Does Israel have the right to exist Part the third!

exactly.... some knives are better then others at cutting.... just some people are better at certain things then others..... hence NOT EQUAL.

this does not mean i support the fact that people should be treated inferior to others because they are as Orwell may of put it "not as equal as others" but to try and argue that the reason for compassion is because everyone is equal is a ludicrious argument and there are better points you could make rather then trying to make everyone "equal" when even a child can tell that they are not.

 

they are both knives.

You missed the point. WHAT THEY DO could be unequal.

geeze......

talk about 'sloooooooow'

yu are a child at this point; still requiring an education


before we continue your education may i ask if you wear a helmit when you walk?

i want to see how long i will need to spend on you to learn about the words 'personal responsibility'

perhaps write them down a few hundred times and then i will ask if you know what they mean.

 

Are we not ALL EQUAL UNDER THE LAW ?

should we not be treated as equals ?


where do you draw the line ?


...
......

 

ahh so you believe in a socialist/class less society..... a society that cannot happen because PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL.

 

being treated as equal is different from actually BEING EQUAL my friend. would you ask your plumber dude to come over to proofread your college thesis if he did not have any real skill at writing. you dont ask him for his help in this siuation because he isnt as good at writing as say your college professor.

now then are the equal IN EVERY WHICH WAY?

 

This thread does not meet the requirements for latest world news forum which is news from the past 72 hours. It belongs in the middle east opinion forum. But the forum itself is obsessed with judaism specifically and Israel generally, so this thread is on its third leg and as you say moderation is obviously biased here.

Almchen please be so kind as to provide evidence of your claims.

You'll excuse us for not treating you as the ultimate authority for all things scientific,

 

This thread is a continuation of an over-length predecessor. If you wanted to complain you should have done so over one-hundred and fifty pages ago.

 

A good point you make here WoM. Can you explain thus why so many israelis have insisted on this recognition? Wasnt it just to delay a final settlement? Or is that being anti semitic?

I love this stuff! Lets go through it in detail;

1/ They were denied their rights by Britain, israelis, egyptians and the Jordanians.

2/ It wasnt called an occupation back then because for the most part the palestinians were far more concerned about either the homes and land you guys had just moved into and on or about getting their lives back together after becoming refugees. Moreover the egyptians and jordanians were not considered the enemy back then because....they werent interested in taking palestinian homes and 'redeeming' the land.

3/ Youre correct on the last part. Palestinian independence was inconvenient for all the powers. But since then its just the israelis who find it inconvenient - its the land thingy you see. You guys want it, theyre still on it.

Oh please Woman, theres no need to try that one on us. Divine punishment? You guys planned for the war decades in advance and rejoiced upon your gaining new ground which you considered yours (which was all of it and more). Punishment indeed.

Your not just accused of denying palestinian determination, you have admitted it. You even 'dispute' the land they live on. What more do you want from us?

As for palestinians interest in self determination. How about their uprising against the British in 36 and subsequent crushing? Or the continued wars afterward? You really think that after their mass refugee flight post 47 they lost interest?

Yes its a convenient ruse but the fact is that Palestinian self determination even if supported in surrounding states is a home grown ideal born decades ago and supported throughout the years youve just mentioned, thus the continued guerrilla warfare through those years that israel then complained about. Your denigration of it is a long held tactic useful in denying palestinians anything you decide youd rather have for yourself - like land.

Um sorry, wrong the palestinian state could have been established any time in the last 40+ years. The only power affecting that was Israel. Palestinian independence was encouraged by the surrounding powers for most of the years since the 70s, particularly from 1988 when King Hussein officially renounced all claim to the west bank.

 

It's certainly not universally accepted and it's not even legitimate according to the letter of the law. Israel is still in breach of its State-defining resolution; Resolution 194. Its ' right to exist ' is currently just due to force of arms- American arms mostly.

 

Do you know what the word "never" means?

It means that even in 10 000 years Israeli will not allow...

Will there be Israel in 10 000 years?

Isn't it idiotic to use such words, like "never"?

Sounds like religious fanatism.

 

Yes, and the "Semitism" vs "Anti-Semitism" question is very important for answering the question about Israel's right to exist.

Are Jews really Semites?

If not, why do they "return" to a land they never had any connection to, and why do they ethnically cleans this land from its Semitic native population?

And why do they accuse native Semites of Palestine of Anti-Semitism?

How can Semites be Anti-Semites, and how can hate against non-Semitic colonizers that violate international law be called "Anti-Semitism"?

And what has Hitler and the Third Reich to do with the Palestinian conflict?

Why do the Hasbaratnics constantly play the "Nazi card" in any discussion about Israel and Palestine?

 

I have done this many times, and you have read all the evidence.

http://www.politicalforum.com/4537796-post153.html

 

I suppose one should learn to make allowances for
people like Liebe - with short term memory and attantion span. (wink)

I've noticed that she's got a memory problem - like NOT remembering her true identity , where she born, etc. etc.,

cheers ....

 

I've alread pointed out how Jews - Aipac , US senators keep this question on the frontpage Headline News - however , would you have moaned/ *itched abt it , if the post was Pro-Zionist - Anti-Palestinian ?

 

Nope, Israel doesn't have "the right to exist".

 

I think we can conclude that moving this thread to the ' Middle East ' forum endorses the motion that Israel should never, ever, be considered part of Europe- even if it hosts a European football contest.

 

One can and must fight bigotry without denying the existence of another form of bigotry. The is no need to deny the meaning of a term to address injustice of other kinds unless you have an agenda in doing so. The fact that you deny that anti-semitism in relation to jews exists, reveals your agenda and why you want the term re-defined.

No, nothing should be posted on the front page of a forum as the forum is neutral and all views are permitted without any being favoured.

Wrong. There is only one sense as revealed in Webster's dictionary.

I found this interesting material. Perhaps it helps you understand how insidious anti-semitism can be:
http://middleeastinfo.org/library/lewis_antisemitism.html


In England and in other English-speaking countries, there has never developed a tradition of intellectual anti-Semitism such as has at different times flourished in France, Germany, and Russia. The attempts by Goldwin Smith and E. A. Freeman to launch German-style racial anti-Semitism in the 19th century, like the later attempts by. Belloc and Chesterton to import the French clerical variety, had little or no success. This is the more remarkable in that English literature offers what is probably a richer gallery of mythic Jewish villains than any other literature in Europe -- a gallery that begins with Chaucer's murderers of St Hugh of Lincoln, and includes such varied figures as Shylock, Barabas the Jew of Malta, Fagin, Melmotte, Svengali, the sophisticated stereotypes of Graham Greene and T. S. Eliot and the penny-plain stereotypes of John Buchan and Agatha Christie.10 Prejudice against Jews has of course always existed, and has on occasion -- very infrequently -- amounted to a factor of some political importance. But it has never in modern times reached the point when anti-Semitism could be openly avowed by anyone with serious intellectual pretensions or political ambitions. Anti-Semitism is on the whole furtive, disguised, and hypocritical. Where openly expressed, it is usually a lower-middle-class phenomenon -- the petty snobbery of the provincial golf club, whose members can find no other way of giving themselves status. In the working class it conflicted with the standards of brotherhood and internationalism, to which all paid at least lip service and often much more. In the upper middle class, the intellectual and professional classes and the upper class, its open expression conflicted with accepted standards of good taste. In the English-speaking countries in particular, therefore, the Palestine conflict provided a heaven-sent (if that is the right word) opportunity to be anti-Jewish with a good conscience inside oneself and a good appearance towards others. This was a political conflict, not a racial prejudice, and an anti-Jewish position could be justified on the highest ethical and political grounds. I stress again -- this is not true of all pro-Arabs, perhaps indeed not of any great number of them, but it is certainly true of some, for whom the Palestine problem and the sufferings of the Arabs provide perfect cover for prejudices which they would otherwise be ashamed to reveal.

Some are easy to detect. The openly fascist and racialist groups still active in various parts of the world are almost without exception pro-Arab -- and their literature makes their real sentiments and purposes abundantly clear. Some Arabs have disdained the support of such tainted allies; others, including both governments and revolutionaries, have made good use of it.

In more respectable circles, it is by no means easy to distinguish between those who are pro-Arab and those who are merely anti-Jewish. There are however some symptoms which, though not infallible, are a fairly good indication. One of the characteristics of the anti-Jew as distinct from the pro-Arab is that he shows no other sign of interest in the Arabs or sympathy for them, apart from their conflict with the Jews. He is completely unmoved by wrongs suffered by the Arabs at the hands of anyone other than Jews -- whether their own rulers or third parties. He shows no interest in the history or achievements of the Arabs, no knowledge of their language or culture. On the contrary he may speak of them in a way which is in reality profoundly disparaging. No one in his right mind would claim to be an expert on, say, France or Germany without knowing a word of French or German. The claims to expertise of our self-styled Arabists without Arabic rest on the assumption that Arabs are somehow different from -- and inferior to -- French men and Germans, in that what they say and write in their own language can be safely disregarded. In the same spirit, some so-called pro-Arabs explain away the more extreme statements of certain Arab leaders by attributing the quality of what they say to the inevitable vagueness and violence of the Arabic language. Arabic is one of the noblest instruments that the human race has ever forged for the expression of its thoughts. It is a language rich in poetry and eloquence, two arts whose practitioners are not always to be taken as saying exactly what they mean or meaning exactly what they say. But that is only one side of Arabic. It is also a language which has been used with remarkable clarity and precision. As a medium of philosophical and scientific literature, its only peer, until modern times, was Greek, At once poetic and accurate, Arabic was for a very long time one of the major, languages of civilization.. To offer such excuses for the utterances of individual Arabs is an expression not of sympathy but rather of ignorance and, ultimately, of contempt. If anyone had, tried, in the '30s, to excuse Hitler's speeches by saying that this was the only way in which one could speak in the German language, would he have been accepted either as an expert on Germany -- or as a friend of the German people?

A second characteristic of the anti-Jew as opposed to the pro-Arab is his tendency to harp on Jewish power and influence, which he usually greatly exaggerates, and to complain of Jewish double loyalty. There are about 450,000 Jews in Britain. The anti-Jew proceeds on the assumptions (a) that they are all as rich as Rothschild, as efficient as Marks & Spencer, as clever as Isaiah Berlin, as articulate as Bernard Levin, as resourceful as John Bloom; (b) that they are all working together for Israel; (c) that they are committing some offense in doing so.

In fact of course the great majority of Jews in Britain, as elsewhere, are as ignorant, inept, and inert as anyone else. Like others again they are sharply divided, some for Israel, some, no doubt fewer but not unimportant, against Israel, and the great mass at best sympathetic but inactive. The question of double loyalty takes different forms. In democratic and open societies, like Britain and the U.S.A., Jewish double loyalty is in the main a problem only for Jews and anti-Jews, not for the great mass of the population who are neither the one nor the other. Most non-political Englishmen and Americans find it normal that Jews should sympathize with Israel, and are indeed slightly puzzled or even disturbed when they do not. As citizens of a free country, Jews have the same rights as anyone else to be pro-Israel, pro-Arab, or pro-whatever they please. A selective restriction of this right, imposed on Jews but not on others, on support for Israel but not for other foreign causes, would put them, in effect, in a separate and inferior category of citizenship. This line of thought has won little support in free countries.

 

Then all posters must be hasbara agents, yourself included as you are not responding to the substance of a post but making personal statements instead.

Can you provide a link the the handbook as it appears only you have it in your posession

So now Nazis are zionists who excluded arabs from the term semites and you blame the jews for that too? No, as it is widely acepted that the nazis referred to anti-semitism in relation to jews only (as did Marr), you will need to provie that Rosenberg's verison took hold (which it didn't, so it takes us no further)

So here we come to your agenda. By feverishly attempting to re-define the term and prove that jews are not semites, you hope to reverse history. How practical. .

More personal attacks, Saudi speller. Did you invest in a good bottle of wine or two? (wink) Sure sounds like it.

The alternative study you provided (and it admits to being an alternative one) by means of your link is one that stands alone against many many others. Fail. But don't get a cramp trying to find more Artchen, because it won't change any of the facts on the ground. We want the Palestinians and the Jews to live together in a modium of peace and happiness, don't we?

I think we can conclude that it is not latest world news and never was.

Fck Eurovision and football.

 

Did you really think I could just let that one go Liebe?

1/ Lets get this clear, your assertion that I would deny anti-semitism as referring to anti jewish feeling while proposing that it only refer to anti arab feeling is a gross deception perpetrated by you here.

2/ Lets be clear further, anti semitism in relation to jews does exist. But its not more widespread than other forms of anti semitism and has been on the decline for decades. Further there also exist numerous well funded activist organisations dedicated to exposing every nuance of this form of anti semitism.

3/ Jews today across the world live normal lives even in places with historic problems such as Russia and France. The existance of Stormfront has not affected Jewish lives too any damaging extent. Most jews in the UK for example wouldnt even know about such an abhorrent thing.

4/ You Sir, are the one here who would deny other forms of bigotry. Indeed you would even go so far as to dare to restrict a word for the use of one ethnicity only. You have yet to admit that this is wrong of you. Will you now?

 

5/ Lastly on a personal note, may I ask what your interest in the subject of Israel is? Are you Israeli or jewish yourself? Or is it a simple concern for these people?

 

Yes, of course.
Palestine has a big fortified Russian colony, but that does not make Palestine part of Russia or Europe.

 

No, NS never excluded Arabs from that term, I provided the prove for that, and it seems that you are just trolling.

That is what Zionists claim, but they cannot support their claim by any evidence.

No, NS never excluded Arabs from that term, that claim is ridiculous.

Rosenberg was the chief ideologist of NS, so it is silly to claim that his view was not mainstream.

You are making a fool of yourself.

No, Zionists were the ones who redefined and hijacked this term, to create a smoke screen and hide their genocide against the Native Semites of Palestine, accusing the Semites of Anti- Semitism.
That is just another example of Chuzpe.

 

OMG, I found this thread again! So much happened since I last was here, lol, gotta read back.

 

Yep - time marches on -

You can catch up from here :

http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...ave-right-exist-part-third-6.html#post4590803

 

Um??... It is my personal opinion. I don't speak for anyone but myself. Also, I already addressed the point in my origina post, most of which you appear to have deleted and most likely ignored:

My evidence? 1948-1967 with no Israeli occupation AND no progress in seeking self determination? If you have evidence to the contrary, go ahead and present it. Preferrably with concrete documentation of Palestinians demanding independence from Egyptian and Jordanian occupation.

I suspect you have not discussed the subject with many Israelis. Not in a manner that encourages civil discussion anyway. If I may offer you a bit of a friendly advice - if you want a serious political discussion with an Israeli, you may want to lay off attempting to poke them with questions about jewish arrogance and the contemptuous nature of Israelis etc. You will come across as an honest inquirer (as opposed to thinly veiled bigot) and people might actually speak their mind with you. Not everyone has as high tolerance as I do.

"The organization was formed in July 1967"... what does this have to do with the fact that Arab armies never allowed Palestinians to establish an independent state before 1967?

Here's my post AGAIN... as a reminder:

Yes. Amazingly, some of us have jobs, families, partners, books, social commitments and other interesting activities. I know it's hard to believe but some people DO THAT!