Posted on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 16:39 — by Clayton
L ast week a Libyan official,Ibrahim Dabbashi , compared the Israeli military’s treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza to the Nazis efforts to commit genocide by sending Jews to concentration camps in s a statement to the United Nations. Only 5 nations walk out of the proceedings. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2009724/posts
Clearly, those who remained, expressed anti-semitism by doing so. Like Media white/Warhater they demonstrated that anti-semitism is alive and well and thriving. So is the UN anti-semetic? Apparently most member nations are. IF most of your members are racist, then an organizatin as a whole is racist.
So should a racist world organization be allowed?
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 16
"Clearly, those who remained, expressed anti-semitism by doing so."
Not necessarily, they could have decided that it wasn't worth their time nor dignity to even pretend they heard the speakers comments. Also, keep in mind that some of the attendees may be against the idea/reality of the Israeli statehood, but that does not also mean they are anti-Jewish, keep the government and the religion separate.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
because it is the only nation in the world created to provide a safe place for the most harassed minority in the world.(yes I think that two thousand years of bigotry, not to mention historical incidents like the pogroms in Russia, the Inquisition, and the holocaust) in the world. Please note that only Israel guaranties a safe haven to Jews being persecuted world. For this reason, when dislike of the State of Israel rises to the point of contesting Israel’s existence, then it becomes a threat to Jews everywhere; it is anti-semitism.
At the point of existance Isreal and Judiasm are not seperate.
I do not think the delegates of other nations stayed because it was too much effort to leave, or that they had no opinion. Comparing Jews to Nazi’s is to nasty and designed to be too incendiary to be ignored. Those who stayed did so because they approved of the comparison, and they do not believe that a Jewish homeland should exist.
In my experience anti-semitism is pretty common, especially among Bay Area “liberals” who are the first to deny doing it. Anti-semetic jokes, and objections to Israel’s existence are common. I have even heard the comment that Jewish people are not a race, merely a religion that is to stubborn to accept Jesus. And let us not forget that Judaism has been defined by the Black Church as a gutter religion—if you believe Farrakhan and Wright. . Now that I have ranted, I thank you though for having more courage then the rest of the "brave hearts" on this blog who would prefer to talk about recipes and sports rather then real subjects. On another thread they are talking about trying to ignore this thread because it leads to “discomfort”.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 72
Clayton, Regarding the title of this post--- Is the UN anti-semetic? In my opinion, there is no doubt that a large portion of the UN would like to see all Israeli's killed. I am not sure if their hatred is toward the Jewish religion or the country of Israel. I believe that is already agreed upon by many, many people that the UN is hoping to see Israel destroyed. Saying the UN is anti-semetic is similar to saying Fox News is pro-Republicans and the other networks are pro-Democrats. It's pretty much agreed upon by many people.__________________ I am reminded of the wars in 1967 and 1973. In both cases, the Arab/Muslim countries attempted to gang up on Israel and sneak attack. As has been the case in many wars, the Arabs began to lose almost immediately and then lie to the world saying that they were winning. The Israelis did not mention that they were winning. Many people worried that the numerous Arab/Muslim countries might finally beat Israel because Israel was not commenting on the war. The other countries continued to lie and say they were winning, the UN waited on the sideline and in my opinion, they were hoping all the Israeli's would be slaughtered. When the UN finally realized that the Israelis were winning on all fronts, they immediately tried to stop the war.____________________ It is unfortunate that so many on the left (including former Democratic president Jimmy Carter) are trying to weaken Israel's attempts to defend herself. In my opinion, the Reverand Wright seems to be on the team that is rooting for Israel to be conquered and then have all Israelis pushed into the ocean. As we have learned from the 'liberal Bay Area elite', there is good racism (anything against whites, Christians and Jewish people) and bad racism (anything else). ________________________________________________ Getting back to the UN, it would be a tragedy for the UN to leave New York, a lot of prostitutes, limo drivers and fancy expensive restaurants would lose some top customers. Andy
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
In my opinion, there is no doubt that a large portion of the UN would like to see all Israeli's killed.I am not sure if their hatred is toward the Jewish religion or the country of Israel. The answer to your question can be found in the motivation of United Nations members; most of the nations that oppose the existance of Isreal do not allow Jewish people to live in their nation (Saudi Arabia, Quatar,Iran, Iraq, China, and Cuba just to name a few) or do not allow Jews to have the same citizenship of other people(Turkey, Poland, Russia). They are clearly anti-semetic, not just anti-Isreal.
Just because it is common knowledge among the sane, rational and conservative that the United Nations is anti-semetic; I think it is good to contstantly remind the elitist liberal left, like Shays, who responded above. He/she/it whats to suggest that there is just one race, and no anti-semitism in the world. Shays is wrong and his/her errors have to be constantly re-addressed so that no one forgets the foundation of their agruements is false.
As for the United Nations, of course it would be best if they ceased to exist. A secondary, almost as good a soltion would be to relocate them to the Middle East, say in Jeruselem. It might be healthy for the United Nations to Shield Isreal from the rocket fire of the Arabs.
Maybe relocating the UN to Jeruselem is the biggest test to determine if the organization is anti-semetic.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
I agree the UN should be in Jerusalem so that the people working there could look out of their office windows and see the Israeli tanks and bulldozers rolling through the city towards the West Bank and by living there get an essence of the way that Palestinians are treated by Israelis as non persons.
As for the rocket firings from Gaza, they come nowhere close to Jerusalem and land mostly in the desert.
As to calling shays ‘he she it’ he has already identified himself as male having previously stated that his friends call him a renaissance man. It is you that are the he she it being nothing more than genetic material with a keyboard.
So if I were to balance your complaint that I am a racist with a complaint that you are calling me one what do you suppose would happen?
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 321
The UN setting up shop in Israel doesnt seem like a bad idea after all. It would serve as a grand opportunity for the Israeli's to bulldoze the headquarters of this damn impotent body. Or on the other hand I'm betting on terrorists driving a bomb laden truck into the main lobby ala the "Marine Baracks 1983".
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
What needs to happen is for you to experience what the Palestinians are made to go through.
The story goes something like this:
Your sitting in you house when the phone rings, you pick it up and on the other end you hear the faint sound of jet engines and a voice that calls you by name and says you have fifteen minutes to vacate the house because it is going to come under attack from air to surface missiles. The voice also clarifies that the fifteen minutes includes the time it will take to clear the area or become ‘collateral damage’. The phone goes dead and in five minutes you hear the sound of a jet flying overhead, you grab your family and perhaps your photo album and run. The next thing you see is your house blown to bits by a Hellfire missile which takes out those houses around you that may be close.
In other words you need to be on the working end of the club to give you the perspective that seems lacking in your sphere of consciousness.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Will you get it through your head that there is only one race ... the human race ... and everyone who is part of it represents some variation of the basic genetic makeup of humans.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Are you supporting Obama and his minster who keep commenting on the black race. Obama is a racist, but you support him apparently.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Obama is no more a racist than anyone who goes out of their way to solicit contributions from white racists. Maybe worse, considering the political climate that makes it touchy to associate with anyone who expresses anything less than milquetoast polite sentiments about life, the universe, and everything. A lot of people point to the racism of the Reverend Wright, as if lashing out at the people who have oppressed he and his kind for centuries (and continue to do so, by the way) is "racism" and not just hate and disgust. Some have even gone so far as to try to claim that if he were a white man saying similar things about black people, he would probably be hung out to dry on a small ant-hill in the New Mexico desert.
I disagree with that assessment. I think if he were a white man making such whacked out claims, he would be (1) laughed at and then forgotten, (2) described as being a "statesman" and a "pillar" of his own community, or (3) denigrated as a madman. He would not ... repeat, would not ... be subjected to non-stop slomo sound-byte scrutiny. Does Pat Robertson receive the treatment given to the Reverend Wright? Does John Hagee (who doesn't have a lot of respect for Catholics, and says so)? How about Billy Graham, who is much more wicked than his carefully crafted public image allows us to see (but whom once in a while we overheard saying some pretty insulting things)? How about Rod Parsley? Or Gary Bauer? Some of these guys actually want Iran to nuke Israel so we can start the end-time days ... by your book, that sounds kind of anti-Semitic.
Get off the racist kick. Find me someone who wishes to deny someone equal rights; take away their inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of the color of their skin; or encourages someone else to do something that would hurt or harm a person because of their race, and I will show you a racist. But then, keep in mind that every one of us is but a variation of the same raw material as everyone else, and what you call race someone else just might call "variation".
And I would go further, because I think anyone who prejudges another person because of how they look, what they wear, or how they behave is as bad as a racist ... especially when what the other person does in no way interferes with or makes it impossible for the first person to get or do what they want ... and to advocate denying said person rights, liberty or happiness because you don't LIKE them (or what they do) is not good.
Hmmm ... sounds like some people on this board.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
is the difference between racism and hatred of a people because of the color of their skin. Wright made it clear he hates white Americans, Farrakan made it clear he hates Jews. Regardless of the reasons, that hatred when expressed is racism. And clearly all the clips on the internet, (see the thread on reminders of who Obama is) express a hatred that is racism and anti-American. Obama is no more a racist than anyone who goes out of their way to solicit contributions from white racists. Obama did much more the solicit contributions, he belonged to a rascist church for 20 years. He celebrated Farrakan as a hero. Obama wrote that his grandmother was a typical white woman—a statement that would be clearly labeled as racist if made about a black person. Obama’s racism is demonstrated through numerous events, not just membership in a racist church. Does John Hagee (who doesn't have a lot of respect for Catholics, and says so)? Catholics are not a race , and McCain is not a member of that church. Respect for Catholics is falling because of the immoral activities of some priests, and the reaction of Churches to protect those priests. And to that protection of illegal immigrants that demonstrates an disloyalty to to the United States. It is hard for many to respect a Church that so clearly disrespects the United States and Americans. Get off the racist kick. Why, your candidate says that it is time for a dialoge on race. I personally do not think a dialoge on race will be productive because a dialoge will not change beliefs, and the problem is beliefs. But, if a dialoge is called for, I think it should be as uncomfortable as possible for everyone. Discomfort may lead to exposing beliefs that normally are hidden. Revealing doemant hatred can be informative to everyone who must live in the same society as the ‘haters” and it may be the only productive element of a discussion on race. Find me someone who wishes to deny someone equal rights; take away their inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of the color of their skin; or encourages someone else to do something that would hurt or harm a person because of their race, and I will show you a racist. . I will take that as a challenge. Watch mediawhite. But then, keep in mind that every one of us is but a variation of the same raw material as everyone else, and what you call race someone else just might call "variation". True but keep in mind that race like religion is self defined. Consider Obama as an example of this. And I would go further, because I think anyone who prejudges another person because of how they look, what they wear, or how they behave is as bad as a racist By this definition everyone is a racist. First impressions, aka prejudging, is a normal reaction when two people meet. Heck, it is a normal reaction when two mammals meet. In this sense we can not help being racists. More to the point, prejudgements are hard to define, if they are not acted upon. You can not control thoughts, only actions so defining a thought as racsist is meaningless. Racisim is not offensive unless it is expressed. Obama and his Church is offensive not because their beliefs, but because of the expression of those beliefs. Racism is a very tough issue for discussion because it triggers emotional reactions and it challenges self identity. In some ways a discussion on race is an easy way to probe past a person’s political correct barriers to the hidden feelings and emotions they hide. Maybe that is productive, maybe it is not—but that seems to be what is desired.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Come on shays you know as well as I that you can judge a man is by the way he cuts his hair or a woman by her ankles and that character is only skin deep.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
After reading that warhater/media white believes that jews are comparable to Nazi's are you still willing to defend him as something other then a racist?
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Show me one place on this board where I have said that Jews are Nazi’s. You once more mix apples and oranges to make a specious point. I said Zionist are Nazis and if they happen to be Jewish it means no more than the fact that Nazis happen to be German. If the German that is a Nazi happens to be a Jew then perhaps we could call Jews Nazis. All Zionist are Jews but that does not mean all Jews are Zionist.
Your continued efforts to dissuade my contentions concerning Zionism by substituting Jew is not winning the day. If you wish to address the facts on the ground in Palestine then do so. Calling me a racist because I address a political ideology that is voracious in its appetite for Palestinian land is the weakest argument I have ever come across. You on the other hand are a true racist just as all Zionist are by nature anti Arab racist.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Why is Bahrain boycotting Isreali goods on a US military base? The reason, to qoute Society secretary-general Abdulla Abdulmalik, is that ... Israeli products won't rush into the country as soon as the office is shut, but closing it is the first step in building Zionist trade and diplomatic relations and soon we'll see Israelis living among us," he added.
If the UN is not anti-semetic, why are they allowing this government to practice racism--or are you going to claim that this is not racist?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Yet again, a mixed and cluttered pile of reasoning and pap. On the one hand, you mix race and religion, race and ethnicity, and race and language ... speaking as if all are the same. In one breath you protest anti-Semitism (and may be justified in doing so), and in the next equate it with racism. More of that in a moment ... at the same time, you really screw up whatever news you are trying to share. I notice this time you didn't cite a source ... so I guess we can only blame you for irresponsible name-calling and shoddy reporting. In the first place, "Abdullah Abdulmalik" is not how the man spells his name. It is Abdullah Abdul Malik. Secondly, he is not a representative of the UN, so your last question leaves me a little speechless ... how do you get from a quote made by a Bahrainian to the UN being a racist organization? For your information, Mr. Abdul-Malik is the Secretary General of the Bahrain Society Against Normalisation with the Zionist Enemy, not a Secretary General of the UN. He is not IN the UN. He does not represent the UN. He does not speak for the UN. As far as I can tell, the UN has nothing to do with a social organization in Bahrain that is protesting something the US Navy is doing.
As to the racism charges, let me repeat my position. There is one race ... the human race. We all represent variations of that one species. While, in general, one can find noticeable physical distinctions between people of the so-called three major "races", it is in the detail that such distinctions become increasingly fuzzy and not discernible. This is particularly true when speaking of Semites. Is there a fourth race that none of us know about? Or is that part of the conspiracy of anti-Semitism? Most people that I know speak of "Semite" as a language group, not a race. Are Arabs Semites? Is an Egyptian an Arab, or does he just speak Arabic? Is Arabic a Semitic language? Is an Iraqi an "Arab"? We might draw the line at thinking Iranians are "Arabs", but don't they speak Arabic? Or does Farsi count as a different language? Are those folks who speak Farsi Semites? Is there such a thing as a "native" Egyptian? Where did they come from? What was their relation with the people of Nubia? How about to Syria? Who were the Syrians? Or the Hyksos?
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 141
"keep the government and the religion separate"
Tell that to the Palies and their comrades.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Civilizing the Muslims. If the British could not civilize those savages, how are we to do it.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 462
Oh claytonista, are you pandering to the weak minded? Shame on you.
(Yeah, I know I'm the weak minded one, so don't bother wasting bandwidth unless you got something original or funny) :)
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 239
Then again, maybe we should ask an Isreali mother, who has lost children to the barbarism of a bus bombing.
Public beheadings of infidels, female clitorectomies of teen girls to prevent promiscuity, stoning of females for infidelities, and the infamous bur-r-r-rka and 2nd rate citizenship for all females in any Islamic nation. FEMALES HAVE NO RIGHTS IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES the husband owns the wife under Islam the religion of peace and Sharia-religious law .
Barbarism still living in the 10th century BC.
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 462
SJT1, please tell George Bush to keep his religion and his politics separate. :)
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 141
"please tell George Bush to keep his religion and his politics separate"
Jump off a bridge and I promise that I will lead a special forces team into the White House and demand that the President keep the above items seperate, and more! :)
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 462
Oh SJT, your finally getting the idea. Your kind of a slow learner aren't you. :)
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 141
Like I said before, jump off a bridge, and you shall have your wish. I promise. :)
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
It is not surprising that the representatives of the major countries walked out after Ibrahim Dabbashi’s unhelpful but accurate remark concerning the horrific conditions on the ground in Palestine since none of them dare lift a finger in the way of they themselves being helpful in the form of admonishing and correcting Israel for its Zionist/Fascist double standard treatment of the Palestinian people wherein Jewish citizens are afforded all the rights of citizenship and the Palestinians are treated with total disregard of even basic human rights i.e. their personal freedom rights or rights of land ownership and as we are seeing in Gaza at this time even the rights to food or medical care. The worst part of all these inequities is the refusal of the European nations or the US to recognize that it wrong to collectively punish an entire population for the sins of the few among them as it continues to support the actions of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. We see this after 911 when the Afghanis had to suffer retaliation because of the deeds of a few elite among them.
On your question is the UN anti-Semitic; the question itself is ridicules and seems an attempt to garner the poor pitiful me syndrome that Israel has used for sixty years to mask its atrocities in the Palestinian Territories. I ask you is UN Resolution 242 anti-Semitic; is any attempt to bring peace and prosperity to Palestine anti-Semitic? http://www.ibiblio.org/sullivan/docs/UNRes242.html
You are not the first to wrap the atrocities of a State in the shroud of a religion. It has been the warp and woof of every conquering nation since the conquistadors to mercilessly invade other countries of the world in the name of bringing Christianity or Democracy to the poor ignorant heathens being conquered by killing them and stealing their land in the name of God.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Ibrahim Dabbashi’s unhelpful but accurate remark To clarify for all concerned, you believe that Jews are comparable to Nazis. In the same breath you tie Zionism to fascism. Zionism is a philosopy that calls for a homeland for the Jewish people, fascism is a socialist for of government that retains most rights in the government. Ignoring that you are comparing apples to oranges, making the point of your comparison insult rather then illumination; be clear ARE YOU OPPOSING THE EXISTANCE OF ISREAL? ARE YOU OPPOSING THE RIGHT OF ISREAL TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST ATTACKS
its Zionist/Fascist double standard treatment of the Palestinian people wherein Jewish citizens are afforded all the rights of citizenship and the Palestinians are treated with total disregard of even basic human rights So is it also a double standard in any other Arab nation you would care to mention if Jewish people as dhimmi are not given the same citizenship rights, (or even the right to exist in many cases) as Arabs? Need an example try Iran or Saudi Arabia? Or is it only a double standard if Jews do it? I ask you is UN Resolution 242 anti-Semitic; is any attempt to bring peace and prosperity to Palestine anti-Semitic? Yes, resolution 242 provided no defense for Isreal should it withdraw, and no guarranties of peace. It was written by and passed by anti-semitic nations so it is anti-semitic. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE UNITED NATIONS IS ANTI SEMETIC.
You are not the first to wrap the atrocities of a State in the shroud of a religion. Although the anti semitism of the United Nations is probably based on the inherent anti-semitism of the Christian and Muslim faiths, Isreal’s existance is not based entirely on faith. Being Jewish is more then a faith and more then a race. Anti-semitism, yours included, is based on a dislike of someone different who refuses to change or to assimiliate. I would add that anti-semitism is also based on the threat that the existance of Judiasm poses to Islam and Christianity. The existance of an older faith suggests that maybe derivitive faiths are merely cults and not legitimate. Think about it. Is Christianity just a cult? If Christianity were a better version of Judiasm why should all Jews not just join. Isn’t the fact that Jewish people reject Christianity and insult to Christianity?
It has been the warp and woof of every conquering nation since the conquistadors to mercilessly invade other countries of the world in the name of bringing Christianity or Democracy to the poor ignorant heathens being conquered by killing them and stealing their land in the name of God. Interesting that you would bring up the one of the clearest expressions of Papal reasoning behind the Inquistion. It proves the point I made, that anti-semitism, anti Zionism, and anti-Isrealism are based on a discomfort with the different. Conquistadors were not bringing Democracy to anyone, they were bringing Christianity. If you read their papal charge, (note they were servants of the Catholic Church not of Spain as an independent nation) , anyone who refused to convert was insulting, not God, but the Church. The cost of that insult was death. The same applied to the Inquistion. THE POINT IS THAT THE ROOT CAUSE OF PAPAL , AND LATER CHRISTIAN ANTI-SEMITISM IS REFUSING TO JUSTIFY THE CHURCH BY JOINING.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Israel for its Zionist/Fascist double standard treatment of the Palestinian people wherein Jewish citizens are afforded all the rights of citizenship and the Palestinians are treated with total disregard of even basic human rights. Does this double standard include the fact that 180 Iraqi children are being treated for heart disease in Tel Aviv ? (http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10211332.html)
How many Isreali children are offered medical care in ANY arab hospital. All the Palestinians care to do is blow up Isreali children in buses on their way to school.
Reality doesn't fit your myth of attrocities does it?
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 462
Clayton: "All the Palestinians care to do is blow up Isreali children in buses on their way to school."
When an Israeli warplane drops a 500 pound bomb in the middle of town, what do you suppose happens? There are terrible atrocities on both sides.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Backbencher. Isreal does not drop 500 lb bombs on civilians--they target specific individuals as tightly as technology allows, and when those individuals are responsible for the death and damage to Isreal. The Hamas leadership, brave warriors that they are, specifically hid in civilian urban areas so that Isrealis have to kill some Palestinians to get them. They literally are hiding behind the robes of women and children.
These are the same children they are breeding to act as living bombs in Isreal. Disposable children whom they scarifice to a cause. Children breed, not reared like humans, but breed like tools for the soul purpose of destroying Isreal and driving Jews into the sea.
And you choose to defend this amoral position? What does that make you Chewy, as racist and hate driven as the Palestinians? I am starting to think so.
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 141
"These are the same children they are breeding to act as living bombs in Isreal. Disposable children whom they scarifice to a cause. Children breed, not reared like humans, but breed like tools for the soul purpose of destroying Isreal and driving Jews into the sea."
You know, I'm curious as to where the outrage is on this. These kids are born and bred to sacrifice, and I hold terrorists and the parents responsible for not only the blood of innocent Israelis on their hands, but of these innocent kids who will only live their childhoods as mind numb cold blooded killers.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
On another thread I commented on the level of savagery and uncivilied nature of the Palestinians and got the same response from the same representatives of the Looney left. I believe they are trying to humanize the Palestinians to create a cause that really does not exist. I think this is historical revisionism at work. That is why the reaction.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
I believe they are trying to humanize the Palestinians to create a cause that really does not exist. I think this is historical revisionism at work.
Talk about blatant racism. Trying to humanize humans? So Palestinians aren’t human? This is exactly what is taught every young Israeli soldier when fulfilling their required tour of duty in the Occupied Territories. Your way of thinking that another human is not even human foments the hatred of Israel that you condemn. It creates the mindset that allows the Israeli soldier or settler to use another human as target practice or an object to be tortured and humiliated and proves that Israeli leadership is not interested in peace but only the destruction of another nation.
Let’s see now who was it that wanted to erase Czechoslovakia from the map and wipe out the Polish Jews? I forget right now but he thought in the same way you do. You have no credentials to call anyone a racist and neither does Israel.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Any Palestinian hospital that may be left standing cannot accept patients of either Palestinian or Jewish persuasion because Israel has blocked all medicines and medical supplies to all Palestinian hospitals or clinics. There are not even bandages enough to go around. That is what an embargo looks like. It’s like blaming the lame because they cannot run due to the fact they have been shot which is exactly the case in Palestine. The hospices have been bulldozed and razed by Israel.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
This is an account you should be thrilled to read. It recounts the pain of surviving the Holocaust, (which Media white has claimed was caused by a secret Jewish cabel).
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=500359
As that experience relates to today's rising wave of anti-semitism here is the opinion of the author.
I once heard Auschwitz survivors say that when the world discovers what was done, there would be no more anti-Semitism -- and surely no more mass murders of Jews, or any killings on such a scale. How wrong they were.
Israel's hard-fought successes are resented by a world that has grown increasingly anti-Semitic once again. Canada's own Justice Louise Arbour has denounced Israel's security fence as illegal, an interference to Palestinian life. (The steady stream of homicide bombers who, prior to the fence's existence, blew up countless Israeli civilians, including Jews and Arabs, and yes, many Holocaust survivors and their families, was apparently not considered an interference to Jewish life.) This madness continues to this day, with the likes of Jimmy Carter acting as an apologist for Hamas.
A recent Vancouver Sun editorial stated "Anti-Jewish sentiment is inexplicable given the Jews' contribution to civilization. While their numbers have always been small, they have been awarded 158 of the 750 Nobel Prizes handed out since 1901, having distinguished themselves in chemistry, literature, economics, medicine, physics and, of course, world peace. As hatred of Jews is irrational, so too is the demonization of the democratic Jewish State of Israel."
The part that most applies to you Media white is the last sentence As hatred of Jews is irrational, so too is the demonization of the democratic Jewish State of Israel."
I doubt you will understand these words, but it is worth a try.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 72
It took me a while to realize the comedy regarding your name. Maybe I will change my name from Andy94509 to Communist Hater and I will support whatever Cuba, China, Laos and North Korea say. I will back up the communist countries. Do you see the irony in your name? Your name implies that you hate wars; however, you are very supportive of the countries that are constantly starting wars . __________________________ Do you know how quickly the countries you are supporting declared war on Israel? Do you think it was ten years, do you think it was five years? No it took a lot less time for those countries to declare war against Israel. Immediately after becoming a country, Israel was attacked by many of it's neighbor's. Their goal was to push all of the Israelis into the ocean so all of the Jewish people would die. (They didn't use the work Israelis, they used a very derogatory term). These countries that you and many 'Progressive Liberals' support declared war immediately against Israel, and if my memory is correct, a few countries still consider themselves at war with Israel. They have been at war for 60 years. Why did they start this war? The Israelis hadn't even moved to the country yet and war was declared on them. Their only 'crime' was being Jewish. Now, being a good liberal, many people think that is not racist. They think it's okay to hate certain groups. It is perfectly okay to hate Jewish people and other groups. Now that these Muslim countries have lost so many wars, they complain they are the victims. All they need to do is quit starting wars and everything will be fine. If these people quit shooting missiles into Israel and promoting suicide bombers, things would be a lot better. See what Egypt did. Notice, they made an agreement with Israel and now both sides have peace with each other . _____________________________________________ When you call yourself Warhater, do you mean wars where the goal was supposed to be to free a group of people from a cruel dictator? Do you only hate wars that the U.S. is involved in? Do you think wars that were started against Israel with the intent to push all of the Jewish people into the ocean an acceptable war? Maybe I will change my name to "hate people that aren't nice to their wife" and I will support OJ Simpson.______________Andy
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Perhaps you could use the name Andy Wormhole. The only wars that I know of besides WW2 to liberate people from dictatorship is the wars that the US launches to enslave occupy and insert brutal dictators; dictators such as Augusto Pinochet, Arial Sharon and the long line of despots before him that rule the Palestinians with the iron fist of genocide.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 462
Clayton: "Civilizing the Muslims. If the British could not civilize those savages, how are we to do it."
Well claytonut.....you know.....you get so indignant about racism in general..... and I agree with you..... then you say something stupid like the above to showcase your Arab hating racism. Savages? How unkind. Also, you'll probably want to change your tirade from "Muslims" to "Palestinian Arabs" since Muslims are 25% of the world. There will never be peace in the Middle East as long as people such as yourself, entertain themselves by poisoning the dialog. You’re no better than the people you vilify. You're certainly are not an honest broker. I support Israel, but Israel has to make some concessions. Besides, Israel has nothing significant to fear. They got the guns and money to protect themselves from ANYBODY. And of course, the U.S. is not going to let anything happen to Israel. So...Colonel Klink...calm yourself down. :)
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Appears to be a repeat of a post you wrote last week. If it is you are now losing it David.
Just what "concessions" would you have Isreal make... there existance, their ability to prevent Palestinian attacks?
If the price of peace is the existance of Isreal, then the price is too high. As you point out, in a war of attrition, Isreal is winning. If Isreal is winning, why make concessions?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
How about not provoking hostility by not developing the West Bank?
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 239
ever it wishes with it. It is a buffer zone.
If the Arabs truly want peace, which they do not they would give land to their brothers....to set up a Palestinian state. The Palestinians were nomads, and kicked out of many Arab countries, did you glance over that in the History books????. That piece of History you failed to point out. If the UN and Arab nations want a homeland for Palestinians take part of Saudia Arabia or Jordan.
Even with a homeland the suicide bombings will continue, since the goal is not peace, but the extermination of Jews driving them into the Mediterranian sea...as arab leaders have reitered many, many times along with Hamas and the other terrorist groups.
"If society does not know its History it is doomed to repeat it"
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive."
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
I am not sure I know what you are talking about (and am not sure you do, either). What do you mean that Palestinians were "nomads", kicked out of many Arab countries? Some Arabs were nomads, once upon a time (at least the Bedouin and a few other tribes were ... but not all were, nor were all Arabs Bedouin). Some Arabs still herd sheep and camels, and are nomadic. But Arabs conquered a good part of the world from Spain to Afghanistan, assimilating all sorts of local peoples (nomadic and sedentary) along the way. A good part of the time, only the leaders of an invading army were "Arabic", and the soldiers and the people who manned the administrative bureaucracies were something else (Berber, Libyan, Farsi, Turk, Mongol, Serb, Aryan, Ghanan, Mali, Senagalese, Sudanese, and on and on and on ...); and over time, the "Arabic" connection became thinner and thinner. Many of these people were also nomadic, but others were not. You do know this, correct?
And of course, many people are confused by the language issue. "Arabic" refers to anyone who speaks Arab, which is the basic language of Islam. But lots of Arabic speaking peoples are not Arabic, nor is Arabic the only language they speak. Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Egypt and most of the small principalities on the Arabian Peninsula are not "Arabic", though they speak Arabic and have adapted many Arabic customs (mostly through adoption of Islam, which is an Arabic religion, with lots of additions from lots of other peoples). Most of those now Islamic countries existed for millenia before being conquered and ruled by Arabs.
In short, there is a lot of confusion about terms and terminology. So why don't you clear things up and tell us who these Palestinian nomads are? From where did they come? Which "Arab" countries "kicked them out" before they settled in Palestine? When did these Arab countries kick them out, and when did the nomads settle in Palestine? Where are they nomadic, and what do they do for a living?
That ought to do for a start.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 462
I got news for you retard, Israel is not winning. It's a stalemate. And a war of attrition? There are generations of Palestinians not yet born, who will be taking up the cause. There will be no peace. Israel just celebrated 60 years of existence, or 60 years of being at war, what ever works for you. And 60 years from now?....... deja vu all over again.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
What exactly does winning mean? Does winning mean acquiring the hearts and minds of the world to be the most hated nation on the planet? Is developing the minds of a nations own citizens to become psychopathic killers in the name of a religion winning?
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 462
You know Clayton……I mean Professor Clayton sir. Some time ago, you most righteously defended Ohso's insane hate filled anti-everything diatribes, as well considered and thoughtful speech. And quite rightly.
You quite properly declared that Ohso has a right to express himself, and I should respect that right no matter what. You are correct sir! All people should have a right to express themselves no matter how insane they are. :)
Alas, poor Mr. Dabbashi expressed an opinion, albeit it one that you disagree with, and you ........ you scoundrel would deny him that right??? OMG it’s just an opinion dude. You would have him silenced and have the General Assembly floor cleared of it‘s snakelike racist Neanderthals? You are wrong sir!
Well what do you think Prof? It appears that everyone is a potential enemy as far as you are concerned. I think you were born 50 years too late. How wonderful it would have been for you to carry hate speech papers for our dear Senator McCarthy during the hearings ..... so long ago. You would have been a perfect fit.