the land Judah (later Judea). It originally simply meant an inhabitant of Judea and was a truncated version of "Judean", i.e. Judean=Jew. Judaism was simply the name for the religious beliefs and practices of those inhabitants. The same process can be seen at work with the Arabs. "Arab" is short for "Arabian", which by definition refers to Arabia. It is in Arabia that Arabs are indigenous, and no where else. That is why they are called Arabs. It really is that simple.
Arabs are not indigenous to any country outside of the Arabian peninsula. Egypt is today an Arab country, yet is was not the Arabs who built the pyramids and put pharoahs on the throne of Egypt. The same is true of Mesopotamia and throughout the Middle East.
So let's stick to the facts in this sticky argument, shall we?
As for the rest of you, let's get a few things straight.
1) Zionism is, quite simply, the movement for the establishment of a Jewish nation, and therefore support for Israel's right to exist. It began as an answer to centuries of persection of Jews And not just in Europe, but in Arab countries as well. Roughly 40% of Israel's Jewish population are migrants from Arab countries and their descendants. Zionism is about the Jews regaining a nation of their own in order to acheive the self-determination they could never have in other lands. That is a dream shared by nearly every ethnic group on Earth. Is the desire for self-determination racist? The lack of self-determination has nearly resulted in the destruction of the Jewish people numerous times. The Holocaust was the last straw. It was made very clear to Jews that they are viewed as outsiders and foreigners in Europe, despite being present there for 2000 years. After 2 out of every 3 Jews in Europe was murdered, no one was going to take that chance again. Hence Israel.
2) Of course there are, or rather were, indigenous peoples in Israel. But the Palestinians are not them. ry. The Palestinians are Arabs who, as was pointed out, did not arrive to settle the land until the 7th century. The native and indigenous Jewish tribes had been driven out of their homeland by Europeans, namely Romans. Ironically, it is because of Europeans that Jews returned to Israel en masse. Jews may themselves have been an offshoot of the Canaanites, a group of tribes that banded together on religious principles and conquered the others, much the way Alexander conquered the various Greek city-states. Regardless, attempting to trace Jewish history beyond ancient Israel is a fruitless endeavour. If they are indigenous to any other place, the evidence is lost to history. But language gives you all the clues one needs. The name "Jew" refers, in origin, to the land Judah (later Judea). It originally simply meant an inhabitant of Judea and was a truncated version of "Judean", i.e. Judean=Jew. Judaism was simply the name for the religious beliefs and practices of those inhabitants. The same process can be seen at work with the Arabs. "Arab" is short for "Arabian", which by definition refers to Arabia. It is in Arabia that Arabs are indigenous, and no where else. That is why they are called Arabs. It really is that simple.
Arabs are not indigenous to any country outside of the Arabian peninsula. Egypt is today an Arab country, yet is was not the Arabs who built the pyramids and put pharoahs on the throne of Egypt. The same is true of Mesopotamia and throughout the Middle East.
So let's stick to the facts in this sticky argument, shall we?
if it weren't be used to justify the dehumanization of Palestinians within Israel and within the occupied terrotories
[2) Of course there are, or rather were, indigenous peoples in Israel. But the Palestinians are not them. ry. The Palestinians are Arabs who, as was pointed out, did not arrive to settle the land until the 7th century. The native and indigenous Jewish tribes had been driven out of their homeland by Europeans, namely Romans. Ironically, it is because of Europeans that Jews returned to Israel en masse. Jews may themselves have been an offshoot of the Canaanites, a group of tribes that banded together on religious principles and conquered the others, much the way Alexander conquered the various Greek city-states. Regardless, attempting to trace Jewish history beyond ancient Israel is a fruitless endeavour. If they are indigenous to any other place, the evidence is lost to history. But language gives you all the clues one needs. The name "Jew" refers, in origin, to the land Judah (later Judea). It originally simply meant an inhabitant of Judea and was a truncated version of "Judean", i.e. Judean=Jew. Judaism was simply the name for the religious beliefs and practices of those inhabitants. The same process can be seen at work with the Arabs. "Arab" is short for "Arabian", which by definition refers to Arabia. It is in Arabia that Arabs are indigenous, and no where else. That is why they are called Arabs. It really is that simple.
Arabs are not indigenous to any country outside of the Arabian peninsula. Egypt is today an Arab country, yet is was not the Arabs who built the pyramids and put pharoahs on the throne of Egypt. The same is true of Mesopotamia and throughout the Middle East.]
Palestinians are not indigenous, because they didn't arrive until the 7th Century???
this is better than Adam Sandler or David Letterman
at least, we have a clear expression of the Zionist fanatic view of the Middle East
[2) Of course there are, or rather were, indigenous peoples in Israel. But the Palestinians are not them. ry. The Palestinians are Arabs who, as was pointed out, did not arrive to settle the land until the 7th century. The native and indigenous Jewish tribes had been driven out of their homeland by Europeans, namely Romans. Ironically, it is because of Europeans that Jews returned to Israel en masse. Jews may themselves have been an offshoot of the Canaanites, a group of tribes that banded together on religious principles and conquered the others, much the way Alexander conquered the various Greek city-states. Regardless, attempting to trace Jewish history beyond ancient Israel is a fruitless endeavour. If they are indigenous to any other place, the evidence is lost to history. But language gives you all the clues one needs. The name "Jew" refers, in origin, to the land Judah (later Judea). It originally simply meant an inhabitant of Judea and was a truncated version of "Judean", i.e. Judean=Jew. Judaism was simply the name for the religious beliefs and practices of those inhabitants. The same process can be seen at work with the Arabs. "Arab" is short for "Arabian", which by definition refers to Arabia. It is in Arabia that Arabs are indigenous, and no where else. That is why they are called Arabs. It really is that simple.
Arabs are not indigenous to any country outside of the Arabian peninsula. Egypt is today an Arab country, yet is was not the Arabs who built the pyramids and put pharoahs on the throne of Egypt. The same is true of Mesopotamia and throughout the Middle East.]
Palestinians are not indigenous, because they didn't arrive until the 7th Century???
this is better than Adam Sandler or David Letterman
at least, we have a clear expression of the Zionist fanatic view of the Middle East
After looking at all this zionist-anti-zionist-arab-anti-arab crap and seeing what a mess the middle east is - within Isreal, within the arab world, between arab and isreali and you can through in the middel east christians to the mix. , I must admit, I am becoming a bit anti-semitic.
To WHAT A WORLD -The Middle East is a mess, so you become anti-semitic? Is it normally your reflex to just blame Jews? Is that what you call logic?
And RFW, what's so fantatical about anything i wrote? Where am I dehumanizing Palestinians? I simply made a few historically factual statements to correct a few inaccuracies in this debate. And just exactly what is your definition of "indigenous"? Exactly when is the cut-off date in history for when a people are considered to be indigenous to a land? How long does this process take, by your standards? 1400 years? 1000 years? 800 years? 500? 200? Were the Moors "indigenous" to Spain because they lived and ruled there for 800 years? Are the Turks "indigenous" to what is now called Turkey, despite the fact that it was the Byzantine Empire (or the Eastern Roman Empire) for centuries before? Are those of English descent "indigenous" to New England? "Indigenous" means native, it means a people -culture, language, etc. that originated in that land. There is nothing Arabic that originates in that land. Not their culture, not their language, not their religion (except by proxy). Nothing. All things Arabic, by definition, are native to the Arabian peninsula from whence they originate. On the other hand ALL things Jewish originate or first came to fruition in that land - the Hebrew language, the Jewish religion, and the 1500 year history of a people prior to expulsion at the hands of the Romans-all that is TRULY indigenous to that land. That is simple fact. Not Zionist rhetoric, just simple historical verifiable fact. Conclude what you will from it, but start with the truth.
And RFW, what's so fantatical about anything i wrote? Where am I dehumanizing Palestinians? I simply made a few historically factual statements to correct a few inaccuracies in this debate. And just exactly what is your definition of "indigenous"? Exactly when is the cut-off date in history for when a people are considered to be indigenous to a land? How long does this process take, by your standards? 1400 years? 1000 years? 800 years? 500? 200? Were the Moors "indigenous" to Spain because they lived and ruled there for 800 years? Are the Turks "indigenous" to what is now called Turkey, despite the fact that it was the Byzantine Empire (or the Eastern Roman Empire) for centuries before? Are those of English descent "indigenous" to New England? "Indigenous" means native, it means a people -culture, language, etc. that originated in that land. There is nothing Arabic that originates in that land. Not their culture, not their language, not their religion (except by proxy). Nothing. All things Arabic, by definition, are native to the Arabian peninsula from whence they originate. On the other hand ALL things Jewish originate or first came to fruition in that land - the Hebrew language, the Jewish religion, and the 1500 year history of a people prior to expulsion at the hands of the Romans-all that is TRULY indigenous to that land. That is simple fact. Not Zionist rhetoric, just simple historical verifiable fact. Conclude what you will from it, but start with the truth.
8000 BCE
Natufians, ancestors of Arabs, build the ancient city of Jericho
7000 BCE
Natufians build a wall around Jericho and a road to Byblos (ancient Lebanon)
6000 BCE
Natufians make portrait heads (probably of their ancestors)
5000 BCE
"At that time, Palestine may have developed more rapidly than any other area in western Asia."
[encyclopedia BRITANNICA.]
http://www.rondavid.net/At-a-Glance-Middle-East-print-version.htm
==========================================
"...the greatest impediment in the path of the Jews to an independent national existence is that they DO NOT FEEL ITS NEED. Not only that, but they go so far as to deny its authenticity.
In the case of a sick man, the absence of desire for food is a very serious symptom. It is not always possible to cure him of this ominous loss of appetite. And even if his appetite is restored, it is still a question whether he will be able to digest food, even though he desire it.
The Jews are in the unhappy condition of such a patient. We must discuss this most important point with all possible precision. We must prove that the misfortunes of the Jews are due, above all, to their lack of desire for national independence; and that this desire *must be awakened and maintained* in time if they do not wish to be subjected forever to disgraceful existence -- in a word, we must prove that they must become a nation.
- Leon Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/pinsker.html
Natufians, ancestors of Arabs, build the ancient city of Jericho
7000 BCE
Natufians build a wall around Jericho and a road to Byblos (ancient Lebanon)
6000 BCE
Natufians make portrait heads (probably of their ancestors)
5000 BCE
"At that time, Palestine may have developed more rapidly than any other area in western Asia."
[encyclopedia BRITANNICA.]
http://www.rondavid.net/At-a-Glance-Middle-East-print-version.htm
==========================================
"...the greatest impediment in the path of the Jews to an independent national existence is that they DO NOT FEEL ITS NEED. Not only that, but they go so far as to deny its authenticity.
In the case of a sick man, the absence of desire for food is a very serious symptom. It is not always possible to cure him of this ominous loss of appetite. And even if his appetite is restored, it is still a question whether he will be able to digest food, even though he desire it.
The Jews are in the unhappy condition of such a patient. We must discuss this most important point with all possible precision. We must prove that the misfortunes of the Jews are due, above all, to their lack of desire for national independence; and that this desire *must be awakened and maintained* in time if they do not wish to be subjected forever to disgraceful existence -- in a word, we must prove that they must become a nation.
- Leon Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/pinsker.html
From 1997 World Book Encyclopedia
Early history and Hebrew settlement. Amorites, Canaanites, and other Semitic peoples entered the area about 2000 B.C. The area became known as the Land of Canaan. See CANAANITES.
Sometime between about 1800 and 1500 B.C., a Semitic people called Hebrews or Israelites left Mesopotamia and settled in Canaan. Some Hebrews later went to Egypt. During the 1200's B.C., Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, and they returned to Canaan.
For about 200 years, the Hebrews fought the other peoples of Canaan and the neighbouring areas. One of their strongest enemies, the Philistines, controlled the southwestern coast of Canaan--called Philistia.
Until about 1029 B.C., the Hebrews were loosely organized into 12 tribes. The constant warfare with neighbouring peoples led the Hebrews to choose a king, Saul, as their leader. Saul's successor, David, unified the nation to form the Kingdom of Israel, about 1000 B.C. David established his capital in Jerusalem. His son, Solomon, succeeded him as king and built the first Temple for the worship of God. Israel remained united until Solomon's death in about 922 B.C. The northern tribes of Israel then split away from the tribes in the south. The northern state continued to be called Israel. The southern state, called Judah, kept Jerusalem as its capital. The word Jew, which came to be used for all Hebrews, comes from the name Judah.
Invasions and conquests. During the 700's B.C., the Assyrians, a people who lived in what is now Iraq, extended their rule westward to the Mediterranean Sea. They conquered Israel in 722 or 721 B.C. After about 100 years, the Babylonians began to take over the Assyrian Empire. They conquered Judah in 587 or 586 B.C. and destroyed Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. They enslaved many Jews and forced them to live in exile in Babylonia. About 50 years later, the Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylonia. Cyrus allowed a group of Jews from Babylonia to rebuild and settle in Jerusalem.
The Persians ruled most of the Middle East, including Palestine, from about 530 to 331 B.C. Alexander the Great then conquered the Persian Empire. After Alexander's death in 323 B.C., his generals divided his empire. One of these generals, Seleucus, founded a dynasty (series of rulers) that gained control of much of Palestine about 200 B.C. At first, the new rulers, called Seleucids, allowed the practice of Judaism. But later, one of the kings, Antiochus IV, tried to prohibit it. In 167 B.C., the Jews revolted under the leadership of the Maccabeans and drove the Seleucids out of Palestine. The Jews reestablished an independent kingdom which they named Judah.
Roman rule. In 63 B.C., Roman troops invaded Judah, and it came under Roman control. The Romans called the area Judea. Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem in the early years of Roman rule. Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts in A.D. 66 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. The Romans named the area Palaestina, after Philistia, at about this time. The name Palaestina later became Palestine in English.
Most of the Jews fled from Palestine. But Jewish communities continued to exist in Galilee, the northernmost part of Palestine. Palestine was governed by the Roman Empire until the A.D. 300's and then by the Byzantine Empire. In time, Christianity spread to most of Palestine.
Arab control. During the A.D. 600's, Muslim Arab armies moved north from Arabia to conquer most of the Middle East, including Palestine. Muslim powers controlled the region until the early 1900's. The rulers allowed Christians and Jews to keep their religions. However, most of the local population gradually accepted Islam and the Arab-Islamic culture of their rulers.
In the 1000's, the Seljuks, a Turkish people, began to take over Palestine. They gained control of Jerusalem in 1071. Seljuk rule of Palestine lasted less than 30 years. Christian crusaders from Europe wanted to regain the land where their religion had been born. The Crusades began in 1096, and the Christians captured Jerusalem in 1099. They held the city until 1187, when the Muslim ruler Saladin attacked Palestine and took control of Jerusalem. See CRUSADES.
In the mid-1200's, Mameluke rulers based in Egypt established an empire that in time included Palestine. The Ottoman Empire defeated them in 1517. Palestine then became part of the Ottoman Empire. Arab Muslims made up most of Palestine's population. Beginning in the 1500's, Jews from various Mediterranean lands emigrated and settled in Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine. By 1880, there were about 24,000 Jews in Palestine.
The Zionist movement. Beginning in the late 1800's, oppression of Jews in Eastern Europe set off a mass emigration of Jewish refugees. Some Jews formed a movement called Zionism, which sought to make Palestine an independent Jewish nation. The Zionists established farm colonies in Palestine. At the same time, Palestine's Arab population grew rapidly. By 1914, the total population of Palestine stood at 700,000, of which about 615,000 were Arabs, and 85,000 were Jews. See ZIONISM.
World War I and the Balfour Declaration. During World War I (1914-1918), the Ottoman Empire joined Germany and Austria-Hungary against the Allies. An Ottoman military government ruled Palestine. Britain and some of its European Allies planned to divide the Ottoman Empire among themselves after the war. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 called for part of Palestine to be placed under a joint Allied government. Britain offered to back Arab demands for postwar independence from the Ottomans in return for Arab support for the Allies. In 1916, some Arabs revolted against the Ottomans in the belief that Britain would help establish Arab independence in the Middle East. The Arabs later claimed that Palestine was included in the area promised to them, but the British denied this.
In 1917, in an attempt to gain Jewish support for its war effort, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. The declaration stated Britain's support for the creation of a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, without violating "the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities".
After the war, the League of Nations divided much of the Ottoman Empire into mandated territories (see MANDATED TERRITORY). In 1920, Britain received a provisional mandate over Palestine, which would extend west and east of the River Jordan. The British were to help the Jews build a national home and promote the creation of "self-governing institutions". In 1922, the League declared that the boundary of Palestine would be limited to the area west of the river. The area east of the river, Transjordan (now Jordan), was made a separate British mandate. The mandates went into effect in 1923.
The terms of the Palestine mandate were not clear, and various parties interpreted it differently. Many Zionists believed that Britain did not do enough to promote a Jewish "national home". They especially opposed the restrictions set by the British on Jewish immigration and land purchases. The British hoped to establish self-governing institutions, as required by the mandate. But their proposals for such institutions were unacceptable to the Arabs and so none were created.
The Arabs opposed the idea of a Jewish national home. They feared that the British were handing Palestine over to the Zionists by allowing too many Jews to immigrate to Palestine. During this period, a Palestinian Arab national movement first appeared. Riots and demonstrations were mounted by the Arabs to protest against British policies and Zionist activities.
In the early 1930's, over 100,000 Jewish refugees came to Palestine from Nazi Germany and Poland. This development alarmed the Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs organized a general uprising that almost paralysed Palestine during the late 1930's. In 1939, the British began to drastically limit Jewish immigration and land purchases for the next five years. Any Jewish immigration after that would depend on Arab approval.
World War II and the division of Palestine. During World War II (1939-1945), most Palestinian Arabs and Jews stopped their resistance to British rule. Many joined the Allied forces. After the war, the Zionists used force to stop Britain from limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Zionists wanted the British to allow immigration of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, the mass murder of European Jews by the Nazis.
The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine recommended that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The commission called for Jerusalem to be put under international control. The UN General Assembly adopted this plan on Nov. 29, 1947. The Jews accepted the UN decision, but the Arabs rejected it. Fighting broke out immediately.
On May 14, 1948, the Jews proclaimed the independent state of Israel, and the British withdrew from Palestine. The next day, neighbouring Arab nations attacked Israel. When the fighting ended in 1949, Israel held territories beyond the boundaries set by the UN plan. The rest of the area assigned to the Arab state was occupied by Egypt and Jordan. About 700,000 Arabs fled or were driven out of Israel and became refugees.
The continuing conflict and peace efforts. The UN arranged a series of cease-fires between the Arabs and the Jews in 1948 and 1949. Full-scale wars broke out again in 1956 and 1967. By the time the UN cease-fire ended the 1967 war, Israel had occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel also held Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a war against Israel. Cease-fires ended most of the fighting by June 1974.
The 1967 war brought almost a million Palestinian Arabs under Israeli rule. In time, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) became recognized by all the Arab states as the representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO pledged to liberate Palestine. Israel strongly opposed the PLO because of its terrorist acts.
In 1978, Egypt and Israel signed the Camp David Accords, an agreement designed to settle their disputes. Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in 1982. The agreement included provisions for a five-year period of self-government for the residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This period was to be followed by a decision about the future status of these territories. However, no arrangement for such self-government was made.
Beginning in 1987, periods of violence occurred in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as protest by Arabs swept through the regions. These actions were called the intifada, which means uprising in Arabic. Israeli troops killed a number of protesters. In 1993 and 1995, Israel signed agreements that led to the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank. Palestine took control of these areas. In January 1996, Palestinians elected a legislature and a president to make laws and administer the region.
CANAAN
Canaanites were a people mentioned in the Old Testament. The Canaanites settled in Canaan, the Biblical name for Palestine, in about 3000 B.C. They were the chief inhabitants of this land until the Israelites conquered them in about 1200 B.C. (see PALESTINE [Early history and Hebrew settlement]).
The Canaanites were a Semitic people, related to the Arabs, Assyrians, and Israelites (see SEMITES). Ancient remains show that the Canaanites had an advanced civilization. They built walls around their cities for protection against invading tribes. But the Israelites finally conquered them. The Israelites adopted many Canaanite laws and customs, and Hebrew language and literature shows much Canaanite influence.
Some Canaanites settled northwest of Palestine before the Israelite invasion.
Early history and Hebrew settlement. Amorites, Canaanites, and other Semitic peoples entered the area about 2000 B.C. The area became known as the Land of Canaan. See CANAANITES.
Sometime between about 1800 and 1500 B.C., a Semitic people called Hebrews or Israelites left Mesopotamia and settled in Canaan. Some Hebrews later went to Egypt. During the 1200's B.C., Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, and they returned to Canaan.
For about 200 years, the Hebrews fought the other peoples of Canaan and the neighbouring areas. One of their strongest enemies, the Philistines, controlled the southwestern coast of Canaan--called Philistia.
Until about 1029 B.C., the Hebrews were loosely organized into 12 tribes. The constant warfare with neighbouring peoples led the Hebrews to choose a king, Saul, as their leader. Saul's successor, David, unified the nation to form the Kingdom of Israel, about 1000 B.C. David established his capital in Jerusalem. His son, Solomon, succeeded him as king and built the first Temple for the worship of God. Israel remained united until Solomon's death in about 922 B.C. The northern tribes of Israel then split away from the tribes in the south. The northern state continued to be called Israel. The southern state, called Judah, kept Jerusalem as its capital. The word Jew, which came to be used for all Hebrews, comes from the name Judah.
Invasions and conquests. During the 700's B.C., the Assyrians, a people who lived in what is now Iraq, extended their rule westward to the Mediterranean Sea. They conquered Israel in 722 or 721 B.C. After about 100 years, the Babylonians began to take over the Assyrian Empire. They conquered Judah in 587 or 586 B.C. and destroyed Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. They enslaved many Jews and forced them to live in exile in Babylonia. About 50 years later, the Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylonia. Cyrus allowed a group of Jews from Babylonia to rebuild and settle in Jerusalem.
The Persians ruled most of the Middle East, including Palestine, from about 530 to 331 B.C. Alexander the Great then conquered the Persian Empire. After Alexander's death in 323 B.C., his generals divided his empire. One of these generals, Seleucus, founded a dynasty (series of rulers) that gained control of much of Palestine about 200 B.C. At first, the new rulers, called Seleucids, allowed the practice of Judaism. But later, one of the kings, Antiochus IV, tried to prohibit it. In 167 B.C., the Jews revolted under the leadership of the Maccabeans and drove the Seleucids out of Palestine. The Jews reestablished an independent kingdom which they named Judah.
Roman rule. In 63 B.C., Roman troops invaded Judah, and it came under Roman control. The Romans called the area Judea. Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem in the early years of Roman rule. Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts in A.D. 66 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. The Romans named the area Palaestina, after Philistia, at about this time. The name Palaestina later became Palestine in English.
Most of the Jews fled from Palestine. But Jewish communities continued to exist in Galilee, the northernmost part of Palestine. Palestine was governed by the Roman Empire until the A.D. 300's and then by the Byzantine Empire. In time, Christianity spread to most of Palestine.
Arab control. During the A.D. 600's, Muslim Arab armies moved north from Arabia to conquer most of the Middle East, including Palestine. Muslim powers controlled the region until the early 1900's. The rulers allowed Christians and Jews to keep their religions. However, most of the local population gradually accepted Islam and the Arab-Islamic culture of their rulers.
In the 1000's, the Seljuks, a Turkish people, began to take over Palestine. They gained control of Jerusalem in 1071. Seljuk rule of Palestine lasted less than 30 years. Christian crusaders from Europe wanted to regain the land where their religion had been born. The Crusades began in 1096, and the Christians captured Jerusalem in 1099. They held the city until 1187, when the Muslim ruler Saladin attacked Palestine and took control of Jerusalem. See CRUSADES.
In the mid-1200's, Mameluke rulers based in Egypt established an empire that in time included Palestine. The Ottoman Empire defeated them in 1517. Palestine then became part of the Ottoman Empire. Arab Muslims made up most of Palestine's population. Beginning in the 1500's, Jews from various Mediterranean lands emigrated and settled in Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine. By 1880, there were about 24,000 Jews in Palestine.
The Zionist movement. Beginning in the late 1800's, oppression of Jews in Eastern Europe set off a mass emigration of Jewish refugees. Some Jews formed a movement called Zionism, which sought to make Palestine an independent Jewish nation. The Zionists established farm colonies in Palestine. At the same time, Palestine's Arab population grew rapidly. By 1914, the total population of Palestine stood at 700,000, of which about 615,000 were Arabs, and 85,000 were Jews. See ZIONISM.
World War I and the Balfour Declaration. During World War I (1914-1918), the Ottoman Empire joined Germany and Austria-Hungary against the Allies. An Ottoman military government ruled Palestine. Britain and some of its European Allies planned to divide the Ottoman Empire among themselves after the war. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 called for part of Palestine to be placed under a joint Allied government. Britain offered to back Arab demands for postwar independence from the Ottomans in return for Arab support for the Allies. In 1916, some Arabs revolted against the Ottomans in the belief that Britain would help establish Arab independence in the Middle East. The Arabs later claimed that Palestine was included in the area promised to them, but the British denied this.
In 1917, in an attempt to gain Jewish support for its war effort, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. The declaration stated Britain's support for the creation of a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, without violating "the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities".
After the war, the League of Nations divided much of the Ottoman Empire into mandated territories (see MANDATED TERRITORY). In 1920, Britain received a provisional mandate over Palestine, which would extend west and east of the River Jordan. The British were to help the Jews build a national home and promote the creation of "self-governing institutions". In 1922, the League declared that the boundary of Palestine would be limited to the area west of the river. The area east of the river, Transjordan (now Jordan), was made a separate British mandate. The mandates went into effect in 1923.
The terms of the Palestine mandate were not clear, and various parties interpreted it differently. Many Zionists believed that Britain did not do enough to promote a Jewish "national home". They especially opposed the restrictions set by the British on Jewish immigration and land purchases. The British hoped to establish self-governing institutions, as required by the mandate. But their proposals for such institutions were unacceptable to the Arabs and so none were created.
The Arabs opposed the idea of a Jewish national home. They feared that the British were handing Palestine over to the Zionists by allowing too many Jews to immigrate to Palestine. During this period, a Palestinian Arab national movement first appeared. Riots and demonstrations were mounted by the Arabs to protest against British policies and Zionist activities.
In the early 1930's, over 100,000 Jewish refugees came to Palestine from Nazi Germany and Poland. This development alarmed the Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs organized a general uprising that almost paralysed Palestine during the late 1930's. In 1939, the British began to drastically limit Jewish immigration and land purchases for the next five years. Any Jewish immigration after that would depend on Arab approval.
World War II and the division of Palestine. During World War II (1939-1945), most Palestinian Arabs and Jews stopped their resistance to British rule. Many joined the Allied forces. After the war, the Zionists used force to stop Britain from limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Zionists wanted the British to allow immigration of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, the mass murder of European Jews by the Nazis.
The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine recommended that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The commission called for Jerusalem to be put under international control. The UN General Assembly adopted this plan on Nov. 29, 1947. The Jews accepted the UN decision, but the Arabs rejected it. Fighting broke out immediately.
On May 14, 1948, the Jews proclaimed the independent state of Israel, and the British withdrew from Palestine. The next day, neighbouring Arab nations attacked Israel. When the fighting ended in 1949, Israel held territories beyond the boundaries set by the UN plan. The rest of the area assigned to the Arab state was occupied by Egypt and Jordan. About 700,000 Arabs fled or were driven out of Israel and became refugees.
The continuing conflict and peace efforts. The UN arranged a series of cease-fires between the Arabs and the Jews in 1948 and 1949. Full-scale wars broke out again in 1956 and 1967. By the time the UN cease-fire ended the 1967 war, Israel had occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel also held Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a war against Israel. Cease-fires ended most of the fighting by June 1974.
The 1967 war brought almost a million Palestinian Arabs under Israeli rule. In time, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) became recognized by all the Arab states as the representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO pledged to liberate Palestine. Israel strongly opposed the PLO because of its terrorist acts.
In 1978, Egypt and Israel signed the Camp David Accords, an agreement designed to settle their disputes. Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in 1982. The agreement included provisions for a five-year period of self-government for the residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This period was to be followed by a decision about the future status of these territories. However, no arrangement for such self-government was made.
Beginning in 1987, periods of violence occurred in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as protest by Arabs swept through the regions. These actions were called the intifada, which means uprising in Arabic. Israeli troops killed a number of protesters. In 1993 and 1995, Israel signed agreements that led to the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank. Palestine took control of these areas. In January 1996, Palestinians elected a legislature and a president to make laws and administer the region.
CANAAN
Canaanites were a people mentioned in the Old Testament. The Canaanites settled in Canaan, the Biblical name for Palestine, in about 3000 B.C. They were the chief inhabitants of this land until the Israelites conquered them in about 1200 B.C. (see PALESTINE [Early history and Hebrew settlement]).
The Canaanites were a Semitic people, related to the Arabs, Assyrians, and Israelites (see SEMITES). Ancient remains show that the Canaanites had an advanced civilization. They built walls around their cities for protection against invading tribes. But the Israelites finally conquered them. The Israelites adopted many Canaanite laws and customs, and Hebrew language and literature shows much Canaanite influence.
Some Canaanites settled northwest of Palestine before the Israelite invasion.
MISSING LINK -your telling of history is accurate enough, though you suffer the common modern historical inaccuracy of referring to the land prior to 135 AD as "Palestine". As you correctly state, the Romans gave it that name at that time as a way of stripping it of its Jewish identity in an attempt to crush Jewish nationalism that had already resulted in two costly wars for them. Prior to that, the only name in use was Judea. It is, therefore, "Palestine" that is a historical fiction. There has never been a nation there by that name, nor does the name have any historical validity. Prior to Zionism there was never any such thing as a Palestinian nationality. No Arabs had ever referred to or proclaimed themselves as "Palestinians". The name "Palestine" refers to the Philistines, a people foreign to the region who had invaded from the sea and set up a short-lived kingdom in what is now Gaza and were long-gone by the time the Romans chose that name..
You mention that the Arab population grew rapidly in the early 20th century. But you didn't mention that was due to immigration from neighboring Arab lands. Zionist settlers had laid the groundwork to make Palestine a viable modern state. They drained swamps and reclaimed desert land, making formerly uninhabitable lands liveable. They paved roads, created a modern plumbing and electrical infrastructure, etc. Prior to that the land had been neglected for centuries which is why such a relatively small number lived there. This new infrastructure, unduplicated at that point throughout most of the Arab world, created new and great economic opportunities. As a result, there was a great immigration flux into Palestine. But it was not the work of the Arabs that had created these opportunites. It was the work of the Zionists who made a modern prosperous state possible.
What I fail to see is, Missing Link, where anything in your writing supports your notion that Israel is a legal fiction. You succinctly sum up the history of the land, including its extensive Jewish history. And as you accurately recall, Israel was created as an act of international law by the United Nations. That same legal action also called for the creation of a Palestinian state. But it was Jordan and Egypt that thwarted the realization of an independent Palestinian nation by grabbing most of the land for themselves. The land taken by Israel was a defensive measure in the face of an invasion that had come from every side and every border. Israel's original borders left them in a nearly-indefensible position. They were lucky to have even survived the invasion and emerge victorious. The practice of nations taking land from nations that had attacked it and lost is common, as a passing glance at the map of Europe will show. For example, there are parts of Poland today that were German territory prior to WWII. But there was still the West Bank and Gaza, and they were denied to the Palestinians by Jordan and Egypt despite the ruling of the UN. Even after 1967, Jordan still claimed the West Bank as its territory until 1988. Israel remained in a state of war with Jordan until 1993, so prior to 1988 there was no possibility of Israel surrendering control. Not to a nation at war with it. And today there is still no ruling party within Palestine that has demonstrated a genuine intent to live peacefully with Israel, which only gives fuel to the right-wingers in Israel who want to settle the West Bank. The result is still no Palestinian state.
But i still cannot see where any of this shows Israel to be a "legal fiction". It is a nation whose people have a long-standing and unbroken historical tie to the land despite being slaughtered and driven out en masse by the brutal actions of a European empire. More importantly, it is a nation that was created by an act of international law. Therefore, by definition, it cannot be a "legal fiction". So exactly what did you mean by your statement? You entitled it "Why Israel is a legal fiction" but you never made an argument to support your case.
You mention that the Arab population grew rapidly in the early 20th century. But you didn't mention that was due to immigration from neighboring Arab lands. Zionist settlers had laid the groundwork to make Palestine a viable modern state. They drained swamps and reclaimed desert land, making formerly uninhabitable lands liveable. They paved roads, created a modern plumbing and electrical infrastructure, etc. Prior to that the land had been neglected for centuries which is why such a relatively small number lived there. This new infrastructure, unduplicated at that point throughout most of the Arab world, created new and great economic opportunities. As a result, there was a great immigration flux into Palestine. But it was not the work of the Arabs that had created these opportunites. It was the work of the Zionists who made a modern prosperous state possible.
What I fail to see is, Missing Link, where anything in your writing supports your notion that Israel is a legal fiction. You succinctly sum up the history of the land, including its extensive Jewish history. And as you accurately recall, Israel was created as an act of international law by the United Nations. That same legal action also called for the creation of a Palestinian state. But it was Jordan and Egypt that thwarted the realization of an independent Palestinian nation by grabbing most of the land for themselves. The land taken by Israel was a defensive measure in the face of an invasion that had come from every side and every border. Israel's original borders left them in a nearly-indefensible position. They were lucky to have even survived the invasion and emerge victorious. The practice of nations taking land from nations that had attacked it and lost is common, as a passing glance at the map of Europe will show. For example, there are parts of Poland today that were German territory prior to WWII. But there was still the West Bank and Gaza, and they were denied to the Palestinians by Jordan and Egypt despite the ruling of the UN. Even after 1967, Jordan still claimed the West Bank as its territory until 1988. Israel remained in a state of war with Jordan until 1993, so prior to 1988 there was no possibility of Israel surrendering control. Not to a nation at war with it. And today there is still no ruling party within Palestine that has demonstrated a genuine intent to live peacefully with Israel, which only gives fuel to the right-wingers in Israel who want to settle the West Bank. The result is still no Palestinian state.
But i still cannot see where any of this shows Israel to be a "legal fiction". It is a nation whose people have a long-standing and unbroken historical tie to the land despite being slaughtered and driven out en masse by the brutal actions of a European empire. More importantly, it is a nation that was created by an act of international law. Therefore, by definition, it cannot be a "legal fiction". So exactly what did you mean by your statement? You entitled it "Why Israel is a legal fiction" but you never made an argument to support your case.
MISSING LINK -your telling of history is accurate enough, though you suffer the common modern historical inaccuracy of referring to the land prior to 135 AD as "Palestine". As you correctly state, the Romans gave it that name at that time as a way of stripping it of its Jewish identity in an attempt to crush Jewish nationalism that had already resulted in two costly wars for them. Prior to that, the only name in use was Judea. It is, therefore, "Palestine" that is a historical fiction. There has never been a nation there by that name, nor does the name have any historical validity. Prior to Zionism there was never any such thing as a Palestinian nationality. No Arabs had ever referred to or proclaimed themselves as "Palestinians". The name "Palestine" refers to the Philistines, a people foreign to the region who had invaded from the sea and set up a short-lived kingdom in what is now Gaza and were long-gone by the time the Romans chose that name..
You mention that the Arab population grew rapidly in the early 20th century. But you didn't mention that was due to immigration from neighboring Arab lands. Zionist settlers had laid the groundwork to make Palestine a viable modern state. They drained swamps and reclaimed desert land, making formerly uninhabitable lands liveable. They paved roads, created a modern plumbing and electrical infrastructure, etc. Prior to that the land had been neglected for centuries which is why such a relatively small number lived there. This new infrastructure, unduplicated at that point throughout most of the Arab world, created new and great economic opportunities. As a result, there was a great immigration flux into Palestine. But it was not the work of the Arabs that had created these opportunites. It was the work of the Zionists who made a modern prosperous state possible.
What I fail to see is, Missing Link, where anything in your writing supports your notion that Israel is a legal fiction. You succinctly sum up the history of the land, including its extensive Jewish history. And as you accurately recall, Israel was created as an act of international law by the United Nations. That same legal action also called for the creation of a Palestinian state. But it was Jordan and Egypt that thwarted the realization of an independent Palestinian nation by grabbing most of the land for themselves. The land taken by Israel was a defensive measure in the face of an invasion that had come from every side and every border. Israel's original borders left them in a nearly-indefensible position. They were lucky to have even survived the invasion and emerge victorious. The practice of nations taking land from nations that had attacked it and lost is common, as a passing glance at the map of Europe will show. For example, there are parts of Poland today that were German territory prior to WWII. But there was still the West Bank and Gaza, and they were denied to the Palestinians by Jordan and Egypt despite the ruling of the UN. Even after 1967, Jordan still claimed the West Bank as its territory until 1988. Israel remained in a state of war with Jordan until 1993, so prior to 1988 there was no possibility of Israel surrendering control. Not to a nation at war with it. And today there is still no ruling party within Palestine that has demonstrated a genuine intent to live peacefully with Israel, which only gives fuel to the right-wingers in Israel who want to settle the West Bank. The result is still no Palestinian state.
But i still cannot see where any of this shows Israel to be a "legal fiction". It is a nation whose people have a long-standing and unbroken historical tie to the land despite being slaughtered and driven out en masse by the brutal actions of a European empire. More importantly, it is a nation that was created by an act of international law. Therefore, by definition, it cannot be a "legal fiction". So exactly what did you mean by your statement? You entitled it "Why Israel is a legal fiction" but you never made an argument to support your case.
You mention that the Arab population grew rapidly in the early 20th century. But you didn't mention that was due to immigration from neighboring Arab lands. Zionist settlers had laid the groundwork to make Palestine a viable modern state. They drained swamps and reclaimed desert land, making formerly uninhabitable lands liveable. They paved roads, created a modern plumbing and electrical infrastructure, etc. Prior to that the land had been neglected for centuries which is why such a relatively small number lived there. This new infrastructure, unduplicated at that point throughout most of the Arab world, created new and great economic opportunities. As a result, there was a great immigration flux into Palestine. But it was not the work of the Arabs that had created these opportunites. It was the work of the Zionists who made a modern prosperous state possible.
What I fail to see is, Missing Link, where anything in your writing supports your notion that Israel is a legal fiction. You succinctly sum up the history of the land, including its extensive Jewish history. And as you accurately recall, Israel was created as an act of international law by the United Nations. That same legal action also called for the creation of a Palestinian state. But it was Jordan and Egypt that thwarted the realization of an independent Palestinian nation by grabbing most of the land for themselves. The land taken by Israel was a defensive measure in the face of an invasion that had come from every side and every border. Israel's original borders left them in a nearly-indefensible position. They were lucky to have even survived the invasion and emerge victorious. The practice of nations taking land from nations that had attacked it and lost is common, as a passing glance at the map of Europe will show. For example, there are parts of Poland today that were German territory prior to WWII. But there was still the West Bank and Gaza, and they were denied to the Palestinians by Jordan and Egypt despite the ruling of the UN. Even after 1967, Jordan still claimed the West Bank as its territory until 1988. Israel remained in a state of war with Jordan until 1993, so prior to 1988 there was no possibility of Israel surrendering control. Not to a nation at war with it. And today there is still no ruling party within Palestine that has demonstrated a genuine intent to live peacefully with Israel, which only gives fuel to the right-wingers in Israel who want to settle the West Bank. The result is still no Palestinian state.
But i still cannot see where any of this shows Israel to be a "legal fiction". It is a nation whose people have a long-standing and unbroken historical tie to the land despite being slaughtered and driven out en masse by the brutal actions of a European empire. More importantly, it is a nation that was created by an act of international law. Therefore, by definition, it cannot be a "legal fiction". So exactly what did you mean by your statement? You entitled it "Why Israel is a legal fiction" but you never made an argument to support your case.
Who do you know that calls themselves "Caanites" these days you fucking retarded dipshit?
If Israel is "legal fiction" than so is 99% of earth, stupid ignorant fuckhead.
Israel was made by people who built communities, immigrated, developed a government and a military and defended the land in war, same as most other countries on earth.
You are a fucking anti-semite. Only anti-semites single israel out with your retarded idiocy and pretend israel is somehow different than america or anyplace else wehre people came, kicked some ass, settled some land and made it a country.
If Israel is "legal fiction" than so is 99% of earth, stupid ignorant fuckhead.
Israel was made by people who built communities, immigrated, developed a government and a military and defended the land in war, same as most other countries on earth.
You are a fucking anti-semite. Only anti-semites single israel out with your retarded idiocy and pretend israel is somehow different than america or anyplace else wehre people came, kicked some ass, settled some land and made it a country.
LOL. You really should find more objective and reliable sources for your info. The Natufians, along with the Nabateans, did indeed have early settlements in Canaan. But they were NOT Arabs. True, they did indeed originate in the Arabian peninsula. But so did the rest of the Canaanites. Indeed so did ALL Semitic cultures, including the Jews before they settled in Mesopotamia. Semitic culture emerged along the shores of the Red Sea in the Arabian peninsula. From this original culture, which crossed all racial lines (Semites are a cultural group, not a race) emerged many distinct cultures. These include those of Ethiopia, Phoenicia, Assyria, and Canaan, as well as Arabs and Jews.
The following is from the Columbia Encyclopedia
http://www.bartleby.com/65/se/Semite.html
"Semite
(sm´t, s´mt) (KEY) , originally one of a people believed to be descended from Shem, son of Noah. Later the term came to include the following peoples: Arabs; the Akkadians of ancient Babylonia; the Assyrians; the Canaanites (including Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Phoenicians); the various Aramaean tribes (including Hebrews); and a considerable portion of the population of Ethiopia. These peoples are grouped under the term Semite, chiefly because their languages were found to be related, deriving presumably from a common tongue, Semitic. The Semites were largely nomadic pastoralists, although some settled in villages. At least as early as 2500 B.C., the Semites had begun to leave the Arabian peninsula in successive waves of migration that took them to Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean coast, and the Nile delta. They were organized into patrilineal tribes, occupying defined territories and ruled by hereditary leaders, or sheiks. In Mesopotamia, Semitic people from the earliest times were in contact with Sumerian civilization and with the rise of Sargon of Agade (Akkad) and Hammurabi of Babylon were able to dominate it completely (see Sumer). In Phoenicia the Semitic population developed a widespread maritime trade and became the first great seafaring people. That group of Hebrews that had been diverted through Sinai into the Nile delta settled at last with other Semitic inhabitants in Palestine. These southern or Judean Hebrews became the leaders of a new nation and religion."
So just because a people orignated in the Arabian peninsula does not make them Arabs. It makes them Semites. The Arabs are one of many Semitic cultures that emerged from Arabia. In truth, they were the last Semitic culture to emerge from Arabia, long after most others had disappeared from history (except for the Jews). They became known as Arabs or Arabians simply because that's where they came from. At the time, it was not known that all other Semitic cultures had also emerged from Arabia - including the earliest ancestors of the Jews.
The following is from the Columbia Encyclopedia
http://www.bartleby.com/65/se/Semite.html
"Semite
(sm´t, s´mt) (KEY) , originally one of a people believed to be descended from Shem, son of Noah. Later the term came to include the following peoples: Arabs; the Akkadians of ancient Babylonia; the Assyrians; the Canaanites (including Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Phoenicians); the various Aramaean tribes (including Hebrews); and a considerable portion of the population of Ethiopia. These peoples are grouped under the term Semite, chiefly because their languages were found to be related, deriving presumably from a common tongue, Semitic. The Semites were largely nomadic pastoralists, although some settled in villages. At least as early as 2500 B.C., the Semites had begun to leave the Arabian peninsula in successive waves of migration that took them to Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean coast, and the Nile delta. They were organized into patrilineal tribes, occupying defined territories and ruled by hereditary leaders, or sheiks. In Mesopotamia, Semitic people from the earliest times were in contact with Sumerian civilization and with the rise of Sargon of Agade (Akkad) and Hammurabi of Babylon were able to dominate it completely (see Sumer). In Phoenicia the Semitic population developed a widespread maritime trade and became the first great seafaring people. That group of Hebrews that had been diverted through Sinai into the Nile delta settled at last with other Semitic inhabitants in Palestine. These southern or Judean Hebrews became the leaders of a new nation and religion."
So just because a people orignated in the Arabian peninsula does not make them Arabs. It makes them Semites. The Arabs are one of many Semitic cultures that emerged from Arabia. In truth, they were the last Semitic culture to emerge from Arabia, long after most others had disappeared from history (except for the Jews). They became known as Arabs or Arabians simply because that's where they came from. At the time, it was not known that all other Semitic cultures had also emerged from Arabia - including the earliest ancestors of the Jews.
Here's some more points from that site you selectively quoted ;
http://www.rondavid.net/At-a-Glance-Middle-East-print-version.htm
Notes & Code: Red Type = from the first Hebrew (Abraham) to the end of significant Jewish presence in the Middle East (Abraham may have appeared as early as 2000 BC, but most scholars think 1600 is more likely); Some may be surprised at the Moses & Monotheism bit, but that is the current thinking among most Bible scholars. BC dates are approximate; l = Arab historical facts; n = Jewish historical facts.
1600 BC n Abraham, the first Hebrew, leaves Ur (Iraq), goes to Canaan (Palestine) & turns Sumerian mythology into the Bible
1300 BC n Moses leads the Hebrews out of Egypt...& announces “There is one God.” (Freud, "Moses and Monotheism")
722 BC n Israel conquered by Assyrians n
586 BC n Judah [the last Jewish country in mideast] conquered by Babylon
50 BC n Jews (with few exceptions) leave the Middle East for 1900 years
1896 CE Theodor Herzl, provoked by antiSemitism in France, writes The Jewish State, and Jews begin migrating to Palestine. PLEASE NOTE: Until that time, there was NO Arab-Jewish conflict.
http://www.rondavid.net/At-a-Glance-Middle-East-print-version.htm
Notes & Code: Red Type = from the first Hebrew (Abraham) to the end of significant Jewish presence in the Middle East (Abraham may have appeared as early as 2000 BC, but most scholars think 1600 is more likely); Some may be surprised at the Moses & Monotheism bit, but that is the current thinking among most Bible scholars. BC dates are approximate; l = Arab historical facts; n = Jewish historical facts.
1600 BC n Abraham, the first Hebrew, leaves Ur (Iraq), goes to Canaan (Palestine) & turns Sumerian mythology into the Bible
1300 BC n Moses leads the Hebrews out of Egypt...& announces “There is one God.” (Freud, "Moses and Monotheism")
722 BC n Israel conquered by Assyrians n
586 BC n Judah [the last Jewish country in mideast] conquered by Babylon
50 BC n Jews (with few exceptions) leave the Middle East for 1900 years
1896 CE Theodor Herzl, provoked by antiSemitism in France, writes The Jewish State, and Jews begin migrating to Palestine. PLEASE NOTE: Until that time, there was NO Arab-Jewish conflict.
Intersting to find that similar feelings of open anti-arabism across the globe. My university in Australia has also faced similar racist agendas present in university publications by the zionist organisations and as I'd assum is a similar ethnographic demographic whereby Arab groups and individuals cannot access the power to refute and attest anti-arabist claims due to the nature of power structures inherent in institutions which priviledge predominantly white students alongside the inability of outcries of lefty organisations to be deemed legitimate. I'm curious David if you have gathered information regarding the prominance of openly anti-arab propaganda in zionist education publications, not ust flyers as im interested in studying this also...
>"1600 BC n Abraham, the first Hebrew, leaves Ur (Iraq), goes to Canaan & turns Sumerian mythology into the Bible"
CORRECTION: Abraham didn't write any portion of the Bible nor use Sumerian mythology to form any part of Judaism. Even according to Jewish tradition it was **Moses** who authored the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible), and Abraham isn't mentioned as an author of any other part of the Bible.
>"1300 BC n Moses leads the Hebrews out of Egypt..."
CORRECTION: Since archeological evidence has proven that the Israelites first came to Cana'an at late 13th century, and they wandered the desert for 40 years, Moses couldn't have taken them out of Egypt at 1300 BC. The Exodus happened no earlier than 1250 BC.
>"50 BC n Jews (with few exceptions) leave the Middle East for 1900 years"
CORRECTION: the date of 50 BC is bogus and wrong. The correct date is 135 AD (after the Bar-Kockba revolt that erupted 132 AD was crushed).
>"1896 CE Theodor Herzl, provoked by antiSemitism in France, writes The Jewish State, and Jews begin migrating to Palestine. PLEASE NOTE: Until that time, there was NO Arab-Jewish conflict. "
CORRECTION: until 1881, when Zionist Jews first came to Israel a.k.a Palestine there was no Arab-Jewish conflict with a **nationalist** aspect.
But there has been an intermittent religious conflict which the Arabs launched in early 7th century AD while Islam was still nascent in the Arabian Peninsula, before the founder of Islam, Muhammad, died and his followers emerged to conquer much of the world.
This occurred soon after the Jews in the Arabian peninsula rejected Muhammad's attempts to convert them to his new faith while trying to showcase the initial version of Islam as "the true Judaism".
CORRECTION: Abraham didn't write any portion of the Bible nor use Sumerian mythology to form any part of Judaism. Even according to Jewish tradition it was **Moses** who authored the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible), and Abraham isn't mentioned as an author of any other part of the Bible.
>"1300 BC n Moses leads the Hebrews out of Egypt..."
CORRECTION: Since archeological evidence has proven that the Israelites first came to Cana'an at late 13th century, and they wandered the desert for 40 years, Moses couldn't have taken them out of Egypt at 1300 BC. The Exodus happened no earlier than 1250 BC.
>"50 BC n Jews (with few exceptions) leave the Middle East for 1900 years"
CORRECTION: the date of 50 BC is bogus and wrong. The correct date is 135 AD (after the Bar-Kockba revolt that erupted 132 AD was crushed).
>"1896 CE Theodor Herzl, provoked by antiSemitism in France, writes The Jewish State, and Jews begin migrating to Palestine. PLEASE NOTE: Until that time, there was NO Arab-Jewish conflict. "
CORRECTION: until 1881, when Zionist Jews first came to Israel a.k.a Palestine there was no Arab-Jewish conflict with a **nationalist** aspect.
But there has been an intermittent religious conflict which the Arabs launched in early 7th century AD while Islam was still nascent in the Arabian Peninsula, before the founder of Islam, Muhammad, died and his followers emerged to conquer much of the world.
This occurred soon after the Jews in the Arabian peninsula rejected Muhammad's attempts to convert them to his new faith while trying to showcase the initial version of Islam as "the true Judaism".
I'd like to start by thanking De Truf for his support and for sharing with me the pro-truth struggle. It's much more easy to ignore people like Angie than someone like "The Missing Moral Links" who resorts to the vilest forms of anti-Semitic demagoguery.
1. It's easy to tell someone is talking horseshit when one states balderdash such as
"The Jewish claim is tenuous at best, and faulty at root, because it ignores thousands of years of Palestinian culture on either side of the glory days of the "Jewish Empire in Israel".
I have no idea how that person came to a conclusion that I rationalized all the actual crimes which have been committed against Aboriginals, Arabs and Native Americans. He came to these conclusions out of his own wishful thinking.
2. That person also informs us that "the racist and genocidal warriors of manifest destiny have absolutely no intention of relinquishing stolen property or compensating the victims of crime. This comes from the same bastions of Christian virtue who helped facillitate the Zionazi conquest and pillage of Palestine."
- At best, his statement is grossly inaccurate. At worst, it's a pernicious lie. Anyone who's familiar with American history knows exactly which Christian denominations have supported Zionism since it's humble start, while it was still purchasing land from their rightful owners up until this day.
3. That person proceeds to quote some of my words and tries to tar me as a racist, even though I would have used the same adjectives in relation to other ethnic groups, Jews included.
*Yes, Arafat and his deputies are a gang of veteran terrorists.
* Not only Jewish terror is barbaric. Also Palestinian terror is.
* Yes, a Palestinian state today, in the present condition in the disputed territories would constitute an anti-democratic and terroristic Palestinian "thugacracy".
* As I've stated above, people who are informed of what has been going on within the PA controlled territories but keep calling for speedily and unconditionally forming a Palestinian state are irrevocably evil in my opinion.
* Now here's where "The Missing Moral Links" drops in his magnificent piece of anti-Semitic demagoguery. Right after quoting my statement "I would rather have the all Palestinians within the disputed territories transfered to Jordan" he quips "before or after the gas chambers Adolf?"
People, there have been quite a few population transfers in recorded history, most of them were carried out by non-Jews; I bet the evil anti-Semite "The Missing Moral Links" talks that way on Indymedia only when a Jew kicks the transfer idea around, but never in any instance where Jews aren't performing the transfer. And he has the temerity to slap a Nazi label on any Jewish proponent of that idea, thereby further exposing his own high volume anti-Semitism. I wouldn't be surprised if "The Missing Moral Links" suffers from deep dormant guilt due to the Jewish Holocaust and tries to get rid of it any chance he seems to get.
Next: "You support the concept of Israel because Jews had a state there 1400 years (by your zealous estimation, any non-zionist would put it at about 2100 years ago)."
- It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this person is intentionally lying. He then proceeds to blurt out with his eyes rolled upwards "Can you imagine the geo-political chaos if we used this fatuous land claim as a precedent in international law?", ignoring Israel's existence. It's really a pity when people resort to emotional arguing formats when facts are not on their side.
If "The Missing Moral Links" is not racist and anti-Semitic, will HE recognize the sovereignty of ALL peoples and nations dispossessed and conquered within the last 1400 years?
Yet more crap:
* "Yes it was a magnanimous gesture by the wealthy and powerful heavyweight UN nations to give away someone elses land wasn't it?"
* "Perhaps a few thousand square miles in Texas would have made a more appropriate site for a Jewish state. After all, the locals wouldn't have minded. Right?"
* "I think that might be an hallucination on your part. I can't find them. All that I could find was you having a bawl when Palestinians had the audacity to defend themselves from, and even retaliate to, Israels US backed Neo-Nazis. "
* "You've ignored all the points I've made" tell it to the Palestinians pal."
* "Such amazing generosity when they are legally and morally entitled to an autonomous Palestinian state based on pre-1947 borders."
On one hand, I "canned" "The Missing Moral Links" for claiming the nonsense that Judaism was born in today's Iraq and for his resorting to an unscientific source to "confirm" such nonsense; I was embarrassed by the claim and the person (Dr. Gerhard Falk) who made it. The fact that the source is Jewish doesn't lend more validity to that untrue argument. On the other, the Christian source I used was linked to an entirely different website, where I found that URL.
I don't care to which creed the person making a given argument belongs to; I evaluate the merits.
I conclude that "The Missing Moral Links" is indeed not solely a Moral Case but also a special Mental Case.
1. It's easy to tell someone is talking horseshit when one states balderdash such as
"The Jewish claim is tenuous at best, and faulty at root, because it ignores thousands of years of Palestinian culture on either side of the glory days of the "Jewish Empire in Israel".
I have no idea how that person came to a conclusion that I rationalized all the actual crimes which have been committed against Aboriginals, Arabs and Native Americans. He came to these conclusions out of his own wishful thinking.
2. That person also informs us that "the racist and genocidal warriors of manifest destiny have absolutely no intention of relinquishing stolen property or compensating the victims of crime. This comes from the same bastions of Christian virtue who helped facillitate the Zionazi conquest and pillage of Palestine."
- At best, his statement is grossly inaccurate. At worst, it's a pernicious lie. Anyone who's familiar with American history knows exactly which Christian denominations have supported Zionism since it's humble start, while it was still purchasing land from their rightful owners up until this day.
3. That person proceeds to quote some of my words and tries to tar me as a racist, even though I would have used the same adjectives in relation to other ethnic groups, Jews included.
*Yes, Arafat and his deputies are a gang of veteran terrorists.
* Not only Jewish terror is barbaric. Also Palestinian terror is.
* Yes, a Palestinian state today, in the present condition in the disputed territories would constitute an anti-democratic and terroristic Palestinian "thugacracy".
* As I've stated above, people who are informed of what has been going on within the PA controlled territories but keep calling for speedily and unconditionally forming a Palestinian state are irrevocably evil in my opinion.
* Now here's where "The Missing Moral Links" drops in his magnificent piece of anti-Semitic demagoguery. Right after quoting my statement "I would rather have the all Palestinians within the disputed territories transfered to Jordan" he quips "before or after the gas chambers Adolf?"
People, there have been quite a few population transfers in recorded history, most of them were carried out by non-Jews; I bet the evil anti-Semite "The Missing Moral Links" talks that way on Indymedia only when a Jew kicks the transfer idea around, but never in any instance where Jews aren't performing the transfer. And he has the temerity to slap a Nazi label on any Jewish proponent of that idea, thereby further exposing his own high volume anti-Semitism. I wouldn't be surprised if "The Missing Moral Links" suffers from deep dormant guilt due to the Jewish Holocaust and tries to get rid of it any chance he seems to get.
Next: "You support the concept of Israel because Jews had a state there 1400 years (by your zealous estimation, any non-zionist would put it at about 2100 years ago)."
- It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this person is intentionally lying. He then proceeds to blurt out with his eyes rolled upwards "Can you imagine the geo-political chaos if we used this fatuous land claim as a precedent in international law?", ignoring Israel's existence. It's really a pity when people resort to emotional arguing formats when facts are not on their side.
If "The Missing Moral Links" is not racist and anti-Semitic, will HE recognize the sovereignty of ALL peoples and nations dispossessed and conquered within the last 1400 years?
Yet more crap:
* "Yes it was a magnanimous gesture by the wealthy and powerful heavyweight UN nations to give away someone elses land wasn't it?"
* "Perhaps a few thousand square miles in Texas would have made a more appropriate site for a Jewish state. After all, the locals wouldn't have minded. Right?"
* "I think that might be an hallucination on your part. I can't find them. All that I could find was you having a bawl when Palestinians had the audacity to defend themselves from, and even retaliate to, Israels US backed Neo-Nazis. "
* "You've ignored all the points I've made" tell it to the Palestinians pal."
* "Such amazing generosity when they are legally and morally entitled to an autonomous Palestinian state based on pre-1947 borders."
On one hand, I "canned" "The Missing Moral Links" for claiming the nonsense that Judaism was born in today's Iraq and for his resorting to an unscientific source to "confirm" such nonsense; I was embarrassed by the claim and the person (Dr. Gerhard Falk) who made it. The fact that the source is Jewish doesn't lend more validity to that untrue argument. On the other, the Christian source I used was linked to an entirely different website, where I found that URL.
I don't care to which creed the person making a given argument belongs to; I evaluate the merits.
I conclude that "The Missing Moral Links" is indeed not solely a Moral Case but also a special Mental Case.
Some of the attempts at historical discourse in this debate are laughable. MISIING LINK - The website you keep quoting - http://www.rondavid.net/At-a-Glance-Middle-East-print-version.htm - is thatwhat you cal an objective, accutate source? You're kidding, right? That website is nothing but a collection of revisionist anti-Zionist propaganda. They quite obviously have a pro-Palestinian agenda and present distorted alleged "facts" to support their argument while offering little in the way of reliable sources. If you're going to quote things you know little of, then how about finding an objective historical source? I quoted from the Columbia Encyclopedia, which is hardly a Zionist propaganda vehicle. I have presented a number of verifiable facts and made a number of cohesive arguments, all of which you and your friends have done little to refute. Instead you resort to unsupported rhetoric and unsubstantiated allegations of racism. You all toss the term "racist" around without ever giving proof of it, or even explaining the basis for such a claim. Someone is not racist merely because you claim they are. That is little more than slander against someone with whom you disagree. Meanwhile, much of your arguments are as racist as imaginable. The definition of a Zionist is someone who believes in the right of the Jewish people to a homeland of their own. Period. And yet you ascribe the most base and vile motivations to them time and time again, describing Zionists as an evil cabal bent on creating an empire. An empire...of 6 million people? An empire...the size of New Jersey? If Israel is bent on crating an empite, then they are the most inept empire builders in history. Especially when you consider the recent withdrawal from Lebanon and the return of the Sinai to Egypt. Empires don't usually tend to agree to surrender territory. You cartoonish depiction of Zionists is little different from the ages old anti-Semitic canards and slanders. It differs little from the language Hitler used in describing imaginary Jewish conspiracies that dominated the world. Particulary telling was your description of the Jewish use of the term B.C.E. for religious reasons as part of some Zionist racist agenda. B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) is used because "B.C." is Christian terminology, referring to the birth of Jesus Christ. For a religious Jew, seeing time as revolving around the birth of Jesus is blasphemy. Your statement indicates that you are either a common anti-Semite, or are profoundly ignorant of Jewish religious practices.
I have repeatedly pointed out inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods in your accounts of history. You are unable to answer the points I've made because they are simply true, and you can't refute the truth. Instead, you resort to rhetorical questions like "and this is justification?", completley side-stepping every point I've made. You are unable or afraid to debate what I have to say directly. But let me address some further inaccuracies in your account of history.
1. Abraham, if he actually existed and was not just a mythical ancestor figure, was part of a group of Semitic tribes who historically migrated to Canaan from earlier settlements in Mesopotamia. Like all Semites, including the Canaanites, their ancestors had originally emerged from the Arabian peninsula even earlier. Those tribes came to known as Hebrews, and later Jews. But Jewish culture, as a culture distinct from other Semitic cultures, was formed in ancient Israel and Cannan. Not in Iraq. Indeed, many of those early Canaanites were likely absorbed into the Jewish population. Iraq (or rather Sumeria) was merely one stop on a centuries long migratory pattern. It was in ancient Canaan that the Jews became a culture, a people, a religion, and a nation called Israel (and later Judah, or Judea).
2. As someone else pointed out, ancient Judea came to its final end in 135 AD, not 50 B.C.. That's when the Romans named it Palestine. Strange, isn't it, that the Arabs have never given it an Arab name? That would be because the Arabs never established a separate nation out of Palestine. Never. In fact, direct Arab rule over "Palestine" was very brief. It has been ruled by a succession of foreign empires. Before falling under European control following World War I, the entire region was part of the Ottoman Empire of the Turks, ruled for nearly 500 years by non-Arabs. By your standards, does that mean that Palestine lost its Arab charcter 500 years ago? That's the argument you make against Jewish history, claiming that the Jewish nation in ancient times was short-lived. As an independent kingdom it lasted centuries. Jewish settlement of the land predates the establishment of a kingdom by many centuries. But despite conquests at various times by the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Greeks, and the Romans, it was a Jewish nation for AT LEAST 14-1500 years (from the 13th century B.C. to the 2nd century AD). The native populace of the land for that period were Jews. The land was known to the rest of the world as the country of the Jews, and all literature of the time refers to it as such. Judea was as Jewish as Italy is Italian, as Japan is Japanese. At times they were subject to foreign rule, but the population was never displaced en masse until the Romans in the 2nd century. Even the Babylonian "exile" recorded in the Bible only involved tens of thousands.
And the Jews have NEVER left the Middle East. The notion is absolutely ridiculous. The Romans FORCEFULLY drove most Jews from Judea after being victorious in two costly wars of rebellion ending in 135 AD. Each of those wars (recounted in "The Jewish Wars" by the Roman historian Josephus) temporarily resulted in short-lived independence for the Jews, even going so far as to put a new king on the throne and issuing new coinage. Eventually the rebellion was crushed. Judea was, after all, a small nation. Half a million Jews were killed in the last war, and many more were driven from the country. For several centuries after jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem. But there have always been Jewish enclaves in the country, and as soon as they were able a Jewish presence was reestablished in Jerusalem where it has remained ever since to one degree or another. Jews were slaughtered alongside Arab Muslims when the Crusaders came. But the country has never been wholly without a Jewish population, large or small, in at least roughly 3500 years. Jews became a small minority for centuries in their own homeland. And that is what the land is, whether you like it or not. The homeland of the Jewish people. That is simply a matter of historical fact. And they have never fully left, and have never ceased to yearn for it to be theirs again. For centuries, every Jewish festival ended with the wish "next year in Jerusalem". And many of those Jews who were driven from Judea established communities throughout the Middle East, as well as in Europe. It's known (rather famously) as the Diaspora. Many of those Jewish communities in the Middle east had been established centuries earlier, such as the very well-known and very old one in the Egyptian city of Alexandria. There were large Jewish populations in many Arab countries such as Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, and other Muslim countries like Turkey. The Jewish presence in those lands predates in every case the arrival of the Arabs and Muslims by centuries. And yet, they were still periodically subjected to persecutions at the hands of their Arab rulers. Anti-Jewish persections may have been far worse in Europe, where Jews have often been seen as outsiders foreign to Europe despite 2000 years, but it was hardly unknown in the Arab world, including mass slaughters. Jews were generally allowed to practive their religion as were Christians. They were seen as "people of the Book (the Bible)". Non-Jews or Christians were not so lucky, and there were many of them in those days. They were given the choice of converting to Islam or dying. But Jews were nonetheless subjected to repressive laws and organized violence as well as common bias. In some instances mass violence on a scale of anything in Europe did happen, just not as frequently as Europe. Saying there was no Arab-Jewish conflict is like saying there was no European-Jewish conflict. And the last great period of anti-Jewish violence in the Arab world occurred immediately after Israel's independence. Jewish communities older than the Koran were attacked for no reason other than being Jewish. There is famous newsfilm of Jews being hung in a public square in Baghdad in 1949 after being rounded up by a government-organized mob. Up until then, none of them had nothing to do with Israel. Ironically, the actions of these Arab nations drove hundreds of thousands of Jews to Israel. You speak of displaced Palestinians, who numbered 700,000 according to the UN. Where is your outrage over displaced Jews? What about the roughly equal number of Jews (600-700,000) that were forced to flee Arab countries where their ancestors had lived for thousands of years? What about their rights?
They fled to a nation that was created to be refuge for Jews who faced exactly that sort of persecution. Israel is a nation of refugees, who have taken in Jewish refugees from al over the world. Many fled the anti-Semitic policies of the former Soviet Union. Many came from persecution in Muslim lands, including the African Jews of Ethiopia. The vast majority of the Jews in Palestine when Israel declared it's independence had fled there to escape near-certain death at the hands of the Nazis. As it was, roughly two out of every three Jews in Europe was murdered by the Nazis. And most of Europe sympathized with their killers. What would you have had them do? Should they have just remained in the death camps until they died as well? That would have prevented all of this, wouldn't it? Would you remain in Europe at that time if you were a Jew? Those people had nothing and nowhere to go. Let them have Texas? Were they Americans? No. Then why would you say they should have been America's problem exclusively? What did America have to do with it? It was Europeans who caused the problem. And the Arabs who did little to help. The Arabs had no nation of their own in Palestine. Why shouldn't the Jews have been given a small homeland there? Was that so much to ask? Arab nations and homelands make up a vast area. Collectively the Arab nations have as much territory as all of America and more. The UN plan called for the Jews to be given a tiny stretch of land roughly the size of Connecticut. A band of refugees who had fled genocide to the land of their ancestors. Had the Arabs not denied them a homeland as the world had decreed, 50 years of war and terror could have been avoided. The Palestinians would have had a nation of their own, which is something they have never, ever had before. It would still happen, if people would let Israel live in peace. This is not fanatical Zionist propaganda. This is just the truth.
I have repeatedly pointed out inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods in your accounts of history. You are unable to answer the points I've made because they are simply true, and you can't refute the truth. Instead, you resort to rhetorical questions like "and this is justification?", completley side-stepping every point I've made. You are unable or afraid to debate what I have to say directly. But let me address some further inaccuracies in your account of history.
1. Abraham, if he actually existed and was not just a mythical ancestor figure, was part of a group of Semitic tribes who historically migrated to Canaan from earlier settlements in Mesopotamia. Like all Semites, including the Canaanites, their ancestors had originally emerged from the Arabian peninsula even earlier. Those tribes came to known as Hebrews, and later Jews. But Jewish culture, as a culture distinct from other Semitic cultures, was formed in ancient Israel and Cannan. Not in Iraq. Indeed, many of those early Canaanites were likely absorbed into the Jewish population. Iraq (or rather Sumeria) was merely one stop on a centuries long migratory pattern. It was in ancient Canaan that the Jews became a culture, a people, a religion, and a nation called Israel (and later Judah, or Judea).
2. As someone else pointed out, ancient Judea came to its final end in 135 AD, not 50 B.C.. That's when the Romans named it Palestine. Strange, isn't it, that the Arabs have never given it an Arab name? That would be because the Arabs never established a separate nation out of Palestine. Never. In fact, direct Arab rule over "Palestine" was very brief. It has been ruled by a succession of foreign empires. Before falling under European control following World War I, the entire region was part of the Ottoman Empire of the Turks, ruled for nearly 500 years by non-Arabs. By your standards, does that mean that Palestine lost its Arab charcter 500 years ago? That's the argument you make against Jewish history, claiming that the Jewish nation in ancient times was short-lived. As an independent kingdom it lasted centuries. Jewish settlement of the land predates the establishment of a kingdom by many centuries. But despite conquests at various times by the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Greeks, and the Romans, it was a Jewish nation for AT LEAST 14-1500 years (from the 13th century B.C. to the 2nd century AD). The native populace of the land for that period were Jews. The land was known to the rest of the world as the country of the Jews, and all literature of the time refers to it as such. Judea was as Jewish as Italy is Italian, as Japan is Japanese. At times they were subject to foreign rule, but the population was never displaced en masse until the Romans in the 2nd century. Even the Babylonian "exile" recorded in the Bible only involved tens of thousands.
And the Jews have NEVER left the Middle East. The notion is absolutely ridiculous. The Romans FORCEFULLY drove most Jews from Judea after being victorious in two costly wars of rebellion ending in 135 AD. Each of those wars (recounted in "The Jewish Wars" by the Roman historian Josephus) temporarily resulted in short-lived independence for the Jews, even going so far as to put a new king on the throne and issuing new coinage. Eventually the rebellion was crushed. Judea was, after all, a small nation. Half a million Jews were killed in the last war, and many more were driven from the country. For several centuries after jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem. But there have always been Jewish enclaves in the country, and as soon as they were able a Jewish presence was reestablished in Jerusalem where it has remained ever since to one degree or another. Jews were slaughtered alongside Arab Muslims when the Crusaders came. But the country has never been wholly without a Jewish population, large or small, in at least roughly 3500 years. Jews became a small minority for centuries in their own homeland. And that is what the land is, whether you like it or not. The homeland of the Jewish people. That is simply a matter of historical fact. And they have never fully left, and have never ceased to yearn for it to be theirs again. For centuries, every Jewish festival ended with the wish "next year in Jerusalem". And many of those Jews who were driven from Judea established communities throughout the Middle East, as well as in Europe. It's known (rather famously) as the Diaspora. Many of those Jewish communities in the Middle east had been established centuries earlier, such as the very well-known and very old one in the Egyptian city of Alexandria. There were large Jewish populations in many Arab countries such as Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, and other Muslim countries like Turkey. The Jewish presence in those lands predates in every case the arrival of the Arabs and Muslims by centuries. And yet, they were still periodically subjected to persecutions at the hands of their Arab rulers. Anti-Jewish persections may have been far worse in Europe, where Jews have often been seen as outsiders foreign to Europe despite 2000 years, but it was hardly unknown in the Arab world, including mass slaughters. Jews were generally allowed to practive their religion as were Christians. They were seen as "people of the Book (the Bible)". Non-Jews or Christians were not so lucky, and there were many of them in those days. They were given the choice of converting to Islam or dying. But Jews were nonetheless subjected to repressive laws and organized violence as well as common bias. In some instances mass violence on a scale of anything in Europe did happen, just not as frequently as Europe. Saying there was no Arab-Jewish conflict is like saying there was no European-Jewish conflict. And the last great period of anti-Jewish violence in the Arab world occurred immediately after Israel's independence. Jewish communities older than the Koran were attacked for no reason other than being Jewish. There is famous newsfilm of Jews being hung in a public square in Baghdad in 1949 after being rounded up by a government-organized mob. Up until then, none of them had nothing to do with Israel. Ironically, the actions of these Arab nations drove hundreds of thousands of Jews to Israel. You speak of displaced Palestinians, who numbered 700,000 according to the UN. Where is your outrage over displaced Jews? What about the roughly equal number of Jews (600-700,000) that were forced to flee Arab countries where their ancestors had lived for thousands of years? What about their rights?
They fled to a nation that was created to be refuge for Jews who faced exactly that sort of persecution. Israel is a nation of refugees, who have taken in Jewish refugees from al over the world. Many fled the anti-Semitic policies of the former Soviet Union. Many came from persecution in Muslim lands, including the African Jews of Ethiopia. The vast majority of the Jews in Palestine when Israel declared it's independence had fled there to escape near-certain death at the hands of the Nazis. As it was, roughly two out of every three Jews in Europe was murdered by the Nazis. And most of Europe sympathized with their killers. What would you have had them do? Should they have just remained in the death camps until they died as well? That would have prevented all of this, wouldn't it? Would you remain in Europe at that time if you were a Jew? Those people had nothing and nowhere to go. Let them have Texas? Were they Americans? No. Then why would you say they should have been America's problem exclusively? What did America have to do with it? It was Europeans who caused the problem. And the Arabs who did little to help. The Arabs had no nation of their own in Palestine. Why shouldn't the Jews have been given a small homeland there? Was that so much to ask? Arab nations and homelands make up a vast area. Collectively the Arab nations have as much territory as all of America and more. The UN plan called for the Jews to be given a tiny stretch of land roughly the size of Connecticut. A band of refugees who had fled genocide to the land of their ancestors. Had the Arabs not denied them a homeland as the world had decreed, 50 years of war and terror could have been avoided. The Palestinians would have had a nation of their own, which is something they have never, ever had before. It would still happen, if people would let Israel live in peace. This is not fanatical Zionist propaganda. This is just the truth.
And had the Russians not denied the German invaders a homeland, a lot of other history would have turned out different, too.
So what's your point, that people whose homes are stolen by foreign invaders should just bend over and take it? The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto didn't. Why should Palestinians?
So what's your point, that people whose homes are stolen by foreign invaders should just bend over and take it? The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto didn't. Why should Palestinians?
There he is again, the infamous "anti-bullshit" dragging myself into his ramblings.
"It's much more easy to ignore people like Angie than someone like "The Missing Moral Links", etc., etc., etc. he states in a lengthy spiel above.
Actually the poster signed his name as "The Missing Link". I guess you added the "Moral" bit for your own reason, eh?
And if you ignored me forever, I'd not complain, sir. Not at all.
"It's much more easy to ignore people like Angie than someone like "The Missing Moral Links", etc., etc., etc. he states in a lengthy spiel above.
Actually the poster signed his name as "The Missing Link". I guess you added the "Moral" bit for your own reason, eh?
And if you ignored me forever, I'd not complain, sir. Not at all.
You zionists are working yourself into quite a lather.
Unfortunately, that's all it is, froth and bubble. You might quibble over ancient dates and the credibility of sources but in the end the core of my argument is sound and remains unaddressed.
The last viable Jewish state in the Middle East existed about 2000 years ago ( don't waste my time with your semantics and pedantics) and it should stay that way. You're not wanted or entitled to be there anymore. Israel is a legal fiction, a result of gross moral and intellectual misjudgement.
As Jews are doing so well in the west I don't see why we (everyone else in the west) should become involved in a war with Islam so that they can maintain a condo in the Middle East.
The Jewish claim on Palestine would be laughable if its consequences weren't so tragic and far-reaching.
Or is it really about the oil?
Unfortunately, that's all it is, froth and bubble. You might quibble over ancient dates and the credibility of sources but in the end the core of my argument is sound and remains unaddressed.
The last viable Jewish state in the Middle East existed about 2000 years ago ( don't waste my time with your semantics and pedantics) and it should stay that way. You're not wanted or entitled to be there anymore. Israel is a legal fiction, a result of gross moral and intellectual misjudgement.
As Jews are doing so well in the west I don't see why we (everyone else in the west) should become involved in a war with Islam so that they can maintain a condo in the Middle East.
The Jewish claim on Palestine would be laughable if its consequences weren't so tragic and far-reaching.
Or is it really about the oil?
It's become evident that "The Missing Moral Links" had his mind made up on the issues before he began posting to this thread, and that no amount of reasoning, rationality and historical truth will make him see the error of his ways.
This person is a wicked fanatic anti-Semite blissful in his own cocoon of anti-Jewish fabrications, lies, hallucinations and delusions.
This person is a wicked fanatic anti-Semite blissful in his own cocoon of anti-Jewish fabrications, lies, hallucinations and delusions.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WASHINGTON
August 16, 1948
TOP SECRET
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Proposed Representations to Provisional Government of Israel Regarding Maintenance of Peace in Palestine.
Information from a wide number of sources causes the Department increasing concern over the apparent tendency of the Provisional Government of Israel to assume a more aggressive attitude in Palestine.
Following the termination of the British mandate on May 15 and the establishment of a Jewish State, the Israeli authorities were quick to respond to United Nations efforts to stop the fighting in Palestine. After the termination of this four-week truce on July 9, hostilities were resumed and it soon became
apparent that Israel had materially improved its military position during the period of the earlier truce. Nevertheless, both the Government of Israel and the Arab States agreed to accept the Security Council's order of July 15 for a cease-fire and truce of indefinite duration in Palestine. The demilitarization
of Jerusalem was included in the Security Council's resolution and was accepted by the Government of Israel and the Arab States in principle. In recent months, however, a new and aggressive note has become manifest, and the readiness of Israel to maintain the truce has become subject to doubt.
The Department has noted evidence of hostility of Israelis in Palestine toward the military observers serving under Count Bernadotte; the inflammatory speeches of the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Shertok, with regards to alleged "rights" of Israel in Jerusalem; the military occupation by Israel
of much of the Jerusalem area; and the refusal of the Israeli military governor in Jerusalem to cooperate with Count Bernadotte in discussion regarding the demilitarization of Jerusalem. The Department has likewise noted the increasing evidence of systematic violations of the United Nations truce by the
forces of Israel, including forward movement of Israeli forces from agreed truce positions, continued sniping and firing against Arab positions; and conclusive evidence of the organized transport of arms shipments to Palestine from France, Italy, and Czechoslovakia. Furthermore, the Israeli Foreign Minister
has officially proclaimed that Israel will not accept, pending negotiation of a final peace settlement, the return of the approximately 300,000 Arab inhabitants of that part of Palestine now comprising the Jewish State who fled from their houses and are now destitute in nearby Arab areas.
The Foreign Minister of Great Britain, in a conversation with our Ambassador on August 6, expressed grave concern over the situation in Palestine. He was fearful not only that the USSR would take advantage of of this situation to foment trouble in Iraq and Iran but also that within "the next few
days" the Jews, on grounds of some Arab provocation, real or manufactured, would reopen their offensive with the objective of seizing more territory - probably Transjordan. Mr. Bevin thought that the Palestine situation was as serious as Berlin. "If the United States and United Kingdom go slack
(in Palestine), we lose."
The Department, in light of these developments, feels that it would be wise to call in Mr. Eliahu Epstein, the Representative of the Provisional Government of Israel, and discuss frankly our concern with him. We would tell Mr. Epstein that, as he undoubtedly knows, that the United States is the best friend
of Israel. We have recognized that State and desire to see it continue in existence and prosper as a peaceful member of the community of nations. We have now before us the question of de jure recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel, support for Israel's membership in the United Nations, and
the application from Israel for a loan from the Export-Import Bank. We should like to see all these matters arranged in a manner satisfactory to both governments but we should find it exceedingly difficult, for example, to advocate a loan to Israel if that country is likely to resume hostilities. Similar
difficulties would arise concerning membership in the United Nations.
As a friend of Israel we deem it of paramount importance that this new republic not place itself before the bar of world opinion and the United Nations in the role of an aggressor. We should like to tell Mr. Epstein for the information of his government that we shall be not less zealous in the Security
Council to oppose aggression from the Israeli side as we were when the attack was launched by the Arab side.
From the wider political aspect and not for the information of Mr. Epstein, it is obvious that it would be most injurious to the interests of the United States if hostilities should be opened by Israel against Transjordan with the result that the United Kingdom would automatically honor its commitments
to Transjordan under its existing treaty with that country. This would bring forth an outcry in the United States for the lifting of our arms embargo in favor of Israel, with the result that the two great Anglo-Saxon partners would be supplying and aiding two little states on the opposite sides of a serious
war, from which only the Soviet Union could profit.
With your concurrence the Under Secretary of State proposes immediately to discuss these matters with Mr. Epstein.
Truman Library - Documents on the Recognition of Israel
How did David defeat the Arab Goliath?
|
The traditional view: 'I don't know how they did it - given the numbers' |
|
| |
|
The alternative view: 'I don’t know how they got their numbers - given the outcome' | |
| |
| |
|
And you can produce copies of the Deeds of Conveyances, I take it?
[sigh...]
A provocation raising Zionist impostor posted the message with my name on Nov 02, 2003 at 07:36 PM. It wasn't mine. I never imply anything false when I recount history.
The Zionist modus operandi is "by deception thou shalt do war". False flag ops such as that message are part of a Zionist smear campaign where Zionists try to convey an impression that anti-Zionists constantly lie and distort history to the point of revisionism.
A provocation raising Zionist impostor posted the message with my name on Nov 02, 2003 at 07:36 PM. It wasn't mine. I never imply anything false when I recount history.
The Zionist modus operandi is "by deception thou shalt do war". False flag ops such as that message are part of a Zionist smear campaign where Zionists try to convey an impression that anti-Zionists constantly lie and distort history to the point of revisionism.
history buff: "...an impression that anti-Zionists constantly lie and distort history to the point of revisionism."
Anti-Zionists constantly lie and distort history to the point of revisionism. When was the last time any of you folks mentioned the centrality of the figure of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the leader of the Palestinian Arabs through the first half of the 20th century, who continually blocked and rebuffed any efforts at peaceful coexistence and ended up sitting out WWII with his buddies in Berlin, and who hand-picked Yasir Arafat as his successor? He's been revisionismed out of the anti-Israel story. He's just too embarrassing.
@%<
Anti-Zionists constantly lie and distort history to the point of revisionism. When was the last time any of you folks mentioned the centrality of the figure of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the leader of the Palestinian Arabs through the first half of the 20th century, who continually blocked and rebuffed any efforts at peaceful coexistence and ended up sitting out WWII with his buddies in Berlin, and who hand-picked Yasir Arafat as his successor? He's been revisionismed out of the anti-Israel story. He's just too embarrassing.
@%<
Whistle on gehrig...
Character assasination foul!
Some Palestinians are of ill repute, therefore gehrig assumes then asserts by innuendo that all Palestinian claims are dubious.
Of course all Israelis are pure and sinless, unlike Sharon whose murderous genocidal streak is a racial aberration?
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FallaciousArguments
Now gehrig, how many false arguments have you presented here?
One bad Palestinian ( or so you say ) , no mention of the "love shack" and no comment on Jewish historical revisionism.
Character assasination foul!
Some Palestinians are of ill repute, therefore gehrig assumes then asserts by innuendo that all Palestinian claims are dubious.
Of course all Israelis are pure and sinless, unlike Sharon whose murderous genocidal streak is a racial aberration?
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FallaciousArguments
Now gehrig, how many false arguments have you presented here?
One bad Palestinian ( or so you say ) , no mention of the "love shack" and no comment on Jewish historical revisionism.
You're attributing something to gehrig which he hasn't done. That's called LYING.
Then your overflowing anti Israeli hatred compels you to spew some tripe re Israelis' character.
Keep up with your attitude. You're doing awesome in revealing yourself as an anti-reality crusader.
Then your overflowing anti Israeli hatred compels you to spew some tripe re Israelis' character.
Keep up with your attitude. You're doing awesome in revealing yourself as an anti-reality crusader.
When was the last time any of you folks mentioned Fieval Polkes the Haganah leader who recieved a salary from the SS?
See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/04/120352_comment.php#120573
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/05/127448_comment.php#127704
When was the last time any of you folks mentioned General Field Marshal and armaments Chief of the Luftwaffe, Erhard Milch? His half - Jewish origin (his mother was a Jewess) did not prevent his rapid promotion, since Goering arranged for his spurious 'Aryanization' by persuading his mother to sign a legal document that he was not her child.
See:
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x16/xr1624.html
When was the last time any of you folks mentioned the as many as 150,000 men of Jewish descent served in the German military under Adolf Hitler, some with the Nazi leader's explicit consent, according to a U.S. historian who has interviewed hundreds of former soldiers?
See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1657112.php
Or is this stuff just too embarrassing?
See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/04/120352_comment.php#120573
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/05/127448_comment.php#127704
When was the last time any of you folks mentioned General Field Marshal and armaments Chief of the Luftwaffe, Erhard Milch? His half - Jewish origin (his mother was a Jewess) did not prevent his rapid promotion, since Goering arranged for his spurious 'Aryanization' by persuading his mother to sign a legal document that he was not her child.
See:
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x16/xr1624.html
When was the last time any of you folks mentioned the as many as 150,000 men of Jewish descent served in the German military under Adolf Hitler, some with the Nazi leader's explicit consent, according to a U.S. historian who has interviewed hundreds of former soldiers?
See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1657112.php
Or is this stuff just too embarrassing?
Missing Link: "Some Palestinians are of ill repute, therefore gehrig assumes then asserts by innuendo that all Palestinian claims are dubious. "
What horseshit. Especially from someone trying to tag someone else for "fallacious arguments." Next time, try addressing what I actually said, not your hysterical exaggeration of same.
And look at History Buff spit sparks. The problem is, none of the people he mentions were the internationally designated leader of the entire people. al-Husseini, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was the designated leader of the Palestinian Arabs. Repeat, _leader of the Palestinian Arabs._ And he showed his "leadership" by organizing pogrom after pogrom -- including the infamous slaughter at Hebron which was the first mass murder of the Arab-Israeli conflict, writing letters to his hero Hitler dreaming about the day the Final Solution comes to Palestine, and getting photographed with his chum Uncle Adolf.
Now, Nessie-nym, think _very carefully_. What _exactly_ are you trying to say about soldiers of Jewish extraction in the German army under Hitler? Spell it out.
@%<
What horseshit. Especially from someone trying to tag someone else for "fallacious arguments." Next time, try addressing what I actually said, not your hysterical exaggeration of same.
And look at History Buff spit sparks. The problem is, none of the people he mentions were the internationally designated leader of the entire people. al-Husseini, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was the designated leader of the Palestinian Arabs. Repeat, _leader of the Palestinian Arabs._ And he showed his "leadership" by organizing pogrom after pogrom -- including the infamous slaughter at Hebron which was the first mass murder of the Arab-Israeli conflict, writing letters to his hero Hitler dreaming about the day the Final Solution comes to Palestine, and getting photographed with his chum Uncle Adolf.
Now, Nessie-nym, think _very carefully_. What _exactly_ are you trying to say about soldiers of Jewish extraction in the German army under Hitler? Spell it out.
@%<
Don't even give creedence to this nonsense about Jews in the German army. I'm sure there were some in an attempt to save their own skins by cooperating. So what?
What I'd like to know is where exactly is this Zionist school where Jews are taught things like "by deception thou shalt do war"? I’ve never heard of one, nor has any “Zionist” that I know of. Maybe someone once said such a thing. So what? You keep ascribing all of these devious agendas to “Zionists” as if they are a secret cabal with an extensive philosophical agenda in a secret headquarters somewhere. There is no agenda beyond securing a homeland for the Jews, and Zionists operate openly. You use the word “Zionist” like some type of bogeyman, as the repository of all things evil. This conveniently allows you not to have to deal with them as human beings. Nowhere have I demonized the Palestinian people as a group, as you claim. Nor do I claim that all Jews act in a moral manner. Sweeping generalizations of the moral character of a people is the definition of racism, and you seem to be the only one here doing so. What I am debating is the national claims of the Palestinians and the Jews. You attempt to argue history, and when your arguments are proved false you change the subject. You hurl typical leftist rhetoric but you refuse to debate the issues directly, a typical tactic of leftist extremists who seek to shout down their adversaries with accusations of racism. You are very good at taking quotes out of context and posting documents without discussing their context of value, as if they prove your point by themselves. One (of many) examples is your quote from Ben Gurion: "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria”. Of course, what you failed to mention is that this quote was made in the midst of a war in which Israel was attacked by the armies of 5 Arab nations on the day after it declared its independence, including the countries he named. Ben Gurion was plotting the means by which he felt Israel could be made secure from further invasions. What did you expect him to say under the circumstances? He said what any military commander would have in that situation, but you turn it into some evil plot by taking it out of context. Your accusation of “genocide” against Sharon is ludicrous. Do you even have any idea what that word means? The amount of Palestinians killed in 60 years of armed conflict is less than the amount of Arabs killed by the former Assad regime in Syria, not even mentioning Saddam Hussein. And how many Israelis have died as well? Or don’t they matter? Genocide usually doesn’t claim victims on both sides, does it? Yasser Arafat is responsible for the deaths of many more than Sharon ever was. The difference is that Sharon sends his soldiers after legitimate military targets, after other soldiers and terrorists. Arafat cowardly sends his killers after school children and people on their way to work in buses. Genocide is the attempt to slaughter an entire people. Israel has the means to do so if that was their wish. They could wipe the Palestinians out in a few days if that was their wish. The accusation of genocide is just another propaganda tactic that you think will be believed if you shout if often enough. Any deaths, especially those of innocent non-combatants, is tragic in an armed conflict. But just because people are dying does not mean it is genocide. If it was genocide, then Israelis are the most inept perpetrators of genocide the world has ever seen. At this rate it would take them a few thousand years to completely destroy the Palestinian people. I’ll forgive you if you do not know what genocide is, but I can assure you that Jews are very familiar with the term after suffering the worst genocidal campaign in modern history.
You are intellectually dishonest as well as an intellectual coward who cannot defend his position without wild accusations and distortions. I do not think that someone is an anti-Semite just because they are anti-Zionist, but you are revealing yourself more and more in your arguments to be just that, not to mention flat-out ignorant..
“And had the Russians not denied the German invaders a homeland, a lot of other history would have turned out different, too.”
Were the Germans fleeing genocide when they invaded Russia? No. Was Russia their ancient national homeland that the German people had been violently stripped of and left with no land of their own for thousands of years? No. Were the Germans vulnerable to genocide because they had no homeland of their own where they could unite in common defense? Hardly. Did the Germans seek to legally purchase from the legal authorities unoccupied lands in Russia that no one wanted at the time? No. Were the Palestinians the legal rulers of the land as the Russians were? No again. Had there ever been an actual nation like Russia that was called Palestine? Still no. Were Germans granted the right to settle by the legitimate ruling power, such as the Ottoman Empire? Again, no. And did a body acting as the world’s only international authority such as the UN legally create a nation for Germans in Russia? Yet again, no. So exactly how do you think your analogy works?
“As Jews are doing so well in the west I don't see why we (everyone else in the west) should become involved in a war with Islam so that they can maintain a condo in the Middle East.” “Or is it really about the oil?”
First of all, what oil? There is no oil in Israel! None! Everyone knows that. As far as natural resources go, Israel is pretty worthless land. Israel has no involvement in the oil business at all, so what are you talking about? As for the rest, you are truly devolving into offensive anti-Semitic rantings. Condos? Is that what you think the original Zionist settlers were seeking? Is that what you think the flood of refugees after WWII was there after? As is the most common knowledge, the flood of Jews that came to Palestine after the war were homeless refugees escaping the over-crowded refugee camps that the Allied forced set up after the war. Everything they owned had been taken from them or destroyed. Everything. In many cases their entire extended families had been murdered. Most of them had no homes to return to. Even if they did, could they return to live next to old neighbors who conspired with the Nazis to kill them and their families? Should they have returned to raise their children alongside those who betrayed them and helped kill their families, trusting their lives to them? Emigration to America was strictly limited, and by that point many Jews did not trust any nation to safeguard them. The lesson the Holocaust had driven home was that Jews could not depend on the “kindness of strangers” in order to ensure their survival. Most of the world would have been content to allow them to be slaughtered had the Nazis not invaded their countries. Most of the world had no problem with the anti-Semitism of the Nazi party. No one fought the Nazis for the purpose of saving Jews. Except Jews. The Germans first attempted to exile Jews before they chose to murder them. But no one wanted Jews, including America. This has been well-documented (see “Voyage of the Damned” by Gordon Thomas for one account). Had an independent and militarily strong Israel existed then, the Holocaust would not have happened. Jews would have had a refuge. And that, my friend, is the entire reason for Israel’s existence. Not the quest for condos, as you described it with such childish and mean-spirited intent. Were it not for the world’s irrational hatred of Jews, there would have been no need for Israel. Even today that anti-Semitism can be seen openly. You call Zionists racist, but Israel does not teach its children racist slanders about Arabs. If you want to find racism, look at what is taught about Jews to school children all over the Muslim world. Jews are described as monkeys, apes, and dogs; as betrayers and evil doers who drink the blood of Muslim children. Children are taught from birth to hate Jews, and the notion of killing Jews is taught to be a virtue. This has been documented in schools from the Palestinian territories to as far away as Pakistan. I cannot imagine such vile slanders being taught about any other ethnic group on earth without an outcry from the left. But Jews are fair game, as usual. How about the Prime Minister of Malaysia who just recently made a speech before an assembled host of foreign heads of state, including Russia’s Vladamir Putin and the rulers of most of the Muslim world, that was filled with anti-Jewish rhetoric? He claimed that the troubles of the Islamic world are the fault of Jews. The collective will of 1.3 billion people is somehow thwarted by the insidious workings of the world’s estimated 15 million Jews! 1.3 billion –helpless before the might of a few million scattered throughout a number of countries. Now THAT would be laughable if the implications weren’t so threatening to Jews. It sounded an awful lot like Hitler telling Germans that their problems are the fault of Jews. The Malaysian PM even claimed that the economic woes of his nation, a country with no Jewish population, is the fault of a Zionist conspiracy! Those damned Zionists. They must have superhuman powers, no? The sheer absurdity of his statements would be laughable were it not for the fact that his speech was applauded by most in attendance. Only later was a diplomatic censure issued against the Malaysian government by the US and the EU. But it just serves to illustrate the deap-seated hatred of Jews that is taught in the Muslim world. That’s not anti-Arab Zionist propaganda. It’s verifiable fact. And it predates the existence of modern Israel by many centuries. It can even be traced in part to writings in the Koran that portray Jewish tribes in Arabia as having betrayed Mohammed. And you don’t think that has ANYTHING to do with the refusal of Arabs to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state in their midst? If you are looking for racism you need look no further than the Arab world, where there is a long history of destroying indigenous cultures throughout Asia and North Africa to force conversion to Islam (such as in Egypt, northern India, and southeast Asia). This hatred of Jews came to a head in the 1950s when hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced to flee their homes in Arab countries where they had lived for thousands of years. Were they looking to “maintain a condo is Israel” as well? It seems you have concern for the injustices suffered by displaced peoples and refugees… as long as they aren’t Jewish. You also seem to hold to the common cartoonishly anti-Semitic notion that all Jews are wealthy (“As Jews are doing so well in the west…”). I can assure you that the Jews risking their lives to infiltrate Palestine in the 1940s were, by and large, not wealthy by any standard. And did wealth offer Jews any defense against the Nazis? In fact, it only made them a more attractive target to those who hated them. The Nazis plundered everything the Jews had, even stealing the gold fillings out of the mouths of their victims’ bodies.
All of this historic argument is pointless. The fact is that ISRAEL EXISTS. It was created by an act of international law. It’s not going anywhere. Israel is not going to fold its tents and its Jews are not going to jump into the sea to make way for anyone. They are not Americans (except for a few with dual citizenship). They are not Europeans. They are Israelis, and they will remain such whether you like it or not. The use of force against the will only continue to result in great human suffering on both sides. But it is the Palestinians who will suffer more, as will any nation who attempts again to use military force against Israel. Israel can, and will, destroy any nation that attempts to destroy it. Besides vastly superior conventional forces, Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear warheads. Enough to destroy the most of Arab world. This is the final guarantee of Israel’s existence, and the leaders of the Arab world know it. That’s why no country has launched an invasion against Israel in 30 years. Violence will never solve the problem, though many would like it to. The only answer is a negotiated settlement. I support the creation of an independent Palestinian state because it is the humanitarian thing to do. They have been betrayed and made refugees by their Arab brethren. First, countries like Jordan (which is the real Palestinian nation) seized the West Bank and annexed it, while Egypt took Gaza. Then they refused to grant citizenship to the people who lived on those lands, preferring to keep them refugees so that they could be used as weapons against Israel. There are over a million Arabs who are citizens of Israel, and they have full rights as citizens. The irony is that Arabs are better treated in Israel and have more rights there than they do in ANY Arab country. Arabs hold seats in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament). They have full voting rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. They have far more rights and are far better treated than Jews ever were in Arab nations. No Arab nation allows freedom of religion. None. Israel is the only country in the world where Arabs are part of a democracy and where they are granted basic human rights. The Palestinian territories are a different story because of security measures Israelis are forced to take to defend themselves. If Palestinians ended the violence, the harsh conditions would end too. The Palestinians need to take responsibility for their own problems. They have helped to create the cage they live in. According to every poll ever taken, the majority of Israelis are in favor of a Palestinian state as long as Israel’s security is guaranteed. They are against the settlements (as am I). They do not have any designs on Palestinian territories. The settlers are extremists who do not represent the majority. But the continuation of Palestinian terrorism keeps the right wing in power in Israel. Three years ago Israelis were dancing in the streets , anticipating an end to decades of conflict with the creation of a Palestinian state. An endless stream of suicide bombers and hundreds of murdered Israelis put an end to that, and keeps people like Sharon and Netanyahu in power. Israelis see Sharon as a hardline military man who will protect them. As long as Palestinians wage war against Israel, they will keep him and his allies in power. If the Palestinians really wanted to see Sharon and his kind go away, then they would put down their weapons for good and negotiate. They need to ask themselves what they want. Do they want revenge for alleged injustices? Or do they want to move forward and gain what they have never had - a nation of their won? As long as they choose violence they will continue to suffer.
What I'd like to know is where exactly is this Zionist school where Jews are taught things like "by deception thou shalt do war"? I’ve never heard of one, nor has any “Zionist” that I know of. Maybe someone once said such a thing. So what? You keep ascribing all of these devious agendas to “Zionists” as if they are a secret cabal with an extensive philosophical agenda in a secret headquarters somewhere. There is no agenda beyond securing a homeland for the Jews, and Zionists operate openly. You use the word “Zionist” like some type of bogeyman, as the repository of all things evil. This conveniently allows you not to have to deal with them as human beings. Nowhere have I demonized the Palestinian people as a group, as you claim. Nor do I claim that all Jews act in a moral manner. Sweeping generalizations of the moral character of a people is the definition of racism, and you seem to be the only one here doing so. What I am debating is the national claims of the Palestinians and the Jews. You attempt to argue history, and when your arguments are proved false you change the subject. You hurl typical leftist rhetoric but you refuse to debate the issues directly, a typical tactic of leftist extremists who seek to shout down their adversaries with accusations of racism. You are very good at taking quotes out of context and posting documents without discussing their context of value, as if they prove your point by themselves. One (of many) examples is your quote from Ben Gurion: "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria”. Of course, what you failed to mention is that this quote was made in the midst of a war in which Israel was attacked by the armies of 5 Arab nations on the day after it declared its independence, including the countries he named. Ben Gurion was plotting the means by which he felt Israel could be made secure from further invasions. What did you expect him to say under the circumstances? He said what any military commander would have in that situation, but you turn it into some evil plot by taking it out of context. Your accusation of “genocide” against Sharon is ludicrous. Do you even have any idea what that word means? The amount of Palestinians killed in 60 years of armed conflict is less than the amount of Arabs killed by the former Assad regime in Syria, not even mentioning Saddam Hussein. And how many Israelis have died as well? Or don’t they matter? Genocide usually doesn’t claim victims on both sides, does it? Yasser Arafat is responsible for the deaths of many more than Sharon ever was. The difference is that Sharon sends his soldiers after legitimate military targets, after other soldiers and terrorists. Arafat cowardly sends his killers after school children and people on their way to work in buses. Genocide is the attempt to slaughter an entire people. Israel has the means to do so if that was their wish. They could wipe the Palestinians out in a few days if that was their wish. The accusation of genocide is just another propaganda tactic that you think will be believed if you shout if often enough. Any deaths, especially those of innocent non-combatants, is tragic in an armed conflict. But just because people are dying does not mean it is genocide. If it was genocide, then Israelis are the most inept perpetrators of genocide the world has ever seen. At this rate it would take them a few thousand years to completely destroy the Palestinian people. I’ll forgive you if you do not know what genocide is, but I can assure you that Jews are very familiar with the term after suffering the worst genocidal campaign in modern history.
You are intellectually dishonest as well as an intellectual coward who cannot defend his position without wild accusations and distortions. I do not think that someone is an anti-Semite just because they are anti-Zionist, but you are revealing yourself more and more in your arguments to be just that, not to mention flat-out ignorant..
“And had the Russians not denied the German invaders a homeland, a lot of other history would have turned out different, too.”
Were the Germans fleeing genocide when they invaded Russia? No. Was Russia their ancient national homeland that the German people had been violently stripped of and left with no land of their own for thousands of years? No. Were the Germans vulnerable to genocide because they had no homeland of their own where they could unite in common defense? Hardly. Did the Germans seek to legally purchase from the legal authorities unoccupied lands in Russia that no one wanted at the time? No. Were the Palestinians the legal rulers of the land as the Russians were? No again. Had there ever been an actual nation like Russia that was called Palestine? Still no. Were Germans granted the right to settle by the legitimate ruling power, such as the Ottoman Empire? Again, no. And did a body acting as the world’s only international authority such as the UN legally create a nation for Germans in Russia? Yet again, no. So exactly how do you think your analogy works?
“As Jews are doing so well in the west I don't see why we (everyone else in the west) should become involved in a war with Islam so that they can maintain a condo in the Middle East.” “Or is it really about the oil?”
First of all, what oil? There is no oil in Israel! None! Everyone knows that. As far as natural resources go, Israel is pretty worthless land. Israel has no involvement in the oil business at all, so what are you talking about? As for the rest, you are truly devolving into offensive anti-Semitic rantings. Condos? Is that what you think the original Zionist settlers were seeking? Is that what you think the flood of refugees after WWII was there after? As is the most common knowledge, the flood of Jews that came to Palestine after the war were homeless refugees escaping the over-crowded refugee camps that the Allied forced set up after the war. Everything they owned had been taken from them or destroyed. Everything. In many cases their entire extended families had been murdered. Most of them had no homes to return to. Even if they did, could they return to live next to old neighbors who conspired with the Nazis to kill them and their families? Should they have returned to raise their children alongside those who betrayed them and helped kill their families, trusting their lives to them? Emigration to America was strictly limited, and by that point many Jews did not trust any nation to safeguard them. The lesson the Holocaust had driven home was that Jews could not depend on the “kindness of strangers” in order to ensure their survival. Most of the world would have been content to allow them to be slaughtered had the Nazis not invaded their countries. Most of the world had no problem with the anti-Semitism of the Nazi party. No one fought the Nazis for the purpose of saving Jews. Except Jews. The Germans first attempted to exile Jews before they chose to murder them. But no one wanted Jews, including America. This has been well-documented (see “Voyage of the Damned” by Gordon Thomas for one account). Had an independent and militarily strong Israel existed then, the Holocaust would not have happened. Jews would have had a refuge. And that, my friend, is the entire reason for Israel’s existence. Not the quest for condos, as you described it with such childish and mean-spirited intent. Were it not for the world’s irrational hatred of Jews, there would have been no need for Israel. Even today that anti-Semitism can be seen openly. You call Zionists racist, but Israel does not teach its children racist slanders about Arabs. If you want to find racism, look at what is taught about Jews to school children all over the Muslim world. Jews are described as monkeys, apes, and dogs; as betrayers and evil doers who drink the blood of Muslim children. Children are taught from birth to hate Jews, and the notion of killing Jews is taught to be a virtue. This has been documented in schools from the Palestinian territories to as far away as Pakistan. I cannot imagine such vile slanders being taught about any other ethnic group on earth without an outcry from the left. But Jews are fair game, as usual. How about the Prime Minister of Malaysia who just recently made a speech before an assembled host of foreign heads of state, including Russia’s Vladamir Putin and the rulers of most of the Muslim world, that was filled with anti-Jewish rhetoric? He claimed that the troubles of the Islamic world are the fault of Jews. The collective will of 1.3 billion people is somehow thwarted by the insidious workings of the world’s estimated 15 million Jews! 1.3 billion –helpless before the might of a few million scattered throughout a number of countries. Now THAT would be laughable if the implications weren’t so threatening to Jews. It sounded an awful lot like Hitler telling Germans that their problems are the fault of Jews. The Malaysian PM even claimed that the economic woes of his nation, a country with no Jewish population, is the fault of a Zionist conspiracy! Those damned Zionists. They must have superhuman powers, no? The sheer absurdity of his statements would be laughable were it not for the fact that his speech was applauded by most in attendance. Only later was a diplomatic censure issued against the Malaysian government by the US and the EU. But it just serves to illustrate the deap-seated hatred of Jews that is taught in the Muslim world. That’s not anti-Arab Zionist propaganda. It’s verifiable fact. And it predates the existence of modern Israel by many centuries. It can even be traced in part to writings in the Koran that portray Jewish tribes in Arabia as having betrayed Mohammed. And you don’t think that has ANYTHING to do with the refusal of Arabs to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state in their midst? If you are looking for racism you need look no further than the Arab world, where there is a long history of destroying indigenous cultures throughout Asia and North Africa to force conversion to Islam (such as in Egypt, northern India, and southeast Asia). This hatred of Jews came to a head in the 1950s when hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced to flee their homes in Arab countries where they had lived for thousands of years. Were they looking to “maintain a condo is Israel” as well? It seems you have concern for the injustices suffered by displaced peoples and refugees… as long as they aren’t Jewish. You also seem to hold to the common cartoonishly anti-Semitic notion that all Jews are wealthy (“As Jews are doing so well in the west…”). I can assure you that the Jews risking their lives to infiltrate Palestine in the 1940s were, by and large, not wealthy by any standard. And did wealth offer Jews any defense against the Nazis? In fact, it only made them a more attractive target to those who hated them. The Nazis plundered everything the Jews had, even stealing the gold fillings out of the mouths of their victims’ bodies.
All of this historic argument is pointless. The fact is that ISRAEL EXISTS. It was created by an act of international law. It’s not going anywhere. Israel is not going to fold its tents and its Jews are not going to jump into the sea to make way for anyone. They are not Americans (except for a few with dual citizenship). They are not Europeans. They are Israelis, and they will remain such whether you like it or not. The use of force against the will only continue to result in great human suffering on both sides. But it is the Palestinians who will suffer more, as will any nation who attempts again to use military force against Israel. Israel can, and will, destroy any nation that attempts to destroy it. Besides vastly superior conventional forces, Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear warheads. Enough to destroy the most of Arab world. This is the final guarantee of Israel’s existence, and the leaders of the Arab world know it. That’s why no country has launched an invasion against Israel in 30 years. Violence will never solve the problem, though many would like it to. The only answer is a negotiated settlement. I support the creation of an independent Palestinian state because it is the humanitarian thing to do. They have been betrayed and made refugees by their Arab brethren. First, countries like Jordan (which is the real Palestinian nation) seized the West Bank and annexed it, while Egypt took Gaza. Then they refused to grant citizenship to the people who lived on those lands, preferring to keep them refugees so that they could be used as weapons against Israel. There are over a million Arabs who are citizens of Israel, and they have full rights as citizens. The irony is that Arabs are better treated in Israel and have more rights there than they do in ANY Arab country. Arabs hold seats in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament). They have full voting rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. They have far more rights and are far better treated than Jews ever were in Arab nations. No Arab nation allows freedom of religion. None. Israel is the only country in the world where Arabs are part of a democracy and where they are granted basic human rights. The Palestinian territories are a different story because of security measures Israelis are forced to take to defend themselves. If Palestinians ended the violence, the harsh conditions would end too. The Palestinians need to take responsibility for their own problems. They have helped to create the cage they live in. According to every poll ever taken, the majority of Israelis are in favor of a Palestinian state as long as Israel’s security is guaranteed. They are against the settlements (as am I). They do not have any designs on Palestinian territories. The settlers are extremists who do not represent the majority. But the continuation of Palestinian terrorism keeps the right wing in power in Israel. Three years ago Israelis were dancing in the streets , anticipating an end to decades of conflict with the creation of a Palestinian state. An endless stream of suicide bombers and hundreds of murdered Israelis put an end to that, and keeps people like Sharon and Netanyahu in power. Israelis see Sharon as a hardline military man who will protect them. As long as Palestinians wage war against Israel, they will keep him and his allies in power. If the Palestinians really wanted to see Sharon and his kind go away, then they would put down their weapons for good and negotiate. They need to ask themselves what they want. Do they want revenge for alleged injustices? Or do they want to move forward and gain what they have never had - a nation of their won? As long as they choose violence they will continue to suffer.
>where exactly is this Zionist school where Jews are taught things like "by deception thou shalt do war"
Click here:
http://www.namebase.org/sources/OU.html
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2C322476
Click here:
http://www.namebase.org/sources/OU.html
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2C322476
And your point is what? That Israel has a secret intelligence agency called the Mossad? And that they use stealth and deception like their counterparts in the C.I.A. and in every other intelligence agency on the planet? That's generally how they work - through stealth and deception they infiltrate into the ranks of their enemies, to gather information, spread disinformation, or engage in sabotage. It's a security technique employed by most of the world, including the USA, Britain, France, Russia, China, Iran, and most Arab governments. They, as well as many other nations, have intelligence agencies just like the Mossad who engage in similar activities to serve their own national agendas. Welcome to the real world. And, again, your point is...?
quote:
===================
Anti-Zionists constantly lie and distort history to the point of revisionism
===================
Who started the Six Day War?
The traditional view: “It wasn’t me!” |
|
|
The alternative view: “It think it was me!” |
|
|
| The cynical view: (kee betachbulot ta'ase lecha milchama) |
|
|
|
Why the Muslims Misjudged Us Since September 11, we have heard mostly slander and lies about the West from radical Islamic fundamentalists in their defense of the terrorists. But the Middle Eastern mainstream--diplomats, intellectuals and journalists--has also bombarded the American public with an array of unflattering images and texts, suggesting that the extremists' anti-Americanism may not be an eccentricity of the ignorant but rather a representative slice of the views of millions. Egyptian Nobel Prize-winning novelist Naguib Mahfouz reportedly announced from his Cairo home that America's bombing of the Taliban was "just as despicable a crime" as the September 11 attacks--as if the terrorists' unprovoked mass murder of civilians were the moral equivalent of selected air strikes against enemy soldiers in wartime. Americans, reluctant to answer back their Middle Eastern critics for fear of charges of "Islamophobia" or "Arab smearing," have let such accusations go largely unchecked. Two striking themes--one overt, one implied--characterize most Arab invective: first, that there is some sort of equivalence--political, cultural and military--between the West and the Muslim world; and second, that America has been exceptionally unkind toward the Middle East. Both premises are false and reveal that the temple of anti-Americanism is supported by pillars of utter ignorance. Few in the Middle East have a clue about the nature, origins or history of democracy, a word that, along with its family (constitution, freedom and citizen), has no history in the Arab vocabulary, or indeed any philological pedigree in any language other than Greek and Latin and their modern European offspring. How much easier for nonvoters of the Arab world to vent frustration at the West, as if, in some Machiavellian plot, a democratic America, Israel and Europe have conspired to prevent Muslims from adopting the Western invention of democracy! Democracy is hardly a Western secret to be closely guarded and kept from the mujahideen. Islam is welcome to it, with the blessing and subsidy of the West. Yes, we must promote democracy abroad in the Muslim world; but only they, not we, can ensure its success. |
Zionist propaganda agents habitually post lies here under assumed names. They are an embarassment to honest Jews everywhere.
those supposedly Zionist propaganda agents are anti-Zionists who anti-Zionists who are attempting to tarnish the Zionists, Israelis, Israel and the Jews. One of them is the troll publishing under 'A concerned Zionist'.
Stop patronizing the Jews, HB.
Stop patronizing the Jews, HB.
Zionist propaganda agents habitually post lies here under assumed names.
and we should assume that you use "history buff " as your legal name? (chortle....)
and we should assume that you use "history buff " as your legal name? (chortle....)
Many Jewish residents within the disputed territories ("settlers") aren't in fact extremists per se. Some aren't even religious.
However, most of them seem extreme in relation to the entire Israeli Jewish population.
However, most of them seem extreme in relation to the entire Israeli Jewish population.
Many Jewish residents within the disputed territories ("settlers") aren't in fact extremists per se. Some aren't even religious.
However, most of them seem extreme in relation to the entire Israeli Jewish population.
However, most of them seem extreme in relation to the entire Israeli Jewish population.
Of course it's not my legal name. Only a fool would use their legal name online these days. Whatever else I may be, a fool I am not.
It's my declared name. If you were to use it, you would be using an assumed name, as would I, were I to use your declared name(s).
It's my declared name. If you were to use it, you would be using an assumed name, as would I, were I to use your declared name(s).
De Truf: "And your point is what? That Israel has a secret intelligence agency called the Mossad?"
The point is that History Buff, in the spirit of conspiracy theory, conflates all support for Israel with being an secret agent in an intelligence agency. Those Mossad agents, they're everywhere, they're everywhere. I've been accused of it myself a few times.
Yet History Buff thinks this is perfectly rational, and not in the least bit skew. But, hey, folks, that's why they call it blind prejudice.
@%<
The point is that History Buff, in the spirit of conspiracy theory, conflates all support for Israel with being an secret agent in an intelligence agency. Those Mossad agents, they're everywhere, they're everywhere. I've been accused of it myself a few times.
Yet History Buff thinks this is perfectly rational, and not in the least bit skew. But, hey, folks, that's why they call it blind prejudice.
@%<
Top: "kee betachbulot ta'ase lecha milchama"
Translation: "By way of deception thou shalt do war"
Bottom: "Ha'Mossad Le'modiein"
Translation: "The institute for the collection of Information"
Mossad is "secret"?
Thanks for your input.
Firstly, no, of course the Mossad is not itself secret. How would we be discussing it if that were so? Their ACTIVITIES are secret. Just like the CIA or the British MI6, both the exact same type of agency as the Mossad. Let's not make this into an idiotic semantic argument. As for the "By way of deception thou shalt do war" motto, what do you think their motto should be? That 's what they do! That's what ALL intelligence agencies do."Deception" is otherwise known as "counter-intelligence". Believe me, you could use a little intelligence in your arguments. You are truly a master at pointing out the obvious and commonplace, as if they were something special. Do you think that motto is supposed to hold some ominous, sinister significance? The Mossad is charged with providing security for Israel. The IDF uses force. The Mossad uses "deception". And skunks use a foul smell. I ask you yet again - your point is...? Unless of course you are one of the brain-deficient morons who believe the Mossad are an all-powerful force who are the hidden cause of all things evil in the world. Just like the little green men and the black helicopters and those wicked Illuminati! In the old days when people alked about wordl-wide conspiracies, they didn't use words like "Mossad" or "Zionist". They just used the word "Jew". But it's still the same old paranoid hate-filled delusions and rank anti-Semitism.
As for my comments about the settlers, i do indeed see them as extremists. The chances for peace would be far greater without the settlements. Ther is no need for them, and they cause great suffering on both sides, not to mention the huge costs to protect them. Israelis are sick of spending their tax dollars (or shekels) to provide protection for them when it woudn't be needed inside israel's borders. Besides, it is an impediment to a Palestinian state which is the only possible solution. It is morally wrong to force the Palestinians to live as they do so that they can live in their settlements. It is morally unjustifiable. However, the conflict did not begin with the settlements, which did not begin in earnest until the 1980s. The Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel since its inception (and before). They had 20 years to establish a Palestinian state on the West Bank. But instead they were more concerned with trying to destroy Israel. Still, it is not the fault of the youngest generation that had nothing to do with past mistakes. Other Arab nations will never take them in and neither will Israel. So regardless of the history, which is on the side of the Israelis, the only humanitarian and workable answer to the Palestinian problem is statehood. Just as it was for Jews with the creation of Israel. And most Israelis agree with that.
As for the 6 Day War, this is more revisionism. Not only Egypt but Syria and Jordan (with Iraqi forces alongside them) had massed troops on the Israeli border. Between them there were an estimated 250,000 troops in position to invade. That's nearly twice as many troops as the US just put in Iraq. There was a formal military alliance between those countries. Nasser had not only been very publicly threatening to invade Israel for years, he had vowed to "drive the Jews into the sea". He thought attacking Israel would make him the most influential leader in the Arab world. Just before the war, he had denanded that UN peace-keeping forces withdraw from their position in the Sinai between Israel and Egypt. The UN had been there to keep the peace since the 1956 war. The UN, with their backbones as stiff as ever, withdrew. Then he placed his army on the border as did the other nations surrounding Israel. This is not an act of war? What nation on earth would not think an invasion was imminent? Especially one as small and vulnerable as Israel? Israel asked the UN to intervene and was refused. France, Britain, and the US would not help. Russia had helped to instigate the whole mess by feeding false infomation to Syria. And Israel had even sent a message to Jordan via diplomatic channels imploring and warning them not to get involved. This is all very well documented. Most of the world thought that Israel's end was at hand. I can still remember the speculation in the media at the time. The fact that a few Israelis thought Nasse was bluffing to score points with his fellow Arabs does not change the fact that most Israelis were terrified. Israel was not at that time receiving military aid from the US. The world did nothing to diffuse the situation, though there was plenty of opportunity to do so. Israel was on its own and did what it felt it had to do. I can't imagine any other nation doing anything differently if faced with the same situation - and surviving. There is no nation on earth that would not have considerd these actions to be acts of war that threatened its existence. Especially a country that is only 20 miles wide at its most vulnerable point. But some peole make excuses for everything the Arabs do, as if they are blameless. You can't surround someone with your friends and aim a loaded gun at that person's head while loudly declaring your intention of killing him, and then cry "foul" when he beats your brains in. That's what happened in 1967.
And again I ask, what is the point of rehashing all this history? Will it change anything? Do you fantasize that Israel will one day wake up and confess its alleged sins, and then commit national suicide? Israel is a fact of life. It's not going anywhere and no one is going to destroy it. The question is where do you go from here, because the past is the past. Its so much easier to run around wearing the badge of "victim" than it is to actually do the hard work necessary to secure a prosperous future. The Palestinians will never get anywhere until they stop blaming others and start doing something to help themselves.
As for my comments about the settlers, i do indeed see them as extremists. The chances for peace would be far greater without the settlements. Ther is no need for them, and they cause great suffering on both sides, not to mention the huge costs to protect them. Israelis are sick of spending their tax dollars (or shekels) to provide protection for them when it woudn't be needed inside israel's borders. Besides, it is an impediment to a Palestinian state which is the only possible solution. It is morally wrong to force the Palestinians to live as they do so that they can live in their settlements. It is morally unjustifiable. However, the conflict did not begin with the settlements, which did not begin in earnest until the 1980s. The Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel since its inception (and before). They had 20 years to establish a Palestinian state on the West Bank. But instead they were more concerned with trying to destroy Israel. Still, it is not the fault of the youngest generation that had nothing to do with past mistakes. Other Arab nations will never take them in and neither will Israel. So regardless of the history, which is on the side of the Israelis, the only humanitarian and workable answer to the Palestinian problem is statehood. Just as it was for Jews with the creation of Israel. And most Israelis agree with that.
As for the 6 Day War, this is more revisionism. Not only Egypt but Syria and Jordan (with Iraqi forces alongside them) had massed troops on the Israeli border. Between them there were an estimated 250,000 troops in position to invade. That's nearly twice as many troops as the US just put in Iraq. There was a formal military alliance between those countries. Nasser had not only been very publicly threatening to invade Israel for years, he had vowed to "drive the Jews into the sea". He thought attacking Israel would make him the most influential leader in the Arab world. Just before the war, he had denanded that UN peace-keeping forces withdraw from their position in the Sinai between Israel and Egypt. The UN had been there to keep the peace since the 1956 war. The UN, with their backbones as stiff as ever, withdrew. Then he placed his army on the border as did the other nations surrounding Israel. This is not an act of war? What nation on earth would not think an invasion was imminent? Especially one as small and vulnerable as Israel? Israel asked the UN to intervene and was refused. France, Britain, and the US would not help. Russia had helped to instigate the whole mess by feeding false infomation to Syria. And Israel had even sent a message to Jordan via diplomatic channels imploring and warning them not to get involved. This is all very well documented. Most of the world thought that Israel's end was at hand. I can still remember the speculation in the media at the time. The fact that a few Israelis thought Nasse was bluffing to score points with his fellow Arabs does not change the fact that most Israelis were terrified. Israel was not at that time receiving military aid from the US. The world did nothing to diffuse the situation, though there was plenty of opportunity to do so. Israel was on its own and did what it felt it had to do. I can't imagine any other nation doing anything differently if faced with the same situation - and surviving. There is no nation on earth that would not have considerd these actions to be acts of war that threatened its existence. Especially a country that is only 20 miles wide at its most vulnerable point. But some peole make excuses for everything the Arabs do, as if they are blameless. You can't surround someone with your friends and aim a loaded gun at that person's head while loudly declaring your intention of killing him, and then cry "foul" when he beats your brains in. That's what happened in 1967.
And again I ask, what is the point of rehashing all this history? Will it change anything? Do you fantasize that Israel will one day wake up and confess its alleged sins, and then commit national suicide? Israel is a fact of life. It's not going anywhere and no one is going to destroy it. The question is where do you go from here, because the past is the past. Its so much easier to run around wearing the badge of "victim" than it is to actually do the hard work necessary to secure a prosperous future. The Palestinians will never get anywhere until they stop blaming others and start doing something to help themselves.
Yeah, right. And the Third Reich will last a thousand years.
So much for an intelligent discussion, hmm? Now it's just naked hatred. And wishful thinking, I might add. Israel will last as surely as any other nation, at the least. Why wouldn't it? Because hate-mongers would like to see it destroyed? Because they are incapable of putting aside their hatred and allowing a nation to live in peace, even though it would benefit all of them? How sad. How sad that you should wish all of the suffering to continue, or worsen. For all sides. Wouldn't it be better for a peaceful solution to be found? Only those with nothing to offer but hate and violence would disagree with that. All those who work to destroy Israel only perpetuate their own misery. It's people like that who force the Israelis to take action to defend themselves. And then they complain of Israeli brutality when they suffer the results of the battle they insist on fighting, as if that was the only choice.
Some people just need to hate, don't they? Enjoy your hatred, my friend. Apparently, it is all you have.
Some people just need to hate, don't they? Enjoy your hatred, my friend. Apparently, it is all you have.
quote:
==============
Some people just need to hate, don't they?
==============
"We teach [the non-Jew wishing to convert] about the history of the Jews, that, no matter what happens, the Jews will never be destroyed, UNLIKE ALL THE OTHER NATIONS OF THE WORLD which only last for a short time and then they disappear."
- Eliezer C. Abrahamson, Who Is A Jew
http://www.members.aol.com/lazera/Jew.htm
===========================
"Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred... It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the 'People of the Book' and the 'Light of the Nations'."
-Martin Buber
=============================
5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior' after WTC tragedy
Five Israelis who had worked for a moving company based in New Jersey are being held in U.S. prisons for what the Federal Bureau of Investigation has described as "puzzling behavior" following the terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York last Tuesday.[...] They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.
Ha'Aretz, September 17, 2001
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/
pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=75266∓contrassID=2
================================
==============
Some people just need to hate, don't they?
==============
"We teach [the non-Jew wishing to convert] about the history of the Jews, that, no matter what happens, the Jews will never be destroyed, UNLIKE ALL THE OTHER NATIONS OF THE WORLD which only last for a short time and then they disappear."
- Eliezer C. Abrahamson, Who Is A Jew
http://www.members.aol.com/lazera/Jew.htm
===========================
"Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred... It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the 'People of the Book' and the 'Light of the Nations'."
-Martin Buber
=============================
5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior' after WTC tragedy
Five Israelis who had worked for a moving company based in New Jersey are being held in U.S. prisons for what the Federal Bureau of Investigation has described as "puzzling behavior" following the terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York last Tuesday.[...] They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.
Ha'Aretz, September 17, 2001
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/
pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=75266∓contrassID=2
================================
quote:
========
Ben-Haim says that after he finishes the Hebrew course, he may join the army, "because I wasn't in the army in Peru and that is something I lack, and also because I want to defend the country and if there is no choice, I will kill Arabs. But I am sure that Jews kill Arabs only for self-defence and justice, but Arabs do it because they like to kill."
He bases this belief on his scientific view of Judaism: "The Arab has the instinct of murder and killing like all gentiles, and only Jews do not have that instinct -
that is a genetic fact."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,770315,00.html
=========================
quote:
======================
Judeophobia, together with other symbols, superstitions and idiosyncrasies, has acquired legitimacy phobia among all the peoples of the earth with whom the Jews had intercourse. Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy with the distinction that it is not peculiar to particular races but is common to the whole of mankind, and that this ghost is not disembodied like other ghosts but partakes of flesh and blood, must endure pain inflicted by the fearful mob who imagines itself endangered.
Judeophobia is a psychic aberration. As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable.
==================================
- Leon Pinsker, Auto Emancipation
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/pinsker.html
========
Ben-Haim says that after he finishes the Hebrew course, he may join the army, "because I wasn't in the army in Peru and that is something I lack, and also because I want to defend the country and if there is no choice, I will kill Arabs. But I am sure that Jews kill Arabs only for self-defence and justice, but Arabs do it because they like to kill."
He bases this belief on his scientific view of Judaism: "The Arab has the instinct of murder and killing like all gentiles, and only Jews do not have that instinct -
that is a genetic fact."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,770315,00.html
=========================
quote:
======================
Judeophobia, together with other symbols, superstitions and idiosyncrasies, has acquired legitimacy phobia among all the peoples of the earth with whom the Jews had intercourse. Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy with the distinction that it is not peculiar to particular races but is common to the whole of mankind, and that this ghost is not disembodied like other ghosts but partakes of flesh and blood, must endure pain inflicted by the fearful mob who imagines itself endangered.
Judeophobia is a psychic aberration. As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable.
==================================
- Leon Pinsker, Auto Emancipation
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/pinsker.html
If you didn't act like Nazis, we wouldn't hate you.
quote:
============================
[Peruvian convert to Judaism]
Ben-Haim says .....I am sure that Jews kill Arabs only for self-defence and justice, but Arabs do it because they like to kill."
He bases this belief on his scientific view of Judaism: "The Arab has the instinct of murder and killing like all gentiles, and ONLY JEW DO NOT HAVE THAT INSTINCT-
THAT IS A GENETIC FACT."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,770315,00.html
=============================
Who taught Ben-Haim to hate Goyim?
============================
[Peruvian convert to Judaism]
Ben-Haim says .....I am sure that Jews kill Arabs only for self-defence and justice, but Arabs do it because they like to kill."
He bases this belief on his scientific view of Judaism: "The Arab has the instinct of murder and killing like all gentiles, and ONLY JEW DO NOT HAVE THAT INSTINCT-
THAT IS A GENETIC FACT."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,770315,00.html
=============================
Who taught Ben-Haim to hate Goyim?
quote:
============
As for the 6 Day War, this is more revisionism. Not only Egypt but Syria and Jordan (with Iraqi forces alongside them) had massed troops on the Israeli border. Between them there were an estimated 250,000 troops in position to invade...
[...]
What nation on earth would not think an invasion was imminent?
===================
Let's ask some of those involved, AGAIN, shall we?
================================
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. WE MUST BE HONEST with ourselves. WE DECIDED TO ATTACK HIM"
- Menachim Begin (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982)
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ic90
"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is ONLY BLUFF, which was born and developed after the war."
- General Matityahu Peled (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972)
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=744&CategoryId=4
I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it"
- General Rabin IDF Chief of Staff in 1967 (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/db/gadflies/display_message.asp?mid=1787
====================================
Did you read the confessions, De Truff?
============
As for the 6 Day War, this is more revisionism. Not only Egypt but Syria and Jordan (with Iraqi forces alongside them) had massed troops on the Israeli border. Between them there were an estimated 250,000 troops in position to invade...
[...]
What nation on earth would not think an invasion was imminent?
===================
Let's ask some of those involved, AGAIN, shall we?
================================
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. WE MUST BE HONEST with ourselves. WE DECIDED TO ATTACK HIM"
- Menachim Begin (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982)
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ic90
"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is ONLY BLUFF, which was born and developed after the war."
- General Matityahu Peled (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972)
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=744&CategoryId=4
I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it"
- General Rabin IDF Chief of Staff in 1967 (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/db/gadflies/display_message.asp?mid=1787
====================================
Did you read the confessions, De Truff?
I am so sorry. You're right. What were we thinking? Everything is a giant conspiracy of lies and all Jews are hopelessly evil Nazis. Israel was a great big mistake. Silly us. Tomorrow at noon we'll begin dismantling Israel brick by brick and removing all traces of offending Jewishness. All Jews will return to their condos and mansions. All those without condos or mansions will return to Auschwitz and line up for the ovens so the job can be finished. How foolish of us to think we deserved to live in peace in a nation of our own without being shot at or blown up or invaded. How insane it was it that Jews thought they would be allowed to defend themselves against Jew-haters. I truly, deeply, most humbly and sincerely apologize to everyone on behalf of the Jewish nation - which will now dispappear into the dustbin of history voluntarily so all of you Jew-haters can finally be happy and joyous. Again, what WERE we thinking? So sorry. Shalom.
The word 'conspiracy' is not a pejorative, never has been, and certainly wasn't when the United States Senate Select Committee on the Watergate Break-In and Related Sabotage Efforts investigated a "conspiracy to obstruct justice."
And we all know how that story came to an abrupt end.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
quote:
===========
How foolish of us to think we deserved to live in peace in a nation of our own without being shot at or blown up or invaded...
==========
How FOOLISH of Arabs to think they deserved to live in peace in their nations without being shot at or blown up or invaded by zionists.
(see President Woodrow Wilson's 1919 King-Crane Commission Report)
Although he rescued thousands of Jews from concentration camps, HOW FOOLISH of Count Folke Bernadotte to think that he could attempt to mediate peace between zionists and Arabs without being assassinated by zionists.
Yeah...and? I'm getting tired of refuting every little distortion you post. I'll continue if you insist. But in the meanwhile... what's your point? What is your suggested solution to the whole mess? Hmmm, mister conspiracy? Tell us how YOU would solve the problem in a way that is fair and workable for all involved? A way that wouldn't result in a huge war? Or is that what you want, more suffering and death? Or could it be that you are only concerned with human beings on one side of the green line?Or perhaps you are only interested in whining endlessly about perceived and alleged past injustices, without having anything positive to suggest? We're listening. Do you have anything to say that's worth listening to?
quote:
=============
Yeah...and? I'm getting tired of refuting every little distortion you post.
=============
All you have done is compose an inverted victim-blaming UNSUBSTANTIATED NARRATIVE of history.
When comparing your official narrative with the narratives of those people who were ACTUALLY INVOLVED in decisions to steal Arab lands, to wage war, to assassinate peace mediators, and to supply poor little David ( "the strongest military force in the Middle East" [May 9, 1948]) with funds to procure more killing machines, I am reminded that Israel's second leader left his conscience at home in a diary.
quote:
===================
When I wrote these things -
[these instructions to the embassies to frame Arabs for Israeli terrorist attacks in Egypt {Ben Gurion's "Lavon" Affair}]
- I still didn't know how crushing is the evidence that was
ALREADY PUBLISHED
refuting our official version.
The huge amounts of arms and explosives, the tactics of the attack, the blocking and mining of the roads ... the precise coordination of the attack.
WHO WOULD BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BELIEVE that such a complicated operation could "develop" from a casual and sudden attack on an Israeli army unit by an Egyptian unit?
- Moshe Sharett, Prime Minister of Israel 1954 & 1955.
=============================
Who would be foolish enough to believe YOU, De Truff?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
=============
Yeah...and? I'm getting tired of refuting every little distortion you post.
=============
All you have done is compose an inverted victim-blaming UNSUBSTANTIATED NARRATIVE of history.
When comparing your official narrative with the narratives of those people who were ACTUALLY INVOLVED in decisions to steal Arab lands, to wage war, to assassinate peace mediators, and to supply poor little David ( "the strongest military force in the Middle East" [May 9, 1948]) with funds to procure more killing machines, I am reminded that Israel's second leader left his conscience at home in a diary.
quote:
===================
When I wrote these things -
[these instructions to the embassies to frame Arabs for Israeli terrorist attacks in Egypt {Ben Gurion's "Lavon" Affair}]
- I still didn't know how crushing is the evidence that was
ALREADY PUBLISHED
refuting our official version.
The huge amounts of arms and explosives, the tactics of the attack, the blocking and mining of the roads ... the precise coordination of the attack.
WHO WOULD BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BELIEVE that such a complicated operation could "develop" from a casual and sudden attack on an Israeli army unit by an Egyptian unit?
- Moshe Sharett, Prime Minister of Israel 1954 & 1955.
=============================
Who would be foolish enough to believe YOU, De Truff?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
Dearest de Truf,
"Yeah...and? I'm getting tired of refuting every little distortion you post. I'll continue if you insist. But in the meanwhile... what's your point? "
So you tire of putting spin on truth? Well brace yourself because truth keeps coming and it empowers and liberates in the face of your attempts to oppress and repress people.
"What is your suggested solution to the whole mess? Hmmm, mister conspiracy? Tell us how YOU would solve the problem in a way that is fair and workable for all involved? A way that wouldn't result in a huge war? Or is that what you want, more suffering and death? Or could it be that you are only concerned with human beings on one side of the green line?Or perhaps you are only interested in whining endlessly about perceived and alleged past injustices, without having anything positive to suggest? We're listening. Do you have anything to say that's worth listening to?"
Have you been really listening or are you just stupid?
Let's see now, I'd say you zionists have some choices to make...
They are all about a Palestinian state but are they to be based on...
1967 borders?
1948 borders?
1947 borders?
or pre 1947 borders? I can hear you squealing from here...like a stuck pig.
How long would it take to empty Israel if her supporters agreed to reserve 10% of immigration intake for Israeli citizens?
Then again I'm sure Palestinians would acknowledge pre-zionist Palestinian Jews rights and claims.
No decent human can tolerate Jewish-Israeli fascism and genocide and ethnic cleansing.
"Yeah...and? I'm getting tired of refuting every little distortion you post. I'll continue if you insist. But in the meanwhile... what's your point? "
So you tire of putting spin on truth? Well brace yourself because truth keeps coming and it empowers and liberates in the face of your attempts to oppress and repress people.
"What is your suggested solution to the whole mess? Hmmm, mister conspiracy? Tell us how YOU would solve the problem in a way that is fair and workable for all involved? A way that wouldn't result in a huge war? Or is that what you want, more suffering and death? Or could it be that you are only concerned with human beings on one side of the green line?Or perhaps you are only interested in whining endlessly about perceived and alleged past injustices, without having anything positive to suggest? We're listening. Do you have anything to say that's worth listening to?"
Have you been really listening or are you just stupid?
Let's see now, I'd say you zionists have some choices to make...
They are all about a Palestinian state but are they to be based on...
1967 borders?
1948 borders?
1947 borders?
or pre 1947 borders? I can hear you squealing from here...like a stuck pig.
How long would it take to empty Israel if her supporters agreed to reserve 10% of immigration intake for Israeli citizens?
Then again I'm sure Palestinians would acknowledge pre-zionist Palestinian Jews rights and claims.
No decent human can tolerate Jewish-Israeli fascism and genocide and ethnic cleansing.
You have much more patience than I have for these 2 characters.
Please don't expect these two anti-Semites to put forward any constructive suggestions of their own. All they focus on is bashing both Zionism and Judaism and spew hatred for both Zionists and Jews in general. CFB ("Already Published") seems to beat his counterpart in this department and has been constantly regurgitating material for at least a year now.
All attempts to engage in constructive dialogue with these 2 hatred spewing machines and clowns is doomed to failure.
Please don't expect these two anti-Semites to put forward any constructive suggestions of their own. All they focus on is bashing both Zionism and Judaism and spew hatred for both Zionists and Jews in general. CFB ("Already Published") seems to beat his counterpart in this department and has been constantly regurgitating material for at least a year now.
All attempts to engage in constructive dialogue with these 2 hatred spewing machines and clowns is doomed to failure.
quote:
============
All they focus on is bashing both Zionism and Judaism
===========
Oh, really?
Would you prefer to discuss the activities of a certain C-130 on September 11?
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/10/1655484_comment.php#1658189
Or you only interested in defending Zion?
============
All they focus on is bashing both Zionism and Judaism
===========
Oh, really?
Would you prefer to discuss the activities of a certain C-130 on September 11?
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/10/1655484_comment.php#1658189
Or you only interested in defending Zion?
I forgot to say you're a serial liar.
"Would you prefer to discuss the activities of a certain C-130 on September 11?"
Do you believe everything you read, you idiot? There are no CREDIBLE reports of any such thing! What purpose would it have served anyway? The planes never disappeared from radar. Or maybe, as it seems, you are incapable of discerning what the word "credible" means. You will believe ANYTHING that you think supports your point of view. Are you one of those idiots who believe Jews are behind 911? Do you believe that someone actually compiled a list of who were Jews among the 50,000 people who worked there? Among hundreds of different companies in the WTC? Do you think they marked JEW on their resumes when they were hired, and sent that information to a third party? And who called them all? JEW CENTRAL? Man, 4000 phone calls in one morning, and all before 8 am! JEW CENTRAL must have an INCREDIBLE telecommunications system. And, wow, not a SINGLE shred of evidence - anywhere! No phone records, no list, nothing. How did they even know who the Jews were? Boy, they're good. It's those super-Jew powers at work. It's well known that Jews have super-powers given to them by Satan. That's how they rule the world! If this is really all you've got, I won't waste my time arguiing with you. Put someone out here who has an intelligent point to make. By the way, did you know that Jews make matzoh with the blood of Christian babies? I'll bet you knew that aleady, didn't you, genius? By the way, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are REAL!
"How long would it take to empty Israel if her supporters agreed to reserve 10% of immigration intake for Israeli citizens? "
LOL.LOL.LOL. Yeah. Israel is going to pack up her bags and commit national suicide. Just to make ignorant bigots like you happy. You lead a very rich fantasy life, don't you? Do you actually think this will ever happen? Do you think Israelis will just wake up tomorrow and decide to end their country? THAT'S what you call a plan? Just ship 'em all back where they came from, hmmm? Now where have I heard that before? If this is seriously what you are hoping for, you're in for a looooooooooooooooong wait. Right after Saddam Hussein wins the Humanitarian of the Year Award.
As far as borders, wow, you really got us there. I've aleady pointed out that most Israelis are in favor of creating a Palestinian state based, more or less, on the 1967 borders (with the exception of Jerusalem). Nobody but idiots like you are seriously suggesting any other borders. Not a single Palestinian negotiator is asking for anything other than the 1967 borders. Some people are actually looking for a working solution. And some people are assholes who have nothing to offer but hatred.
You keep posting controversial remarks made by a few people, as if that has any significance. There are assholes and racists among any people, including Jews. So a few Jews made some idiotic racist remarks about Arabs. So what? They don't represent me or anyone else on this board. The statements you quoted were irresponsible and ignorant. The people who said them should be ashamed of themselves for saying them. But what has that got to with the rest of us? What has that got to do with Zionism, or Jews in general? I don't hold any racist views of Arabs and neither do any Jews that I know. Thomas Jefferson is the father of modern democracy. But he owned slaves. Does that mean that democracy is a racist system that favors slavery? "Genetic hatred of the goyim"? What kind of idiot uses terms like that? What the hell is "genetic hatred"? I can find many public anti-white statements made by African-Americans. Does that mean being African-American makes you a racist? Zionism is not about Arabs. It's about Jews. It's not based on some bigoted notion of Arab "inferiority". It's based on the idea of a homeland for the Jewish people. If that's racist, then so is the desire of ANY people for self-determination and nationhood. Including the Palestinians.
Ironic, isn't it, the only racist and hate-mongering commentary on this board is coming from anti-Zionists. And to think, this board started by claimng Zionists are racists. Don't make me laugh.
Do you believe everything you read, you idiot? There are no CREDIBLE reports of any such thing! What purpose would it have served anyway? The planes never disappeared from radar. Or maybe, as it seems, you are incapable of discerning what the word "credible" means. You will believe ANYTHING that you think supports your point of view. Are you one of those idiots who believe Jews are behind 911? Do you believe that someone actually compiled a list of who were Jews among the 50,000 people who worked there? Among hundreds of different companies in the WTC? Do you think they marked JEW on their resumes when they were hired, and sent that information to a third party? And who called them all? JEW CENTRAL? Man, 4000 phone calls in one morning, and all before 8 am! JEW CENTRAL must have an INCREDIBLE telecommunications system. And, wow, not a SINGLE shred of evidence - anywhere! No phone records, no list, nothing. How did they even know who the Jews were? Boy, they're good. It's those super-Jew powers at work. It's well known that Jews have super-powers given to them by Satan. That's how they rule the world! If this is really all you've got, I won't waste my time arguiing with you. Put someone out here who has an intelligent point to make. By the way, did you know that Jews make matzoh with the blood of Christian babies? I'll bet you knew that aleady, didn't you, genius? By the way, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are REAL!
"How long would it take to empty Israel if her supporters agreed to reserve 10% of immigration intake for Israeli citizens? "
LOL.LOL.LOL. Yeah. Israel is going to pack up her bags and commit national suicide. Just to make ignorant bigots like you happy. You lead a very rich fantasy life, don't you? Do you actually think this will ever happen? Do you think Israelis will just wake up tomorrow and decide to end their country? THAT'S what you call a plan? Just ship 'em all back where they came from, hmmm? Now where have I heard that before? If this is seriously what you are hoping for, you're in for a looooooooooooooooong wait. Right after Saddam Hussein wins the Humanitarian of the Year Award.
As far as borders, wow, you really got us there. I've aleady pointed out that most Israelis are in favor of creating a Palestinian state based, more or less, on the 1967 borders (with the exception of Jerusalem). Nobody but idiots like you are seriously suggesting any other borders. Not a single Palestinian negotiator is asking for anything other than the 1967 borders. Some people are actually looking for a working solution. And some people are assholes who have nothing to offer but hatred.
You keep posting controversial remarks made by a few people, as if that has any significance. There are assholes and racists among any people, including Jews. So a few Jews made some idiotic racist remarks about Arabs. So what? They don't represent me or anyone else on this board. The statements you quoted were irresponsible and ignorant. The people who said them should be ashamed of themselves for saying them. But what has that got to with the rest of us? What has that got to do with Zionism, or Jews in general? I don't hold any racist views of Arabs and neither do any Jews that I know. Thomas Jefferson is the father of modern democracy. But he owned slaves. Does that mean that democracy is a racist system that favors slavery? "Genetic hatred of the goyim"? What kind of idiot uses terms like that? What the hell is "genetic hatred"? I can find many public anti-white statements made by African-Americans. Does that mean being African-American makes you a racist? Zionism is not about Arabs. It's about Jews. It's not based on some bigoted notion of Arab "inferiority". It's based on the idea of a homeland for the Jewish people. If that's racist, then so is the desire of ANY people for self-determination and nationhood. Including the Palestinians.
Ironic, isn't it, the only racist and hate-mongering commentary on this board is coming from anti-Zionists. And to think, this board started by claimng Zionists are racists. Don't make me laugh.
It's foolish statements like that that help perpetuate the problem. Are you sure you not on their side?
It's foolish statements like that that help perpetuate the problem. Are you sure you not on their side?
Now, as far as 1967. Do any of you know how to read actual history books? Yes, indeed, there was dissension within the Israeli ranks as to whether or not to attack Egypt. Some felt Nasser was bluffing, Some felt his military was not strong enough to launch an invasion. But Egypt was not alone. They were part of an ever-growing anti-Israel formal military alliance that included Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Israel found itself surrounded on every front by troops massing on its borders. At it's narrowest point Israel was only 20 miles wide, easy prey for a strategy of "divide and conquer". There were far more in Israel (and most of the world) who felt the threat was very real and imminent. Israel decided it could not afford to take the chance of a bluff and struck first. Do some actual research and find out for yourself how the world thought that the destruction of Israel was about to occur. Was that another example of Jewish super-powers controlling their minds too? The reference to the "two divisions" the Egyptians put on the border was about the first wave of forces placed on the border, not the whole amount.That is just plain inaccurate. Again, if you actually did some credible (that magic word again) research you would discover for yourself that the combined Arab forces on Israel's borders by the beginning of June, 1967 numbered around 250,000, half of which were on the Egyptian/Israeli border. Nothing threatening about that, hmm? That's according to all reliable international sources, not just Israeli reports. Hardly just two divisions (by the way, "two divisions" means roughly 20,000 troops, not an insignificant number). And prior to the war there had been increasing cross-border guerilla and terrorist raids from all countries bordering Israel. There were 37 such attacks that year thus far. Syria had been using the Golan Heights for years to launch shelling and rocket attacks on northern Israeli towns. All of this would be enough by itself to provoke any nation to attack to stop the attacks on its citizens.
Do you know anything about the actual war? Any historian will tell you that the battle in the Sinai desert between Israel and Egypt was the largest single pitched tank battle in history. Larger than any single tank battle along the German/Russian front in WWII! There are still hundreds of burnt-out tanks littering the Sinai desert today. Egyptian losses in that battle numbered over ten thousand! All of this, on such a grand scale, would have been impossible with only two divisions. Sorry to bother you with actual facts, but there they are. And Jordan fired the first shot on the eastern front, shelling West Jerusalem on the second day of the war despite a plea from Israel not to get involved.
"We are engaged in defensive fighting on the Egyptian sector, and we shall not engage ourselves in any action against Jordan, unless Jordan attacks us. Should Jordan attack Israel, we shall go against her with all our might."
5 June 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol transmitted through the Chief of Staff of UNTSO a message to King Hussein asking Jordan to refrain from hostilities
But since you like posting dates and quotes from those involved as much, let's look at what the Arab leaders had to say at the time. shall we?
"The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents"
Egyptian President Nasser in a speech to United Arab Republic National Assembly March 26, 1964:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."
Egyptian Presiden Abdel Nasser March 8, 1965.
"We aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."
Egyptian Presiden Abdel Nasser 1965
May 16, 1967
Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, in violation of a UN-sponsored cease-fire. Two days later the Egyptian army began massing on the Israeli border.
"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
Abdel Nasser May 18, 1967 on the Voice of the Arabs
"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation"
Syrian Defense Minister (later President) Hafez Assad May 20 , 1967
On May 22, 1967 Egypt launches navall blockade of Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba, again in violation of a ceasefire as wel as international law, cutting off Israel's oil supply from Iran. Again, an act of war in itself.
After the war on June 19, US President Johson declares, in reference to the naval blockade
"If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Strait of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent maritime passage must be preserved for all nations."
By the way, the US tried to stop the war by enforcing an arms embargo - as did France, Israel's chief arms supplier at the time. The Soviet Union, who was Israel's chief arms supplier in 1948, continued to arm the Arabs despite the embargo
But allow me to continue:
"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,"
Abdel Nasser May 27, 1967
"We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."
Abdel Nasser May 28, 1967
May 30, 1967 Egypt and Jordan sign a formal miltary alliance. Nasser then announces
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declaration."
June 4, 1967 Iraq joins the military alliance which now includes Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.
President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq issued the following statement:
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."
June 5, 1967 Israel launches a suprise attack on Egypt. Jordan attacks Israel the next day.
There you have it. Your peace-loving leaders of Arab nations - in their own words. All of it a matter of public record. No threat in their words and actions, huh? No warlike intentions clearly on display for the whole world to see? They WANTED the world to know what they were about to do. They were trying to make a statement. They were bragging about how they were going to "wipe Israel off the map"! I guess it didn't turn out too well for them. I could easily dig up more of this stuff, but I have a life. But I suppose if you were in Israel at the time, you woudn't have feared that your nation was about to be wiped out? There's you "confessions", in plain black and white. Now who's "squealing like a stuck pig"? Sorry to burden you with actual facts and history. They can be so inconvenient when you are trying to spread lies and hate, can't they?
Do you know anything about the actual war? Any historian will tell you that the battle in the Sinai desert between Israel and Egypt was the largest single pitched tank battle in history. Larger than any single tank battle along the German/Russian front in WWII! There are still hundreds of burnt-out tanks littering the Sinai desert today. Egyptian losses in that battle numbered over ten thousand! All of this, on such a grand scale, would have been impossible with only two divisions. Sorry to bother you with actual facts, but there they are. And Jordan fired the first shot on the eastern front, shelling West Jerusalem on the second day of the war despite a plea from Israel not to get involved.
"We are engaged in defensive fighting on the Egyptian sector, and we shall not engage ourselves in any action against Jordan, unless Jordan attacks us. Should Jordan attack Israel, we shall go against her with all our might."
5 June 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol transmitted through the Chief of Staff of UNTSO a message to King Hussein asking Jordan to refrain from hostilities
But since you like posting dates and quotes from those involved as much, let's look at what the Arab leaders had to say at the time. shall we?
"The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents"
Egyptian President Nasser in a speech to United Arab Republic National Assembly March 26, 1964:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."
Egyptian Presiden Abdel Nasser March 8, 1965.
"We aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."
Egyptian Presiden Abdel Nasser 1965
May 16, 1967
Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw, in violation of a UN-sponsored cease-fire. Two days later the Egyptian army began massing on the Israeli border.
"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
Abdel Nasser May 18, 1967 on the Voice of the Arabs
"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation"
Syrian Defense Minister (later President) Hafez Assad May 20 , 1967
On May 22, 1967 Egypt launches navall blockade of Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba, again in violation of a ceasefire as wel as international law, cutting off Israel's oil supply from Iran. Again, an act of war in itself.
After the war on June 19, US President Johson declares, in reference to the naval blockade
"If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Strait of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent maritime passage must be preserved for all nations."
By the way, the US tried to stop the war by enforcing an arms embargo - as did France, Israel's chief arms supplier at the time. The Soviet Union, who was Israel's chief arms supplier in 1948, continued to arm the Arabs despite the embargo
But allow me to continue:
"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,"
Abdel Nasser May 27, 1967
"We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."
Abdel Nasser May 28, 1967
May 30, 1967 Egypt and Jordan sign a formal miltary alliance. Nasser then announces
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declaration."
June 4, 1967 Iraq joins the military alliance which now includes Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.
President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq issued the following statement:
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."
June 5, 1967 Israel launches a suprise attack on Egypt. Jordan attacks Israel the next day.
There you have it. Your peace-loving leaders of Arab nations - in their own words. All of it a matter of public record. No threat in their words and actions, huh? No warlike intentions clearly on display for the whole world to see? They WANTED the world to know what they were about to do. They were trying to make a statement. They were bragging about how they were going to "wipe Israel off the map"! I guess it didn't turn out too well for them. I could easily dig up more of this stuff, but I have a life. But I suppose if you were in Israel at the time, you woudn't have feared that your nation was about to be wiped out? There's you "confessions", in plain black and white. Now who's "squealing like a stuck pig"? Sorry to burden you with actual facts and history. They can be so inconvenient when you are trying to spread lies and hate, can't they?
Any events post 1947 are moot points.
That was when the manifest injustice that lead to this fiasco occurred. Any Arab aggression after 1947 is understandable. I completely understand Arab resistance to any Jewish state in the Middle East. I find it harder to understand how they can agree to discuss any borders for an Israeli state.
Israel is a legal fiction. No points you have made change that fact.
That was when the manifest injustice that lead to this fiasco occurred. Any Arab aggression after 1947 is understandable. I completely understand Arab resistance to any Jewish state in the Middle East. I find it harder to understand how they can agree to discuss any borders for an Israeli state.
Israel is a legal fiction. No points you have made change that fact.
You haven't proven how the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine constitutes a "manifest injustice", nor why ANY Arab aggression after 1947 is understandable, nor why events post '47 are moot points.
But your "legal fiction" balderdash really tops it off for sheer nonsense (and yet again, you haven't proven why Israel is a legal fiction). If Israel is legal fiction then so are all other countries, you fucking moron.
But your "legal fiction" balderdash really tops it off for sheer nonsense (and yet again, you haven't proven why Israel is a legal fiction). If Israel is legal fiction then so are all other countries, you fucking moron.
I asked: "Would you prefer to discuss the activities of a certain C-130 on September 11?" [instead of discussing the cult of Zion]
de truff responded: Do you believe everything you read, you idiot? [Argumentum ad hominem]
There are no CREDIBLE reports of any such thing!
Let's take a look at a few witness reports, yet again, shall we?
| The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, [Keith Wheelhouse] said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar - while at the same time - guiding the jet toward the Pentagon. Daily Press, September 14, 2001 |
"There are no CREDIBLE reports of any such thing!" - But Keith Wheelhouse saw it.
Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion. At the same time, [Keith Wheelhouse] and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one
other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet. |
"There are no CREDIBLE reports of any such thing!" - Yet Pam Young and Kelly Knowles insist that they saw it.
“Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround. - New York Lawyer Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'" - eWeek As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. - Cloth Monkey Within moments there was a very loud bang, which seemed to come from the direction of Henderson Hall. At least, all the heads turned towards Henderson. It is possible that this was a secondary explosion from the Pentagon or possibly an F-16 going supersonic.[...] The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading. - Our Net Family |
"There are no CREDIBLE reports of any such thing!" - Yet here are another five witnesses who claim to have seen the other plane. Why would they do so, de Truf?
It gets better:
| [Keith Wheelhouse] and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of a C-130 being in the area at the time. In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge
of the C-130's encounter, because........all reports were classified by the Air National Guard. [!] Daily Press, October 17, 2001 |
So the Pentagon - a month after the event - finally acknowledged that a C-130 was in the area at the time, thus confirming the witness reports.
Is that credible enough for you, de Truf?
No?
Okay then - lets hear from the pilot of the C-130:
|
Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien started his day at the controls of a Minnesota National Guard C-130 cargo plane. He and his crew were heading back to the Twin Cities after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. About 9:30 a.m., [five minutes after Jane Garvey's stand-down order to all military and law enforcement aircraft] O'Brien throttled the lumbering plane down a runway at Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of the District of Columbia. "When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us. "It was like coming up to an intersection. When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement - by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. "That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn't seem to know anything." O'Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. "They told us to turn and follow that aircraft - in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that. With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out. "The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge. I told Washington the airplane has impacted the ground. Shook everyone up pretty good. I told them the approximate location was close to the Potomac. I figured he'd had some in-flight emergency and was trying to get back on the ground to Washington National. Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon." O'Brien asked the controller whether he should set up a low orbit around the building but was told to get out of the area as quickly as possible. "I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume." He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land. Somewhere over western Pennsylvania, O'Brien looked down at a blackened, smoldering field. "I hoped it was just a tire fire or something, but when I checked with Cleveland center, he told me he'd just lost a guy off the scope pretty close to where we saw it. By then, we were able to patch in AM radio, so we heard about all the planes. It was like a domino effect - a really bad day for airplanes." |
"There are no CREDIBLE reports of any such thing!"
- de Truf, November 11, 2003
Your next question:
"What purpose would it [the C-130 electronic warfare aircraft] have served anyway?"
| Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner? By James Hatfield July 3, 2001 [...] According to counter-terrorism experts quoted in Germany's largest newspaper, the attack on Dubya might be a James Bond-like aerial strike in the form of remote-controlled airplanes packed with plastic explosives. |
``The president received a presidential daily briefing which was not a warning briefing, but an analytic report. This analytic report ... talked about UBL's (Osama bin Laden's) methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in
1997, in 1998. It mentioned hijacking, but hijacking in the traditional sense, and in a sense said that the most important and most likely thing was that they would take over an airliner, holding passengers and demand the release of one of their operatives.''
Condoleeza Rice, May 16, 2002 |
|
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The airliner crashed between two and three hundred feet from my office in the Pentagon, just around a corner from where I work. I'm the deputy General Counsel, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense. A slightly different calibration and I have no doubt I wouldn't be sending this to you. My colleagues felt the impact, which reminded them of an earthquake. People shouted in the corridor outside that a bomb had gone off upstairs on the main concourse in the building. No alarms sounded. I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out. Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere. A personnel attorney at the Pentagon, Goldsmith was riding a shuttle bus to work on Tuesday, Sept. 11, when she learned of the attack on the World Trade Center. [...] "We saw a huge black cloud of smoke," she said, saying it smelled like cordite or gun smoke. Jewish Bulletin News |
Wow. Keith Wheelhouse saw it. How could I doubt Keith Wheelhouse? Everyone knows Keith Wheelhouse is the final word on truth, don't they? Keith Wheelhouse, the famed aviation and military expert. I'm impressed with your sources - a handful of eyewitnesses who have no way to be sure of what they saw. But let's assume there was indeed a C-130 in the vicinity -SO WHAT? You remain the unchallenged king of pointless observations. Wow, how unusual - a military aircraft was in the air near the Pentagon. How unusual. That never happens on a normal day, huh? There are military air bases in the area. Finding one in the air in the area is about as unusual as political speeches in Wahington, you moron. Some idiot on the ground thought it was "guiding" the planes into the Pentagon, and that proves it did? That's your proof? Hey, i once met someone who said they saw a UFO shoot Santa's sleigh out of the air. And to think - I doubted him. So you're saying the Pentagon arranged for it's own destruction and the deaths of hundreds of their colleagues? Yeah, right. And for what? To justify the "war on terror"? The World Trade Center wasn't enough for that, huh? WHERE'S THE REAL PROOF? You must be the most gullible idiot ever born. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Now we're going to talk about moronic conspiracy theories? I won't waste my time with such mindless idiotic drivel.
But here's my real question for you - what the HELL has ANY of this got to do with the Middle East, particularly Israel and Zionists? You ask us if we want to talk about the C-130. Why would we? What's it got to do with us? I've personally never been in one. Maybe it was on page 257 of the Zionist Conspiracy Manual. I must have missed it. Why don't we talk about my ingrown toenail instead? It's just as relevant to the topic of this board. Let's just blame the whole Middle East problem on my ingrown toenail. That makes as much sense as anything you've posted.
By the way, are you incapable of using your own words to make your point? Are you such an intellectual midget that all you can do is post irrelevant articles that have nothing to do with the topic (and come from questionable sources tobegin with), or quotes that are taken completely out of context? Cute little phrases like "legal fiction" are meaningless. You use them in lack of anything truthful to say. Nearly every point you have attempted to make on this board has been debunked and torn to shreds. It seems all you can do is reiterate the same tired rhetoric because you have nothing to debate with. Every time I expose the lies in your arguments, such as about the 6 Day War, you retreat into statements of basically "it doesn't matter". That is a childish tactic, at best. You weren't exactly captain of the debating society in high school , were you? If it doesn't matter, then why do you even bother to state your distorted version of events to begin with? You are not only a liar, but a coward who can't even defend his own lies when they are repeatedly exposed. I am apparently engaged in a battle of wits with a pathetically unarmed person, and a dishonest one at that (not to mention gullible). You are becoming increasingly laughable with every post. Go ahead and post some more. I could use a good laugh.
But here's my real question for you - what the HELL has ANY of this got to do with the Middle East, particularly Israel and Zionists? You ask us if we want to talk about the C-130. Why would we? What's it got to do with us? I've personally never been in one. Maybe it was on page 257 of the Zionist Conspiracy Manual. I must have missed it. Why don't we talk about my ingrown toenail instead? It's just as relevant to the topic of this board. Let's just blame the whole Middle East problem on my ingrown toenail. That makes as much sense as anything you've posted.
By the way, are you incapable of using your own words to make your point? Are you such an intellectual midget that all you can do is post irrelevant articles that have nothing to do with the topic (and come from questionable sources tobegin with), or quotes that are taken completely out of context? Cute little phrases like "legal fiction" are meaningless. You use them in lack of anything truthful to say. Nearly every point you have attempted to make on this board has been debunked and torn to shreds. It seems all you can do is reiterate the same tired rhetoric because you have nothing to debate with. Every time I expose the lies in your arguments, such as about the 6 Day War, you retreat into statements of basically "it doesn't matter". That is a childish tactic, at best. You weren't exactly captain of the debating society in high school , were you? If it doesn't matter, then why do you even bother to state your distorted version of events to begin with? You are not only a liar, but a coward who can't even defend his own lies when they are repeatedly exposed. I am apparently engaged in a battle of wits with a pathetically unarmed person, and a dishonest one at that (not to mention gullible). You are becoming increasingly laughable with every post. Go ahead and post some more. I could use a good laugh.
quote:
==============
You ask us if we want to talk about the C-130. Why would we? What's it got to do with us?
============
quoting your zionist pal:
============
All they focus on is bashing both Zionism and Judaism
===========
Did you click on the hyperlinks I embedded in Victor Davis Hanson's racist diatribe, "Why the Muslims Misjudged Us: They Hate Us Because Their Culture Is Backwards and Corrupt"?
Are you familiar with the details of the Sykes-Picot agreement?
Have you read the content of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's 1919 King-Crane Commission Report?
Are you familiar with the concept of the "Wishes of the People"?
What did the Balfour Decalration have to say about the rights of non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine?
What happened to the obsessively democratic leader of Iran in 1953?
How many Mossad agents were arrested after their display of "Joy and Mockery" on September 11?
==============
You ask us if we want to talk about the C-130. Why would we? What's it got to do with us?
============
quoting your zionist pal:
============
All they focus on is bashing both Zionism and Judaism
===========
Did you click on the hyperlinks I embedded in Victor Davis Hanson's racist diatribe, "Why the Muslims Misjudged Us: They Hate Us Because Their Culture Is Backwards and Corrupt"?
Are you familiar with the details of the Sykes-Picot agreement?
Have you read the content of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's 1919 King-Crane Commission Report?
Are you familiar with the concept of the "Wishes of the People"?
What did the Balfour Decalration have to say about the rights of non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine?
What happened to the obsessively democratic leader of Iran in 1953?
How many Mossad agents were arrested after their display of "Joy and Mockery" on September 11?
"Wow, how unusual - a military aircraft was in the air near the Pentagon. How unusual"
You bet it was unusual, given that there was a stand down order on jets that tried to intercept that plane.
And given that they were working their hardest to make it seem like none could possibly have made it over there.
Its amazing this guy did.
You bet it was unusual, given that there was a stand down order on jets that tried to intercept that plane.
And given that they were working their hardest to make it seem like none could possibly have made it over there.
Its amazing this guy did.
You really are pathetic. So what ABOUT the plane? Why don't you just plainly state what you're trying to imply? Are you a coward? And WHAT "Mossad agents"? There were no Mossad agents arrested in anything connected to 911. None. Zero. Where do you get your info? Jew-Hater.com? The White Supremacist News? PraiseTheIntifada.net? Little green men in black overcoats? I saw lots of Palestinians celebrating 911. The whole world saw that, much to Yasser Arafat's chagrin. The only Israelis celebrating were perhaps some Arab-Israelis, not Jews. The U.S. is the best friend Israel and the Jewish people ever had, and they know it. Why would any Israeli be happy with 911? You are really a pathetic hate-mongering bigot. Keep posting so you can expose yourself some more, as you do everytime you post. Just as you did with your crap about Jews not belonging in the Middle East, where they've been for nearly 4000 years. As long as they live under a despotic non-democratic Arab government where there is no religious freedom or civil rights, then Jews can stay, huh? Only Arabs are entitled to self-determination as they do in 22 independent countries? But Jews are not entitled to a single nation, no matter how small? You are a greedy, small-minded bigot with nothing to offer the world. So you sit there and sling bullshit and hatred because that is all you can do. Israel and the Jewish people will endure, just as they've done for thousands of years despite fools like you. Don't like it? Well, that's just tough shit, isn't it? Poor little hate-mongering baby. All that hatred and nothing to do with it. Why don't you join the ranks of the suicide bombers if you're so anxious for violence and so adamant about destroying Israel? You'll have the chance to kill defenseless women and children just like your heroes do.
As for your question about the Balfour Declaration - there are over a million Arabs who are Israeli citizens. That's about as many as were in all of Palestine in 1947. The average Israeli Arab has more rights, is better treated by the govenment, and has a higher average standard of living than does ANY Arab living under ANY Arab government. Talk about irony. They have constitutionally mandated equal rights with Jews, as does any minority in Israel. They are richer on the average than Arabs in Arab-majority countries. They have the right to vote in a true democracy, which does not exist ANYWHERE in the Arab world. There are Arabs who hold seats in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament). Do any Jews have any political power whatsoever in Arab countries? Arabs have COMPLETE religious freedom in Israel (also unknown in the Arab world). Arab governments all have laws restricting, if not outlawing, all non-Muslim religious practices. Only in Israel do Arabs enjoy these kind of civil rights, freedoms, political power, and prosperity. So what was it you were saying about the Balfour Declaration?
quote:
===========
Mossad agents"? There were no Mossad agents arrested in anything connected to 911. None. Zero.
==========
5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior' after WTC tragedy
Five Israelis who had worked for a moving company based in New
Jersey are being held in U.S. prisons for what the Federal Bureau of Investigation has described as "puzzling behavior" following the terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York last Tuesday.[...] They are said
to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.
Ha'Aretz, September 17, 2001
Five Men Detained As Suspected Conspirators
Eight hours after terrorists struck Manhattan's tallest skyscrapers, police
in Bergen County detained five men who they said were found carrying maps linking them to the blasts. The five men, who were in a van stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford around 4:30 p.m., were being questioned by police but had not been charged with any crime late Tuesday.
However, sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot. "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."
Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities
said.
Bergen Record, September 12, 2001 (copy)
December 26, 2001
September 11 nightmare ends for two illegal Israeli aliens
By Uri Ash
Ro'i Barak [paid some money for an airfare and] left for New York 16 months ago to earn some money. [!]
Like many [poor] young Israelis, the 23-year-old from Upper Nazareth moved furniture [in the United States] to make a living [illegally].
On September 11, Barak was in Ohio on a job. He and his partner, Moti Butboul, 26, from Rechasim, headed toward Chicago, from where they had planned to return to New York.
On the way the next day, however, they were stopped by a police officer in Pennsylvania for a routine inspection, and were eventually sent to jail. The two were released to Israel only last week, while five of their co-workers are still under arrest in the United States.
At the time they were stopped, the policeman held them for a few hours, after which another squad car arrived followed by four FBI agents. Barak, speaking from his parents' home, said he does not know what prompted the policeman to call the FBI - perhaps their foreign accent or the previous day's arrest of their five friends who worked for the same moving company in New York. He said the FBI may have been tracking their truck after their co-workers' arrests.
--Ha'Aretz
The White Van
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on
the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
ABC
June 21, 2002
Spies, or students?
Were the Israelis just trying to sell their paintings, or agents in a massive espionage ring?
Ha'Aretz,
May 14, 2002
Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities
Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Security, June, 2001
In January, 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Office of Security Programs (IS), began to receive reports of Israeli art students attempting to penetrate several DEA Field Offices in the continental United States. Additionally, there have been reports of Israeli art students
visiting the homes of numerous DEA employees. These incidents have occurred since at least the beginning of 2000, and have continued to the present
DEA
Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth
Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage
Despite angry denials by Israel and its American supporters, reports that Israel was conducting spying activities in the United States may have a grain of truth, the Forward has learned.[...]
According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, who asked not to be named, the FBI came to the conclusion at the end of its investigation that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September (Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel) were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front.[...]
In addition to their strange behavior and their Middle Eastern looks, the suspicions were compounded when a box cutter and $4,000 in cash were found in the van. Moreover, one man carried two passports and another had fresh pictures of the men standing with the smoldering wreckage of the World Trade Center in the background.[...]
On December 7, a New Jersey judge ruled that the state could seize the goods remaining inside the warehouse. The state also has a lawsuit pending against Urban Moving Systems and its owner, Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen. The FBI questioned Mr. Suter once. However, he left the country afterward and went back to Israel before further questioning. Mr. Suter declined through his lawyer to be interviewed for this article.[...] Charlene Eban, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Washington, and Don Nelson, a Justice Department spokesman, said they had no knowledge of an Israeli spying operation.
"If we found evidence of unauthorized intelligence operations, that would be classified material,"
added Jim Margolin, a spokesman for the FBI in New York.
Forward, February, 2002
Dominik Suter of Mossad on an FBI List of September 11 Suspects (large pdf)
Would you like to see the FOX report on video, de Truf?
More unsubstantiated allegations. First of all, what's this got to do with anything? Are you now just reaching for ANYTHING to slander Jews with? How does any of this relate to the legitimacy of Zionism? As soon as you get shot down on one topic, you switch to another topic. Why don't you pick a topic and stick with it?
As far as 911 - Again, wow. This is your damning evidence? A couple of Israelis are arrested for what APPEARED to be "joy and mockery", for which they had an explanation. By the way, is "joy and mockery" a crime? Peraps in your Nazi-loving world it is. And if they were expressing "joy and mockery" then they are assholes. What's that got to do with anyone else? And where's the proof that they were Mossad agents? An "unnamed American intelligence officer" said so. How difficult is it to dig up an "unnamed" anonymous source to claim ANYTHING? Hey, i spoke to an "unnamed inteligence office" who says the Canadians were responsible. Really, it's true! And another says it was Martians! And does anything you've said trump the OVERWHELMING evidence of Al Qaeda's repsonsibilty for 911? Has Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden ever denied their responsibilty for 911? Not once. In fact, they praise it constantly as a heroic act. Is Osama, the hero of millions of extremist Moslems, also a Mossad agent? That would make the whole Moslem world look pretty damned stupid, wouldn't it? Osama bin laden the man who declared war on the US and who admittedly masterminded numerous attacks on the US such as the USS Cole and two US embassies in Africa, who praises the attacks of 911 every chance he gets - he's innocent? Not even his captured henchmen deny their responsibilty for 911. The proof is undeniable. Undeniable to anyone but Jew-hating anti-Zionists who will believe ANYTHING they believe can indict Israel. Yes, the Mossad has agents in the US, The US does business with Arab states that are the enemies of Israel, so Israel probably thinks it can uncover something useful to them. It may not be ethical, but it is something nearly ALL nations do. You don't think America has CIA agents in Israel? America spies on its own allies routinely, and vica-versa. That's the real world.
In the meanwhile, there were millions of Arabs and Moslems expressing "joy and mockery" after 911. It was all over TV and the newspapers The whole world saw it clearly. And I recall a number of Arabs in the US being arrested for suspicious behavior and celebrating after 911 as well. But there were a couple of Israelis engaged in "suspicious activities". Yep, that sure proves it. I mean, how can you argue with that? All the evidence to the contrary means nothing. It HAD to be those guys. After all, it's not like there's along history of Arab terrorist attacks agaisnt the US, right? And it's not like people with links to Osama were actually CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW for bombing the WTC in 1993, right? You know, a court of law? Where ACTUAL evidence is PUBLICLY presented and a case is PROVEN or DISPROVEN? You've heard of the word "evidence", right? Look it up.
And the most absurd part of your argument would have to be motive. Why would Israel risk destroying relations with its greatest ally? To draw us into a war with the Arabs? Why would Israel need the US for that? In case you haven't been paying attention for years, Israel has never needed foreign military forces to defend it. Not once. Israel has never needed the US to fight its battles, though the reverse is not true. The US used Israel for decades the keep the Soviet Union from taking over the region. That was the basis for the US/Israeli alliance throughout the Cold War.
So what's next? Do you want to blame Jews for AIDS? The Palestinians aleady have.The Prime Minister of Malaysia blames Jews for his nation's economic troubles. Maybe Jews are responsible for that case of hemerrhoids you had last year? Or for global warming? Or for those annoying car alarms? I'm sure it's all true.
By the way, what happened to your question about the Balfour Declaration? Or was that just one more distortion that you dropped once it was exposed, so you changed the subject?
And what is with your fucking obsession with Jews anyway? Your life seems to revolve around a people you depise so much. How sad for you.
As far as 911 - Again, wow. This is your damning evidence? A couple of Israelis are arrested for what APPEARED to be "joy and mockery", for which they had an explanation. By the way, is "joy and mockery" a crime? Peraps in your Nazi-loving world it is. And if they were expressing "joy and mockery" then they are assholes. What's that got to do with anyone else? And where's the proof that they were Mossad agents? An "unnamed American intelligence officer" said so. How difficult is it to dig up an "unnamed" anonymous source to claim ANYTHING? Hey, i spoke to an "unnamed inteligence office" who says the Canadians were responsible. Really, it's true! And another says it was Martians! And does anything you've said trump the OVERWHELMING evidence of Al Qaeda's repsonsibilty for 911? Has Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden ever denied their responsibilty for 911? Not once. In fact, they praise it constantly as a heroic act. Is Osama, the hero of millions of extremist Moslems, also a Mossad agent? That would make the whole Moslem world look pretty damned stupid, wouldn't it? Osama bin laden the man who declared war on the US and who admittedly masterminded numerous attacks on the US such as the USS Cole and two US embassies in Africa, who praises the attacks of 911 every chance he gets - he's innocent? Not even his captured henchmen deny their responsibilty for 911. The proof is undeniable. Undeniable to anyone but Jew-hating anti-Zionists who will believe ANYTHING they believe can indict Israel. Yes, the Mossad has agents in the US, The US does business with Arab states that are the enemies of Israel, so Israel probably thinks it can uncover something useful to them. It may not be ethical, but it is something nearly ALL nations do. You don't think America has CIA agents in Israel? America spies on its own allies routinely, and vica-versa. That's the real world.
In the meanwhile, there were millions of Arabs and Moslems expressing "joy and mockery" after 911. It was all over TV and the newspapers The whole world saw it clearly. And I recall a number of Arabs in the US being arrested for suspicious behavior and celebrating after 911 as well. But there were a couple of Israelis engaged in "suspicious activities". Yep, that sure proves it. I mean, how can you argue with that? All the evidence to the contrary means nothing. It HAD to be those guys. After all, it's not like there's along history of Arab terrorist attacks agaisnt the US, right? And it's not like people with links to Osama were actually CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW for bombing the WTC in 1993, right? You know, a court of law? Where ACTUAL evidence is PUBLICLY presented and a case is PROVEN or DISPROVEN? You've heard of the word "evidence", right? Look it up.
And the most absurd part of your argument would have to be motive. Why would Israel risk destroying relations with its greatest ally? To draw us into a war with the Arabs? Why would Israel need the US for that? In case you haven't been paying attention for years, Israel has never needed foreign military forces to defend it. Not once. Israel has never needed the US to fight its battles, though the reverse is not true. The US used Israel for decades the keep the Soviet Union from taking over the region. That was the basis for the US/Israeli alliance throughout the Cold War.
So what's next? Do you want to blame Jews for AIDS? The Palestinians aleady have.The Prime Minister of Malaysia blames Jews for his nation's economic troubles. Maybe Jews are responsible for that case of hemerrhoids you had last year? Or for global warming? Or for those annoying car alarms? I'm sure it's all true.
By the way, what happened to your question about the Balfour Declaration? Or was that just one more distortion that you dropped once it was exposed, so you changed the subject?
And what is with your fucking obsession with Jews anyway? Your life seems to revolve around a people you depise so much. How sad for you.
More unsubstantiated allegations. First of all, what's this got to do with anything? Are you now just reaching for ANYTHING to slander Jews with? How does any of this relate to the legitimacy of Zionism? As soon as you get shot down on one topic, you switch to another topic. Why don't you pick a topic and stick with it?
As far as 911 - Again, wow. This is your damning evidence? A couple of Israelis are arrested for what APPEARED to be "joy and mockery", for which they had an explanation. By the way, is "joy and mockery" a crime? Peraps in your Nazi-loving world it is. And if they were expressing "joy and mockery" then they are assholes. What's that got to do with anyone else? And where's the proof that they were Mossad agents? An "unnamed American intelligence officer" said so. How difficult is it to dig up an "unnamed" anonymous source to claim ANYTHING? Hey, i spoke to an "unnamed inteligence office" who says the Canadians were responsible. Really, it's true! And another says it was Martians! And does anything you've said trump the OVERWHELMING evidence of Al Qaeda's repsonsibilty for 911? Has Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden ever denied their responsibilty for 911? Not once. In fact, they praise it constantly as a heroic act. Is Osama, the hero of millions of extremist Moslems, also a Mossad agent? That would make the whole Moslem world look pretty damned stupid, wouldn't it? Osama bin laden the man who declared war on the US and who admittedly masterminded numerous attacks on the US such as the USS Cole and two US embassies in Africa, who praises the attacks of 911 every chance he gets - he's innocent? Not even his captured henchmen deny their responsibilty for 911. The proof is undeniable. Undeniable to anyone but Jew-hating anti-Zionists who will believe ANYTHING they believe can indict Israel. Yes, the Mossad has agents in the US, The US does business with Arab states that are the enemies of Israel, so Israel probably thinks it can uncover something useful to them. It may not be ethical, but it is something nearly ALL nations do. You don't think America has CIA agents in Israel? America spies on its own allies routinely, and vica-versa. That's the real world.
In the meanwhile, there were millions of Arabs and Moslems expressing "joy and mockery" after 911. It was all over TV and the newspapers The whole world saw it clearly. And I recall a number of Arabs in the US being arrested for suspicious behavior and celebrating after 911 as well. But there were a couple of Israelis engaged in "suspicious activities". Yep, that sure proves it. I mean, how can you argue with that? All the evidence to the contrary means nothing. It HAD to be those guys. After all, it's not like there's along history of Arab terrorist attacks agaisnt the US, right? And it's not like people with links to Osama were actually CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW for bombing the WTC in 1993, right? You know, a court of law? Where ACTUAL evidence is PUBLICLY presented and a case is PROVEN or DISPROVEN? You've heard of the word "evidence", right? Look it up.
And the most absurd part of your argument would have to be motive. Why would Israel risk destroying relations with its greatest ally? To draw us into a war with the Arabs? Why would Israel need the US for that? In case you haven't been paying attention for years, Israel has never needed foreign military forces to defend it. Not once. Israel has never needed the US to fight its battles, though the reverse is not true. The US used Israel for decades the keep the Soviet Union from taking over the region. That was the basis for the US/Israeli alliance throughout the Cold War.
So what's next? Do you want to blame Jews for AIDS? The Palestinians aleady have.The Prime Minister of Malaysia blames Jews for his nation's economic troubles. Maybe Jews are responsible for that case of hemerrhoids you had last year? Or for global warming? Or for those annoying car alarms? I'm sure it's all true. In fact, it's all in chapter 13 of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm sure your copy is well worn. It's sitting right next to your copy of Mein Kampf, your other great source of information on Jewish conspiracies.
By the way, what happened to your question about the Balfour Declaration? Or was that just one more distortion that you dropped once it was exposed, so you changed the subject?
And what is with your fucking obsession with Jews anyway? Your life seems to revolve around a people you depise so much. How sad for you.
As far as 911 - Again, wow. This is your damning evidence? A couple of Israelis are arrested for what APPEARED to be "joy and mockery", for which they had an explanation. By the way, is "joy and mockery" a crime? Peraps in your Nazi-loving world it is. And if they were expressing "joy and mockery" then they are assholes. What's that got to do with anyone else? And where's the proof that they were Mossad agents? An "unnamed American intelligence officer" said so. How difficult is it to dig up an "unnamed" anonymous source to claim ANYTHING? Hey, i spoke to an "unnamed inteligence office" who says the Canadians were responsible. Really, it's true! And another says it was Martians! And does anything you've said trump the OVERWHELMING evidence of Al Qaeda's repsonsibilty for 911? Has Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden ever denied their responsibilty for 911? Not once. In fact, they praise it constantly as a heroic act. Is Osama, the hero of millions of extremist Moslems, also a Mossad agent? That would make the whole Moslem world look pretty damned stupid, wouldn't it? Osama bin laden the man who declared war on the US and who admittedly masterminded numerous attacks on the US such as the USS Cole and two US embassies in Africa, who praises the attacks of 911 every chance he gets - he's innocent? Not even his captured henchmen deny their responsibilty for 911. The proof is undeniable. Undeniable to anyone but Jew-hating anti-Zionists who will believe ANYTHING they believe can indict Israel. Yes, the Mossad has agents in the US, The US does business with Arab states that are the enemies of Israel, so Israel probably thinks it can uncover something useful to them. It may not be ethical, but it is something nearly ALL nations do. You don't think America has CIA agents in Israel? America spies on its own allies routinely, and vica-versa. That's the real world.
In the meanwhile, there were millions of Arabs and Moslems expressing "joy and mockery" after 911. It was all over TV and the newspapers The whole world saw it clearly. And I recall a number of Arabs in the US being arrested for suspicious behavior and celebrating after 911 as well. But there were a couple of Israelis engaged in "suspicious activities". Yep, that sure proves it. I mean, how can you argue with that? All the evidence to the contrary means nothing. It HAD to be those guys. After all, it's not like there's along history of Arab terrorist attacks agaisnt the US, right? And it's not like people with links to Osama were actually CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW for bombing the WTC in 1993, right? You know, a court of law? Where ACTUAL evidence is PUBLICLY presented and a case is PROVEN or DISPROVEN? You've heard of the word "evidence", right? Look it up.
And the most absurd part of your argument would have to be motive. Why would Israel risk destroying relations with its greatest ally? To draw us into a war with the Arabs? Why would Israel need the US for that? In case you haven't been paying attention for years, Israel has never needed foreign military forces to defend it. Not once. Israel has never needed the US to fight its battles, though the reverse is not true. The US used Israel for decades the keep the Soviet Union from taking over the region. That was the basis for the US/Israeli alliance throughout the Cold War.
So what's next? Do you want to blame Jews for AIDS? The Palestinians aleady have.The Prime Minister of Malaysia blames Jews for his nation's economic troubles. Maybe Jews are responsible for that case of hemerrhoids you had last year? Or for global warming? Or for those annoying car alarms? I'm sure it's all true. In fact, it's all in chapter 13 of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm sure your copy is well worn. It's sitting right next to your copy of Mein Kampf, your other great source of information on Jewish conspiracies.
By the way, what happened to your question about the Balfour Declaration? Or was that just one more distortion that you dropped once it was exposed, so you changed the subject?
And what is with your fucking obsession with Jews anyway? Your life seems to revolve around a people you depise so much. How sad for you.
By the way, the proof of all of the above-mentioned conspiracies is in chapter 13 of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's on the shelf right next to your copy of Mein Kampf, the other great source of information on Jewish conspiracies. I'm sure your copies of both are worn out by now.
Reality Check: A New American Century
...the Project for a New American Century...founding members include[] Vice-President Dick Cheney; Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz of the Defence Department; Richard Perle, head of the defence advisory board; Louis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff; John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control; and Elliot Cohen of the defence policy board.
Much of what these men wanted is coming true: They urged that the U.S. abandon the anti-ballistic missile treaty. It has. They wanted establishment of more permanent U.S. military bases abroad. That is happening in the Philippines and in Georgia, and will likely happen in Iraq. They urged regime change as a goal of foreign wars, and not just in Iraq. They wanted the U.S. as a global "constabulary" – their word – unburdened by the United Nations or world opinion, preventing any challenge to U.S. dominance.
But, they wrote a year before Sept. 11, such aspirations are unlikely to be realized without "a catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." CBC News Online, March 17, 2003
It's even more complicated than that. Some Jews who fought on Hilter's side weren't even German.
See:
http://www.finemb.org.il/Historia.htm
The Jews of Finland and World War II
by Tapani Harviainen, Professor of Semitic Languages, University of Helsinki
In several respects the history of the Jews in Finland has no counterpart, either in the Scandinavian and Baltic countries or in Eastern Europe. In order to be able to tell what happened during the Second World War, I must explain how there came to be Jews in Finland in that period. As a consequence, this presentation consists of two parts: first, the rise of the Jewish community in Finland, and, second, the fate of the Jews in Finland during the Second World War.
In theory, there was no place for Jews in Finland. From the 12th-13th century until 1809 Finland was a province of Sweden. When Sweden was opened up to the Jews in 1782, residential rights were restricted to three, later four, cities on the Swedish mainland (Stockholm, Gothenburg, Norrköping; Karlskrona). Consequently, Jews were not allowed to settle in Finland. Nevertheless, visits were allowed and thus we know that the first Jews attested in Finland were the "Portuguese singers" Josef Lazarus, Meijer Isaac and Pimo Zelig, who together with the conjurer Michel Marcus were granted a licence to present their skills in Helsinki in 1782 (1.)
During the Swedish period some Jewish converts to Christianity also settled in Finland. Isak Zebulon of Lübeck, who had by baptismal received the name Christoffer, chose Oulu in Northern Finland as his new home town. The mother of Zacharias Topelius, the well-known Finnish writer - who lived in the 19th century was descended from this Oulu citizen of Jewish descent (2.).
Along with other Swedish laws, the 1782 regulations concerning Jews remained in force, as Finland became a Grand Duchy within the Russian Empire in 1809. Because of the high esteem enjoyed by the traditional laws of Sweden, the Grand Duchy of Finland remained a country out of bounds to Jews.
However, there is an exception which proves the rule. A part of south-eastern Finland, so-called Old Finland, was incorporated into Russia as early as the middle of the 18th century, and Swedish laws did not apply to that area until 1811. This made it possible for some Jewish families to move from Russia proper to Old Finland at the end of the 1790s; several families (Jacobsson, Kaspi, Veikkanen etc.) in Finland are descendents of these Jewish pioneers.
The Grand Duchy of Finland was a country out of bounds to Jews. However, when the Jews were granted civil rights in the independent Republic of Finland in 1918, 1,400 Jews were living in the country. How do we explain this miracle?
The regulations prohibiting the entry of Jews into the Grand Duchy of Finland did not prevent the Russian Army from entering the country. Ever since 1827, the Jews of Russia were liable for military service. With very few exceptions, Jews came to Finland as soldiers of the Czarist army. During the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, the duration of military service could well be 25 years - and even later it was six years. The conversion of non-Christian soldiers was one of the aims of the prolonged period of service. As one can imagine, the Jews in Russia did not consider the conscription to be a great honour, and thus the majority of Jewish recruits were sons of the poorest families, orphans and other of the underprivileged, many of them handed over to the army by the notorious chapers, i.e. kidnappers. After the long years of service, the soldiers, often having lost all contact with their birthplaces, were inclined to stay where they were.
This type of settlement caused a problem for Finnish autonomy. As a reaction, a Russian military ukase was issued in 1858 concerning soldiers discharged from the Russian army. According to this decree, a soldier in possession of a letter of retirement, a passport or a travel document had the right to settle and support himself in Finland. The same right applied to his family and children and also to his widow. As I have mentioned before, the decree was a Russian ukase, not a regulation promulgated by an initiative of the autonomous authorities in Finland. The ukase did not make any distinction between Christian and non-Christian soldiers, and the right of settlement of Jews was only implied from the general wording dealing with all ex-soldiers. Similarly, Moslems veterans were allowed to stay in Finland after that. Later, by a Finnish decree of 1869 and a letter from the Finnish Senate in 1876, ex-soldiers and their families were entitled to earn a living by selling home-made handicrafts, bread, berries, cigarettes, second-hand clothes and other inexpensive textile products. This type of trading was in which the Jewish narinkka markets in Helsinki began (3.).
At the beginning of the 1870s, organizational reforms in the Russian army brought about a rapid increase in the number of Jews in Finland to about five hundred - such a high figure! (4.) As a consequence, in 1872 a debate on their legal status was initiated in the Finnish Diet.
The four estates of the Diet, as well as the political parties of the subsequent Parliament, Senate, were unable to provide a solution to the problem. General conservatism, national protectionism and the fear of a mass exodus of the Eastern European Jewish proletariat were the main arguments of the opponents. The constitutional conflict between the Finnish and Russian authorities which began in 1899 further complicated the handling of the question.
It was only in 1918, in connection with Finnish independence, that full citizen's rights were granted to the Jews in Finland. In Europe, only Rumania acted more slowly than Finland in giving civil rights to the Jewish population. In Russia Jews were naturalized after the Revolution in 1917, and in Sweden this was achieved as early as 1870. - In this context it is worth noting that the great majority of Jews living in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries have a German background; immigration from Poland has also taken place.
Because of the restrictions, extremely few Jews could move to Finland on their own initiative. On the basis of the Finnish police archives it is evident that, excluding the intelligentsia, which was very small in number (a rabbi, a teacher and a circumciser), the background of all Jews was in one way or another in the Russian Army. They had not just come to Finland, it was the Army which had sent them - by chance - to Finland and finally they had settled in the country. The decision was not their own; it was a part of the inexplicable wisdom of the Army which chose who would be Jews of Finland in the future. No parallel case of this sort of genesis of a Jewish community is known to me.
The Russian Army thus sent Jews to Finland. However, a very important exception from this rule must not be forgotten. While the Army sent boys to Finland, it did not take care of providing wives for them. Actually, we have no precise information as to the measures to which the poor lonely soldiers resorted. Family legends tell of veterans who established a joint 'isqa venture, i.e. they collected money and wrote a letter to a rabbi in a shtetl in Lithuania asking him to dispatch so-and-so many marriageable Jewish women to Helsinki. Since trains were few in Russia, a consignment was transported by a cart. The ex-soldiers had plenty of time to spend waiting in the market place in Helsinki, and when the cart at last arrived, the strongest khaveyrim were ready to take the most beautiful meydelakh down from the wagon; the slimmer lads had to be happy with the rest. The story has given rise to a saying current among Jewish ladies in Finland: "I have not been taken down from a cart" - de-haynu: "I come from a better mishpokhe." (6.)
Be that as it may be, it is evident that other nationalities in Russia were attracted to Finland by its reputation in Russia as a country of order, a strong economy and greater intellectual freedom (7.). Obviously it was this reputation which assisted the Jewish soldiers in obtaining wives from Russia with such success that in 1898 the majority of Jews living in Helsinki were born in Finland; this genesis was due to the great number of children in their families.
From which parts of Russia were the Jewish soldiers sent to Helsinki? The Helsinki police archives offer a clear answer to this question. All Jews resident in Helsinki in 1898 had come from Russia which at that time included the greater part of Poland (8.). According to the archives the most important "home towns" or the localities and districts where the heads of the families had been registered before their arrival in Finland, were (1) Schlüsselburg (now Petrokrepost) east of St. Petersburg, above the River Neva, (2) the governments of Novgorod and Tver, and (3) Lithuania and the north-eastern parts of Poland. A surprising element in this information is that Schlüsselburg, Novgorod and Tver were all outside the Pale of Settlement where Jews were allowed to reside. Equally surprising is the almost total absence of Estonia and Latvia in the domicile registers (9.).
During the first decades of independent Finland, in the 1920s and 1930s, the Jewish population in Finland numbered nearly 2,000, more than at any other time. At the outset, Jews spoke either Yiddish or Russian. Linguistic assimilation led first in the direction of Swedish and then also in the direction of Finnish. Yiddish was discarded surprisingly quickly; a student of mine could find only three speakers of Yiddish for tape-recording for his M.A. thesis in Helsinki in 1995. In giving up the Jewish language, Yiddish, Finnish Jewry was left without a significant uniting factor, a factor which, for example, the Finnish Tatars have preserved (10.). Religion and consciousness of being Jewish remained, thereafter, the only uniting factors.
In the 1920s and 1930s, genuine anti-Semitism also found expression in Finland in certain ultra-right-wing circles, but it never gained wider sympathies. The fact seems to remain that in the young Republic all minorities suffered from prejudice and xenophobia to some extent but evenly distributed. In this period, the Jews did, however, carry one burden which may have made its position more difficult than that of other minorities: a significant number of the Soviet leaders and well-known Bolsheviks were Jews, and this fact easily led people to the following conclusion: because he is a Jew he must be a Bolshevik, and as such an enemy of Finland.
World War II (11.)
In the years 1939-1944 two different wars against the Soviet Union were imposed upon Finland. During the Winter War of 1939-1940 Germany remained strictly neutral on the basis of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; Great Britain and France planned intervention in favour of Finland.
When the second, so-called Continuation War broke out in the summer of 1941, Finland was a co-belligerent of Germany, and Great Britain declared war on Finland in December 1941. De jure, however, Finland was never an ally of Germany, and at the end of the War, in the winter 1944-45, the Finnish armed forces expelled the German troops from Lapland, which was devastated by the Germans during their retreat to Norway.
Military service was compulsory for each male citizen of Finland. In 1939 the Jewish population of Finland numbered 1,700. Of these, 260 men were called up and approximately 200 were sent to serve at the front during the Winter War. Fifteen men lost their lives. In comparison with other communities in the country, the Jewish losses (8 %) were conspicuously heavy. However, it is obvious that the Winter War did not involve ideological problems - neither for the Jews nor for other citizens of Finland. In this respect a statement made by a Jewish veteran seems to be characteristic: "The Winter War gave us a deeper consciousness of being Finnish and of belonging to Finland more than any earlier period in our history."
As I mentioned earlier, the Continuation War broke out in the summer of 1941. Now Finland was a co-belligerent of Germany, and there were Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS troops in the country. However, no Einsatzgruppe was sent to Finland.
The comradeship-in-arms with Germany during the Continuation War did not alter the status of Jews in Finland or in its army. Jewish citizens served in the Finnish army, in women's voluntary defence services and in other duties alongside other Finns. The same was true with regard to all the ethnic minorities, Tatars, Russians, Gipsies, Lapps, without differentiation.
In a quite unique photo, in a snowy forest there is a millboard tent with an iron heating stove, the chimney on the left-hand side - and a number of soldiers are posing outside the tent. The tent is a field synagogue, "Scholka's shul", set up for the Jewish soldiers at the front beside the River Svir in Eastern Karelia. A field synagogue with a Torah Scroll was, no doubt, a very exceptional event in an Army fighting on the German side during the War.
Several Jewish soldiers were cited for bravery in action; a number of them served as company commanders and one as a captain and battalion commander; Jewish army doctors were promoted to the same officer ranks as their colleagues, inclusive of ranks of major.
During the two wars, 23 Finnish Jews were killed in action. As a tribute to their memory, their names are published annually in the Jewish Calendar of the Bicur Cholim Society in Helsinki.
It has been supposed that the Germans demanded the liquidation of the Jewish communities in Finland too. However, there is no evidence in favour of these claims. On the other hand, the small Jewish population of Finland was not rescued because of a "lapse of memory" among the Nazis as has sometimes been maintained. An evident confutation of this hypothesis is the case of a handful of Jewish citizens from Finland who were living in the German-occupied countries: their successful return to Finland resulted in intense diplomatic activity between Berlin and Helsinki in the spring and summer of 1943.
It was the public conviction that "we have no Jewish Question", and the Finnish prime minister J. W. Rangell expressed such an opinion to Heinrich Himmler in July 1942. Consistent messages of this kind may have warned the Germans not to endanger relations with their useful brother-in-arms over an insignificant matter of little advantage to them - after final victory there would be nowhere for the Jews to escape to.
The position of Finnish Jewish soldiers was very similar to the political reality: none of the Jewish citizens of Finland refused to enter military service on the grounds of pacifism or of being Jewish. On the other hand, no instance is known of German soldiers refusing to co-operate with Finnish Jewish officers. As a rule, the attitude of Germans to Jewish soldiers in the Finnish army has been described as an "astonished" but "correct" one. The usual answer to incredulous questions put by Germans was that "there is no difference between Jews and other soldiers in the Finnish army." A number of Jewish officers were awarded German Iron Crosses, but they refused them.
Jewish soldiers were not unaware of the general anti-Semitism of Hitler's Germany, and reports of atrocities and mass murders circulated among them and their families. However, the brutality of the Holocaust did not become evident until the end of the Continuation War in the autumn of 1944. The awareness of being Finnish soldiers gave the Jews an assurance of safety even in the vicinity of German troops. At the same time, quite a number of Jewish soldiers seem to have felt the need to display that they were at least as brave soldiers as their comrades.
The complexity of comradeship with the Germans became a serious problem only after the wars, when the extent of the Holocaust was revealed. First of all, the Norwegian Jews who had suffered most during the Nazi occupation questioned the policy of the Jews in Finland. I consider that two reactions to these questions illustrate the views of the Jews in Finland quite well. A former Jewish member of the women's voluntary defence services (lotta) told me: "We were very surprised because of these questions. We were proud that we were also accepted to join the other Finns." Another reaction was: an association called the Jewish War Veterans in Finland was founded in Helsinki in 1981 During the first year of the association's activity, 84 members, more than 10 per cent of the members present in the Community, joined the association. It is self-evident that this is a most valid piece of evidence in favour of the exceptional, independent nature of the war which Finland waged on the side of Germany.
This is a short account of the Jewish citizens of Finland during the War. Another story is that of the Jewish refugees.
The persecution of Jews, launched by the National Socialists in Germany and in other countries under their influence, also brought refugees to Finland, where, however, they were received in a rather reluctant manner. In all, about 500 refugees arrived, and of these, 350 had by the summer of 1941 continued their journey to a third country, mostly to Sweden or the United States.
In contrast to the Jewish citizens of Finland, the position of the refugees turned out to be very difficult during the Continuation War. Some of the refugees were German nationals, and others had escaped to Finland from countries allied with or conquered by Germany. When the Continuation War broke out in 1941 there were about 150 Jewish refugees in Finland. They were taken to two villages in the countryside, but 43 men were sent to work-camps first in southern Lapland (Salla) and then to the Isle of Suursaari (Gogland) in the Finnish Gulf.
In the autumn of 1942, Norwegian Jewry was annihilated; more than half of them (altogether 757 people) lost their lives. Most of the survivors were among those who succeeded in escaping to Sweden. As I have mentioned before, it has been supposed that the Germans demanded the liquidation of the Jewish communities in Finland. However, there is no documentary evidence in favour of these claims, either concerning the Jewish citizens or the refugees (12.).
Nevertheless, the State Police in Finland had agreed with the leaders of the Gestapo that Finland was allowed to deport the undesirable refugees to the areas occupied by the Germans. In October 1942 nine Jewish men were sent by the Finnish State Police from the Suursaari camp to Helsinki and ten Jews were arrested elsewhere in Finland. However, one of the men escorted from the Suursaari camp succeeded in sending a postcard to Mr. Abraham Stiller, a member of the Jewish community and brother of the famous stage-manager Mauritz Stiller. Stiller as well as his friends, both Jews and other Finns, made contact with various governmental and administrative organs including President Risto Ryti and Marshal of Finland Mannerheim. As a result the governmental and public discussions the extradition was prevented.
However, on the 6th of October 1942, the State Police had already had five Jewish men and three (or four?) members of their families deported to the Gestapo in occupied Estonia. Officially, the men were claimed to be guilty of espionage and other criminal activities; four of them had minor offences in police records. Nineteen other persons, most of them citizens of the Soviet Union, were deported on board the same boat. The Gestapo transported the Jews to Birkenau concentration camp. Only one of these people (Georg Kollman, a former citizen of Austria) survived; after the war he immigrated to Israel.
There is no need to try and wash away the shame, but it should also not be forgotten that in October 1942, Germany was at the height of its power. After Stalingrad, it was considerably easier to say no. When after the war the victor, the Soviet Union, issued the demand that the Finnish Ingrians and other refugees be handed over to the Soviet Union, it was influential enough to get what it wanted.
Of the other refugees, Finnish citizenship was granted to 110 persons in 1943-44; some of them left the country before that or later on.
On the Finnish Independence Day, the 6th of December, in 1944, President Mannerheim, Marshal of Finland, visited the synagogue in Helsinki where the memory of the Jewish soldiers killed in action was honoured. When Mannerheim died in 1951, the Jewish community raised a large sum of money which was donated to the Mannerheim Fund of Child Welfare as an expression of gratitude for the defence of the equal rights of Jews in Finland.
(1.) Jews expelled from Portugal in the 16th century settled in the Dutch cities and in Hamburg. Their offspring and communities were for centuries called Portuguese. The word is here used in this sense.
(2.) Another famous convert was Meyer Levin, who in 1799 was admitted to the Medical Faculty of the University of Turku. Later on, Levin worked at the University teaching German, and in 1815 he was given a permit to set up a printing plant.
(3.) From Russian na rynke 'at the market-place'.
(4.) In the earliest list of Jews in Helsinki of which I am aware, drawn up in 1868, 21 families with 83 family members were enumerated (National Archives, KKK 36/1686).
(5.) In a letter of the Finnish Senate written in 1889, certain Jews whose names were particularly mentioned, together with their families, were given the right to remain in Finland until further notice, and to reside in localities assigned to them. From these towns Jews were allowed to move only to Helsinki or Vyborg within Finland. The residence permit applied to children only as long as they lived with their parents. As soon as they married or entered military service, they lost their residental right. New Jews were no longer admitted to Finland. At first "residence tickets" were very strictly scrutinized, and because of the problem of marriage, many Jews moved away from Finland and others were expelled. In 1890, there were about one thousand Jews in Finland, but in five years their number decreased by one quarter. At the turn of the century the practice of examining and renewing residence permits was no longer observed, but the regulation remained officially in force until 1918.
(6.) Helsingin Sanomat (A. Hurwitz), no. 316, 21.11.1929, s 4.
(7.) This conclusion is confirmed by the article Eyn vokh in Finland by Shemarya Gorelik, who participated in the 1906 Russian Zionist Congress in Helsinki. The article was published in Dos yudishe folk in Vilna the same year, and it was almost comic in its praise of the Finns and conditions in Finland.
(8.) Most of the soldiers had served in the regiments of the 23rd division then stationed in Finland (the regiments of Dvinsk, Petshora, Onega and Belomorsk), but quite a few also in different auxiliary units (military hospitals, local detachments, feeding depots etc.) Among them were also many bandmasters, members of military bands and drummers.
(9.) In the 1880s and 1890s nearly all Helsinki Jews made their living by selling new and second-hand clothes and fruit at the narinkka market: the name of Simo (i.e. Simeon) Square still refers to the Jewish market. More than three quarters of the Jewish population lived in the same district of Kamppi, where both the narinkka (from 1876) and later also the Synagogue (from 1906) were located. As late as 1860s most Jews still lived in the districts of Siltasaari and Kruununhaka, where the market was located at the time.
(10.) These Tatars also derive their origin from Russian, from the region on Nizhni-Novgorod, east of Moscow. Although Tatars also served in the Russian army in Finland, they did not settle in the country as ex-soldiers; their forefathers came to Finland as pedlars of clothes and furs. In 1925 they established a Moslem congregation in Helsinki. As the case of the Jews, the members of the Tatar community have been able to adapt themselves to Finnish society without radical difficulties; both of these minorities are of the same size, viz. one thousand persons. Besides being a religious congregation, the Tartar Moslem community has stressed national aspects, retention of the Turkic Tatar language, tradional habbits and close family ties. In spite of competition in a number of lines of business, relations between the Tatar and Jewish minorities have been good; a sign of the rapport between them is a friendly football match arranged by them each spring.
(11.) For details of the wartime history, see Hannu Rautkallio, Suomen juutalaisten aseveljeys (The comradeship-in-arms of the Jews of Finland). Tammi, Helsinki-Jyväskylä 1989. 250 p., ill., English summary.
(12.) The fate of the Jewish refugees in Finland has been the subject of lively discussion, see Elina Suominen, Kuolemanlaiva S/S Hohenhörn ('Ship of Death S/S Hohenhörn', Porvoo 1979); Taimi Torvinen, Pakolaiset Suomessa Hitlerin valtakaudella ('Refugees in Finland during the rule of Hitler', Keuruu 1984); Hannu Rautkallio, Finland and the Holocaust, the Rescue of Finland's Jews (1987).
See:
http://www.finemb.org.il/Historia.htm
The Jews of Finland and World War II
by Tapani Harviainen, Professor of Semitic Languages, University of Helsinki
In several respects the history of the Jews in Finland has no counterpart, either in the Scandinavian and Baltic countries or in Eastern Europe. In order to be able to tell what happened during the Second World War, I must explain how there came to be Jews in Finland in that period. As a consequence, this presentation consists of two parts: first, the rise of the Jewish community in Finland, and, second, the fate of the Jews in Finland during the Second World War.
In theory, there was no place for Jews in Finland. From the 12th-13th century until 1809 Finland was a province of Sweden. When Sweden was opened up to the Jews in 1782, residential rights were restricted to three, later four, cities on the Swedish mainland (Stockholm, Gothenburg, Norrköping; Karlskrona). Consequently, Jews were not allowed to settle in Finland. Nevertheless, visits were allowed and thus we know that the first Jews attested in Finland were the "Portuguese singers" Josef Lazarus, Meijer Isaac and Pimo Zelig, who together with the conjurer Michel Marcus were granted a licence to present their skills in Helsinki in 1782 (1.)
During the Swedish period some Jewish converts to Christianity also settled in Finland. Isak Zebulon of Lübeck, who had by baptismal received the name Christoffer, chose Oulu in Northern Finland as his new home town. The mother of Zacharias Topelius, the well-known Finnish writer - who lived in the 19th century was descended from this Oulu citizen of Jewish descent (2.).
Along with other Swedish laws, the 1782 regulations concerning Jews remained in force, as Finland became a Grand Duchy within the Russian Empire in 1809. Because of the high esteem enjoyed by the traditional laws of Sweden, the Grand Duchy of Finland remained a country out of bounds to Jews.
However, there is an exception which proves the rule. A part of south-eastern Finland, so-called Old Finland, was incorporated into Russia as early as the middle of the 18th century, and Swedish laws did not apply to that area until 1811. This made it possible for some Jewish families to move from Russia proper to Old Finland at the end of the 1790s; several families (Jacobsson, Kaspi, Veikkanen etc.) in Finland are descendents of these Jewish pioneers.
The Grand Duchy of Finland was a country out of bounds to Jews. However, when the Jews were granted civil rights in the independent Republic of Finland in 1918, 1,400 Jews were living in the country. How do we explain this miracle?
The regulations prohibiting the entry of Jews into the Grand Duchy of Finland did not prevent the Russian Army from entering the country. Ever since 1827, the Jews of Russia were liable for military service. With very few exceptions, Jews came to Finland as soldiers of the Czarist army. During the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, the duration of military service could well be 25 years - and even later it was six years. The conversion of non-Christian soldiers was one of the aims of the prolonged period of service. As one can imagine, the Jews in Russia did not consider the conscription to be a great honour, and thus the majority of Jewish recruits were sons of the poorest families, orphans and other of the underprivileged, many of them handed over to the army by the notorious chapers, i.e. kidnappers. After the long years of service, the soldiers, often having lost all contact with their birthplaces, were inclined to stay where they were.
This type of settlement caused a problem for Finnish autonomy. As a reaction, a Russian military ukase was issued in 1858 concerning soldiers discharged from the Russian army. According to this decree, a soldier in possession of a letter of retirement, a passport or a travel document had the right to settle and support himself in Finland. The same right applied to his family and children and also to his widow. As I have mentioned before, the decree was a Russian ukase, not a regulation promulgated by an initiative of the autonomous authorities in Finland. The ukase did not make any distinction between Christian and non-Christian soldiers, and the right of settlement of Jews was only implied from the general wording dealing with all ex-soldiers. Similarly, Moslems veterans were allowed to stay in Finland after that. Later, by a Finnish decree of 1869 and a letter from the Finnish Senate in 1876, ex-soldiers and their families were entitled to earn a living by selling home-made handicrafts, bread, berries, cigarettes, second-hand clothes and other inexpensive textile products. This type of trading was in which the Jewish narinkka markets in Helsinki began (3.).
At the beginning of the 1870s, organizational reforms in the Russian army brought about a rapid increase in the number of Jews in Finland to about five hundred - such a high figure! (4.) As a consequence, in 1872 a debate on their legal status was initiated in the Finnish Diet.
The four estates of the Diet, as well as the political parties of the subsequent Parliament, Senate, were unable to provide a solution to the problem. General conservatism, national protectionism and the fear of a mass exodus of the Eastern European Jewish proletariat were the main arguments of the opponents. The constitutional conflict between the Finnish and Russian authorities which began in 1899 further complicated the handling of the question.
It was only in 1918, in connection with Finnish independence, that full citizen's rights were granted to the Jews in Finland. In Europe, only Rumania acted more slowly than Finland in giving civil rights to the Jewish population. In Russia Jews were naturalized after the Revolution in 1917, and in Sweden this was achieved as early as 1870. - In this context it is worth noting that the great majority of Jews living in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries have a German background; immigration from Poland has also taken place.
Because of the restrictions, extremely few Jews could move to Finland on their own initiative. On the basis of the Finnish police archives it is evident that, excluding the intelligentsia, which was very small in number (a rabbi, a teacher and a circumciser), the background of all Jews was in one way or another in the Russian Army. They had not just come to Finland, it was the Army which had sent them - by chance - to Finland and finally they had settled in the country. The decision was not their own; it was a part of the inexplicable wisdom of the Army which chose who would be Jews of Finland in the future. No parallel case of this sort of genesis of a Jewish community is known to me.
The Russian Army thus sent Jews to Finland. However, a very important exception from this rule must not be forgotten. While the Army sent boys to Finland, it did not take care of providing wives for them. Actually, we have no precise information as to the measures to which the poor lonely soldiers resorted. Family legends tell of veterans who established a joint 'isqa venture, i.e. they collected money and wrote a letter to a rabbi in a shtetl in Lithuania asking him to dispatch so-and-so many marriageable Jewish women to Helsinki. Since trains were few in Russia, a consignment was transported by a cart. The ex-soldiers had plenty of time to spend waiting in the market place in Helsinki, and when the cart at last arrived, the strongest khaveyrim were ready to take the most beautiful meydelakh down from the wagon; the slimmer lads had to be happy with the rest. The story has given rise to a saying current among Jewish ladies in Finland: "I have not been taken down from a cart" - de-haynu: "I come from a better mishpokhe." (6.)
Be that as it may be, it is evident that other nationalities in Russia were attracted to Finland by its reputation in Russia as a country of order, a strong economy and greater intellectual freedom (7.). Obviously it was this reputation which assisted the Jewish soldiers in obtaining wives from Russia with such success that in 1898 the majority of Jews living in Helsinki were born in Finland; this genesis was due to the great number of children in their families.
From which parts of Russia were the Jewish soldiers sent to Helsinki? The Helsinki police archives offer a clear answer to this question. All Jews resident in Helsinki in 1898 had come from Russia which at that time included the greater part of Poland (8.). According to the archives the most important "home towns" or the localities and districts where the heads of the families had been registered before their arrival in Finland, were (1) Schlüsselburg (now Petrokrepost) east of St. Petersburg, above the River Neva, (2) the governments of Novgorod and Tver, and (3) Lithuania and the north-eastern parts of Poland. A surprising element in this information is that Schlüsselburg, Novgorod and Tver were all outside the Pale of Settlement where Jews were allowed to reside. Equally surprising is the almost total absence of Estonia and Latvia in the domicile registers (9.).
During the first decades of independent Finland, in the 1920s and 1930s, the Jewish population in Finland numbered nearly 2,000, more than at any other time. At the outset, Jews spoke either Yiddish or Russian. Linguistic assimilation led first in the direction of Swedish and then also in the direction of Finnish. Yiddish was discarded surprisingly quickly; a student of mine could find only three speakers of Yiddish for tape-recording for his M.A. thesis in Helsinki in 1995. In giving up the Jewish language, Yiddish, Finnish Jewry was left without a significant uniting factor, a factor which, for example, the Finnish Tatars have preserved (10.). Religion and consciousness of being Jewish remained, thereafter, the only uniting factors.
In the 1920s and 1930s, genuine anti-Semitism also found expression in Finland in certain ultra-right-wing circles, but it never gained wider sympathies. The fact seems to remain that in the young Republic all minorities suffered from prejudice and xenophobia to some extent but evenly distributed. In this period, the Jews did, however, carry one burden which may have made its position more difficult than that of other minorities: a significant number of the Soviet leaders and well-known Bolsheviks were Jews, and this fact easily led people to the following conclusion: because he is a Jew he must be a Bolshevik, and as such an enemy of Finland.
World War II (11.)
In the years 1939-1944 two different wars against the Soviet Union were imposed upon Finland. During the Winter War of 1939-1940 Germany remained strictly neutral on the basis of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; Great Britain and France planned intervention in favour of Finland.
When the second, so-called Continuation War broke out in the summer of 1941, Finland was a co-belligerent of Germany, and Great Britain declared war on Finland in December 1941. De jure, however, Finland was never an ally of Germany, and at the end of the War, in the winter 1944-45, the Finnish armed forces expelled the German troops from Lapland, which was devastated by the Germans during their retreat to Norway.
Military service was compulsory for each male citizen of Finland. In 1939 the Jewish population of Finland numbered 1,700. Of these, 260 men were called up and approximately 200 were sent to serve at the front during the Winter War. Fifteen men lost their lives. In comparison with other communities in the country, the Jewish losses (8 %) were conspicuously heavy. However, it is obvious that the Winter War did not involve ideological problems - neither for the Jews nor for other citizens of Finland. In this respect a statement made by a Jewish veteran seems to be characteristic: "The Winter War gave us a deeper consciousness of being Finnish and of belonging to Finland more than any earlier period in our history."
As I mentioned earlier, the Continuation War broke out in the summer of 1941. Now Finland was a co-belligerent of Germany, and there were Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS troops in the country. However, no Einsatzgruppe was sent to Finland.
The comradeship-in-arms with Germany during the Continuation War did not alter the status of Jews in Finland or in its army. Jewish citizens served in the Finnish army, in women's voluntary defence services and in other duties alongside other Finns. The same was true with regard to all the ethnic minorities, Tatars, Russians, Gipsies, Lapps, without differentiation.
In a quite unique photo, in a snowy forest there is a millboard tent with an iron heating stove, the chimney on the left-hand side - and a number of soldiers are posing outside the tent. The tent is a field synagogue, "Scholka's shul", set up for the Jewish soldiers at the front beside the River Svir in Eastern Karelia. A field synagogue with a Torah Scroll was, no doubt, a very exceptional event in an Army fighting on the German side during the War.
Several Jewish soldiers were cited for bravery in action; a number of them served as company commanders and one as a captain and battalion commander; Jewish army doctors were promoted to the same officer ranks as their colleagues, inclusive of ranks of major.
During the two wars, 23 Finnish Jews were killed in action. As a tribute to their memory, their names are published annually in the Jewish Calendar of the Bicur Cholim Society in Helsinki.
It has been supposed that the Germans demanded the liquidation of the Jewish communities in Finland too. However, there is no evidence in favour of these claims. On the other hand, the small Jewish population of Finland was not rescued because of a "lapse of memory" among the Nazis as has sometimes been maintained. An evident confutation of this hypothesis is the case of a handful of Jewish citizens from Finland who were living in the German-occupied countries: their successful return to Finland resulted in intense diplomatic activity between Berlin and Helsinki in the spring and summer of 1943.
It was the public conviction that "we have no Jewish Question", and the Finnish prime minister J. W. Rangell expressed such an opinion to Heinrich Himmler in July 1942. Consistent messages of this kind may have warned the Germans not to endanger relations with their useful brother-in-arms over an insignificant matter of little advantage to them - after final victory there would be nowhere for the Jews to escape to.
The position of Finnish Jewish soldiers was very similar to the political reality: none of the Jewish citizens of Finland refused to enter military service on the grounds of pacifism or of being Jewish. On the other hand, no instance is known of German soldiers refusing to co-operate with Finnish Jewish officers. As a rule, the attitude of Germans to Jewish soldiers in the Finnish army has been described as an "astonished" but "correct" one. The usual answer to incredulous questions put by Germans was that "there is no difference between Jews and other soldiers in the Finnish army." A number of Jewish officers were awarded German Iron Crosses, but they refused them.
Jewish soldiers were not unaware of the general anti-Semitism of Hitler's Germany, and reports of atrocities and mass murders circulated among them and their families. However, the brutality of the Holocaust did not become evident until the end of the Continuation War in the autumn of 1944. The awareness of being Finnish soldiers gave the Jews an assurance of safety even in the vicinity of German troops. At the same time, quite a number of Jewish soldiers seem to have felt the need to display that they were at least as brave soldiers as their comrades.
The complexity of comradeship with the Germans became a serious problem only after the wars, when the extent of the Holocaust was revealed. First of all, the Norwegian Jews who had suffered most during the Nazi occupation questioned the policy of the Jews in Finland. I consider that two reactions to these questions illustrate the views of the Jews in Finland quite well. A former Jewish member of the women's voluntary defence services (lotta) told me: "We were very surprised because of these questions. We were proud that we were also accepted to join the other Finns." Another reaction was: an association called the Jewish War Veterans in Finland was founded in Helsinki in 1981 During the first year of the association's activity, 84 members, more than 10 per cent of the members present in the Community, joined the association. It is self-evident that this is a most valid piece of evidence in favour of the exceptional, independent nature of the war which Finland waged on the side of Germany.
This is a short account of the Jewish citizens of Finland during the War. Another story is that of the Jewish refugees.
The persecution of Jews, launched by the National Socialists in Germany and in other countries under their influence, also brought refugees to Finland, where, however, they were received in a rather reluctant manner. In all, about 500 refugees arrived, and of these, 350 had by the summer of 1941 continued their journey to a third country, mostly to Sweden or the United States.
In contrast to the Jewish citizens of Finland, the position of the refugees turned out to be very difficult during the Continuation War. Some of the refugees were German nationals, and others had escaped to Finland from countries allied with or conquered by Germany. When the Continuation War broke out in 1941 there were about 150 Jewish refugees in Finland. They were taken to two villages in the countryside, but 43 men were sent to work-camps first in southern Lapland (Salla) and then to the Isle of Suursaari (Gogland) in the Finnish Gulf.
In the autumn of 1942, Norwegian Jewry was annihilated; more than half of them (altogether 757 people) lost their lives. Most of the survivors were among those who succeeded in escaping to Sweden. As I have mentioned before, it has been supposed that the Germans demanded the liquidation of the Jewish communities in Finland. However, there is no documentary evidence in favour of these claims, either concerning the Jewish citizens or the refugees (12.).
Nevertheless, the State Police in Finland had agreed with the leaders of the Gestapo that Finland was allowed to deport the undesirable refugees to the areas occupied by the Germans. In October 1942 nine Jewish men were sent by the Finnish State Police from the Suursaari camp to Helsinki and ten Jews were arrested elsewhere in Finland. However, one of the men escorted from the Suursaari camp succeeded in sending a postcard to Mr. Abraham Stiller, a member of the Jewish community and brother of the famous stage-manager Mauritz Stiller. Stiller as well as his friends, both Jews and other Finns, made contact with various governmental and administrative organs including President Risto Ryti and Marshal of Finland Mannerheim. As a result the governmental and public discussions the extradition was prevented.
However, on the 6th of October 1942, the State Police had already had five Jewish men and three (or four?) members of their families deported to the Gestapo in occupied Estonia. Officially, the men were claimed to be guilty of espionage and other criminal activities; four of them had minor offences in police records. Nineteen other persons, most of them citizens of the Soviet Union, were deported on board the same boat. The Gestapo transported the Jews to Birkenau concentration camp. Only one of these people (Georg Kollman, a former citizen of Austria) survived; after the war he immigrated to Israel.
There is no need to try and wash away the shame, but it should also not be forgotten that in October 1942, Germany was at the height of its power. After Stalingrad, it was considerably easier to say no. When after the war the victor, the Soviet Union, issued the demand that the Finnish Ingrians and other refugees be handed over to the Soviet Union, it was influential enough to get what it wanted.
Of the other refugees, Finnish citizenship was granted to 110 persons in 1943-44; some of them left the country before that or later on.
On the Finnish Independence Day, the 6th of December, in 1944, President Mannerheim, Marshal of Finland, visited the synagogue in Helsinki where the memory of the Jewish soldiers killed in action was honoured. When Mannerheim died in 1951, the Jewish community raised a large sum of money which was donated to the Mannerheim Fund of Child Welfare as an expression of gratitude for the defence of the equal rights of Jews in Finland.
(1.) Jews expelled from Portugal in the 16th century settled in the Dutch cities and in Hamburg. Their offspring and communities were for centuries called Portuguese. The word is here used in this sense.
(2.) Another famous convert was Meyer Levin, who in 1799 was admitted to the Medical Faculty of the University of Turku. Later on, Levin worked at the University teaching German, and in 1815 he was given a permit to set up a printing plant.
(3.) From Russian na rynke 'at the market-place'.
(4.) In the earliest list of Jews in Helsinki of which I am aware, drawn up in 1868, 21 families with 83 family members were enumerated (National Archives, KKK 36/1686).
(5.) In a letter of the Finnish Senate written in 1889, certain Jews whose names were particularly mentioned, together with their families, were given the right to remain in Finland until further notice, and to reside in localities assigned to them. From these towns Jews were allowed to move only to Helsinki or Vyborg within Finland. The residence permit applied to children only as long as they lived with their parents. As soon as they married or entered military service, they lost their residental right. New Jews were no longer admitted to Finland. At first "residence tickets" were very strictly scrutinized, and because of the problem of marriage, many Jews moved away from Finland and others were expelled. In 1890, there were about one thousand Jews in Finland, but in five years their number decreased by one quarter. At the turn of the century the practice of examining and renewing residence permits was no longer observed, but the regulation remained officially in force until 1918.
(6.) Helsingin Sanomat (A. Hurwitz), no. 316, 21.11.1929, s 4.
(7.) This conclusion is confirmed by the article Eyn vokh in Finland by Shemarya Gorelik, who participated in the 1906 Russian Zionist Congress in Helsinki. The article was published in Dos yudishe folk in Vilna the same year, and it was almost comic in its praise of the Finns and conditions in Finland.
(8.) Most of the soldiers had served in the regiments of the 23rd division then stationed in Finland (the regiments of Dvinsk, Petshora, Onega and Belomorsk), but quite a few also in different auxiliary units (military hospitals, local detachments, feeding depots etc.) Among them were also many bandmasters, members of military bands and drummers.
(9.) In the 1880s and 1890s nearly all Helsinki Jews made their living by selling new and second-hand clothes and fruit at the narinkka market: the name of Simo (i.e. Simeon) Square still refers to the Jewish market. More than three quarters of the Jewish population lived in the same district of Kamppi, where both the narinkka (from 1876) and later also the Synagogue (from 1906) were located. As late as 1860s most Jews still lived in the districts of Siltasaari and Kruununhaka, where the market was located at the time.
(10.) These Tatars also derive their origin from Russian, from the region on Nizhni-Novgorod, east of Moscow. Although Tatars also served in the Russian army in Finland, they did not settle in the country as ex-soldiers; their forefathers came to Finland as pedlars of clothes and furs. In 1925 they established a Moslem congregation in Helsinki. As the case of the Jews, the members of the Tatar community have been able to adapt themselves to Finnish society without radical difficulties; both of these minorities are of the same size, viz. one thousand persons. Besides being a religious congregation, the Tartar Moslem community has stressed national aspects, retention of the Turkic Tatar language, tradional habbits and close family ties. In spite of competition in a number of lines of business, relations between the Tatar and Jewish minorities have been good; a sign of the rapport between them is a friendly football match arranged by them each spring.
(11.) For details of the wartime history, see Hannu Rautkallio, Suomen juutalaisten aseveljeys (The comradeship-in-arms of the Jews of Finland). Tammi, Helsinki-Jyväskylä 1989. 250 p., ill., English summary.
(12.) The fate of the Jewish refugees in Finland has been the subject of lively discussion, see Elina Suominen, Kuolemanlaiva S/S Hohenhörn ('Ship of Death S/S Hohenhörn', Porvoo 1979); Taimi Torvinen, Pakolaiset Suomessa Hitlerin valtakaudella ('Refugees in Finland during the rule of Hitler', Keuruu 1984); Hannu Rautkallio, Finland and the Holocaust, the Rescue of Finland's Jews (1987).
Sooo, how about those synagogues in Turkey? You know, the ones that were just bombed by Al Qaeda? Were they part of some Zionist plot? Were they spreading anti-Arab propoganda? Tell me how such a cowardly murderous attack (23 killed) on a small and vulnerable minority in a Moslem nation was justifiable. Go ahead and blame the victims. It had to be their fault. They're Jews, aren't they? It's NEVER the fault of the other side. Even if they aren't Israelis, right? Are the Jews of Turkey, who number only in the tens of thousands, responsible for the plight of the Palestinians too? If you were a Jew in Turkey, you wouldn't be worried about the hatred of Jews felt by extremist Moslems terrorists, huh?
And, of all the nations of the world (excluding the Turkish government), who is looking out for their protection? Who tries to prevent unprovoked attacks on Jewish minorities like this? You guessed it - the Israeli government, including your favorites the Mossad. They even allegedly warned the Turkish government about the possibility of such an attack. This is precisely why the Mossad was formed to begin with. And this is precisely why Israel exists.
And, of all the nations of the world (excluding the Turkish government), who is looking out for their protection? Who tries to prevent unprovoked attacks on Jewish minorities like this? You guessed it - the Israeli government, including your favorites the Mossad. They even allegedly warned the Turkish government about the possibility of such an attack. This is precisely why the Mossad was formed to begin with. And this is precisely why Israel exists.
That's one version of the story. Why should we believe it? Be specific.
1. A version with some credibility: the synagogues were bombed by a local Turkish terror group that had ties to and was acting on the behalf of al-Qaida.
2. A version with zero credibility: the Mossad committed the bombings.
If you, nessie, consider the 2nd version above credible, or disagree that the local Turkish terror group that perhaps carried out the attacks was linked to al-Qaida, then back your claim up with credible evidence. Be specific.
2. A version with zero credibility: the Mossad committed the bombings.
If you, nessie, consider the 2nd version above credible, or disagree that the local Turkish terror group that perhaps carried out the attacks was linked to al-Qaida, then back your claim up with credible evidence. Be specific.
1. A version with some credibility: the synagogues were bombed by a local Turkish terror group that had ties to and was acting on the behalf of al-Qaida.
2. A version with zero credibility: the Mossad committed the bombings.
If you, nessie, consider the 2nd version above credible, or disagree that the local Turkish terror group that perhaps carried out the attacks was linked to al-Qaida, then back your claim up with credible evidence. Be specific.
2. A version with zero credibility: the Mossad committed the bombings.
If you, nessie, consider the 2nd version above credible, or disagree that the local Turkish terror group that perhaps carried out the attacks was linked to al-Qaida, then back your claim up with credible evidence. Be specific.
does not make them credible per se. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Their dismal record of serial lying makes anything they say highly questionable. Where is the proof that al Queda was involved? Where is the proof that al Queda no longer dances on CIA strings?
How about some common fucking sense? This has the earmarks of Al Qaeda all over it. The style of attack (truck bombing) as well as the chosen victims. Al Qaeda hates Jews and Israel and has stated so publicly on many occassions. Even the Turkish government thinks it was Al Qaeda, or another group in sympathy with them. There is EVERY reason to believe it was so. Hatred of Jews is preached all over the Moslem world. Did you hear the Prime Minister of Malaysia recently? The question really is - why WOULDN'T Al Qaeda (or sympathizers) have done it? Dance on CIA strings? What the hell are you talking about? The CIA helped Bin Laden in Afghanistan because we had a common enemy in the Russians, just like we were allies with the same Russians agaisnt the Nazis for similar reasons. Those days are long gone. Al Qaeda has publicly declared war on the USA and attacked it numerous times. You think the CIA controls Al Qaeda? Where is YOUR proof?
I mean REAL ACTUAL PROOF? You have NONE! You don't even have a viable motive. Besides which, how the hell would the CIA benefit from bombing a synagogue in Turkey? Fools like you will believe this crap no matter WHAT happens because you WANT to believe it. Every indication points to the obvious, which is that it was Islamic terrorism. But you shmucks choose to believe outlandish conspiracy nonsense that is supported by nothing but innuendo, circumstantial "evidence" that is open to other explanations, and flat out fairy tales. But the way, did the CIA bomb the British consulate in Turkey too? I guess EVERYTHING that gets bombed is America's fault (unless it's the Jews). You are just an America-hater, as if the rest of the world wants peaches and roses. America is not the problem, and neither are the Jews. Wake up, you morons.
And by the way, I asked about Zionists, not the CIA. What the hell does Zionism have to do with the CIA? Do you imagine, in your sick and twisted fantasy world, that the Mossad controls the CIA? And where is your proof of that? Because there are Jews in the administration? Or do you just feel that Jews shouldn't be allowed to hold positions of political power in America, just like they were denied for centuries in Europe. What a bunch of racist, anti-Semitic, terrorism apologist, America-hating bigots. There is nothing lower than blaming the victim, which you have done yet again Congratulations on sinking to a new low.
I mean REAL ACTUAL PROOF? You have NONE! You don't even have a viable motive. Besides which, how the hell would the CIA benefit from bombing a synagogue in Turkey? Fools like you will believe this crap no matter WHAT happens because you WANT to believe it. Every indication points to the obvious, which is that it was Islamic terrorism. But you shmucks choose to believe outlandish conspiracy nonsense that is supported by nothing but innuendo, circumstantial "evidence" that is open to other explanations, and flat out fairy tales. But the way, did the CIA bomb the British consulate in Turkey too? I guess EVERYTHING that gets bombed is America's fault (unless it's the Jews). You are just an America-hater, as if the rest of the world wants peaches and roses. America is not the problem, and neither are the Jews. Wake up, you morons.
And by the way, I asked about Zionists, not the CIA. What the hell does Zionism have to do with the CIA? Do you imagine, in your sick and twisted fantasy world, that the Mossad controls the CIA? And where is your proof of that? Because there are Jews in the administration? Or do you just feel that Jews shouldn't be allowed to hold positions of political power in America, just like they were denied for centuries in Europe. What a bunch of racist, anti-Semitic, terrorism apologist, America-hating bigots. There is nothing lower than blaming the victim, which you have done yet again Congratulations on sinking to a new low.
Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat.
Where's the forensic evidence?
Where's the forensic evidence?
truf's "evidence":
"This has the earmarks of Al Qaeda all over it." !!!
http://www.inminds.co.uk/jews-of-iraq.html
a couple of excellent points well worth repeating:
============
The burden of proof is on those who make the claim.
============
&
==========
Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat.
==========
"This has the earmarks of Al Qaeda all over it." !!!
http://www.inminds.co.uk/jews-of-iraq.html
a couple of excellent points well worth repeating:
============
The burden of proof is on those who make the claim.
============
&
==========
Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat.
==========
The problem with common sense, of course, is that it is not all that common.
What is that saying about believing nothing you hear and only half what you see?
I think we're down to less than 10% of what we see being believable.
What is that saying about believing nothing you hear and only half what you see?
I think we're down to less than 10% of what we see being believable.
I only believe what I see with my own eyes, and not all of that, not by a long chalk.
Dear De Truf
On October 30th of 2003, you posted this quote to anti bulls***.
"Hey Anti Bullshit, relax. I'm on your side. These guys really don't know shit about the history of the region or the conflict or what Zionism really is. But you're not getting anywhere with your personal atttacks on them. It really doesn't do your arguments any good. When you start name-calling, you've lost the debate. I iunderstqand your anger. Anti-Zionism is very often a thinly-veiled mask for anti-Semitism, and i think some of their posts prove that. But don't sink to their level. You've got your facts straight, so stick to them and leave out the name-calling."
For the record, I have enjoyed reading your posts and have found them to be by far the most well thought out and well written posts on this page. A part of your appeal was your lack of vulgarity and refusal to sink to the level of your detractors. However, recently it appears that you have become frustrated and have started to vent a lot of anger. It's a free country and you are of course thus free to write what you wish.
However, if I may be permitted to make a few suggestions, I would like to recommend you change your approach. I think you should try to keep your posts on a higher note for two reasons:
1) It just makes you look poorer for it when you start sinking to some these guys level.
2) When you do start sinking to their level with some of the name calling, in my opinion, it just lets them know that they have gotten to you and I think they enjoy it when they make you lose your temper.
In any case, I am not trying to imply that you are wrong in your arguments or logic. Far from it. Rather, I am just trying to let you know that I thought your first posts were much more devastating in their cool, surgical like dissection of your opponents positions.
If you find my arguments unconvincing, I would recommend that you just re-read the quote of yours that I enclosed because I think that quote sums it up a lot more succinctly and accurately than my poor example. :)
On a side note, I would appreciate if you would help me out with some of your insights on a recent event. I read that in U.C. Berkeley, there was some professor who had a class on Palestine Intifada poetry. What made this hit the news was he stated in his syllabus that conservative students should not take his class. Apparently this caused a big stir and he dropped that requirement. Later I read that he was a big time Palestine supporter / Israel basher. What do you think of all this? I would definitely be interested in your thoughts and insights to this.
In conclusion, it has been a pleasure reading your posts and I look forward to reading them in the future. Continue to fight the good fight. You are doing a great job.
On October 30th of 2003, you posted this quote to anti bulls***.
"Hey Anti Bullshit, relax. I'm on your side. These guys really don't know shit about the history of the region or the conflict or what Zionism really is. But you're not getting anywhere with your personal atttacks on them. It really doesn't do your arguments any good. When you start name-calling, you've lost the debate. I iunderstqand your anger. Anti-Zionism is very often a thinly-veiled mask for anti-Semitism, and i think some of their posts prove that. But don't sink to their level. You've got your facts straight, so stick to them and leave out the name-calling."
For the record, I have enjoyed reading your posts and have found them to be by far the most well thought out and well written posts on this page. A part of your appeal was your lack of vulgarity and refusal to sink to the level of your detractors. However, recently it appears that you have become frustrated and have started to vent a lot of anger. It's a free country and you are of course thus free to write what you wish.
However, if I may be permitted to make a few suggestions, I would like to recommend you change your approach. I think you should try to keep your posts on a higher note for two reasons:
1) It just makes you look poorer for it when you start sinking to some these guys level.
2) When you do start sinking to their level with some of the name calling, in my opinion, it just lets them know that they have gotten to you and I think they enjoy it when they make you lose your temper.
In any case, I am not trying to imply that you are wrong in your arguments or logic. Far from it. Rather, I am just trying to let you know that I thought your first posts were much more devastating in their cool, surgical like dissection of your opponents positions.
If you find my arguments unconvincing, I would recommend that you just re-read the quote of yours that I enclosed because I think that quote sums it up a lot more succinctly and accurately than my poor example. :)
On a side note, I would appreciate if you would help me out with some of your insights on a recent event. I read that in U.C. Berkeley, there was some professor who had a class on Palestine Intifada poetry. What made this hit the news was he stated in his syllabus that conservative students should not take his class. Apparently this caused a big stir and he dropped that requirement. Later I read that he was a big time Palestine supporter / Israel basher. What do you think of all this? I would definitely be interested in your thoughts and insights to this.
In conclusion, it has been a pleasure reading your posts and I look forward to reading them in the future. Continue to fight the good fight. You are doing a great job.
We need more professors like him. It's time that students learn the truth.
Yeah, you're right. I know I've lost my temper a few times (mildly, trust me). I've gotten frustrated because i thought i was engaged in an honest debate. But many of the posts have devolved into barely disguised (if at all) anti-semitism. I have no prejudice against Arabs, but it is aparent that many here are indeed bigoted against Jews. You cannot reason or argue with prejudice, because prejudice is by definition irrational. Most of the posts responding to me are filled with tired age-old slanders against Jews. All this crap about Jewish conspiracies, etc. There are a lot of groundless accusations being thrown around with very little to back them up. Very little. There are people here who simply choose to demonize Jews as people have done for centuries. It is their type of thinking that led to the need for the creation of Israel to begin with. I'm frustrated when I'm debating with people who express nothing but blind ignorant hatred. And frankly i've goten a bit bored of it. Bigots will be bigots no matter what anyone says. You can't can't convince them. You can only defend yourself from them.
As far as the proffesor, I can't recall his name. But his behavior was outrageous. He's entitled to his opinion, but should a university be teaching a class that glorifies murderers? I don't care if you support the Palestinian cause. Suicide bombings that target innocent civilians are inexcusable. It's not like they have no other choice. They can negatiate a settlement, but choose random violence intead. It makes them feel better but only increases their own misery from the inevitable Israeli retaliation. Regardless, the fact is that a school can and should offer whatever classes they want to (providing they are not publicly funded). But the point is (as "sounds good to me" fails to understand) that college is supposed to be a place that encourages free-thinking. A professor has no right whatsoever to demand that those who attend his class agree with his political point of view. That is blatant political discrimination and it is illegal and unethical. What was he afraid of? That someone would expose his class as a propaganda tool? If he is afraid to have his opinions debated then he should write a column somewhere and not teach at a university. Colleges are supposed to encourage debate, not suppress it. What he was seeking was an opportunity to brainwash his students without being challenged. That approach has no business in the universities of a free nation. The problem with most far-leftists like him is that they do not like having their theories and notions challenged. They try to silence and muzzle their opposition, or shout them down. This is something all too common on American campuses today.
As far as the proffesor, I can't recall his name. But his behavior was outrageous. He's entitled to his opinion, but should a university be teaching a class that glorifies murderers? I don't care if you support the Palestinian cause. Suicide bombings that target innocent civilians are inexcusable. It's not like they have no other choice. They can negatiate a settlement, but choose random violence intead. It makes them feel better but only increases their own misery from the inevitable Israeli retaliation. Regardless, the fact is that a school can and should offer whatever classes they want to (providing they are not publicly funded). But the point is (as "sounds good to me" fails to understand) that college is supposed to be a place that encourages free-thinking. A professor has no right whatsoever to demand that those who attend his class agree with his political point of view. That is blatant political discrimination and it is illegal and unethical. What was he afraid of? That someone would expose his class as a propaganda tool? If he is afraid to have his opinions debated then he should write a column somewhere and not teach at a university. Colleges are supposed to encourage debate, not suppress it. What he was seeking was an opportunity to brainwash his students without being challenged. That approach has no business in the universities of a free nation. The problem with most far-leftists like him is that they do not like having their theories and notions challenged. They try to silence and muzzle their opposition, or shout them down. This is something all too common on American campuses today.
How truf furnishes evidence in support of his "argument":
requote:
===============
"This has the earmarks of Al Qaeda all over it." !!!
===============
What happened to the Jews of Iraq, de Truf?
http://www.inminds.co.uk/jews-of-iraq.html
requote:
===============
"This has the earmarks of Al Qaeda all over it." !!!
===============
What happened to the Jews of Iraq, de Truf?
http://www.inminds.co.uk/jews-of-iraq.html
And btw, your incredible hypocrisy is showing. You keep asking me "where's the proof" about various incidents like Turkey (where even the government of a Moslem country is convinced Al Qaeda was behind the attacks on the synogogue and the British consulate, whatever the proof may be). Yet, Mr. Naeim Giladi blames the anti-Jewish violence on Zionists and offers NO proof to back up his claim. He says the anti-Jewish riots of 1941 were the fault of Zionists for inspiring a backlash against Jews. If that's not blaming the victim, i don't know what is. Are the Arabs NEVER responsible for their own acts of violence. And then he claims that the bombings of the early 50s were planted by Zionists. What proof does he offer? A flyer "suspiciously" notes the time of its printing, and an Iraqi judge therefore concludes that Zionists must have been responsible for the bombings. THAT'S PROOF??!! What a joke. An Arab judge blames violence in his country on Zionists. What a surprise. Because, as we all know, any time there is violence beween Arabs and Jews it's the fault of Jews, regardless of who the victims of the violence are, right? Your standard of evidence seems to plummet radically when it's convenient to your argument. When it stands against you, it seems no amount of evidence in the world is enough for you. But you're not at all biased, are you?
implausible denial:
=================
Mr. Naeim Giladi blames the anti-Jewish violence on Zionists and offers NO proof to back up his claim
=================
quote:
=================
"I write this article
for the same reason I wrote my book:
to tell the American people,
and especially American Jews,
that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate
willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave,
Jews killed Jews; and that,
to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands,
Jews on numerous occasions
rejected genuine peace initiatives
from their Arab neighbors.
I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called "cruel Zionism."
I write about it because I WAS PART OF IT."
-Naim Giladi
==================
=================
Mr. Naeim Giladi blames the anti-Jewish violence on Zionists and offers NO proof to back up his claim
=================
quote:
=================
"I write this article
for the same reason I wrote my book:
to tell the American people,
and especially American Jews,
that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate
willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave,
Jews killed Jews; and that,
to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands,
Jews on numerous occasions
rejected genuine peace initiatives
from their Arab neighbors.
I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called "cruel Zionism."
I write about it because I WAS PART OF IT."
-Naim Giladi
==================
Like I said, where's the proof? You offer quotes from a single person with NOTHING to validate the claims he makes. Simply offering further quotes from him does not prove there is any truth to his case. Again, if you interviewed Jews in Israel who came ther from Arab nations you would find very different versions of events than his. And he freely admits that there was indeed anti-Jewish violence in Iraq. He just blames the violence on Zionists and offers nothing in the way of proof to back up his claims. I'm still waiting to hear what the proof is that Zionists were responsible for any of this. The fact that he is a Jew doesn't prove anything either. There are a number of Jews who are not Zionists. Jews have widely diverging opinions. As he noted, over 100,000 Jews emigrated to Israel from Iraq. How many of them do you suppose would agree with his version of events? Very, very , very few. Have you heard of Ofra Haza, the Israeli singer? Her mother quite famously fled Yemen on foot, walking across the Arabian desert to Israel to escape from Yemen where the ancient Jewish community had long been persecuted. Do you think she suffered such a hardship because Jews were well-treated in Yemen? You will find thousands of Yemenite Jews in Israel who can tell you all about what life was like for Jews in Yemen. But you will not hear a single word about "Zionist bombs". So how does the testimony of a solitary person carry more weight with you than the experiences of hundreds of thousands of others?
And I am STILL waiting to hear what the basic premise is in your arguments. I have explained mine repeatedly and will do so again if requested. All you have done is hurl a bunch of disconnected accusations. The only thing they have in common is that they all paint unfavorable pictures of Jews in general and Israelis in particular. I guess your basic premise is "Jew=bad"? If it's something else, I'm waiting to hear it. Are you ever going to spell it out? Or are you just going to throw accusation after accusation for me to defend against? You really need to coherently and intelligently spell out your premise. Either make your point or shut up, because "Jew=bad" or "Israel=bad" is not even worthy of a debate. It's nothing but blatant demonization of a people and a nation.
And I am STILL waiting to hear what the basic premise is in your arguments. I have explained mine repeatedly and will do so again if requested. All you have done is hurl a bunch of disconnected accusations. The only thing they have in common is that they all paint unfavorable pictures of Jews in general and Israelis in particular. I guess your basic premise is "Jew=bad"? If it's something else, I'm waiting to hear it. Are you ever going to spell it out? Or are you just going to throw accusation after accusation for me to defend against? You really need to coherently and intelligently spell out your premise. Either make your point or shut up, because "Jew=bad" or "Israel=bad" is not even worthy of a debate. It's nothing but blatant demonization of a people and a nation.
Like I said, where's the proof? You offer quotes from a single person with NOTHING to validate the claims he makes. Simply offering further quotes from him does not prove there is any truth to his case. Again, if you interviewed Jews in Israel who came ther from Arab nations you would find very different versions of events than his. And he freely admits that there was indeed anti-Jewish violence in Iraq. He just blames the violence on Zionists and offers nothing in the way of proof to back up his claims. I'm still waiting to hear what the proof is that Zionists were responsible for any of this. The fact that he is a Jew doesn't prove anything either. There are a number of Jews who are not Zionists. Jews have widely diverging opinions. As he noted, over 100,000 Jews emigrated to Israel from Iraq. How many of them do you suppose would agree with his version of events? Very, very , very few. Have you heard of Ofra Haza, the Israeli singer? Her mother quite famously fled Yemen on foot, walking across the Arabian desert to Israel to escape from Yemen where the ancient Jewish community had long been persecuted. Do you think she suffered such a hardship because Jews were well-treated in Yemen? You will find thousands of Yemenite Jews in Israel who can tell you all about what life was like for Jews in Yemen. But you will not hear a single word about "Zionist bombs". So how does the testimony of a solitary person carry more weight with you than the experiences of hundreds of thousands of others?
And I am STILL waiting to hear what the basic premise is in your arguments. I have explained mine repeatedly and will do so again if requested. All you have done is hurl a bunch of disconnected accusations. The only thing they have in common is that they all paint unfavorable pictures of Jews in general and Israelis in particular. I guess your basic premise is "Jew=bad"? If it's something else, I'm waiting to hear it. Are you ever going to spell it out? Or are you just going to throw accusation after accusation for me to defend against? You really need to coherently and intelligently spell out your premise. Either make your point or shut up, because "Jew=bad" or "Israel=bad" is not even worthy of a debate. It's nothing but blatant demonization of a people and a nation.
And I am STILL waiting to hear what the basic premise is in your arguments. I have explained mine repeatedly and will do so again if requested. All you have done is hurl a bunch of disconnected accusations. The only thing they have in common is that they all paint unfavorable pictures of Jews in general and Israelis in particular. I guess your basic premise is "Jew=bad"? If it's something else, I'm waiting to hear it. Are you ever going to spell it out? Or are you just going to throw accusation after accusation for me to defend against? You really need to coherently and intelligently spell out your premise. Either make your point or shut up, because "Jew=bad" or "Israel=bad" is not even worthy of a debate. It's nothing but blatant demonization of a people and a nation.
De Truf:
It’s me again. Good to see that you have calmed down a little bit since my post to you. Hopefully nothing will get you too riled up in the near future.
In a couple of your previous posts, you have made reference to the war in 1947 when Israel first became a nation and fought its first war. You have also made numerous references to how out numbered and desperate the fight for survival was. I think that you and I both agree that the history and valor displayed by the those people back then is truly awe inspiring. However, I believe that it is much better and more pleasant to read about deeds like that, where people succeed against all odds and beat an almost unbeatable foe, than to have to actually do it. Now we can look back at it with the security of hindsight that lets us know that our side will win. However, in 1947, I suspect that there was a terrible fear that they might not succeed, that all of their hopes and dreams would be destroyed, and that after the terrible black nightmare of the Holocaust in Europe, it would not be hard at all to believe that history (which had all ready allowed 6 million to be killed) would allow the people in Palestine to suffer the same fate.
I don’t think that Israel faces that same risk of annihilation today, despite the bombings and attacks that it is under going right now. I can’t prove that obviously. I don’t think that it is possible for anyone to prove anything in politics or world affairs. History is the only thing that can ever prove whether anyone’s ideas are true or false. History will tell us if Israel will survive or perish.
Nonetheless, here is my poor attempt to explain why I don’t think the danger is as great as it was in the past. In 1947, there were people who were living in different countries all across the globe who volunteered to come to Israel to fight for here. Many of them were Jews, but some of them were not. These foreign volunteers were called “The Machal”. And during the war, they fought along side the Israeli’s and did their part to ensure the birth of the Israeli nation. Now Israel is by its own definition, a state that is for the purpose of providing a homeland for the Jews. But in its most desperate hour, it was more than willing to allow people who were not Jewish to fight for it. Now, in the year 2003, Israel still has a Machal program for the IDF. Jews from the United States can volunteer to serve in the IDF in the Machal program. However, this Machal program is not open to people who are not Jewish. In fact, no one who is not Jewish is allowed to serve in the IDF today. (There is a small exception to this rule. I believe there is a group of Arabs who are Christian that live in Israel who either are eligible to join the IDF or are subject to its draft. If anyone else has any info on this, I would appreciate hearing about it.) From this I have concluded that Israel today does not feel that the threat it faces is great enough or dangerous enough to force it to allow people from overseas who are not Jewish to serve in its armed forces.
I am certain that someone who is well trained in the art of logic and logical deduction could explain to me many different ways why my arguments are incorrect, or are illogical, or don’t make rational sense. That may be the case. As I have said already, it is only my poor attempt at making a point. However, I thought that you might get a kick out of it.
There is a site about the Machal if you are interested in reading about them some more. It is quite moving and it when I read it I was very moved. In fact, just thinking about it right now is making me all farklempt! Give me a moment. Discuss amongst yourselves… here’s a topic: Watergate was neither water nor a gate… Discuss…
There, I’m better now. Anyway, hope you got the above joke and liked it. If not, you are probably thinking, “what the heck is this person talking about?”
The web site I mentioned earlier is called:
http://www.sabra.net/machal/english.html
http://www.sabra.net/machal/video/rabin.mov
I highly recommend you watch the video file they have of Yitzhak Rabin in the above link. It is quite good. I also think you will get a laugh out of the story of a man called Jessie “Tex” Slade who was in the Machal.
Well, hope you like the links and keep up the good work. I don’t know if this post had any purpose or was just a bunch of disjointed ramblings on my part, but if I made anyone out there too cross, I am sure they will inform me of their displeasure.
DOL
All those of valor shall pass armed among your brethren, and shall help them.
- Joshua 1:14 -
They came to us when we needed them most, during those hard and uncertain days of our war of independence.
Yitzhak Rabin
It’s me again. Good to see that you have calmed down a little bit since my post to you. Hopefully nothing will get you too riled up in the near future.
In a couple of your previous posts, you have made reference to the war in 1947 when Israel first became a nation and fought its first war. You have also made numerous references to how out numbered and desperate the fight for survival was. I think that you and I both agree that the history and valor displayed by the those people back then is truly awe inspiring. However, I believe that it is much better and more pleasant to read about deeds like that, where people succeed against all odds and beat an almost unbeatable foe, than to have to actually do it. Now we can look back at it with the security of hindsight that lets us know that our side will win. However, in 1947, I suspect that there was a terrible fear that they might not succeed, that all of their hopes and dreams would be destroyed, and that after the terrible black nightmare of the Holocaust in Europe, it would not be hard at all to believe that history (which had all ready allowed 6 million to be killed) would allow the people in Palestine to suffer the same fate.
I don’t think that Israel faces that same risk of annihilation today, despite the bombings and attacks that it is under going right now. I can’t prove that obviously. I don’t think that it is possible for anyone to prove anything in politics or world affairs. History is the only thing that can ever prove whether anyone’s ideas are true or false. History will tell us if Israel will survive or perish.
Nonetheless, here is my poor attempt to explain why I don’t think the danger is as great as it was in the past. In 1947, there were people who were living in different countries all across the globe who volunteered to come to Israel to fight for here. Many of them were Jews, but some of them were not. These foreign volunteers were called “The Machal”. And during the war, they fought along side the Israeli’s and did their part to ensure the birth of the Israeli nation. Now Israel is by its own definition, a state that is for the purpose of providing a homeland for the Jews. But in its most desperate hour, it was more than willing to allow people who were not Jewish to fight for it. Now, in the year 2003, Israel still has a Machal program for the IDF. Jews from the United States can volunteer to serve in the IDF in the Machal program. However, this Machal program is not open to people who are not Jewish. In fact, no one who is not Jewish is allowed to serve in the IDF today. (There is a small exception to this rule. I believe there is a group of Arabs who are Christian that live in Israel who either are eligible to join the IDF or are subject to its draft. If anyone else has any info on this, I would appreciate hearing about it.) From this I have concluded that Israel today does not feel that the threat it faces is great enough or dangerous enough to force it to allow people from overseas who are not Jewish to serve in its armed forces.
I am certain that someone who is well trained in the art of logic and logical deduction could explain to me many different ways why my arguments are incorrect, or are illogical, or don’t make rational sense. That may be the case. As I have said already, it is only my poor attempt at making a point. However, I thought that you might get a kick out of it.
There is a site about the Machal if you are interested in reading about them some more. It is quite moving and it when I read it I was very moved. In fact, just thinking about it right now is making me all farklempt! Give me a moment. Discuss amongst yourselves… here’s a topic: Watergate was neither water nor a gate… Discuss…
There, I’m better now. Anyway, hope you got the above joke and liked it. If not, you are probably thinking, “what the heck is this person talking about?”
The web site I mentioned earlier is called:
http://www.sabra.net/machal/english.html
http://www.sabra.net/machal/video/rabin.mov
I highly recommend you watch the video file they have of Yitzhak Rabin in the above link. It is quite good. I also think you will get a laugh out of the story of a man called Jessie “Tex” Slade who was in the Machal.
Well, hope you like the links and keep up the good work. I don’t know if this post had any purpose or was just a bunch of disjointed ramblings on my part, but if I made anyone out there too cross, I am sure they will inform me of their displeasure.
DOL
All those of valor shall pass armed among your brethren, and shall help them.
- Joshua 1:14 -
They came to us when we needed them most, during those hard and uncertain days of our war of independence.
Yitzhak Rabin
As for non-Jewish IDF servicemen/women:
Yes, Christian Arabs as well as Beduoins (who are renowned for being savvy trackers can and do volunteer for regular and subsequent reserve duties.
Circassians (non-Arab Sunni Muslims) and Druse are drafted to the IDF by mandatory conscription (to which they agreed in the early 1950s).
The most exotic exception I know of is one descendent of Vietnamese refugees who were granted political asylum in Israel in 1979 and served in the Northern Command.
Another rather huge exception is the scores of Russian speaking Christians or people who don't meet the strict Orthodox criteria of being Jewish.
PS: I already know what nessie will say about this. And you though the IDF was the Jewish version of the Nazi SS...
Yes, Christian Arabs as well as Beduoins (who are renowned for being savvy trackers can and do volunteer for regular and subsequent reserve duties.
Circassians (non-Arab Sunni Muslims) and Druse are drafted to the IDF by mandatory conscription (to which they agreed in the early 1950s).
The most exotic exception I know of is one descendent of Vietnamese refugees who were granted political asylum in Israel in 1979 and served in the Northern Command.
Another rather huge exception is the scores of Russian speaking Christians or people who don't meet the strict Orthodox criteria of being Jewish.
PS: I already know what nessie will say about this. And you though the IDF was the Jewish version of the Nazi SS...
As for non-Jewish IDF servicemen/women:
Yes, Christian Arabs as well as Beduoins (who are renowned for being savvy trackers can and do volunteer for regular and subsequent reserve duties.
Circassians (non-Arab Sunni Muslims) and Druse are drafted to the IDF by mandatory conscription (to which they agreed in the early 1950s).
The most exotic exception I know of is one descendent of Vietnamese refugees who were granted political asylum in Israel in 1979 and served in the Northern Command.
Another rather huge exception is the scores of Russian speaking Christians or people who don't meet the strict Orthodox criteria of being Jewish.
PS: I already know what nessie will say about this. And you thought the IDF was the Jewish version of the Nazi SS (being sarcastic)...
Yes, Christian Arabs as well as Beduoins (who are renowned for being savvy trackers can and do volunteer for regular and subsequent reserve duties.
Circassians (non-Arab Sunni Muslims) and Druse are drafted to the IDF by mandatory conscription (to which they agreed in the early 1950s).
The most exotic exception I know of is one descendent of Vietnamese refugees who were granted political asylum in Israel in 1979 and served in the Northern Command.
Another rather huge exception is the scores of Russian speaking Christians or people who don't meet the strict Orthodox criteria of being Jewish.
PS: I already know what nessie will say about this. And you thought the IDF was the Jewish version of the Nazi SS (being sarcastic)...
How Zion inverts the meaning of the word "truth" - quote:
=========================
You have also made numerous references to how out numbered and desperate the fight for survival was..
=========================
How did David defeat the Arab Goliath?
|
The traditional view: 'I don't know how they did it - given the numbers' |
|
| |
|
The alternative view: 'I don’t know how they got their numbers - given the outcome' | |
| |
| |
|
He was attempting to creat a safe space to discuss the truth without being drowned out by conservative disruption. These people shout down the truth like brownshirts.
Besides, they would be happy in the class. Neither would they learn anything. When they hear the truth being spoken, conservatives stop up their ears.
Besides, they would be happy in the class. Neither would they learn anything. When they hear the truth being spoken, conservatives stop up their ears.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3288515.stm
Israel's first Eskimo soldier
By Raffi Berg
BBC News Online
The Israeli army has inducted into its ranks one of the most unusual recruits in its history - an Eskimo girl from Alaska.
Eighteen-year-old Eva Ben Sira is training to become a squad commander in the Negev desert - a far cry from the frozen wastes of her homeland.
Eva was born to a Yupik Eskimo mother and a Cherokee American father before being adopted by an Israeli couple.
Her twin brother, Jimmy, will become the army's second serving Eskimo, when he joins the force next year.
Culture clash
The twins' remarkable journey to Israel began when their mother, Minnie, found herself unable to support Eva and Jimmy after their father walked out.
Alaskan social services stepped in and, at the age of two, the twins were sent to live with their grandmother, who struggled to raise the children herself.
They did ask a lot of questions when they were growing up
Dafna Ben Sira
Eva and Jimmy's mother
Their plight came to light when an Orthodox Jewish couple, Meir and Dafna Ben Sira, came to visit Minnie's neighbour - Dafna's mother - a Swiss Catholic woman, who had emigrated to Alaska from Israel in 1989.
The Ben Siras offered to adopt Eva and Jimmy, but had to overcome a welter of religious and cultural obstacles to get the adoption approved by both tribal elders and an Alaskan Orthodox rabbi.
"We got to know the children and they needed a home," Dafna told BBC News Online.
"We wanted to have a family and the children had no place to go," she said.
They remained in Alaska for five years until the adoption process was completed.
'People are curious'
Eva and Jimmy were brought to Israel (they learned to speak Hebrew in three months), converted to Judaism and integrated into Israeli society among the Orthodox community of Nir Etzion, a village near Haifa.
The twins attended religious schools and had bar- and batmitzvahs - Jewish coming of age ceremonies.
"Their culture wasn't a problem, but they did ask a lot of questions when they were growing up," Dafna said.
After nearly a decade in Israel, Eva has forgotten the smattering of Yupik she spoke as a child, but with her long black hair and almond-shaped eyes, she has retained her ethnic looks.
"People are very curious," said Dafna.
"When I take the children shopping and people ask which parent the children look like, I tell them they take after their father because he's not there.
"When my husband takes them shopping and people ask, he tells them they look like me because I'm not there."
Dafna said Eva has no wish to delve too deeply into her past and is very happy living in Israel.
Jimmy, however, is more intrigued and wants to go back to Alaska, if for only a visit.
Israel's first Eskimo soldier
By Raffi Berg
BBC News Online
The Israeli army has inducted into its ranks one of the most unusual recruits in its history - an Eskimo girl from Alaska.
Eighteen-year-old Eva Ben Sira is training to become a squad commander in the Negev desert - a far cry from the frozen wastes of her homeland.
Eva was born to a Yupik Eskimo mother and a Cherokee American father before being adopted by an Israeli couple.
Her twin brother, Jimmy, will become the army's second serving Eskimo, when he joins the force next year.
Culture clash
The twins' remarkable journey to Israel began when their mother, Minnie, found herself unable to support Eva and Jimmy after their father walked out.
Alaskan social services stepped in and, at the age of two, the twins were sent to live with their grandmother, who struggled to raise the children herself.
They did ask a lot of questions when they were growing up
Dafna Ben Sira
Eva and Jimmy's mother
Their plight came to light when an Orthodox Jewish couple, Meir and Dafna Ben Sira, came to visit Minnie's neighbour - Dafna's mother - a Swiss Catholic woman, who had emigrated to Alaska from Israel in 1989.
The Ben Siras offered to adopt Eva and Jimmy, but had to overcome a welter of religious and cultural obstacles to get the adoption approved by both tribal elders and an Alaskan Orthodox rabbi.
"We got to know the children and they needed a home," Dafna told BBC News Online.
"We wanted to have a family and the children had no place to go," she said.
They remained in Alaska for five years until the adoption process was completed.
'People are curious'
Eva and Jimmy were brought to Israel (they learned to speak Hebrew in three months), converted to Judaism and integrated into Israeli society among the Orthodox community of Nir Etzion, a village near Haifa.
The twins attended religious schools and had bar- and batmitzvahs - Jewish coming of age ceremonies.
"Their culture wasn't a problem, but they did ask a lot of questions when they were growing up," Dafna said.
After nearly a decade in Israel, Eva has forgotten the smattering of Yupik she spoke as a child, but with her long black hair and almond-shaped eyes, she has retained her ethnic looks.
"People are very curious," said Dafna.
"When I take the children shopping and people ask which parent the children look like, I tell them they take after their father because he's not there.
"When my husband takes them shopping and people ask, he tells them they look like me because I'm not there."
Dafna said Eva has no wish to delve too deeply into her past and is very happy living in Israel.
Jimmy, however, is more intrigued and wants to go back to Alaska, if for only a visit.
I think it is odd that someone would actually complain about anti arab , yet anti American groups are not considered race hate groups by the same person. Double standards, the world is full of them.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$260.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network