THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PARTITION OF PALESTINE (ORE 55)

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby 5E6A » Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:14 am

At the beginning of the twentieth century the land that came to be known as the Mandate of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled the whole region of Western Asia since 1516...Palestine was an area filled with hundreds of small villages and a few large towns...The population was ethnically diverse, the legacy of migrations by Greeks, Romans, Turks, Persians, and Jews during the previous two millenniums. As each group passed through, members were assimilated into the existing community, adding to its diversity, but never displacing the Arabs...

Most of the people of Palestine made their living through subsistence agriculture or the export of produce such as olives, grain, sesame products, and oranges which were sent to Europe through the ports at Jaffa, Gaza and Acre...Palestine was a localized world, one in which most people rarely if ever traveled more than a day's walk from their home village and a family might live on the same land for hundreds of years.

...The Ottoman rulers' use of the millet system of governance allowed the Christian and Jewish populations a great deal of autonomy: They were granted communal responsibility for their own religious, social, cultural and even legal affairs...There was a relatively high degree of religious tolerance and a acceptance of peaceful coexistence that was at variance with the situation in many other parts of the world.

...In 1850 neither Jews nor Arabs viewed themselves as members of an ethnically, culturally, linguistically homogeneous, territorially based nation in the modern sense of the word. In the history of how this occurred are found the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

...European attitude toward colonialism in the late 1800s and early 1900s conveyed a clear message that Africa, Asia and the Middle East were the property of any European who wished to settle there, "bring civilization to the masses," and tap its natural resources...Imperialism -the establishment by force or coercion of political and economic control by a state or empire over foreign territories- was viewed as an honorable activity, with little recognition of the exploitation accompanying it. Europeans who settled in Africa or Asia or the Middle East were often romanticized and glorified as pioneers spreading civilization to the non-Wester world...

That Palestine had an existing population, with its own history and aspirations, was no more relevant to early Zionists than was Kenyan history to the British or Algerian society to the French. In describing the attitudes of the early Zionists who participated in the Basel Conference, Israeli politician and journalist Uri Avnery wrote, "Except for a handful, these more or less self appointed delegates of the Jewish people had never been to Palestine, had no idea what it was like and took little interest in its realities, Reality did not bother them. They were out to build a new world, only half imagined. The only reality they knew was one they wanted to get away from - the reality of Eastern Europe, with its pogroms, its discrimination, its foreboding of greater catastrophes to come." Thus, many early Zionists operated under a set of illusions that Palestine was an almost empty land that could easily accommodate their dreams and aspirations, the illusion that the people already in Palestine would welcome Zionist colonization and especially the illusion that any resistance to Zionism could be blamed on Arab politicians rather than broad-based sentiment against the European immigration...

The new immigrants who like those before them came to Palestine to escape pogroms and discrimination, were frequently socialists, committed to Jewish communal living on kibbutzim (agricultural settlements with collective ownership; singular kibbutz)...Because of their ethic of egalitarianism within the community and a desire to strengthen the Jewish people through physical activity, the settlers insisted that only Jewish labor could be used on lands owned by Jews. This policy lead to tensions with Palestinian peasants who lost their traditional right to sharecrop the land when it was sold to Zionist immigrants by absentee owners and were then unable to find work among the new immigrant communities...

They were explicitly interested in establishing a Jewish state rather than living as a part of the existing Arab communities; in fact, many of Israel's first political leaders came from this group. This put them in direct conflict with the existing Jewish population, which was more fully integrated into the indigenous Palestinian community.


Gerner, D. J. (1991). One land two peoples: the conflict over Palestine. Boulder: Westview Press.
Last edited by 5E6A on Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
5E6A
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 5E6A » Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:17 am

double post. ugh

...and its just 5E6A, i used call letters to enunciate and clarify the spelling, no need to use them while addressing me...
5E6A
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 5E6A » Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

Let's see if this don't get pitted as well...

You reply to none of my arguments....and then complain that I don't reply to yours fast enough.

I wish this WERE on one thread as it would make it easier. But I'll get back to your ONE quote in reply to all the information I posted.

Meanwhile, are you REALLY saying that those criticizing yesferatu for his pictures of rabbis is "mudslinging"?

And are you saying then, that my own criticism of navndansk for his pictures of rabbis is also "mudslinging"?

Are we then to understand, that you think posting pictures of people posing with rabbis is some kind of rational argument about Zionism?

Who, exactly, are you saying is slinging mud here?



If you will notice, I have limited my comments to those that are neither based in wild speculation or inflammatory in nature. I have conducted myself in a manner that uses verifiable and scholarly research to underline my points. In that context, to one who claims to possess great ability in logic and understanding, it should have been blatantly clear I was castigating nearly all.

Again you seem to have one hell of a strong drive to see what you want to see. You are also such a verbose critter that no combination of individuals could ever address all of the things you demand attention to. I have chosen to deal with what I can in the time I have to spare. Which is limited because I, having spent the better part of five years of my free time researching the nature of society's use of finite resources, tend to allocate the hours in pursuit of preparing for the eventual reduction in per capita availability of net caloric density. Try doing with less and see if you have time to average five posts a day.

You don't have to believe in Peak Oil. Mother Nature cares not a whit whether you actually can wrap your gray matter around the concept that we exist in as near a closed system as one gets. It will occur. And you will probably find some dream to latch onto to refute it. Not my cross to bear. Here is some food for thought however:

Even if you do not think that a particular compound or element is of a finite nature, one would have to agree that monolithic resource dependancy is not such a bright idea. We need to diversify our sources for basics like electricity. Otherwise, none of the billions will ever have a chance of living decently. Correct? Well help is on the way. Or not.

Cleantech America LLC is going to cover a square mile of California with solar panels to produce enough energy to power 21,000 homes. According to the 2000 Census there were 106 million households in the US. So, to go green we only need 5000 more of the plants to power just our residential usage of energy. That's 5000 square miles, or just under the total land in the State of Connecticut. To power the year 2000.

Other proffers to alleviate fossil fuel consumption run up against the same problems with scale. If all of the corn grown in one year in the US was slated for ethanol production, it would only add up to 12% of our current consumption of gas and diesel. If we wanted to electrify our entire transportation system it would require the construction of nearly 1000 nuclear power plants for US based motion only. It is interesting to note that currently there are fewer than 500 plants in operation world wide. If you wanted to convert electric use in total in the US to wind it would require a capital outlay greater than one year's Gross World Product. The list goes on.

Humans are going to come up against a reckoning, and it is going to start in the coming decade. Hope your dreams are doosies, because the rude awakening is going to be hard to ignore...
5E6A
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Dreams End » Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:27 pm

What the hell? How did this get to be about Peak Oil? My only mention of it was to suggest that for the most part I agree with almost everything I've seen coming from chlamor, other than the obvious.

I haven't seen to much scholarly anything in this thread, other than the last post from an undergrad text. I'm going to re-up my questia membership to read a bit more in it. I think it is hosted there.

But meanwhile, I have posted very detailed arguments, many of which utilize only the original post as a source. Very little response to any of that. And this is a typical pattern I get into with this conversation.

Something is cut and pasted. I respond in detail. Those responses are ignored as new arguments are presented, which usually end up being either more long cut and paste jobs with no analysis explaining the connection or a bunch of hyperbolic statements put forward as "fact".

So if you want me to take you seriously, then respond to what I've written. If you don't want to respond to it, obviously that's fine, too. Just don't whine when I don't respond to you fast enough.

We can both agree that during the "oil crisis" of 1970's it would have been a fine time for a "Manhattan Project" level of research on alt. energy. That didn't happen, and that is very shortsighted and is having terrible consequences. But let's leave the rest of Peak Oil for another thread.
Dreams End
 

Postby Dreams End » Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:47 pm

One more quick note for now. I was not in favor of the 28 quotes thread moving to the firepit. I didn't think it had descended to that level, but even if it had, we use to sometimes have threads firepitted that were still open for comment. I'd be in favor or re-opening that one for comment, even if it stays in the firepit.

As for the other one with the rabbi pictures...good riddance.

And also, the badger post is in the firepit which I wonder if that's even on purpose? I didn't follow the links...and it looked like people were having fun with it, but surely we can't have large rodents lurking about in the firepit? It's not safe, really.
Dreams End
 

Postby Jeff » Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:26 pm

Dreams End wrote:One more quick note for now. I was not in favor of the 28 quotes thread moving to the firepit. I didn't think it had descended to that level, but even if it had, we use to sometimes have threads firepitted that were still open for comment. I'd be in favor or re-opening that one for comment, even if it stays in the firepit.

As for the other one with the rabbi pictures...good riddance.

And also, the badger post is in the firepit which I wonder if that's even on purpose? I didn't follow the links...and it looked like people were having fun with it, but surely we can't have large rodents lurking about in the firepit? It's not safe, really.


The badger move was a mistake. Only had decaf in the house this morning. I've returned it to GD.

I wouldn't have moved the 28 quotes thread if passions here hadn't already overheated. I wanted to give the topic a bit of a time out while I tried to explain again my position.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Chilling effect

Postby chlamor » Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:30 pm

Jeff wrote:
Dreams End wrote:One more quick note for now. I was not in favor of the 28 quotes thread moving to the firepit. I didn't think it had descended to that level, but even if it had, we use to sometimes have threads firepitted that were still open for comment. I'd be in favor or re-opening that one for comment, even if it stays in the firepit.

As for the other one with the rabbi pictures...good riddance.

And also, the badger post is in the firepit which I wonder if that's even on purpose? I didn't follow the links...and it looked like people were having fun with it, but surely we can't have large rodents lurking about in the firepit? It's not safe, really.


The badger move was a mistake. Only had decaf in the house this morning. I've returned it to GD.

I wouldn't have moved the 28 quotes thread if passions here hadn't already overheated. I wanted to give the topic a bit of a time out while I tried to explain again my position.


A word about the thread removal. First let me assure you it doesn't bother me much at all. By now I've seen it all. But...

The removal of such things tends to have a chilling effect, particularly in this case as Israel is "protected turf" in US mediated political discussions, and that sets a tone that is unhealthy for any open discussion that wants itself to be centered around justice.

As for the post itself it was nothing particularly incendiary to say the least and for something that dry to be vanquished seems pretty bizarre.

As for the overheatedness I'm guessing there is a history here amongst posters but we must also understand that excessive civility is quite dangerous as is repressive tolerance.

Please do not mistake why I am sending this as any sort of request for reinstating that post as this is the most menial of matters on a small internet board.

_____________________________________________________________

An Excess of Civility

<snip>

Is this civility? In this harsh new world we are putting politeness and decorum above substance. Our attention is focused on how the homeless person smells, as opposed to looking at the issue of affordable housing. Sure, we can send books and care packages to U.S. soldiers in Iraq, but we cannot call the Bush administration a pack of liars for manufacturing their case for the invasion. For days last month, the image of a U.S. soldier holding a blood-soaked Iraqi child made the media circuit, but no such image of an Iraqi parent with their blood-soaked child is appropriate material. It is clear that we can tolerate a bland John Kerry or a challenged George Bush, but not an emotional Howard Dean.

A recent example is Scottish Minister of Parliament George Galloway. His pointed remarks regarding the U.S. invasion of Iraq to the U.S. Senate sub-committee provided for a powerful story, but this was turned into a moment as the media focus quickly turned to his marriage and his opponents, rather than spotlighting his carefully-chosen words to Republican Senator Norm Coleman. Galloway appears here to have over-stepped the bounds of civility.

Another ongoing illustration of this phenomenon is found in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Clearly Arafat did not meet the West's criteria for civility, (everything from his personal appearance to his defiant rhetoric) although he gave us some hints of civility in his later years. Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's successor, has displayed his share of civility, both in his dress and in his concessions to U.S. and Israeli demands. Somehow the rotund -but well dressed- Ariel Sharon passes the civility test, despite his personal record of war crimes as well as the ongoing, acceptable human rights violations in the Occupied Territories.

A powerful historical case that demonstrates the acceptable bounds of civility comes from El Salvador, where two very different Catholic leaders made their mark. The current Archbishop, Monsenor Saenz Lacalle, was a military Vicar during the country's brutal US-backed civil war. He was accused of blessing military helicopters before they left for their bombing raids that often targeted civilians and of remaining silent in the face of massacres. The Monsenor survived the civil war and went on to be appointed as Archbishop of San Salvador. Saenz Lacalle is more recently known for his absence at the Mass commemorating the martyrdom of Archbishop Romero 25 years earlier. The uncivilized Romero raised his voice, named names and spoke prophetically to governments, the military and the country's elite for their roles in the slaughter of Salvadorans. He refused to participate in government functions, he asked President Carter to stop sending aid, and he walked through garbage dumps, fields and slums with the Salvadoran poor. For this he was assassinated. Ironically, this may cost the revered Archbishop his Canonization, as the Vatican claims that his martyrdom was a political one, not for reasons of faith.

North America has shifted so far to the right on the political spectrum, while our notions of what is civil and what is extreme have moved right along with it. This change has caused many of us to back away from provocative tactics and principled stances that might disrupt traffic flow. Progressive groups are left struggling for ways to reach the North American multitudes without overly offending sensibilities, feeling that the average citizen is looking for any reason to tune out. This is not about tossing a brick through a Starbucks window, nor is it about "re-branding" ourselves to make social movements more palatable. This is about slicing through expectations from our shifting society and hungry news channels and acknowledging the difficulty in making activism and resistance more than symbolic.

I read last week in the local newspaper that graffiti in Vancouver is down by 75%. Is this good news?

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7930
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chilling effect

Postby Jeff » Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:18 pm

chlamor wrote:
The removal of such things tends to have a chilling effect, particularly in this case as Israel is "protected turf" in US mediated political discussions, and that sets a tone that is unhealthy for any open discussion that wants itself to be centered around justice.


I understand what you're saying. Under other circumstances I wouldn't have removed it.

Israel remains fair game, but the game must be fair, and in conspiracy circles "Israel" and "Zionist" are frequent code for "Jew." A Grand, Unified Jewish Conspiracy is a longstanding persuasion of the far right, and it is currently infiltrating progressive thought, often unaware, because many progressive thinkers are new to a conspiratorial worldview, and naive about the pedigree of certain conspiracy theories. I'm trying to be sensitive to it, because I think it's ugly, discrediting and disinforming.

My way of saying, it's complicated.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby yesferatu » Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:33 pm

<<Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel


· Expats offer families £30,000 to emigrate
· Our identity is not for sale, say community leaders

Robert Tait in Tehran
Thursday July 12, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Iran's Jews have given the country a loyalty pledge in the face of cash offers aimed at encouraging them to move to Israel, the arch-enemy of its Islamic rulers.

The incentives — ranging from £5,000 a person to £30,000 for families — were offered from a special fund established by wealthy expatriate Jews in an effort to prompt a mass migration to Israel from among Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community. The offers were made with Israel's official blessing and were additional to the usual state packages it provides to Jews emigrating from the diaspora.

Article continues

However, the Society of Iranian Jews dismissed them as "immature political enticements" and said their national identity was not for sale.

"The identity of Iranian Jews is not tradeable for any amount of money," the society said in a statement. "Iranian Jews are among the most ancient Iranians. Iran's Jews love their Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the identity of Iranian Jews."

The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv reported that the incentives had been doubled after earlier offers of £2,500 a head failed to attract any Iranian Jews to leave for Israel.

Iran's sole Jewish MP, Morris Motamed, said the offers were insulting and put the country's Jews under pressure to prove their loyalty.

"It suggests the Iranian Jew can be encouraged to emigrate by money," he said. "Iran's Jews have always been free to emigrate and three-quarters of them did so after the revolution but 70% of those went to America, not Israel."

Iran's Jewish population has dwindled from around 80,000 at the time of the 1979 Islamic revolution but remains the largest of any country in the Middle East apart from Israel. Jews have lived in Iran since at least 700BC.

Hostility between Iran's Islamic government and Israel means Iranian Jews are often subject to official mistrust and scrutiny. In 2000 10 Jews in the southern city of Shiraz were jailed for spying for Israel, which Iran refuses to recognise.

A Jewish businessman, Ruhollah Kadkhodah-Zadeh, was hanged in 1998, apparently for allegedly helping Jews to emigrate.

Jews generally avoid political controversy, but Mr Motamed wrote a letter of protest to Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, last year after he called the Holocaust "a myth". Mr Ahmadinejad had earlier said that Israel should be "wiped off the map".

Jews are free to practise their religion and have their own schools, although they are forced to open on Saturdays, the Jewish sabbath.

Despite the absence of diplomatic ties with Israel, Iranian Jews frequently go there to visit relatives.>>

Jezuz fiucking christ they still refuse to honestly translate what Mr. A said.

Nevertheless, a good example of "spiritual Israel". They don't want to go to that shittly little country. Why would they? Why would a normal person want to subject their children to a harmful environment? They are following G-d's word by refusing to place their family in danger. Only psychotic zealots would move there and subject their "loved ones" to danger and hate. Besides, spiritual Israel know they will go back only IF messiah appears. Which proves the zionist jews in Israel are anti-judaism by their willful hatred of gods word which tells them only when (IF) messiah appears is when it is time to return. Since the Great Mistake of '47 had NOTHING to do with messiah, those who return are anti-scripture, anti-talmud, anti-judaism. They are pro-murder, pro-oppression, pro-concentration camps (so-called refugee camps) however.

Iran's spiritual Israel is a Light in the world. Bless them.

http://tinyurl.com/2y56ok
yesferatu
 

Postby Dreams End » Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:56 am

Iran's Jewish population has dwindled from around 80,000 at the time of the 1979 Islamic revolution but remains the largest of any country in the Middle East apart from Israel. Jews have lived in Iran since at least 700BC.


Wonder where over 2/3 of the Iranian Jews went? and why?

Oh, and I don't think the last paragraph here was in the article. I'm only familiar with the American journalist style guides, but I'm pretty sure that reporters typically do not refer to somewhere as a "shitty little country".

Nevertheless, a good example of "spiritual Israel". They don't want to go to that shittly little country. Why would they? Why would a normal person want to subject their children to a harmful environment? They are following G-d's word by refusing to place their family in danger. Only psychotic zealots would move there and subject their "loved ones" to danger and hate. Besides, spiritual Israel know they will go back only IF messiah appears. Which proves the zionist jews in Israel are anti-judaism by their willful hatred of gods word which tells them only when (IF) messiah appears is when it is time to return. Since the Great Mistake of '47 had NOTHING to do with messiah, those who return are anti-scripture, anti-talmud, anti-judaism. They are pro-murder, pro-oppression, pro-concentration camps (so-called refugee camps) however.


But it begs the question, yesferatu. Since only Jews kill Arabs and not the reverse, why would Israel be unsafe for Jews? Unless you are suggesting that Arabs might kill civilians....

But if Arabs did ever target civilians, one way they might do it would be by firing rockets into civilian areas. This is what Hezbollah did. So how ironic that Israel is unsafe for Iranian Jews, as you miraculously managed to admit, because of an armed group funded by Iran. Wow!

Meanwhile, we enjoyed your explanation of "true judaism" though I'm a bit confused. You condemn Zionists as "anti-Talmud" and yet in the other post, you put up pictures of "Talmudic rabbis" which was offered to us as a BAD thing. It's enough to make a girl's head spin.

I was also curious why you want the Palestinians so badly to have that "shitty little country"? In one paragraph, you've managed to contradict yourself so many times that I've lost count.
Dreams End
 

Postby yesferatu » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:37 am

Dreams End wrote:
Oh, and I don't think the last paragraph here was in the article. I'm only familiar with the American journalist style guides, but I'm pretty sure that reporters typically do not refer to somewhere as a "shitty little country".


Please see the << and >> to see where the report begins and ends. Yes, "shittly little country" was not the reporters words, but mine. I mean it is a shittly little country because of what has happened since '47...not that it is inherently crappy of itself, but by what it has become - it's not civilized. It's a horrible place to have a family.

But it begs the question, yesferatu. Since only Jews kill Arabs and not the reverse, why would Israel be unsafe for Jews? Unless you are suggesting that Arabs might kill civilians....


I'm sure you know better than I the history. Zionism really began in earnest in the 1890's. And thus the first organized opposition to it began then as well. Jews who may have wished to just emigrate and be simply part of the community they settled in would not have caused divisions. Unfortunately, Jews like that were overshadowed by the call by Zionists to take palestine as theirs. So any pure motive of individual Jews was already overclouded by the organized Zionists who signalled aggressive intent. Basically a shot across the bow. What happens when aggression is signalled?
So I am sure you can find a recorded instance of a jew being killed by an arab from 1890-1947. But you know why the killing happens since then.
The killing is due to an imposed mistake. The Great Mistake.

But if Arabs did ever target civilians, one way they might do it would be by firing rockets into civilian areas. This is what Hezbollah did. So how ironic that Israel is unsafe for Iranian Jews, as you miraculously managed to admit, because of an armed group funded by Iran. Wow!


Wow, indeed. Your partisan blindness that disallows you to see the matter objectively is proof that your miracle hasn't happened for you yet.
..."funded by Iran"
I guess you're all on board for Cheney's Iran war??

Meanwhile, we enjoyed your explanation of "true judaism" though I'm a bit confused. You condemn Zionists as "anti-Talmud" and yet in the other post, you put up pictures of "Talmudic rabbis" which was offered to us as a BAD thing. It's enough to make a girl's head spin.


Read the anti-zionist talmudic rabbis out there who can explain better than I why forcefully taking back the land is completely detested as something jews should be involved in.

(Btw, Why do you say "pictures" plural? It was a Chertoff picture with a comment by me. That I think - my gut feeling - is that Chertoff's loyalty is to "israel".
Didn't you say "good riddance" to that thread, yet here you are bringing it up again.
Are you pro-Chertoff (pro-Dept. Of Fatherland Security) as well?? I did more than raise enough reasons why Chertoff's history makes him uniquely UNQUALIFIED for this position, unless there is an active Zionist agenda within this government. Oh gosh, ya think?

I was also curious why you want the Palestinians so badly to have that "shitty little country"? In one paragraph, you've managed to contradict yourself so many times that I've lost count.


You've "lost count" either because you really suck at math, or because there are none.
As stated above, the land is not inherently shitty. But it is not a civilized part of the world. That makes it shitty. An imposed mistake has made it so. Imposed mistakes don't last. Mr. A is right about that.

And you failed to recognize that the Iranian Jews snubbed the Zionist bribe not because of the danger of moving there, but because they are just fine where they are at, thank you very much. You want to make it out to be that they would move if the dirty arabs like hezballah weren't ruining it for everybody.
Come on. Take your blinders off.

I hope this helps:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/19antis1.htm
yesferatu
 

Postby Dreams End » Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:37 pm

First of all, there is no such thing as a "talmudic" rabbi. That's a weird distinction that people who link to sites like "Jewish tribal review" (see below) tend to make.

Meanwhile, it is quite clear that you pictured some "talmudic rabbis" as evidence that they were the bad guy Zionists and now you want me to consult those very same "talmudic rabbi". You could at least have the courtesy to learn something about Judaism before you start dictating what is or is not "true judaism" on their behalf.

Or read a book or something.

And if I understand you, you now admit that Jews in Israel are victims of violence. Only that they deserve it because the "Zionists signalled aggressive intent". That about sum that up? How, exactly, did the Zionists signal "aggressive intent" by the way? What does that even mean?

The connection between Iran and Hezbollah is not some secret. Remember arms for hostages? The U.S. sent arms to Iran to free Hezbollah hostages in Lebanon. Now how could that happen if Iran were not backing Hezbollah? Meanwhile, where are you suggesting Hezbollah makes their own weapons?

The tie between them is so well known that I can't even think how to proceed on that question. Here's an article critical of neocons and certainly against attacking Iran which discusses this. It downplays the current relationship (with some funny waffling, however...my favorite part is this:

The rockets used by Hezbollah have been tentatively identified as Katushya rockets, of the form manufactured by Iran, and known as Fajr-3 and Fajr-5. But the United States has not been able to identify that these rockets are absolutely Iranian.


Not "absolutely Iranian"? What does that even mean?)

Anyway, articles discussing this relationship are everywhere, so I was trying to find one from a critical perspective that you might even accept.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2790/

I'm wondering, yesferatu, if you get a lot of traffic tickets? I ask that because in this black and white world you inhabit, can you tell when the stoplight turns red or green?

It's possible to object to someone posting a picture of Chertoff with some "talmudic rabbis" as evidence of wrongdoing, without supporting Chertoff.

It's possible to understand the relationship of Hezbollah and Iran without condoning ta U.S. military attack on Iran. In fact, some of us wish that people understood that the U.S. collaborating with Iran in various ways is actually a pretty regular occurrence. In relation to arming the Bosnian Muslims, for example.

And finally...tell me you did NOT link to "Jewish Tribal Review". Seriously, yesferatu, how on earth can you keep trying to claim you aren't anti-Jewish when you link to crap like that? Given that you can find similar material on leftist anti-Zionist sites, why would you link to a site that gives us:

Image

Notice the description? And by the way, is that "Zionist tribal review"? Nope. It's looking at Jewish power and Jewish influence.
Dreams End
 

Postby yesferatu » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:53 pm

Dreams End wrote:And finally...tell me you did NOT link to "Jewish Tribal Review". Seriously, yesferatu, how on earth can you keep trying to claim you aren't anti-Jewish when you link to crap like that?


I liked the amount of quotes from that page I linked to. There were a lot of interesting opinions...all in one place. I don't condemn or endorse that site. I did not see visceral hatred coming from it's content. If you can find that, point it out, and I will make note of it, so I know where they are coming from. JTR did not force anyone on that page to say what they said. It was a good gathering of many voices regarding just the very thing that goes on between you and I. I am constantly under suspicion simply for finding a page of quotes to shed some light on a discussion...you on the other hand concern yourself with the politics of the group who host the web site, and make blanket aspersions in my motives. Are they a hate group are just strongly anti-Zionist? You seem to have some criteria for making definite judgments to that end. Stormfront is obvious. But tell me the clues in regard to JTR. Something more than the fact they show a picture of Golda Meir. I think the picture is very interesting and informative. I think you are more upset by that picture, and what we may glean from it, than you are by Meir's documented hatred for palestinians.

Image
yesferatu
 

Postby Dreams End » Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:57 pm

Are they a hate group are just strongly anti-Zionist?


Here's a clue...it's called

JEWISH TRIBAL REVIEW.

Not "Zionist Tribal Review."

If you had an ounce of discernment, you wouldn't need to look past the name to figure out where they are coming from.

I keep suggesting that "Zionist" is often used to mean Jew. You and others deny it and then you link to a site like this, that clearly uses the word Jew primarily and you STILL claim you don't get it?

In the thread Jeff started, people compained about ProSemite Underground as a "hate site." Where are they on this thread? Where are the denunciations of chlamor's using an article from Institute for Historical Review at PI which I found. Or his posting of a poster known to be propaganda from Nazi Germany?

Nope...that's all fine.
Dreams End
 

Coupla' things

Postby chlamor » Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:51 pm

Dreams End wrote:
Are they a hate group are just strongly anti-Zionist?


Here's a clue...it's called

JEWISH TRIBAL REVIEW.

Not "Zionist Tribal Review."

If you had an ounce of discernment, you wouldn't need to look past the name to figure out where they are coming from.

I keep suggesting that "Zionist" is often used to mean Jew. You and others deny it and then you link to a site like this, that clearly uses the word Jew primarily and you STILL claim you don't get it?

In the thread Jeff started, people compained about ProSemite Underground as a "hate site." Where are they on this thread? Where are the denunciations of chlamor's using an article from Institute for Historical Review at PI which I found. Or his posting of a poster known to be propaganda from Nazi Germany?

Nope...that's all fine.


First the bit about IHR. I had no idea about IHR so my bad. Just googled a topic and the link came up. If you were totally honest about this you would've also put up my subsequent comments about the dubious, to say the least, nature of the principal author of that website. Here's my direct quote:

"Weber himself is a pretty dubious mix of historian and I'd say white-supremacist. Despite that I'd say this topic needs deeper exploration as it is quite naturally taboo to even whisper here in Never-Never Land Inc.

Here's an interesting piece from a much better source:
Lenni Brenner..."

and I go on to put up the piece by Lenni Brenner a much better source on the same topic. So in short Weber is an asshole and IHR is an obscene site. We square on that one now? Next time feel free to put it all in there.

Now on to the poster you are citing. First of all some context, should I put the entire thread for others to see for themselves as it has been saved, which might give you some understanding about the post and perhaps allow you to take a step back in your rather malicious and slanderous attacks. The post itself was about America. The title was "A Photo Essay on American Fascism." Get it? Now again what was the essay about?

Now in the photo essay, which by the way was well-received getting numerous compliments and recommendations (over 50 recs), there were numerous photos, 13 in all I think, which were all related to quotes mostly from Henry A. Wallace who was FDR vice president and warned us about the impending corporatism. Now the one photo that stirred up only a few of the usual suspects was a retake on a Nazi propaganda poster with AMERIKA!! as the "new" Reich so to speak. Here is a comment to consider:

That poster may be Nazi propaganda but damn they got America down pat

- degradation of women & exploitation of female sexuality for profit

- sick attachment to money and using it to enslave the rest of the World (the World bank, of which the President MUST always be American and appointed by the US President is but one example)

- materialism

- consumerism

- mindless brain-rotting entertainment

- prison culture

- lynching of American Blacks

- genocide of the Native American Indians

- militarism

- vapid cheerleading of the war machine

- gun violence

- military violence

It's hard to argue with the poster's message even if you find it distasteful because the US has been waging a culture war against Europe and the rest of the world. If they don't accept our biocrops we beat them up, if they refuse to dump bananas from their ex-colonies in order to sell our Chiquitas, we start a trade war. For years we beat them up to accept our industrialized meat at the expense of their small farms. Same thing with their refusal to market our hygienically-wrapped "wonder bread" at the expense of millions of family-owned bakeries.


Now of course on the original thread noone who disagreed with the image even bothered to discuss Wallace's quotes or America at all. When the photo essay is completely about Amerika and the images completely concerned with Amerika I would say it is far more disturbing that the folks who have the minds of censors focused in exclusively on the Israel flag that is hanging from the giant and suggesting the banker in the left hand is suppose to represent the theory of Jewish bankers rue the world, which I've already stated is absurd. If that is all that one sees and can see in that photo essay then I would say you are dealing with deeply disturbed individuals. Wouldn't you?

In short stop your assinine slanderous remarks and discuss issues instead of personalities.

Afterword: My explanation of this is not for the poster here who is being grotesque in their character assassinations but for those who may want to see for themselves.

Here's a remake of the original post with two images altered, not the "controversial" one, as I couldn't relocate them. If I knew how to do so from pdf the original trhead from DU would be intact as a friend saved the thread and put it into pdf form:
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... c_id=66876

One last point. Zionist IS often used to mean Jew. This is incorrect of course. However what is more often the case is that the split second anyone attacks Zionism or the State of Israel the scream "Anti-Semite" comes from all corridors.

Anti-Arab hatred would logically fall under the umbrella of anti-Semitism

Why Jews only get included in the definition of anti-Semitism I don't know. Maybe to avoid the notion that Jews can be anti-Semitic toward Arabs.

The intellectual dishonesty you are forwarding here is rather breathtaking.
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Fire Pit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest