Zionists answer back......

[ElectricFetus]

the term is anit-semite which is not related to semite here look:

Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
Date: 1848
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

Again anti-semite:

Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
Date: 1882
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

As you can see just because it has “Semite” in there it does not apply to all Semites only Jews. This my deify logic but it the way the word is used in proper English, and just because the word is used and created by westerners that’s a ad Hominem fallacy and the plain point is that it used in a western language it only apply as such. Also anti-arab does not have the same force yet because Arabs tend to attack the west and are not seen as goody-two-shoe victims like the Jews, if the Arabs could manage to sucker up to the look-at-me-suffering act like the Jews they might stand a better chance.

I said I only pity you if you believe such crap that you spouted. My pity does not change me argument stagiest and has not effect on you so it is not an issue of weakness or resolve.

 

[and2000x]

I don't actually beleive the stuff I posted, it was sarcasm.

This my deify logic but it the way the word is used in proper English, and just because the word is used and created by westerners that’s

Yes, you hit it dead on by saying that the word is only exclusive to Jews. However, I strongly disagree with the term's usage, despite the fact that everyone uses it in this manner. It would have made more sense for them to say 'anti-judaism', but with this word it makes it seem like I am attacking their ethnic background and race, which is absurd. I think the term was devised centuries ago because of the popular strategy of condemning their entire race as a whole. However, in recent times the word is simply abused to shut off any criticism against the religion. It's dangerous water indeed.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Does it really matter it just a word it can have any definition they want no matter what it sound like.

 

[outlandish]

There'e slightly more to Anti-semitism than just trotting out a dictionary based definition, as they say, true wisdom doesn't le with words, but the meaning behind those words.:

Who told a Berlin audience in March 1912 that “each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews”?

No, not Adolf Hitler but Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist Organization and later still the first president of the state of Israel.

And where might you find the following assertion, originally composed in 1917 but republished as late as 1936: “The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline”?

Not in Der Stürmer but in the organ of the Zionist youth organization, Hashomer Hatzair.

As the above quoted statement reveals, Zionism itself encouraged and exploited self-hatred in the Diaspora. It started from the assumption that anti-Semitism was inevitable and even in a sense justified so long as Jews were outside the land of Israel.

It is true that only an extreme lunatic fringe of Zionism went so far as to offer to join the war on Germany’s side in 1941, in the hope of establishing “the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich”. Unfortunately this was the group which the present Prime Minister of Israel chose to join.

That fact gives an extra edge of topicality to what would in any case be a highly controversial study of the Zionist record in the heyday of European fascism by Lenni Brenner, and American Trotskyist writer who happens also to be Jewish. It is short (250 pages), crisp and carefully documented. Mr Brenner is able to cite numerous cases where Zionists collaborated with anti-Semitic regimes, including Hitler’s; he is careful also to put on record the opposition to such policies within the Zionist movement.

In retrospect these activities have been defended as a distasteful but necessary expedient to save Jewish lives. But Brenner shows that most of the time this aim was secondary. The Zionist leaders wanted to help young, skilled and able-bodied Jews to emigrate to Palestine. They were never in the forefront of the struggle against fascism in Europe.

That in no way absolves the wartime Allies for their callous refusal to make any serious effort to save European Jewry. As Brenner says, “Britain must be condemned for abandoning the Jews of Europe”; but, “it is not for the Zionists to do it.



http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/review.htm

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Nono Wraith you cant use that source because everything what communists say is a lie . And dont bother using Hassidic sources because they are obviously fundamentalists and dont even think Arab because Arabs cannot be but anti-semitic .

Go to www.us-israel.com and visit the Jewish library to find all your answers . Dont question . Answer

WCF , surely it is so that there is no semantical logics present in the word anti-semitism , you have acknowledged this yourself . I have no problems using the word as is wrongly implemented , however we do have to be conscious of the fact that this term is not one to be defended in its logics .

Also it is obvious that the term itself has had its own meaning in the different fases post-invention of this term . First it was to point toward Jewish writing , it became a pointing within Jewry toward the yiddish culture and jewish religion , then it became a racial pointing , but after the holocaust it was nothing but the mere pointing toward a Jew that was called anti-semitic . And as zionists identify themselves to the new Jews , anti-semitism and anti-zionism became equal one to another .

and just because the word is used and created by westerners thats a ad Hominem fallacy and the plain point is that it used in a western language it only apply as such

I believe the issue deals with anglo-centrism more than anything else . As English would be considered international language #1 all are expected to speak such , ok .......

However when you do speak English as I do now and find such a term that doesnt exist in Arabic or various other non-western languages , how can there not be a questioning especially as one's own culture (semitic) is being put forward ? And when after this the term proves illogical , how can it not be than that the illogal issue is being presented as such , and again questioned ?

Also anti-arab does not have the same force yet because Arabs tend to attack the west and are not seen as goody-two-shoe victims like the Jews, if the Arabs could manage to sucker up to the look-at-me-suffering act like the Jews they might stand a better chance.

Well there are 2 ways in a situation of the monster against the goody-2 shoes . You either make them goody-2shoes as you say , or you make the other a monster as zionists do better as well . And its not like there arent any possibilities in showing zionism & todays Israels true nature , Arabs are just hopelesly bad at it .

But in the end I dont like the competition to win over the west at all , I would rather see peace in the Middle-East with the zionist state in an alliance against western-imperialism than some destructive total war on the peninsula the evangelists desire for .

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Alagar :

1) Herzl didnt equalize it with race although he tried , but as he acknowledged anthropologic reality , he merely thought of a historical bond . Race became an issue when Nazism came along with Hebraium Nationalism , then was World Jewry acknowledged as a racial unity . Ofcourse since there is no racial unity you will not see the racial identity through antropological means , but this was not present in the first case , it is Jewry that was equalized a racial unity . Primitive pseude-racial science considered specific subjective traits (that not represented any measured number of peoples) as distinct Jewish and so a race was developped .

Misusing the saying : You can get the Jew out of Palestine but you cant get Palestine out of the Jew : can clarify the point made .

Aside of this there was racial friction within Zionism with discrimination toward other Jewish groups than the elite .

But the general point that there is no racial relevance in the declaration of independance is correct , and the implication that not all zionism is necesarily racially related is correct as well as we can see today even . But all this has become possibly since the Jewish heritage has been the marker for a nationality , more than anything else . As the Jews have been treated as a race they acted as a race and formed a nation .

2)The support of the Mufti was rather related to Bosnia than Palestine , while it remains completely marginal in compare German Nazism & Zionism shared between 1933 and 1942 .

Arabs indeed did not accept post 1917 Jewish presence and as the zionists expanded in numbers the threat progressed and as we can see in 1948 this threat has actualized itself .

The zionist agression was there before the war in Mei 1948 .

3) * I wouldnt ask for respinning the wheel insofar that all Europeans are to be deported .
* I wouldnt ask for the right of return within borders of Israel as a state .
* Hamas was a good friend of Israel once those schools didnt come falling from the sky .

In anyways , all I would ask is for Israel to pay up for the damages in resources and $ , would they ever consider such ? I dont think so . Israel would not even allow a powerfull Arab state nevermind finance one .

4) I dont know Sari but on that text in the context you presented it I would agree with , but in 2 ways : Either we are getting payed or we are preparing the great robbery . There is no home for Palestinians within the zionist state there never was and there never will be .

5) On the issue of allowing zionism within Judaism it is pretty clear , even the religious zionists you mention would admit this as they excuse their actions : Their approach as far as I am aware is similar to that of the evangelist Christians , the zionist state can facilitate the coming of the Messiah .

As you are Torah studied I would love to hear your arguments of possibility to allow zionism from Jewish perspective .

 

[ElectricFetus]

Ghassan Kanafani,

I'm sorry but I don't think I disagree with you on any of that.

 

[Cjwinnit]

Originally posted by truth
The victor gets to write the rules.

Someone's a fan of Robert Mugabe....

 

[Alagar]

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Alagar :

1) Herzl didnt equalize it with race although he tried , but as he acknowledged anthropologic reality , he merely thought of a historical bond . Race became an issue when Nazism came along with Hebraium Nationalism , then was World Jewry acknowledged as a racial unity . Ofcourse since there is no racial unity you will not see the racial identity through antropological means , but this was not present in the first case , it is Jewry that was equalized a racial unity . Primitive pseude-racial science considered specific subjective traits (that not represented any measured number of peoples) as distinct Jewish and so a race was developped .

Misusing the saying : You can get the Jew out of Palestine but you cant get Palestine out of the Jew : can clarify the point made .

Aside of this there was racial friction within Zionism with discrimination toward other Jewish groups than the elite .

But the general point that there is no racial relevance in the declaration of independance is correct , and the implication that not all zionism is necesarily racially related is correct as well as we can see today even . But all this has become possibly since the Jewish heritage has been the marker for a nationality , more than anything else . As the Jews have been treated as a race they acted as a race and formed a nation .

2)The support of the Mufti was rather related to Bosnia than Palestine , while it remains completely marginal in compare German Nazism & Zionism shared between 1933 and 1942 .

Arabs indeed did not accept post 1917 Jewish presence and as the zionists expanded in numbers the threat progressed and as we can see in 1948 this threat has actualized itself .

The zionist agression was there before the war in Mei 1948 .

3) * I wouldnt ask for respinning the wheel insofar that all Europeans are to be deported .
* I wouldnt ask for the right of return within borders of Israel as a state .
* Hamas was a good friend of Israel once those schools didnt come falling from the sky .

In anyways , all I would ask is for Israel to pay up for the damages in resources and $ , would they ever consider such ? I dont think so . Israel would not even allow a powerfull Arab state nevermind finance one .

4) I dont know Sari but on that text in the context you presented it I would agree with , but in 2 ways : Either we are getting payed or we are preparing the great robbery . There is no home for Palestinians within the zionist state there never was and there never will be .

5) On the issue of allowing zionism within Judaism it is pretty clear , even the religious zionists you mention would admit this as they excuse their actions : Their approach as far as I am aware is similar to that of the evangelist Christians , the zionist state can facilitate the coming of the Messiah .

As you are Torah studied I would love to hear your arguments of possibility to allow zionism from Jewish perspective .

2. There was agression towards jewish (not neccicarily zionist) towns around Israel much time before that war. During the attacks of the 1920 and the 1929, there wasn't even a zionist force to retaliate (sp,sp). It was basicly a massacre. During the big arab revolt (1936-1939) both sides were now light-equiped and able to handle such a guerilla war.
If you count out minor radical zionist organizations (that were banned by most zionist public), there was no zionist force getting out of towns up until the war. And the war started on November 1947, as a civil one, before Israel was even a state.

3. During the peacetalks of Tabba, the U.S has volunteered to help the palestinian refugees with its own money (basicly, I think it was the jewish lobby getting such founding, though the U.S foreign policies were always very spent-easy), So has the international community.

Your claim that Israel won't let any arab state rise to better economical standards. If it is so, why is Israel promoting the natural gas and hi-tech co-operation with egypt? Why does it trade with Jordan and pass them water every year ?
You're 180 degrees wrong here. Israel acknowledges that a country, with better life standards, rising near it would reduce natural hostility, thus increasing Israel's chance to get out of isolation.

And believe me, you won't find many israelis that supported the act of establishing the Hamass. The '77-'83, '86-'92 goverments were basicly formed on the base of blocking all other possible political groups, thus enjoying a majority without having their policy as the chosen one, but mainly on having their policy as the least declined one. You won't find me supporting Hamass either.

5.
Dvarim(deu-tronom), d : "Vea'ata shmah izrael el hahukim ve'el hamishpatim asher anochi melamed etchem la'asot lma'an tihiu vebatem vyarashtem et ha'aretz asher yehova elohey avoteichem noten lachem".

free translation ( a very VERY bad one):
And now Israel, listen to the rules and the trials that I am teaching you to do for you to live, and (it doesn't fit gramaticly in english) you to come and to inherit the land that yehova, the god of your fathers gives you.

Basicly, the fifth book in the torah is the one to signal Jewish activism most. I have more examples, but I'd much rather not develop a theological arguement here.

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

2. There was agression towards jewish (not neccicarily zionist) towns around Israel much time before that war. During the attacks of the 1920 and the 1929, there wasn't even a zionist force to retaliate (sp,sp). It was basicly a massacre.

* If the massacred were colonists there is nothing but justification with the exception of children .
* In 1923 there was a population of 170.000 Jews of whom only 30.000 would decend from native pre-zionist Palestinian Jewry . Although there is no excuse for even 1 massacred native Palestinian Jew , 80% of the time a Jew meant a zionist . Interesting rather is the relationship between zionism and native Palestinian Jewry during this pre-independance period .
* During Brittish mandate , the Brits were the protectors of zionist interrests .

In the riots of 1920-1921 :

The death toll among the Jews was 47 with 140 wounded.

Arab casualties of 48 killed and 73 wounded were almost entirely due to British military action.

zionist source

* Marginal casualties .
* Brittish defence of Jews .

A rumour of Jewish take-over , while Jabotinsky was arrested for forming a defence-league .

After the riots the Haganah was formed on 15 June 1920 .

Between 1921 and 1929 another 80.000 zionists migrated registered . As result of the riots another zionist source claims that 133 Jews were killed, and more than 300 wounded . Surely Arabs would have been killed as well however this is not mentioned . The moral questioning of the riots is not any different as those of 1920 , while now there certainly is a great difference as the zionists do not only have Brittish protection but their own Haganah for 9 years as well .

During the big arab revolt (1936-1939) both sides were now light-equiped and able to handle such a guerilla war. If you count out minor radical zionist organizations (that were banned by most zionist public), there was no zionist force getting out of towns up until the war. And the war started on November 1947, as a civil one, before Israel was even a state.

First to be mentioned is that the minor radical zionist organizations you speak of can today be translated in Likud .

In 1931 Izl was Established while the Nazi government from 1933 collaborated with the zionist movement in their own Reich as well as in Palestine with those radicals you speak of . In Palestine they were not banned untill the IDF was created and they started misbehaving against other Jews , and much more important than their socalled support would be their effect on the entire situation witch was immense .

The war may have started in 1947 , Izl was highly active in for instance :

Al-Quds Massacre - December 1937
Haifa Massacre - March 1938

Between 1936-1939 some 500 Jews found death , in the same time Arabs had 5000+ casualties . I hope you can see how marginalization is at its place when it comes to zionist victims of their own colonial policy .

During the peacetalks of Tabba, the U.S has volunteered to help the palestinian refugees with its own money (basicly, I think it was the jewish lobby getting such founding, though the U.S foreign policies were always very spent-easy), So has the international community.

A couple of bucks wont do . And are any of the refugees helped within a perspective of their own state ? I dont think so . Id say these gestures are of little importance in compare with the demand of propor financial retribution for 55 years of rent . Hey its holy land its not gonna be cheap .

Your claim that Israel won't let any arab state rise to better economical standards. If it is so, why is Israel promoting the natural gas and hi-tech co-operation with egypt? Why does it trade with Jordan and pass them water every year ?
You're 180 degrees wrong here. Israel acknowledges that a country, with better life standards, rising near it would reduce natural hostility, thus increasing Israel's chance to get out of isolation.

Not any Arab state will be allowed to have serious power as such threatens Israel in its existance . That is because in the end an Arab state will be hostile against Israel if it has such chance . Merely an economic impuls toward nations that have pro-zionist regimes is a completely different thing .

Yes surely economical progress suits Israel as indeed common peoples hostility is being reduced , however as you know neither Egypt nor Jordan are states where peoples actually have a saying on their governments . In the end Israel can never get out of isolation as long as there is no Palestinian state , one Israel does not desire to exist (a pupper perhaps) . Israel has the power to arrange a state and provide peace in its region within no time but it desires to holds its interests beyond such a state of being .

Also lets not forget that Israel operates within capitalist system , surely they did not lost $ in their Egyptian & Jordanian affairs now did they ?

And believe me, you won't find many israelis that supported the act of establishing the Hamass. The '77-'83, '86-'92 goverments were basicly formed on the base of blocking all other possible political groups, thus enjoying a majority without having their policy as the chosen one, but mainly on having their policy as the least declined one. You won't find me supporting Hamass either.

* If Israeli did not support Hamas at its establishment I do not see how you could call yourself a democracy .
* Weither your governments have been centrists without policy does not change the fact that the centre and least declining choice was supporting the organization .
* Would you have supported Hamas then ?

but I'd much rather not develop a theological arguement here.

A nice thread is in the making that offers space for this argument as well , save it for then

 

[truth]

Either the posts on this thread are getting longer or I am developing ADD because I am beginning to lose track of who's on first, second, and third!

 

[Alagar]

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
*If the massacred were colonists there is nothing but justification with the exception of children .
* In 1923 there was a population of 170.000 Jews of whom only 30.000 would decend from native pre-zionist Palestinian Jewry . Although there is no excuse for even 1 massacred native Palestinian Jew , 80% of the time a Jew meant a zionist . Interesting rather is the relationship between zionism and native Palestinian Jewry during this pre-independance period .

There is no justification to murder anyone who is not a threat. Jews were not a threat until they were attacked during that time, thus - there is no justification in attacking them.

* During Brittish mandate , the Brits were the protectors of zionist interrests .

Hell no. The brits were the protectors of general public peace. I will find resources later about the amount of agreesive actions british troops made against zionists. Not to mentions decrees like "the rule of territory" to rule out jewish bought lands.

In the riots of 1920-1921 :

The death toll among the Jews was 47 with 140 wounded.

Arab casualties of 48 killed and 73 wounded were almost entirely due to British military action.

First to be mentioned is that the minor radical zionist organizations you speak of can today be translated in Likud .

a classy mistake. The Likud party is not equal to the Irgun in any way. The Irgun idealogy was expansionists with no boundaries, and I might quote "Two sides for the Jordan. One is ours, and such is the other". The Likud leader of today talks about two palestinian sides to the Jordan.

Moreover, the Irgun materialized with many other parties before becoming the current likud. Parties like Gesher, Tzomet, Israel Bea'alya, and many liberal groups. I can't see how former prime minister Bibi Netanyahu, a neo-capitalist, would agree with Jabo's moderately social ideas (which, by the way, were considered highly non-social by that time).

In 1931 Izl was Established while the Nazi government from 1933 collaborated with the zionist movement in their own Reich as well as in Palestine with those radicals you speak of . In Palestine they were not banned untill the IDF was created and they started misbehaving against other Jews , and much more important than their socalled support would be their effect on the entire situation witch was immense .

The war may have started in 1947 , Izl was highly active in for instance :

Al-Quds Massacre - December 1937
Haifa Massacre - March 1938

Between 1936-1939 some 500 Jews found death , in the same time Arabs had 5000+ casualties . I hope you can see how marginalization is at its place when it comes to zionist victims of their own colonial policy .

Check more facts besides whether or not they were under military threat of the Hagana. The Izl had its own ruling sectors, its own medical care, its own employment office, and its own schools. It was almost a state inside a state. Since the Izl also created its own diplomatic groups (the zionist revisionists), I can't see the connection beetwen the zionist and the revision zionists as for who is to blame.

Hagana actions against the Izl were in progress from before the establishment of the I.D.F and the Altalena threat. The sezon, for example.

Another thing - those riots were not started by any zionist groups. No zionist agression here.

A couple of bucks wont do . And are any of the refugees helped within a perspective of their own state ? I dont think so . Id say these gestures are of little importance in compare with the demand of propor financial retribution for 55 years of rent . Hey its holy land its not gonna be cheap .

Then are we going to be paid for 55 years of hostility and murder?
I don't remember any of the organizations demanding only such a thing coming into relations with Israel. Moreover, most of the trouble caused to the refugees was by the arab states themselves - by their constant abuse of that population. Does Israel holds fault of their actions?

Not any Arab state will be allowed to have serious power as such threatens Israel in its existance . That is because in the end an Arab state will be hostile against Israel if it has such chance . Merely an economic impuls toward nations that have pro-zionist regimes is a completely different thing .

If it will bo hostile towards Israel in it has a chance (I'm not sure about it, but let's assume so), where here does israel's fault lie?

Yes surely economical progress suits Israel as indeed common peoples hostility is being reduced , however as you know neither Egypt nor Jordan are states where peoples actually have a saying on their governments.

Does Israel has any other neighbours?
Israel is a democracy in a sea of dictatorships. There is no other choice but trading with those regimes.

In the end Israel can never get out of isolation as long as there is no Palestinian state , one Israel does not desire to exist (a pupper perhaps) . Israel has the power to arrange a state and provide peace in its region within no time but it desires to holds its interests beyond such a state of being .

I agree such a state is a condition for Israel getting out of isolation. I am not sure Israel has such power, since palestinian organizations do not quite co-operate. I also believe Israel's desire is to ensure such a state in two conditions:
1. Righ of return will submit only to that state, whether or not it will recieve economical help.
2. Israel cannot be under that country's military/militia threat.
Both conditions are not a paty of today's reality yet, but it's in progress.

Also lets not forget that Israel operates within capitalist system , surely they did not lost $ in their Egyptian & Jordanian affairs now did they ?

A valid arguement. I won't deny Israel's revenue.

* If Israeli did not support Hamas at its establishment I do not see how you could call yourself a democracy .
* Weither your governments have been centrists without policy does not change the fact that the centre and least declining choice was supporting the organization .
* Would you have supported Hamas then ?

We could call ourselves a democracy. Democracy doesn't mean that the majority always gets to decide. The majority gets to decide only once around 4 years (a little less in Israel, where most goverments fall long before that), and It usually gets to decide on the main issues, as the less important issues would never rise to a debate during elections. Up until 1987 (the first intifada), Israel always had bigger issues then the palestinians. Ot at least only then the public understood that the palestinians are a part of the main issue.

I did not support Hamass, and I don't support it today. fundamental regimes, such as the ones in Iran, or the former Afgan and Iraqi ones, push people's lives backwards. If my interest is to bring the palestinians to the nagotiation table, I'd rather have them as a country with valid leadership that its concern are for its citizens.

 

[Christian Sodomy]

Kikes are religious fanatics who do nothing but lie. They were thrown out of Israel by the Arabs who got sick of their constantly mendacious behavior.

"Semites" is a scientific and linguistic designation for the mixed-race people from the middle east. Anti-Semitism is a catch-all phrase used to deflect criticism of murderous Israel and the bad behavior of kikes worldwide.

The Holocaust should happen again - send 'em back.

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Alagar

There is no justification to murder anyone who is not a threat. Jews were not a threat until they were attacked during that time, thus - there is no justification in attacking them.

In every nation on this planet there is a certain policy toward peoples who are not of that land , immigrants . IMO there should not be , but there is , and as there is elsewhere there ought to be in Palestine .

The colonists settling in the land formed a threat through their existance , because there is no such thing is international anarchy when peoples can go and leave where they please , unfortunatly . Moreover , the zionists came under the protection of the Brittish with obvious political admirations to not live together with Arabs , but create their own zionist state which is founded on the nationalist ideals of Blut und Boden .

Especially in the days of the great movements and dictators you cannot trust a nationalistic movement with as well socialist as fascist divisions to settle peacefull on your front-yard .

Hell no. The brits were the protectors of general public peace. I will find resources later about the amount of agreesive actions british troops made against zionists. Not to mentions decrees like "the rule of territory" to rule out jewish bought lands.

Im sorry but there were Jewish elements in the British military system as well as profound facilitation for the fulfillment of zionist ideas . There is no compare between the Brittish behaviour against zionist (especially at the so relevant beginning) and against Arabs .

Please consider this article by Samih K. Farsoun with Christina Zacharia

Creation of circumstances in which unacceptable actions can develop themselves , ought to be considered a threat to indigious existance , and over history as we see it has proved to be not only a threat but an actualization of zionist ideals . And we're not done yet either .

Supposed difficulties regarding "ruling territory" are marginal as land acquisition had no priority over immigration . Israel seized most of its land much later on and through different means .

a classy mistake. The Likud party is not equal to the Irgun in any way.

I aimed at Lehi not Izl . Nor is equality there , however relevancy is .

The Irgun idealogy was expansionists with no boundaries, and I might quote "Two sides for the Jordan. One is ours, and such is the other". The Likud leader of today talks about two palestinian sides to the Jordan.

Talks do not equal actions especially not when coming from Arik , afterall the man invaded Lebanon and holds responsibility for Sabra & Shatila . What are his ambitions ? Is he as your infamous Begin (ex-Izl leader) and achieves an Arab sell out ? It would look like it with Abbas , but as the rest doesnt follow nothing is accomplished . So what is the alternative , afterall capability is present and is ideology not ? What exactly are Likud's expansionist policy's in theory ? Is there a definit border of Israel ? Afterall its army still occupies territories that are not within these theoretical borders , who are indefinit .

Moreover, the Irgun materialized with many other parties before becoming the current likud. Parties like Gesher, Tzomet, Israel Bea'alya, and many liberal groups. I can't see how former prime minister Bibi Netanyahu, a neo-capitalist, would agree with Jabo's moderately social ideas (which, by the way, were considered highly non-social by that time).

Ehm im starting to think that you are forgetting Lehi , afterall Heirut sprung originally from there . The parties mentioned in forming of Likud obviously have no issues with Likudian politics , Likudian politics that was understood by 1986 ex-Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir as PM . You do see the deep rooting and relevance I hope . Or did all the fascist become a woos in order to be called Likud ? I dont think so , as you mention Bibi , Ariuk is considered the moderate one within the fraction . The butcher is moderate , ha ! Bibi is a madhouse , surely his neo-capitalistic ideals would not bind him with Jabo , but his conquer and expell hungry zionist drive does . Its not the share of economical perspective that has importance in judging the moral grounds of the movements in their relation , its how they see their nationalism , equal rights , respect of anothers property and NOT expell democratic chosen leaders .

Check more facts besides whether or not they were under military threat of the Hagana. The Izl had its own ruling sectors, its own medical care, its own employment office, and its own schools. It was almost a state inside a state. Since the Izl also created its own diplomatic groups (the zionist revisionists), I can't see the connection beetwen the zionist and the revision zionists as for who is to blame.

The fact that they have their own ruling and their own communal situation , does not rule out state responsibility after 55 years . Afterall the same is demanded of the Palestinians while not even having any state . You can dismiss the Izl as some independant factor that ought not to be counted , but you share a government and a state , a nation with their decendants and even worse loonies . It is amazing but extremicy in Israel has made Likud appear like some moderat rightwinged party . The same happened for PLO ofcourse as well .

I understand you wish to distant yourself from this wing within zionism , but you are still collaborating as one peoples for one cause that is Israel . You can bring your seperation up if when you're in civil war , before that Izl & Lehi actions and following parties within Israeli state have surely benefitted the zionist ideals and aims . You would not be today what you are without this part of the movement , you cannot deny this .

Hagana actions against the Izl were in progress from before the establishment of the I.D.F and the Altalena threat. The sezon, for example.

In action does not equal to dismantlement . In the same way you see today PA in action against groups .

Moreover , dismantlement of groups when the IDF was established was merely a military one , as political we have (and are still) enjoyed the policy of this part .

What would be much more interesting is to take a look at the part of zionism you do wish to defend , do you think that leftist-centrist zionist policy was morally acceptable ?

Another thing - those riots were not started by any zionist groups. No zionist agression here.

You didnt start the riots , however your existance on anothers ground was what logically caused conflict . Zionist may not started the actual agression , they were most definetly the logical cause of a morally justifyable (in sofar against zionists) reaction .

And again , as relevant as a starting point may be , quantity cannot be excluded . 5000 against 500 is an issue .

Also , not to be excluded is each reaction against an action . A minim action followed by an overreacted action is condamnable as well .

Then are we going to be paid for 55 years of hostility and murder?

I don't remember any of the organizations demanding only such a thing coming into relations with Israel. Moreover, most of the trouble caused to the refugees was by the arab states themselves - by their constant abuse of that population. Does Israel holds fault of their actions?

Im sorry but do we really need to compare casualties on both sides ? There is an actiul ratio going on here , Palestine can pay Israel and even tip it with some change leftovers of what Israel ought to pay Palestine .

As for hostility , how can you even desire such a thing without questioning your own awareness ? Can you expect anything esle than hostility ?

The refugees problem is created by zionist massacres and scare-tactics , Arabs regimes are responsible for the afterward dealing with the problem created . Yes over the years the miserable lives of refugees is in quantity and time the responsibility of the Arab regimes , however the origin of their problem is zionist . And that can never be shoved aside . As long as the issue is psychologically active , the damage of others that are not originators is to be considered secondary .

If it will bo hostile towards Israel in it has a chance (I'm not sure about it, but let's assume so), where here does israel's fault lie?

The fault lies in Israels actions as a state and the actions of its zionist movement , there is the moral consideration to be made . I am aware that Israel cant allow a state to be strong enough because indeed there is a threat as there is already basic hostility . The logic applied onward is correct , and morally not relevant . However the road that reached this situation is a corrupted one , that is why this situation cant be viewed as any other . Israel isnt a state like any other . The situation is not in any sense a natural one , there is no equality .

Does Israel has any other neighbours?
Israel is a democracy in a sea of dictatorships. There is no other choice but trading with those regimes.

The point was that such arrangements do not reflect a peoples opinion as those representatives deals are made with dont represent . As for Israel being a democracy , in this compare it has little value you yourself later on point out the obvious irellevance of peoples wishes within the "democratical" situation in Israel .

And Lebanon is considered a democracy nowadays as well . Please dont judge them any different than you do your state in this respect .

I am not sure Israel has such power, since palestinian organizations do not quite co-operate.

Israel has enough power to construct and create facilities (especially with their USA hookup) not to depend on cooporations with the organizations you speak of .

I also believe Israel's desire is to ensure such a state in two conditions:
1. Righ of return will submit only to that state, whether or not it will recieve economical help.
2. Israel cannot be under that country's military/militia threat.
Both conditions are not a paty of today's reality yet, but it's in progress.

1) IMO there is no case if there is no economic solution .
2) But that country is under Israeli threat all the time . Oh well again this dilemma .....

Up until 1987 (the first intifada), Israel always had bigger issues then the palestinians.

Amazing but true . Can you even imagine , there is not even considered a serious problem unless peoples start revolting .

regimes, such as the ones in Iran, or the former Afgan and Iraqi ones, push people's lives backwards

I dont think you need to push Iraq into such regime compare , you know very well the Ba'athists do not fit the category U wish to conclude as pushing backward .

Anyways I would agree with you on such regimes , but intellectual progression is not always the first priority of a peoples in a given situation .

If my interest is to bring the palestinians to the nagotiation table, I'd rather have them as a country with valid leadership that its concern are for its citizens.

In this current situation at the negotiating table PLO is brought down on the knees even replacing Arafat for PA (85% remember?) , and giving up everything because the complex & infrastructure is messed up and their power diminishes ?

Hamas does alot more for the peoples than they do .

CS

I thought most Kikes were materialistic zionists , no ? Now they're religious ?

They were thrown out of Israel by the Arabs who got sick of their constantly mendacious behavior.

The Holocaust should happen again - send 'em back.

The holocaust did not happen for every Jew in the same way , the Nazi era was not treating all Jews equal . The ones civtimized in the holocaust were poor and simple peoples who did not hold blame for any Kike behaviour . CS you should be gulagged . ARBEIT MACHT FREI :bugeye:

 

[and2000x]

I dont think you need to push Iraq into such regime compare , you know very well the Ba'athists do not fit the category U wish to conclude as pushing backward .

The common westerner often makes this mistake of holding other countries up to their own as the 'ideal'. There is nothing backwards about Iraq, they simply don't value the things we value, such as cellphones that take pictures and streaming video. I wouldn't push Iraq into the muslim fanatic category either, seeing as Iraq has Stalinist underpinnings and manipulates religion to an end. Osama has often denounced and declared war on Iraq for Saddam's infidelity.

I thought most Kikes were materialistic zionists , no ? Now they're religious ?

The Jewish psyche is a little more complex than that. As they see the universe as dual realms of material and spiritual they act accordingly: recklessly exploiting the material world and the human body, then applying moral and ethical restraints upon us for conformity purposes to assure our survival in the next world. A Christian all but denies the material existence and as such is even more irrational and dangerous. I agree with CS, they are maniacs.

 

[guthrie]

"The Jewish psyche is a little more complex than that. As they see the universe as dual realms of material and spiritual they act accordingly: recklessly exploiting the material world and the human body, then applying moral and ethical restraints upon us for conformity purposes to assure our survival in the next world. A Christian all but denies the material existence and as such is even more irrational and dangerous. I agree with CS, they are maniacs."

UMm, like how? have you got any evidence of jews maniacally laughing whilst whipping poor white boys into working harder for them, whilst their business partners cry about peresecution?

Or rather, have you got any idea about this that doesnt lump all jews together into one category?

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

The common westerner often makes this mistake of holding other countries up to their own as the 'ideal'. There is nothing backwards about Iraq, they simply don't value the things we value, such as cellphones that take pictures and streaming video. I wouldn't push Iraq into the muslim fanatic category either, seeing as Iraq has Stalinist underpinnings and manipulates religion to an end. Osama has often denounced and declared war on Iraq for Saddam's infidelity.

* It is interesting as you mention a western-centric approach , it will make a point later on .
* Iraq is not one peoples with one mind who have one set of values , for cell-phones see attachement .

My point deals with the last 2 sentences , Saddam was a Stalinist and religion never affected his Stalinist ideals . The equalization made previously was an errorous one .

The Jewish psyche is a little more complex than that. As they see the universe as dual realms of material and spiritual they act accordingly: recklessly exploiting the material world and the human body, then applying moral and ethical restraints upon us for conformity purposes to assure our survival in the next world. A Christian all but denies the material existence and as such is even more irrational and dangerous. I agree with CS, they are maniacs.

* There's no such thing as a Jewish psyche as there is no such thing as one Jewish peoples in one situation in order to have possibility in creating a mutual psyche .

* Im not familliar with your analysis either , I have not seen any elements within Jewry that act as you describe while applying afterwards values in order to be accepted in hereafter . Im sure incidents as such will be present , as individuals do not need to resemble 'a' Jewish mainstream . However no such psychological structure is present in any movements I am aware of .

* Now back to that western-centrism , your approach toward Christianity shows nothing but such . At first you generalize the entire branch of international Christianity as one , as you following present a vision you might have developped on a specific type of Western Christianity as representative for the whole . Im sorry but in Arabia we have plenty Christians and even pseudo-Christians and even Muslims with heritage Christian values becoming an own movement and so on . None of them are in any denial of the supposed Jewish psyche you tried to describe .

 

[and2000x]

Whoa, settle down the BOTH of you! I am not saying ALL Jews do this, or ALL Iraqis are like this. I'm simply generalizing behavior.

Or rather, have you got any idea about this that doesnt lump all jews together into one category?

They are a religious group are they not? Therefore their mind works on basically the same level when it comes to an approach to reality. For example: all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus. All Christians believe that things are either good or evil. All Christians believe earthly lust is a product of the devil. See what I mean? If there are 'exceptions' then they are not real Christians, such as what Ghassan said about 'pseudo-Christians' (whatever the hell that is.)

The idea of a Judeo-Christian psyche or mentallity was highly advanced by Carl Jung, if you bothered to read his work. Although I am always suspicious of his analysis (a lot of pseudo-science involved), his general conclusions seemed fairly accurate.

As for Iraq, I never said they all agreed on one thing. There are MANY different conflicting factions within Iraq, that's the reason I said not to clump them under Muslim fanaticism in the first place (it wasn't directed at you Ghassan).

 

[guthrie]

Well, thats better. Generalising behaviour like that gets you shot.

Besides, you might be able to say that since they are supposed to have the same basic matrix of belief, they think similarly, but that has nothing much to do with the other critiscisms you levelled.

And you are still way too much overgeneralising. If I say cat to you, what do you think of? How can you know that all the believers have the same archetypes in their heads? Yes, I have read bits and pieces of Jung, hes interesting, but not always much use.

"If there are 'exceptions' then they are not real Christians, such as what Ghassan said about 'pseudo-Christians'"

We could be arguing here forever about deifnitions of Christina, using the bible and anything else that came our way, so really, its not worth it.

 

[Ghassan Kanafani]

Whoa, settle down the BOTH of you! I am not saying ALL Jews do this, or ALL Iraqis are like this. I'm simply generalizing behavior.

The generalization is completely incorrectly made , you should know I have little problems with reflecting justified generalizations . Iraq however has 3 completely different large groups of peoples as you already know , thus making one generalized point of them is simply impossible .

They are a religious group are they not? Therefore their mind works on basically the same level when it comes to an approach to reality. For example: all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus. All Christians believe that things are either good or evil. All Christians believe earthly lust is a product of the devil. See what I mean? If there are 'exceptions' then they are not real Christians, such as what Ghassan said about 'pseudo-Christians' (whatever the hell that is.)

Yes the group is one religious entity , but this does not reflect the psyche unless there is true spiritual unification which requires a total and complete approach and that is not how Judaism is . Judaism has various different ways , and with that coming there is a cultural relevance .

Afterall we know that if your mother is Jewish so are you , regardless of your religious , cultural or any other customs and beliefs .

Yes Christians share (like Jews ofcourse and all other religious groups) certain elements , however depending on their situation they make different choices that shape them . Those religious elements mentioned are not overwhelming enough to create a psychologly that can be called one , unless it is of such a generalized level that is is in compare to psyches of other religions . Ofcourse that isnt a level one should be on , as no relevance can be drawn from such a religious compare into todays reality of human behaviour . Life is far to complex for such , and as we are not all Taliban , Haredi or Baptist there is no intellectual or psychological undertone that can reflect the religion as a union .

Now you can exclude exceptions as not real , but sects and groups can differ indeed as immensly that you in your argument would not include them . However what is the justification for that ? If they claim to be Christian how are you disproving their teachings to be what Christianity is ? Just because others disagree ?

And again , the other aspects of their lives create their psycho for a much more relevant part , compare the psycho of a Chechnyan Muslim to that of a Malasyan Muslim , a Moldavian Christian and a English Christian , a Maroccan Jew and an Amerikan Jew and so on .

The generalization ends up as an irellevant piece of assumed information .

Carl Jung

Im sure no Western centrism can be found in his work



The point is that you speak of Judeo-Christian while all that is reflected is European Judeo-Christian (an issue incorectly generalized as well)