Ridicule and ganging up says it all. I couldn't care less. I don't feel like plowing through all the popular movies I've watched over the years, or the sit coms, or the CSI type stuff on TV to find out who puts up the money.

Somebody else can if they feel like it.

I'll take a bet though if anyone is keen.

Anti-semite. Yawn.

And what was Gawd banned for?

Capitalism = Jewish conspiracy for world dominance.
Communism = Jewish conspiracy for world dominance.
Hollywood = Jewish propaganda
Media = Jewish propaganda
Money = the Jews made it
Elves = Jews, both have pointy noses, Jews are trying to find a way to have eternal life like the Elves
Einstein = a Jew = Jews want to invent time-travel so they can further dominate the world

[J]ews
[E]vil
[W]orld

=

The world is evil because of Jews.

Any chance pinkharrier is actually Borat? Perhaps he also wants to throw the Jews down the well so his country can be free.

Hardly proof that I am wrong in my observations. Oh, that's right you don't have to supply proof and can simply rely on ridicule to impress the gang. Lucky you. Yawn.

pinkharrier wrote:Ridicule and ganging up says it all. I couldn't care less. I don't feel like plowing through all the popular movies I've watched over the years, or the sit coms, or the CSI type stuff on TV to find out who puts up the money.

Somebody else can if they feel like it.

I'll take a bet though if anyone is keen.

Anti-semite. Yawn.

And what was Gawd banned for?

Here's a run-in he had with Barry Cade, who btw is a consistent leftist and anti-Zionist.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... ml#p254877

Barry criticizes Gawd for claiming that the Holocaust was "small potatoes."

Thx, Andy

Ug, I wanted to bring you a photo of an Israel-in-Uganda password, but there's no photo outside facebook. You'll just have to take my word for its awesomeness.

quill wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

quill wrote:Recently, I have become more aware of the presence of strong anti-Semitism in the world. However, I still find the ideal of a Jewish state - or any state created for the benefit of, or maintaining a special relationship with, one specific ethnic group - to be inescapably racist and therefore immoral.

So, no own homeland for the Kurds then?

And let's force Kosovo back into Serbia?

And so on.

I always support the right of people to a government and state of their own choosing, but I don't see the need for such rights to be derived from, or subject to, racial or religious distinctions. In other words, if Kosovo wants to be a sovereign state, that's fine. But I don't see why it needs to be a Muslim state. Why can't people simply follow their own religion and let others follow theirs? Surely history has shown that a secular state is the best kind of state.

Israel is a secular state, and was set up for the ethnic group called "Jews". Just like the ethnic group called "Kurds" would like to like to have their own homeland instead of constantly being persecuted by leaders of the countries they currently reside in.

The point here being that the Jews were persecuted everywhere, and even the Muslims tried to kick them around. As a group, they needed a safe place they could live in peace.

andyx1205 wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:Ridicule and ganging up says it all. I couldn't care less. I don't feel like plowing through all the popular movies I've watched over the years, or the sit coms, or the CSI type stuff on TV to find out who puts up the money.

Somebody else can if they feel like it.

I'll take a bet though if anyone is keen.

Anti-semite. Yawn.

And what was Gawd banned for?

Here's a run-in he had with Barry Cade, who btw is a consistent leftist and anti-Zionist.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... ml#p254877

Barry criticizes Gawd for claiming that the Holocaust was "small potatoes."

Well, that was wrong. He said the Jewish Holocaust was "small potatoes" in comparison to the tens of millions of non-Jews the Nazis killed in Russia and other places, and that is at least technically true, if phrased in a suspiciously dismissive manner. The 26 million Soviet citizens killed were larger in number than the 6 million European Jews. And the aggregate of both is only part of the total Nazi genocide, the true scale of which beggars belief.

Well, Russia did receive the Kaliningrad (Koenigsberg) Oblast, that never belonged to it before and didn't have any notable Russian population at all before 1945. All Germans there were told to move nach vaterland.

As to the question of Zionism - yeah, depends on what do you mean by that word, but the current conditions in Israel are obviously unfair to the Arabs.

As to the OP's definition:

1)with laws meant to favor Jewish people over members of other ethnic groups.

Blatantly unjustifiable.

2)is explicitly Jewish

Depends on what you mean by it. Are Germany or France "explicitly German" or "explicitly French?" A Jewish state that is as Jewish as France is French isn't more objectionable then France. But it's clear that many Israeli politicians are using this slogan to promote 1).

3)maintains a special relationship with Jewish people

Same as 2.

Warning - the rest of my post is sarcastic

Anyway, to end all that confusion, you should just listen to Russian Neo-Nazis. Hitler was freeing Russia from its Judeo-Bolshevik overlords. Claims of mistreatment of Russians by Hitler are all Zionist lies. In fact, both Russians and Germans are True White Aryans, and it's impossible for True Aryans to be hostile to each other. Could heroic, decent, wonderful people like Vlasov or Krasnov support Hitler, if he was anti-Russian in any way? Anyone who speaks about "mistreatment of Russians by Hitler" is either duped by world Zionism or is a Zionist himself. Think about it.

quill wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:OK. You win. There is no Jewish influence in Hollywood, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Disney, FOX, AOL, MTV. What have I forgotten?

Somehow I doubt you have statistics for all of those companies' boards of directors; nor do you have insight into the political beliefs of those executives in regards to Israel and Zionism. Aren't you just assuming that they're run by Jews and that those Jews manipulate their companies for the benefit of Zionism because, you know, that's what Jews do? If so, how can you possibly avoid being considered anti-Semitic? Anyone who is not calling this anti-Semitic, at this point, is only doing so out of sheer restraint in deference to the FUA.

I never expected to say this, but I think PH is correct to an extent.
I don't subscribe to the concerted 'conspiracy theories', but I do think that until fairly recently, there has been a definite bias in the reporting of the Israeli conflict in the UK media.
This may simply be a residue of Britains involvement and continued support for the zionist project, (the establishment of a homeland for jews), or perhaps a result of the older connection between christianity and judaism. (jesus was allegedly a jew too)
certainly the 'establishment', both religion, and 'the powers that be', were in favour, and Britain had much history in the region.

I can't cite specific examples either though, I can only speak from my own perspective, and the story of my own recent 'conversion'.

Until about 20 years ago, I had no idea of the history of Israel since 1948. A damning admission, I realise, but I don't think that uncommon.
I had always thought Israel was a 'cool' place. It sounded fairly egalitarian, and I heard good things about the 'kibutz' (Sp?) system. Like most English people, I watched the news, heard about 'those crazy arabs', the 'PLO'. But generally, we never heard anything about the Palestinian cause, until fairly recently. The news was reported as if they were just some crazy terrorists, with some crazy demands. There was never a hint that there may have been an injustice of any sort committed. The PLO were reported in the same way the 'Bade Meinhof' were; crazy, passionate, fanatical young people.. with bombs and guns, prepared to die for their cause.... -whatever that was.

I had a friend at the time, an American, who'd married a girl I'd known since I was a teenager. At my house one day, he launched into an anti-semitic rant, and I objected, as it sounded quite 'nazi'. I reminded him of my parent's experiences at the hands of the nazis, and warned him that if he continued, I was likely to 'react' in a manner that may prove detrimental to his continued well-being. ...
He didn't want to fight me, or argue with me, so he left. But he suggested I read some history regarding the establishment of the state of Israel.
I went to my local library, a small branch, in a local suburb of Oxford, and withdrew their entire stock of books on the subject; 3!
I was totally gobsmacked by what I discovered. the biggest shock was really that I hadn't known any of this, that it had somehow passed me by, despite, pretty much all happening, during my lifetime.

I don't think that's untypical. I've spoken to many people about the subject, and even some 'jews' (non-practicing), and most people are blissfully unaware of how the state was established, how villages were cleared, and bulldozed from existence, and unarmed, innocent, civilian people forced to flee, from a vastly superior military invasion. (All armed, trained, funded, and supplied by the 'west'; Britain, America, France, Holland, etc etc)

So although I don't think he explains it particularly well, I agree with Harrier.
I think there's been a definite bias.
I think that's changing now.
Maybe it's a result of the "information age", or maybe (as I like to believe) it's simply the inevitable emergence of the truth.
I've since read a lot more, and I've tried to use sources like this:
http://ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

American Jews in particular have a special responsibility to acknowledge the Palestinian point of view in order to help move the debate forward. As Chomsky writes in his Peace in the Middle East?, “In the American Jewish community, there is little willingness to face the fact that the Palestinian Arabs have suffered a monstrous historical injustice, whatever one may think of the competing claims. Until this is recognized, discussion of the Middle East crisis cannot even begin.”

"Compiled, Edited, and Published by
Jews for Justice in The Middle East"


More & more people, including those who believe themselves to be "jews", are beginning to realise that a terrible injustice has been perpetrated on the people of the former Palestine.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Israel is a secular state, and was set up for the ethnic group called "Jews". Just like the ethnic group called "Kurds" would like to like to have their own homeland instead of constantly being persecuted by leaders of the countries they currently reside in.

I disagree.
A "secular state" with all sorts of "holy sites", who insist on the "holy city of Jerusalem" as their capitol, and based on a "holy" myth, in a "holy book". They're about as "secular" as "Santa".

WayOfTheDodo wrote:The point here being that the Jews were persecuted everywhere, and even the Muslims tried to kick them around. As a group, they needed a safe place they could live in peace.

I'm an "equal opportunities" religion persecutor. I think they're all a little crazy...
But if I were looking for either "safety", or "peace", I would expect to find neither, by living in someone else's house,
and throwing them out...
Nor would I be massively surprised if they were "ungrateful" for my offer to sell some of it back to them... (as long as they lived by my rules.....)

Jovan wrote:
I don't think that's untypical. I've spoken to many people about the subject, and even some 'jews' (non-practicing), and most people are blissfully unaware of how the state was established, how villages were cleared, and bulldozed from existence, and unarmed, innocent, civilian people forced to flee, from a vastly superior military invasion. (All armed, trained, funded, and supplied by the 'west'; Britain, America, France, Holland, etc etc)

It's not really correct to refer to it as an invasion. The establishment of Israel was preceded by a civil war comprising Jewish and Arab militias. The Jewish militias were trained to some extent by the British, but only because Haganah was a semi-official security unit of the British government in Palestine during the late-30s, essentially working to help the British put down Arab revolts. However, before that period they were mostly formed from untrained Jewish civilians who were trying to defend themselves from attacks by Arab gangs. It's also worth pointing out that during the war for independence no one except the Czechoslovakians were willing to sell arms and equipment to Israel; the British thought the Jews would lose.
During WWII the push for Jewish independence came mostly as a result of the British restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine, which is when the attacks against UK officials by the Stern gang happened.

The so-called clearing of Arab villages happened after the British pulled out and there was suddenly a war between the Jews and the rest of the Arab world, with both parties wanting full control of Palestine. Remember this was just after WWII so taking and occupying enemy territory was a completely valid action during war. It's not as though the Jews were the only ones to gain anything either - Jordan took the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Egypt took Gaza, leaving Israel with a relatively small bit of land.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

quill wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
So, no own homeland for the Kurds then?

And let's force Kosovo back into Serbia?

And so on.

I always support the right of people to a government and state of their own choosing, but I don't see the need for such rights to be derived from, or subject to, racial or religious distinctions. In other words, if Kosovo wants to be a sovereign state, that's fine. But I don't see why it needs to be a Muslim state. Why can't people simply follow their own religion and let others follow theirs? Surely history has shown that a secular state is the best kind of state.

Israel is a secular state, and was set up for the ethnic group called "Jews". Just like the ethnic group called "Kurds" would like to like to have their own homeland instead of constantly being persecuted by leaders of the countries they currently reside in.

The point here being that the Jews were persecuted everywhere, and even the Muslims tried to kick them around. As a group, they needed a safe place they could live in peace.

The difference is that the Kurds are indigenous to Kurdistan. It doesn't seem that Israel will allow the Palestinians to have their own state either.

AndreD wrote:

It's not really correct to refer to it as an invasion.

I wasn't just talking about a military invasion, but also swamping the Palestinians with sheer 'weight of numbers of immigrants since about 1880, despite the continued Arab opposition.
It was always part of the strategy to increase the proportion of the jewish population, and decrease the arab proportion.

“The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

AndreD wrote:The so-called clearing of Arab villages happened after the British pulled out and there was suddenly a war between the Jews and the rest of the Arab world, with both parties wanting full control of Palestine. Remember this was just after WWII so taking and occupying enemy territory was a completely valid action during war. It's not as though the Jews were the only ones to gain anything either - Jordan took the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Egypt took Gaza, leaving Israel with a relatively small bit of land.

Taking and occupying "enemy territory" was 'valid' during war, but as you've said, this was just after WWII.
Any time you take/occupy "enemy territory", you're pretty much guaranteed to start a war, and to make "enemies".
So a bit 'chicken and egg' there, I feel...
Most of the clearances were in 1948, after the establishment and recognition of the state by the UN., a massive mistake I feel, but clearly, we have the 'benefit of hindsight'.

“During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable.” Benny Morris, “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.

I think this site gives an excellent summary of the history, and is written by "jews", and refers to many Jewish authors on the subject.

“In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt... David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that ‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’... The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality.” Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

The war begins

“In December 1947, the British announced that they would withdraw from Palestine by May 15, 1948. Palestinians in Jerusalem and Jaffa called a general strike against the partition. Fighting broke out in Jerusalem’s streets almost immediately...Violent incidents mushroomed into all-out war...During that fateful April of 1948, eight out of thirteen major Zionist military attacks on Palestinians occurred in the territory granted to the Arab state.” “Our Roots Are Still Alive” by the People Press Palestine Book Project.
Zionists’ disrespect of partition boundaries

“Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution.” British author, Henry Cattan, “Palestine, The Arabs and Israel.”
Culpability for escalation of the fighting

“Menahem Begin, the Leader of the Irgun, tells how ‘in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive...Arabs began to flee in terror...Hagana was carrying out successful attacks on other fronts, while all the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter’...The Israelis now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948. But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date and which necessitated Arab states’ intervention.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”
The Deir Yassin Massacre of Palestinians by Jewish soldiers

“For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion...The attackers ‘lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,’...The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country.” Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth of Israel.”
Was Deir Yassin the only act of its kind?

“By 1948, the Jew was not only able to ‘defend himself’ but to commit massive atrocities as well. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’...Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.’” Norman Finkelstein, “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.”

All extracts from:
http://ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

The problem (for Israelis, zionists, and their apologists) is that all of this information is out there, and is all factual.
Most people are still unaware of the history, and as I said, until recently, there has been almost no information about the beginnings of Israel, and Palestinians were just "spun" as being 'irrational'.

I know that if I came home, and found a 'squatter' in my house, no matter how 'nice' he may be, and how much he just "wanted to live in peace", I too, would be reluctant to "negotiate" what proportion of my house he should live in.

As more and more people realise the history, sympathy for Israel's position will diminish further.
There is an inevitability about truth, what goes around, does come around.

The only chance israel has, (and it's a slim one IMO)., is to stop 'being in denial', admit their past wrongdoing, and try make massive reparations. There will doubtless be people who still refuse to accept it, but if they seemed honest and genuine, instead of the charade we currently see, I feel it would be a start.

If "Israelis/Jews" can maintain their "national/ethnic/cultural identity" for 2000 years, despite having no land, I dare say the Palestinians are capable of the same. Something needs to change, or we're all doomed to keep repeating this, ad nauseum, forever.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

Well, you know, that source is not exactly known as unbiased. The opposite, actually.

Julia it wouldn't matter if Stormfront had suggested it (they probably do). What matters is if it is true. A commitment to truth is something you appear to demand of others but show no inclination of pursuing yourself.

Hitler thought smoking caused lung cancer. So?

Julia wrote:Well, you know, that source is not exactly known as unbiased. The opposite, actually.

Facts are facts, quotes from the people concerned are all on "historical record", there are many sources, and I have tried to use those from "jews" to minimise the likelihood of bias.

There was a definite "bias" in the help they received to establish Israel, from the "western, christian" countries. They believed in the bible, after all.
And there has been an ongoing "bias" in the support from the USA., and their vetoing of all UN resolutions, and sanctions.

It's really quite simple: the jews wanted a country, in the middle of someone else's (country).
The arabs said "NO."
But they went ahead anyway, and used force, to achieve it.
They stole the land.
Ever since, the "Israeli jews" have been saying "why do they hate us"..?
"Why do they persecute us..?"
And; "We're only protecting ourselves"

True, there were lots of 'mitigating circumstances', and context etc (Colonial oppression of some sort, occured wherever there were colonies, etc)
As I said, the truth has a way of coming out, and their feigned victimhood stands exposed, for anyone who cares to investigate.

Arab resistance to Pre-Israeli Zionism

“In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt... David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that ‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’... The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality.” Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

http://ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html
"Biased"...?
Which bit..?

pinkharrier wrote:Julia it wouldn't matter if Stormfront had suggested it (they probably do). What matters is if it is true. A commitment to truth is something you appear to demand of others but show no inclination of pursuing yourself.

Hitler thought smoking caused lung cancer. So?

Commitment to Stormfront truth? No wonder Julia doesn't show an inclination of pursuing that kind of "truth". Leave it to those who believe the Jews control the media.

The point is whether it is true or not. It doesn't matter if, as I said, Hitler thought smoking caused lung cancer (the owners of Stormfront probably do too). What matter is if it is true. There is no such thing as "Stormfront truth". There's only truth. If Julia wants an unbiased source, which one does she suggest? Or which one would you suggest Lucy?

pinkharrier wrote:The point is whether it is true or not. It doesn't matter if, as I said, Hitler thought smoking caused lung cancer (the owners of Stormfront probably do too). What matter is if it is true. There is no such thing as "Stormfront truth". There's only truth. If Julia wants an unbiased source, which one does she suggest? Or which one would you suggest Lucy?

Stormfront, of course