PDA

View Full Version : Zero hour - The truth about the Arab Israeli conflict




Perry
05-17-2008, 10:53 AM
Zero hour - The truth about the Arab Israel conflict (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237262319768695984&hl=en-GB)

I put this video here because it is both of religious & political significance.
This is food for thought and I recommend that you do not presume to know what this documentary consists of until you have actually taken the time to view it.
This is one of a small handful of videos on my *highly recommended list.
Please do not bother posting in this thread unless you have something constructive to add and if you wish to share your opinion please do so thoughtfully.

Minestra di pomodoro
05-17-2008, 10:56 AM
I can't tell from your avatar how this video will be slanted.

Perry
05-17-2008, 11:00 AM
I can't tell from your avatar how this video will be slanted.

Why make the presumption that it will be?
How about watching the video and then judge my motives rather than judging them beforehand?

Minestra di pomodoro
05-17-2008, 11:05 AM
The video is clearly from a Christian Zionist viewpoint, I am knee deep into a Biblical story presented as fact rather than myth. Now the narrator is calling the indigenous Arabs "invaders" and presenting them as "Goliath" in the "David and Goliath" story. This is terrible.

Danke
05-17-2008, 11:11 AM
Megaphone appears to have entered a new phase and is now having members actively post new threads and not just respond to anti-Zionist ones.

Perry
05-17-2008, 11:14 AM
The video is clearly from a Christian Zionist viewpoint, I am knee deep into a Biblical story presented as fact rather than myth. Now the narrator is calling the indigenous Arabs "invaders" and presenting them as "Goliath" in the "David and Goliath" story. This is terrible.

As I said do not presume to know what this documentary consists of.
You are absolutely wrong now please stop spamming my thread with foolish misconceptions.

sidster
05-17-2008, 12:18 PM
How about this video: Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land (http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/peace_propaganda_the_promised_land.php) (two part video)

Perry
05-17-2008, 01:21 PM
How about this video: Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land (http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/peace_propaganda_the_promised_land.php) (two part video)


That is an entirely pro-Palestinian argument for the Arab Israeli conflict.
That video has absolutely noting to do with the subject of this thread.
It is completely off topic.
Can you even tell me the theme or the subject matter of the documentary I posted?
This thread is not about arguing the conflict.
Would you debate a book after merely reading its cover?
Apparently so. Good grief!
Stop trying to drag this thread off topic because you're too lazy to watch the video and you presume to know what it is about.

FreeTraveler
05-17-2008, 01:30 PM
Typical neocon apologia justifying the theft of land because the USA said it was OK after WWII.

Perry
05-17-2008, 01:39 PM
Typical neocon apologia justifying the theft of land because the USA said it was OK after WWII.

Another who did not watch the video.
You people are really displaying your ignorance.
Please stop spamming the thread and trying to drag it OT with your insults of neoconism.

FreeTraveler
05-17-2008, 01:42 PM
Another who did not watch the video.
You people are really displaying your ignorance.
Please stop spamming the thread and trying to drag it OT with your insults of neoconism.

I watched enough of it to see where it was headed. You don't have to read a whole Playboy to know there are pics of naked chicks inside.

You don't have to listen to a whole McCain speech to know he's a warmonger.

You don't have to listen to a whole Obama speech to know he's a socialist.

Kotin
05-17-2008, 01:43 PM
these arguments are useless.


lets just call a spade a spade.


neither side is innocent, as it is in most cases.

The Israelis have been cruel and corrupt, and the Anti-Israelis have done the same thing.

both are guilty of things, just not everyone on either side.

Perry
05-17-2008, 02:02 PM
I watched enough of it to see where it was headed. You don't have to read a whole Playboy to know there are pics of naked chicks inside.

You don't have to listen to a whole McCain speech to know he's a warmonger.

You don't have to listen to a whole Obama speech to know he's a socialist.

What was the conclusion of the film?


these arguments are useless.


lets just call a spade a spade.


neither side is innocent, as it is in most cases.

The Israelis have been cruel and corrupt, and the Anti-Israelis have done the same thing.

both are guilty of things, just not everyone on either side.

Your comments are totally off topic but i'll go ahead and ask you as well.
What was the conclusion of the film?

For the record the film has absolutely nothing to do with who's fault the Arab Israeli conflict is.

Zolah
05-17-2008, 03:08 PM
Zero hour - The truth about the Arab Israel conflict (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237262319768695984&hl=en-GB)


First of all, did the movie approve of Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia? Maybe I wasn't paying attention but that's what it seemed like.

Second of all, to me the claim that all prophecies from the Bible have been fulfilled is dubious, I'm open-minded to perhaps some of them coming true, possibly, but what I view is so-called prophecies that are fulfilled only in the Bible, and self-fulfilling prophecies. To me, I don't see the state of Israel as a fulfilled prophecy, it was a so-called prophecy that was known for centuries and this influenced people in power to try and fulfill it.

Finally, you ask about the conclusion to the film, well what was your opinion on the conclusion of the film? At first I thought it was following on from the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia to describe Judgement Day when anyone who wasn't prepared to defend Jerusalem would be destined for hell, or somesuch. But I think it was more about peaceful peoples standing together and accepting God then conflicts would be ended - but this still has heavy implications of ridding the world of undesirables or infidels, or so it seems to me.

Perry
05-17-2008, 03:54 PM
First of all, did the movie approve of Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia? Maybe I wasn't paying attention but that's what it seemed like.

Second of all, to me the claim that all prophecies from the Bible have been fulfilled is dubious, I'm open-minded to perhaps some of them coming true, possibly, but what I view is so-called prophecies that are fulfilled only in the Bible, and self-fulfilling prophecies. To me, I don't see the state of Israel as a fulfilled prophecy, it was a so-called prophecy that was known for centuries and this influenced people in power to try and fulfill it.

Finally, you ask about the conclusion to the film, well what was your opinion on the conclusion of the film? At first I thought it was following on from the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia to describe Judgement Day when anyone who wasn't prepared to defend Jerusalem would be destined for hell, or somesuch. But I think it was more about peaceful peoples standing together and accepting God then conflicts would be ended - but this still has heavy implications of ridding the world of undesirables or infidels, or so it seems to me.

Well I appreciate the fact that someone watched it. I don't need anyone to necessarily agree with it I just wanted to hear opinions on the subject. :D

Sure prophetic fulfillment is dubious. If it weren't there would be no debate on the subject at all. As far as self-fulfilling prophecies go...well imho this argument, speaking only in the case of Israels rebirth, does not hold water. The amount of anti-semitism around the globe in the early twentieth century was far greater than even today. Had the Jews attempted to reclaim their homeland it would have been considered a joke to most of the world including the the Christian populous which were some of the worst offenders against the Jews. A nation of Israel was simply not possible and was in no way, shape or form on the worlds drawing board prior to WWII.
The holocaust was the catalyst for the Jews return to their homeland. It created an outpouring of sympathy for the Jews.
I find it extremely unlikely that any event short of the horrific tragedy that befell Europe would have led to the Jews returning to Israel.
In arguing self-fulfilling prophecy you are basically saying that the Nazis played a specific part and went into the holocaust with the intention of the Jews returning home. Such an argument is obviously ridiculous but again without the holocaust the argument does not hold water as there was no sympathy for the Jews Prior to the war.
As far as the conclusion of the film goes I find that it is, to put it rather simply, a religous conclusion. Even a conclusion that blames the Jews(on a religous or spiritual level). I agree with the notion that it suggest that peaceful peoples should join together and accept God yet I don't comprehend how "ridding the world of undesirables or infidels" would play a part in that.

sidster
05-17-2008, 04:14 PM
The holocaust was the catalyst for the Jews return to their homeland. It created an outpouring of sympathy for the Jews.
I find it extremely unlikely that any event short of the horrific tragedy that befell Europe would have led to the Jews returning to Israel.
QFT


In arguing self-fulfilling prophecy you are basically saying that the Nazis played a specific part and went into the holocaust with the intention of the Jews returning home. Such an argument is obviously ridiculous but again without the holocaust the argument does not hold water as there was no sympathy for the Jews Prior to the war.

No, he isn't saying that.

dawnbt
05-17-2008, 04:23 PM
Perry, have you read "Epicenter" by Joel Rosenberg? I just finished it and highly recommend!

Perry
05-17-2008, 04:47 PM
Perry, have you read "Epicenter" by Joel Rosenberg? I just finished it and highly recommend!

I have not. I'll look into it thanks.:)

Perry
05-17-2008, 04:50 PM
QFT



No, he isn't saying that.

I know. My point is that without the Nazis the prophecy would not have been fulfilled. Therefore you cannot make the self-fulfilling prophecy argument short of the Nazis playing their part.

lucius
05-17-2008, 07:50 PM
Watched the whole thing.

Poorly made, militant agitprop, targeting inculcated mega-Evangelical Christian Zionists.

Few quotes to ponder:

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
--David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" -David Ben Gurion

"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956).... I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."--Ariel Sharon, in an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." --Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. ... What you lot don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it." -- Ariel Sharon, 1983

Perry, 'Zero hour-The truth about the Arab Israeli conflict' is painfully inaccurate agitprop.

For a better understanding of the roots/solution of this conflict, watch 'Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews': http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7144824386679216957&q=real+enemy+of+the+jews&ei=J4cvSKO-IIqUrgLVl4iOCg

Alex Libman
05-17-2008, 07:54 PM
If you believe that "Israel has a right to exist" and you live in the western hemisphere, you should return your land to the Native Americans for free and be grateful they didn't shoot you in the process.

Danke
05-17-2008, 08:20 PM
If you believe that "Israel has a right to exist" and you live in the western hemisphere, you should return your land to the Native Americans for free and be grateful they didn't shoot you in the process.

I don't follow. Can't you explain more in depth?

Perry
05-17-2008, 08:23 PM
Watched the whole thing.

Poorly made, militant agitprop, targeting inculcated mega-Evangelical Christian Zionists.

Few quotes to ponder:

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
--David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" -David Ben Gurion

"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956).... I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."--Ariel Sharon, in an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." --Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. ... What you lot don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it." -- Ariel Sharon, 1983

Perry, 'Zero hour-The truth about the Arab Israeli conflict' is painfully inaccurate agitprop.

For a better understanding of the roots/solution of this conflict, watch 'Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews': http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7144824386679216957&q=real+enemy+of+the+jews&ei=J4cvSKO-IIqUrgLVl4iOCg

Some of those things were true a quarter and a half century ago.
Today is another day. Regardless of all your biased and skewed opinions(and I know as I have seen you repeat them again and again)
the Israelis aren't going anywhere. 60 years ago there were 500,000 Jews in Israel and now there are seven million.
What was relevant 60 years ago is not relevant today. You attempt to keep it relevant in your mind for your own reasons which are much more transparent than you might believe.
Now Lucius you should thank me as I have graced you with a response after your spewing of the same mindless drivel that the first few posters did without considering the topic of the thread which is not a debate about who should or should not have the land.




If you believe that "Israel has a right to exist" and you live in the western hemisphere, you should return your land to the Native Americans for free and be grateful they didn't shoot you in the process.

uuuuum...don't you have that backwards?:D
The Israelis are there now and keeping the land. This I believe.
The European Americans are in America now and keeping the land. This I believe.

Perry
05-17-2008, 08:25 PM
I don't follow. Can't you explain more in depth?

I think Alex was confused when he wrote that.

Alex Libman
05-17-2008, 08:36 PM
No, I wasn't. Israel was created as the result of force based on the argument that Jews were in majority on that land for a few hundred years 2000 years ago. Why can't other ethnic groups use the same argument?

torchbearer
05-17-2008, 08:46 PM
No, I wasn't. Israel was created as the result of force based on the argument that Jews were in majority on that land for a few hundred years 2000 years ago. Why can't other ethnic groups use the same argument?

Good Point.

sratiug
05-17-2008, 08:50 PM
No, I wasn't. Israel was created as the result of force based on the argument that Jews were in majority on that land for a few hundred years 2000 years ago. Why can't other ethnic groups use the same argument?

Only Zionist Jews can use that. They are the "chosen" people after all. You're gonna have everybody thinking they are as good as the Zionists Jews. Then we'll have to give everything back to those damn GEICO cave men.

sidster
05-17-2008, 08:56 PM
Some of those things were true a quarter and a half century ago.
Today is another day. Regardless of all your biased and skewed opinions (and I know as I have seen you repeat them again and again).


Wait.. let me get this straight. Are you saying you're the kettle? ...or the pot? :confused:

Alex Libman
05-17-2008, 09:00 PM
In fact, other ethnic groups would have a far better argument. For example, the natives of Alaska make up 15% of the population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Alaska), while Jews made up less than 10% (http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/projects/ajvp/wp1.php) of the population before the organized "one cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews of Europe (http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm)" Zionism. And the Natives of Alaska have been there for many thousands of years non-stop, you don't have to believe a talking burning bush to validate that fact. Shouldn't they have the right to (in effect) expel the non-natives and start a country of their own with a "right of return", like the Jews did?

Given equality of opportunity, the grieved parties of history can eventually re-establish themselves on their original land if they so choose, no war or United Nations mandates are necessary. To try to correct perceived injustices of history would be an impossible and endless task that would jeopardize the current property rights of the vast majority of the world's population. You can either believe in the right of every person to Life, Liberty, and Property, as the founding fathers of America did and as libertarians do today, or you can believe in Israel. You cannot believe in both.

Minestra di pomodoro
05-17-2008, 09:18 PM
Only Zionist Jews can use that. They are the "chosen" people after all.

I thought the mormons were the chosen people.

Perry
05-17-2008, 09:29 PM
No, I wasn't. Israel was created as the result of force based on the argument that Jews were in majority on that land for a few hundred years 2000 years ago. Why can't other ethnic groups use the same argument?

No that was not the argument. No one ever claimed they were the majority.
It was decided to be their homeland because they needed a place to go as they had been driven out of their homelands in Europe and the Soviet Union.

Perry
05-17-2008, 09:35 PM
In fact, other ethnic groups would have a far better argument. For example, the natives of Alaska make up 15% of the population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Alaska), while Jews made up less than 10% (http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/projects/ajvp/wp1.php) of the population before the organized "one cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews of Europe (http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm)" Zionism. And the Natives of Alaska have been there for many thousands of years non-stop, you don't have to believe a talking burning bush to validate that fact. Shouldn't they have the right to (in effect) expel the non-natives and start a country of their own with a "right of return", like the Jews did?

Given equality of opportunity, the grieved parties of history can eventually re-establish themselves on their original land if they so choose, no war or United Nations mandates are necessary. To try to correct perceived injustices of history would be an impossible and endless task that would jeopardize the current property rights of the vast majority of the world's population. You can either believe in the right of every person to Life, Liberty, and Property, as the founding fathers of America did and as libertarians do today, or you can believe in Israel. You cannot believe in both.

I guess they can try to expel the white man but then that would mean my wife would have to throw me out of the house.:D
Two generations have passed since the founding of the nation of Israel. What happened then is no longer relevant. A million Jews have been born in Israel in the past 60 years. What will you do ship them off to Europe?

Minestra di pomodoro
05-17-2008, 09:45 PM
A million Jews have been born in Israel in the past 60 years. What will you do ship them off to Europe?

The Palestinians don't want to ship the Jews to Europe, they want Israel to stop occupying Gaza and the West Bank and let them have political autonomy. Israel's Arab neighbors are also upset about the land that Israel stole from them. It's a matter of withdrawing their troops from the area and returning to the 1948 borders recognized by the International community.

Perry
05-17-2008, 09:56 PM
The Palestinians don't want to ship the Jews to Europe, they want Israel to stop occupying Gaza and the West Bank and let them have political autonomy. Israel's Arab neighbors are also upset about the land that Israel stole from them. It's a matter of withdrawing their troops from the area and returning to the 1948 borders recognized by the International community.

I am aware of what each side wants. I'm going to refrain from arguing this further here because I want to keep this thread on-topic.

Minestra di pomodoro
05-17-2008, 10:01 PM
I am aware of what each side wants. I'm going to refrain from arguing this further here because I want to keep this thread on-topic.

This is on-topic. We are discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, aren't we? The film discusses it.

sidster
05-17-2008, 11:21 PM
No that was not the argument. No one ever claimed they were the majority.
It was decided to be their homeland because they needed a place to go as they had been driven out of their homelands in Europe and the Soviet Union.

Then, you are agreeing that "randomly" some land was chosen for them
to occupy and undermine/oppress the previous citizens of that land.



I guess they can try to expel the white man but then that would mean my wife would have to throw me out of the house.:D

Can we take a vote on this? I say Aye!


Two generations have passed since the founding of the nation of Israel. What happened then is no longer relevant. A million Jews have been born in Israel in the past 60 years. What will you do ship them off to Europe?

Only after about 2005 is when Israelis over took in population.
I would bet mostly because of their "importing" of Russian Jews*
and the senseless slaughtering of Palestinians and driving them
out of their motherland.

Also, if you want to stick with your argument that what happened
only two generations ago is no longer relevant, then please never
again bring up the holocaust, because based on YOUR OWN standard,
"what happened then is no longer relevant".

Your argument doesn't hold water. Give up... or put less politically
correct way STFU.

* I have seen many of these infomercials asking for donations to
help a Jew fly back home to Jerusalem.

Alex Libman
05-17-2008, 11:32 PM
Many of my relatives are among the Russian Jews who found it in their interest to go to Israel. They'd much rather be in the west, but U.S., Canada, or EU don't grant Jews easy instant citizenships. If they did, every Jew with IQ of 80 or higher would have left Israel already.

Alex Libman
05-17-2008, 11:40 PM
No that was not the argument. No one ever claimed they were the majority.
It was decided to be their homeland because they needed a place to go as they had been driven out of their homelands in Europe and the Soviet Union.

A lot of Zionists did try to sell that false claim to the uninformed. A popular slogan was "a land with no people (http://loveandjusticeinpalestine.blogspot.com/2006/07/self-divestment.html) ... for people with no land (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story414.html)", which is utter nonsense.

As for the "no place to go" argument, well, too bad America closed its doors just in time for WW2. A lot of open-borders libertarians would use this as an example of how awful America's closed-borders policy has been. Ron Paul does believe in securing our borders, but he also believes in immigration, which would be beneficial if it wasn't for the welfare state. Either way, need doesn't justify theft.

sidster
05-17-2008, 11:56 PM
Many of my relatives are among the Russian Jews who found it in their interest to go to Israel. They'd much rather be in the west, but U.S., Canada, or EU don't grant Jews easy instant citizenships.

I find that hard to believe. Why is that so?

Alex Libman
05-18-2008, 12:11 AM
Immigration is not as easy as you imagine. And then there's the ethnic herd instinct that's constantly reinforced by the government and media - "people in Country X won't like me because I'm a Jew, best stay in Israel".

And then there's the welfare state factor. Israel's "Tax Freedom Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day#Tax_Freedom_Day_Around_the_World)" is August 2nd, later than any other nation listed, and then there's all the "special" foreign aid and investment (government, corporate, and private) that Israel gets...

Perry
05-18-2008, 12:15 AM
Too many people want to argue with me. I'm going to continue to pick and choose here as most of these arguments have been done time and again.
One important point. The fact is that after WWII the Jews had nowhere to go. There were millions of displaced Jews throughout Europe and the Soviet Union. Unknown to many were the hundreds of thousands who were murdered and displaced in the Soviet Union as well.
After the war nobody wanted them. NOBODY. Millions of displaced Jews had nowhere to go. The Jews were originally from Judea(Judah, pronounced Jew-dee-uh) so naturally this would make a great homeland as there were already 300,000+_ Jews still living there.
There was nothing random about the Jews going to Israel. Had the Arabs peacefully accepted this migration the Jews might never have even sought the "state" of Israel in the first place.

Zolah
05-18-2008, 06:36 AM
Sure prophetic fulfillment is dubious. If it weren't there would be no debate on the subject at all. As far as self-fulfilling prophecies go...well imho this argument, speaking only in the case of Israels rebirth, does not hold water. The amount of anti-semitism around the globe in the early twentieth century was far greater than even today. Had the Jews attempted to reclaim their homeland it would have been considered a joke to most of the world including the the Christian populous which were some of the worst offenders against the Jews. A nation of Israel was simply not possible and was in no way, shape or form on the worlds drawing board prior to WWII.

Well I had the Balfour Declaration at the forefront of my mind when I typed my first reply, 1917, and the people of influence, which was vague I admit, referred to Balfour, Winston Churchill (Christian Zionist), Sir Herbert Samuel, and the prominent Jewish-Zionist banking family the Rothchilds.



The holocaust was the catalyst for the Jews return to their homeland. It created an outpouring of sympathy for the Jews.
I find it extremely unlikely that any event short of the horrific tragedy that befell Europe would have led to the Jews returning to Israel.

Yes probably, but it should also be noted that migration to Israel had began and was celebrated and was on the increase since 1918 and that proposals in the British government for a Jewish homeland in Palestine date as early as 1914 revolving around the war with the Ottoman empire.


In arguing self-fulfilling prophecy you are basically saying that the Nazis played a specific part and went into the holocaust with the intention of the Jews returning home. Such an argument is obviously ridiculous but again without the holocaust the argument does not hold water as there was no sympathy for the Jews Prior to the war.

Well you know that wasn't my angle, I was meaning the Churchills, Samuels, Rothchilds. And this shows that the Zionist movement was very active and had great influence decades before WW2 but I'd agree that there probably was a lot of accepted racism towards Jewish people in those times, amongst many groups discriminated against, Gypsies spring to mind as another group that suffered discrimination from western society and were victims of the holocaust too. (And discrimination towards them is still widely acceptable in the UK today)


As far as the conclusion of the film goes I find that it is, to put it rather simply, a religous conclusion. Even a conclusion that blames the Jews(on a religous or spiritual level). I agree with the notion that it suggest that peaceful peoples should join together and accept God yet I don't comprehend how "ridding the world of undesirables or infidels" would play a part in that.

Yeah fair enough, it was just the undertones that I thought I picked up on, along the lines of, all peaceful people stand together in acceptance of God, but their reward wouldn't come if there still remained people who were opposed to their acceptance, leading to religion by the sword, if you will. And with the world ridded of those that oppose, they would then truly be a world stood together in acceptance of God - that's the direction I saw.






One important point. The fact is that after WWII the Jews had nowhere to go. There were millions of displaced Jews throughout Europe and the Soviet Union. Unknown to many were the hundreds of thousands who were murdered and displaced in the Soviet Union as well.
After the war nobody wanted them. NOBODY. Millions of displaced Jews had nowhere to go. The Jews were originally from Judea(Judah, pronounced Jew-dee-uh) so naturally this would make a great homeland as there were already 300,000+_ Jews still living there.
There was nothing random about the Jews going to Israel. Had the Arabs peacefully accepted this migration the Jews might never have even sought the "state" of Israel in the first place.

Well at the end of the war, there had been for years and still was accepted asylum of Jewish people to several countries, I'm thinking specifically of the allied countries of WW2 here, mainly the USA, which now has a similar Jewish population to Israel (although this may have changed in the past decade or so, not sure so I'll check after).

I guess it's nitpicking but to me Jewish migration to Palestine wasn't inherently opposed, I mentioned above how it had been increasing since 1918, especially since WW2, and then the State of Israel was created to accomodate the migration - as this was the intention of Jewish and Christian Zionists of the 20th century - and I think this was what was opposed in Palestine, not migration itself, but the intentions of the Zionist movement.

From the occurrances surrounding the Balfour declaration we know it was clear that the State of Israel for Jewish people on the land of Palestine was their intentions regardless of the people currently of Palestine's opinions.

Essentially though, the intentions of Zionism long predated the Holocaust, and their fulfillment was inevitable in my opinion. Though the holocaust was a huge catalyst in this respect, as you say.

Perry
05-18-2008, 08:08 PM
Well I had the Balfour Declaration at the forefront of my mind when I typed my first reply, 1917, and the people of influence, which was vague I admit, referred to Balfour, Winston Churchill (Christian Zionist), Sir Herbert Samuel, and the prominent Jewish-Zionist banking family the Rothchilds.




Yes probably, but it should also be noted that migration to Israel had began and was celebrated and was on the increase since 1918 and that proposals in the British government for a Jewish homeland in Palestine date as early as 1914 revolving around the war with the Ottoman empire.



Well you know that wasn't my angle, I was meaning the Churchills, Samuels, Rothchilds. And this shows that the Zionist movement was very active and had great influence decades before WW2 but I'd agree that there probably was a lot of accepted racism towards Jewish people in those times, amongst many groups discriminated against, Gypsies spring to mind as another group that suffered discrimination from western society and were victims of the holocaust too. (And discrimination towards them is still widely acceptable in the UK today)



Yeah fair enough, it was just the undertones that I thought I picked up on, along the lines of, all peaceful people stand together in acceptance of God, but their reward wouldn't come if there still remained people who were opposed to their acceptance, leading to religion by the sword, if you will. And with the world ridded of those that oppose, they would then truly be a world stood together in acceptance of God - that's the direction I saw.







Well at the end of the war, there had been for years and still was accepted asylum of Jewish people to several countries, I'm thinking specifically of the allied countries of WW2 here, mainly the USA, which now has a similar Jewish population to Israel (although this may have changed in the past decade or so, not sure so I'll check after).

I guess it's nitpicking but to me Jewish migration to Palestine wasn't inherently opposed, I mentioned above how it had been increasing since 1918, especially since WW2, and then the State of Israel was created to accomodate the migration - as this was the intention of Jewish and Christian Zionists of the 20th century - and I think this was what was opposed in Palestine, not migration itself, but the intentions of the Zionist movement.

From the occurrances surrounding the Balfour declaration we know it was clear that the State of Israel for Jewish people on the land of Palestine was their intentions regardless of the people currently of Palestine's opinions.

Essentially though, the intentions of Zionism long predated the Holocaust, and their fulfillment was inevitable in my opinion. Though the holocaust was a huge catalyst in this respect, as you say.

Just a couple of notes;
Firstly a side note on the Gypsies.
Just recently a poll was taken in Spain in which something like 68% of the population desires to see the Roma expelled. Even citizens. Looks like Fascism's making a comeback. Not surprising i guess considering who they elected.

As far as Zionism in the early twentieth century goes...
Much of this I don't believe you can actually call true Zionism.
Look what happened when David Ben Gurion initially declared an independent state of Israel. The only nation to stand up and declare their support for Israel was the Soviet Union!
I've always thought that this is a bazaar and Ironic piece of history as Russia is commonly accepted by historians to be Gog.
(I think I have my history correct there)
So many like the Rothchilds were Zionists but I think many others weren't thinking so much as Israel as a "nation state" but rather simply returning a people to their homeland.
Nowadays Christian Zionism is largely based on prophecy but prophecy as we know it today is very different than was its interpretation a century ago.

jmdrake
05-20-2008, 05:03 AM
According to the pro Zionist site Jewishvirtualhistory.org (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Black.html):

The anti-Hitler protest movement culminated in a gigantic rally at Madison Square Garden on March 27, 1933, organized by Rabbi Wise and the American Jewish Congress. More than 55,000 protesters crammed into the Garden and surrounding streets. Simultaneous rallies were held in 70 other metropolitan areas in the U.S. and in Europe. Radio hookups broadcast the New York event to hundreds of cities throughout the world.

The boycott unnerved the Nazis, who believed that Jews wielded supernatural international economic power. They knew that in the past Jews had used boycotts effectively against Russian Czar Nicholas II to combat his persecution of Jews, and automaker Henry Ford to halt his anti-Semitic campaign. Whether or not this new boycott actually possessed the punishing power to crush the Reich economy was irrelevant; what mattered was that Germany perceived the Jewish-led boycott as the greatest threat to its survival--and reacted accordingly.

Relentless in exploiting the Nazis' vulnerability, Rabbi Wise and the other boycott leaders were determined to form one cohesive international movement under the banner "Starve Germany into submission this winter." But Hitler succeeded in averting this scenario by exploiting divisions within world Jewry.

The Nazi counteroffensive was launched at a secret meeting in Berlin, just six months after the Nazis took power and at the height of the anti-German boycott.
* * *

On August 7, 1933, an official delegation of four German and Palestinian Zionists and one independent Palestinian Jewish businessman were ushered into a conference room at the Economics Ministry in Berlin. The Jewish negotiators were greeted courteously by Hans Hartenstein, director of the German Foreign Currency Control Office. They talked for some time about investment, emigration, and public opinion, but the underlying theme was the boycott. The Nazis wanted to know how far the Zionists were willing to go in subverting the boycott. The Zionists wanted to know how far the Reich was willing to go in allowing them to rescue German Jews.

Hartenstein was about to call the inconclusive meeting to a close when a messenger arrived with a telegram from German Consul Heinrich Wolff in Tel Aviv, who advised Hartenstein that concluding a deal with the Zionist delegation was the best way to break the crippling boycott. Hartenstein complied, and the Transfer Agreement was born.

Now it's up to interpretation whether or not the Zionists betrayed their own people out of cynicism or naivety. There is the quote "One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland" attributed to "One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland" one Izaak Greenbaum but admittedly I took this from the anti Zionist (run by Jews) site True Torah Jews against Zionism (http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm).

As for Arabs not "peacefully accepting Jewish immigrants" how do you explain that there were Palestinian Zionists around to meet with the Nazis in 1933? Clearly the question wasn't whether or not Jews could immigrate but rather the size and scope of said immigration. But I guess if Americans don't roll over and accept the "reconquitas" quest to "retake the American southwest" we'll be the bad guys too? They've got about as much claim to that territory as Jews to do Judea after being absent thousands of years. But since this (supposedly) is only about immigration policy and "democracy" then the solution to the problem is simple. Let all of the Arabs who can make a claim to having lived in Israel within the past 100 years go back and become citizens of Israel. Then decide the matter one man one vote. (I am of course being facetious.)

Regards,

John M. Drake

RonPaulalways
05-20-2008, 08:08 AM
95% of the population of the land that is now Israel was Arab in the 19th century. Jews stole it.

torchbearer
05-20-2008, 08:37 AM
95% of the population of the land that is now Israel was Arab in the 19th century. Jews stole it.

Abraham was from an area in modern day Iraq. The grandfather of the tribes of Jacob.
A lot of the nothern jewish tribes were pheonician.
The southern tribes were more quasi-egyptian.
Palestinians were the original peoples of that area.
The israelites were the unification of the three sects.
Is.
Ra.
El.

Think of it like the name U.S.A.
Each segment stood for their three gods who were to be united as one nation.

Then history happened.
THose people were all conquered at different times by different empires.
Move around the middle east...
Palestinians are Semites too.
They all have a common family tree.
It was religious leaders that declared enemies for the sake of rallying support for his rule.

Our understanding of the Jewish people is very primitive.
Were the Jews from the kingdom of Judah?
Were the Israelies from the kindomg of Israel?
Were they two different people?

http://www.rapturechrist.com/mapisrael3g.gif

torchbearer
05-20-2008, 08:39 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Levant_830.svg/272px-Levant_830.svg.png

INforRP
05-20-2008, 11:03 AM
I've always thought that this is a bazaar and Ironic piece of history as Russia is commonly accepted by historians to be Gog.
(I think I have my history correct there)

Perry, a "bazaar" is a place where you buy and sell things.

Secondly, what is being confused here is people who claim to follow the religion of Judaism and the people who were called "Israel" in the bible. In 90+% of the cases, they are not the same people. Someone adopting a religion, for whatever reason, does not give them a claim to a piece of land.

Should all the Christians be given a sizable country, just because they are all Christians? And yes it is a similar comparison.

For instance, many of the people who now lay claim to what should belong to "Israel" were Khazars and are not the blood line of Jacob.

Additionally, while I won't claim to be an expert on the Torah, but doesn't it forbid the Jews from having their own nation? They were to remain among the other peoples, living in peace with them. Much like what Palestine was before the middle of the last century.

Tratzman
05-21-2008, 03:03 PM
"For instance, many of the people who now lay claim to what should belong to "Israel" were Khazars and are not the blood line of Jacob."

You just hit the nail on the head with these Khazars. They were deceivers from the beginning and they're still doing it today. This group of people converted en masse to Judaism in the 700's and eventually migrated into eastern europe. They form what's known as the Ashkenazi Jews of today. These elite Ashkenazi European 'Jews' mainly use a combination of fascism and communism to implement their goals of worldwide domination. They used the myth of 'God's Chosen People' to gain sympathy for a homeland in the Middle East and were not above sacrificing lower class Jews in World War II to accomplish this.

Their end-game is this New World Order, fascism on a global scale.

This is arguably the greatest deception in history and would be well worth your time to check into it.

Chad

Perry
05-21-2008, 03:31 PM
According to the pro Zionist site Jewishvirtualhistory.org (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Black.html):

The anti-Hitler protest movement culminated in a gigantic rally at Madison Square Garden on March 27, 1933, organized by Rabbi Wise and the American Jewish Congress. More than 55,000 protesters crammed into the Garden and surrounding streets. Simultaneous rallies were held in 70 other metropolitan areas in the U.S. and in Europe. Radio hookups broadcast the New York event to hundreds of cities throughout the world.

The boycott unnerved the Nazis, who believed that Jews wielded supernatural international economic power. They knew that in the past Jews had used boycotts effectively against Russian Czar Nicholas II to combat his persecution of Jews, and automaker Henry Ford to halt his anti-Semitic campaign. Whether or not this new boycott actually possessed the punishing power to crush the Reich economy was irrelevant; what mattered was that Germany perceived the Jewish-led boycott as the greatest threat to its survival--and reacted accordingly.

Relentless in exploiting the Nazis' vulnerability, Rabbi Wise and the other boycott leaders were determined to form one cohesive international movement under the banner "Starve Germany into submission this winter." But Hitler succeeded in averting this scenario by exploiting divisions within world Jewry.

The Nazi counteroffensive was launched at a secret meeting in Berlin, just six months after the Nazis took power and at the height of the anti-German boycott.
* * *

On August 7, 1933, an official delegation of four German and Palestinian Zionists and one independent Palestinian Jewish businessman were ushered into a conference room at the Economics Ministry in Berlin. The Jewish negotiators were greeted courteously by Hans Hartenstein, director of the German Foreign Currency Control Office. They talked for some time about investment, emigration, and public opinion, but the underlying theme was the boycott. The Nazis wanted to know how far the Zionists were willing to go in subverting the boycott. The Zionists wanted to know how far the Reich was willing to go in allowing them to rescue German Jews.

Hartenstein was about to call the inconclusive meeting to a close when a messenger arrived with a telegram from German Consul Heinrich Wolff in Tel Aviv, who advised Hartenstein that concluding a deal with the Zionist delegation was the best way to break the crippling boycott. Hartenstein complied, and the Transfer Agreement was born.

Now it's up to interpretation whether or not the Zionists betrayed their own people out of cynicism or naivety. There is the quote "One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland" attributed to "One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland" one Izaak Greenbaum but admittedly I took this from the anti Zionist (run by Jews) site True Torah Jews against Zionism (http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm).

As for Arabs not "peacefully accepting Jewish immigrants" how do you explain that there were Palestinian Zionists around to meet with the Nazis in 1933? Clearly the question wasn't whether or not Jews could immigrate but rather the size and scope of said immigration. But I guess if Americans don't roll over and accept the "reconquitas" quest to "retake the American southwest" we'll be the bad guys too? They've got about as much claim to that territory as Jews to do Judea after being absent thousands of years. But since this (supposedly) is only about immigration policy and "democracy" then the solution to the problem is simple. Let all of the Arabs who can make a claim to having lived in Israel within the past 100 years go back and become citizens of Israel. Then decide the matter one man one vote. (I am of course being facetious.)

Regards,

John M. Drake

Thanks for the history lesson. Believe it or not I've never heard that So I'll have to look into it more before I am able to comment.
All I can say is that all the Arabs and All the Jews have claim to the land. They all live there now and they all have for generations. We have no say in the matter. All I know is that Israel and the Jews aren't going anywhere. The half billion Arabs surrounding Israel are going to have to find a way to stop hating the Israelis and make peace.
As long as the Palestinians and Hamas attempt to war with Israel the more hell they will bring upon themselves and their nations.



"For instance, many of the people who now lay claim to what should belong to "Israel" were Khazars and are not the blood line of Jacob."

You just hit the nail on the head with these Khazars. They were deceivers from the beginning and they're still doing it today. This group of people converted en masse to Judaism in the 700's and eventually migrated into eastern europe. They form what's known as the Ashkenazi Jews of today. These elite Ashkenazi European 'Jews' mainly use a combination of fascism and communism to implement their goals of worldwide domination. They used the myth of 'God's Chosen People' to gain sympathy for a homeland in the Middle East and were not above sacrificing lower class Jews in World War II to accomplish this.

Their end-game is this New World Order, fascism on a global scale.

This is arguably the greatest deception in history and would be well worth your time to check into it.

Chad

Let me get this straight...You're saying that the twelve tribes of Israel all but vanished and the thirteenth tribe, Turks, flourished and are at the front of a global conspiracy to take over the world?
The Turks...are taking over the world.
Ok I must say I've never heard that one before.
I recommend you expand your historical sources.

lucius
06-06-2008, 02:00 PM
Some of those things were true a quarter and a half century ago.
Today is another day. Regardless of all your biased and skewed opinions(and I know as I have seen you repeat them again and again)
the Israelis aren't going anywhere. 60 years ago there were 500,000 Jews in Israel and now there are seven million.
What was relevant 60 years ago is not relevant today. You attempt to keep it relevant in your mind for your own reasons which are much more transparent than you might believe.
Now Lucius you should thank me as I have graced you with a response after your spewing of the same mindless drivel that the first few posters did without considering the topic of the thread which is not a debate about who should or should not have the land.

Perry you don't understand me at all. I think Israel deserves to exist; Zionists jacked it, built walled ghettos and now are ethnically cleansing it, which my quotes point out were their intentions from inception. I don't care for Zionists directing our foreign policy.

I am saying you are pimping agitprop here. Let's start with a true history lesson: What formulated Dispensationalism, intrinsic to Christian Zionists, which places a heavy emphasis on prophecy and eschatology, the study of the "end times."

It is quite a jagged red pill: How Anglophile Zionists, such as Samuel Untermyer with Lord Rothschild from Balfour Declaration fame, used an opportunistic criminal, preacher, lawyer, who served two years in a Kansas penitentiary for forgery no less--Cyrus I. Scofield. Scofield cooked/created/imprinted a Zionist State in the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible, widely used to dupe a portion of Christian Americans who later morphed into the bloodthirsty Christian Zionists, who are the backbone supporting our current 'Christian Right' very-wrong Zionists' directed foreign policy. This book is the background 'Rosetta Stone' for this argument:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51G93PNDTHL._SS500_.jpg

Product Description:

This powerful and fully documented study exposes the questionable background and faulty theology of the man responsible for the popular Scofield Reference Bible, which did much to promote the dispensational system. The story is disturbing in its historical account of the illusive personality canonized as a dispensational saint and calls into question the seriousness of his motives and scholarship. Back of Book: Almost everyone knows about the Scofield Bible. But no one before this has worked out a detailed account of the life of Cyrus I. Scofield. And yet there is such as amazing amount of material that should be known about this man that everyone who is at all interested in the dispensational system should read this book. This is a powerful book. The material is well documented. Anyone who gets this book and reads it will find here some amazing things about a man whose book is well known, but whose life we believe concerning many of its most features has been purposely concealed lest it be found to contradict his teachings. This is one of the most powerful books that has ever been written against the dispensational system. It is powerful because it shows how the book that has had the most to do with promotion of that system. The Scofield Reference Bible, originated. Here is a book that dispensationalists as well as others will do well to read. It is powerful, so powerful we dare say, that if dispensationalists would read it carefully, perhaps half of them would turn from that system.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Details

Paperback: 406 pages
Publisher: Ross House Books; 2nd edition (October 20, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1879998440
ISBN-13: 978-1879998445
Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 6 x 1.2 inches

Watch 'The Cause of Our Conflict' (http://whtt.org/show/) for specific examples, might not be 'your cup of tea' but is an interesting example on creating 'useful' public mythology.

http://www.whtt.org/straitgate/images/237HageeFlag.jpg

A few quotes from prominent Christan Zionist John Hagee, creator of 'Christians United for Israel', whose overriding goal is to assure that all U.S. Foreign Policy toward the Middle East be geared to "restoring Israel's Biblical borders", which is critical for Dispensationalism "end times" inculcations:

"The enemy is islamo-fascism." (he actually coined that specific term)

"As Christians we have a Biblical obligation to defend Israel and the Jewish people in their time of need."

"No Bible believing Christian can support disengagement." (Referring to the occupation of Iraq)

"The claims (to land) of the Palestinians are a historic fraud...they never owned the land...this makes them gasp for air like catfish out of water."

A good example on why history is important, leads credence to Orwell's insightful quote:

"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

Here is a far better use of 40 minutes than 'Zero hour - The truth about the Arab Israeli conflict': 'Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews' (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7144824386679216957&q=real+enemy+of+the+jews&ei=J4cvSKO-IIqUrgLVl4iOCg)

Which tool will play the anti-semitic card first?

Perry
06-06-2008, 02:59 PM
Perry you don't understand me at all. I think Israel deserves to exist; they jacked it, built walled ghettos and now are ethnically cleansing it, which my quotes point out were their intentions from inception. I don't care for Zionists directing our foreign policy.

I am saying you are pimping agitprop here. Let's start with a true history lesson: What formulated Dispensationalism, intrinsic to Christian Zionists, which places a heavy emphasis on prophecy and eschatology, the study of the "end times."

It is quite a jagged red pill: How Anglophile Zionists, such as Samuel Untermyer with Lord Rothschild from Balfour Declaration fame, used an opportunistic criminal, preacher, lawyer, who served two years in a Kansas penitentiary for forgery no less--Cyrus I. Scofield. Scofield cooked/created/imprinted a Zionist State in the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible, widely used to dupe a portion of Christian Americans who later morphed into the bloodthirsty Christian Zionists, who are the backbone supporting our current 'Christian Right' very-wrong Zionists' directed foreign policy. This book is the background 'Rosetta Stone' for this argument:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51G93PNDTHL._SS500_.jpg

Product Description:

This powerful and fully documented study exposes the questionable background and faulty theology of the man responsible for the popular Scofield Reference Bible, which did much to promote the dispensational system. The story is disturbing in its historical account of the illusive personality canonized as a dispensational saint and calls into question the seriousness of his motives and scholarship. Back of Book: Almost everyone knows about the Scofield Bible. But no one before this has worked out a detailed account of the life of Cyrus I. Scofield. And yet there is such as amazing amount of material that should be known about this man that everyone who is at all interested in the dispensational system should read this book. This is a powerful book. The material is well documented. Anyone who gets this book and reads it will find here some amazing things about a man whose book is well known, but whose life we believe concerning many of its most features has been purposely concealed lest it be found to contradict his teachings. This is one of the most powerful books that has ever been written against the dispensational system. It is powerful because it shows how the book that has had the most to do with promotion of that system. The Scofield Reference Bible, originated. Here is a book that dispensationalists as well as others will do well to read. It is powerful, so powerful we dare say, that if dispensationalists would read it carefully, perhaps half of them would turn from that system.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Details

Paperback: 406 pages
Publisher: Ross House Books; 2nd edition (October 20, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1879998440
ISBN-13: 978-1879998445
Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 6 x 1.2 inches

The Cause of Our Conflict for specific examples (http://whtt.org/show/) might not be 'your cup of tea' but is an interesting example on creating 'useful' public mythology.

http://www.whtt.org/straitgate/images/237HageeFlag.jpg

A few quotes from prominent Christan Zionist John Hagee, creator of 'Christians United for Israel', whose overriding goal is to assure that all U.S. Foreign Policy toward the Middle East be geared to "restoring Israel's Biblical borders", which is critical for Dispensationalism "end times" inculcations:

"The enemy is islamo-fascism." (he actually coined that specific term)

"As Christians we have a Biblical obligation to defend Israel and the Jewish people in their time of need."

"No Bible believing Christian can support disengagement." (Referring to the occupation of Iraq)

"The claims (to land) of the Palestinians are a historic fraud...they never owned the land...this makes them gasp for air like catfish out of water."

A good example on why history is important, leads credence to Orwell's insightful quote:

"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

Here is a far better use of 40 minutes than 'Zero hour - The truth about the Arab Israeli conflict': 'Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews' (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7144824386679216957&q=real+enemy+of+the+jews&ei=J4cvSKO-IIqUrgLVl4iOCg)

Which tool will play the anti-semitic card first?

I don't care about all that. It does not matter.
Firstly, to say that ethnic cleansing is taking place is simply not accurate.
What we do have is a very dirty form of warfare where the Palestinians hind behind civilians. Why? Because if they didn't they simply could not attack and fight the Israelis superior military might.
The Israelis on the other hand attack the Palestinians even when they are hiding behind civilians. Why? because if they didn't they would have no way to fight the Palestinians and their brutal attacks on Israel would go unanswered.
This results in a disturbing amount of violence with civilians taking a large brunt of the casualties. It's as simple as this.

The Israelis built walls because they were under constant attack from the Palestinians. Guess what? After they built walls the attacks started going down.

Maybe the Jews should have a right to the land, maybe not. I'm not arguing that point. The fact is that today the Jewish people desire peace to a much greater extent than the Palestinians. These are just simple facts. The Arabs are every bit as responsible as the Jews are for the current state of affairs. When Israel was forming it's nation status prior to 1948 they actually encouraged Arabs to stay in the land. A small percentage were driven out for military purposes but for the most part the Israelis encouraged Arabs to stay. The Arab nations on the other hand warned that Jews lives throughout all the Arab lands were in danger if Israel became a nation. This prompted hundreds of thousands of Jews throughout all the Arab nations to immigrate to Israel in fear of their very lives. Guess you could say this threat backfired on the Arabs. The same goes for the false report by Palestinian leaders that Israeli troops were raping and murdering Palestinian women and children which caused many thousands of Palestinians to flee from their homes and never return when in reality there were no substance to the stories.
My point here is that the Palestinians are and always have been atleast 50% of the problem and no less. That means They must do half the work in solving the problem. The Israelis need a damn good reason to take that wall down. When the walls come down the bombings and attacks go up. Just facts.

Zolah
06-07-2008, 10:39 AM
The fact is that today the Jewish people desire peace to a much greater extent than the Palestinians.

I dispute that fact.

lucius
06-07-2008, 06:07 PM
...My point here is that the Palestinians are and always have been atleast 50% of the problem and no less. That means They must do half the work in solving the problem. The Israelis need a damn good reason to take that wall down. When the walls come down the bombings and attacks go up. Just facts.

Don't worry Perry; this problem can be solved in a might-makes-right fashion. Now remember that we are speaking of the fourth largest military in the world, IDF, that has a multitude of nuclear weapons:

"Similarly, Jewish leaders should support harsh measures against terrorists who potentially endanger Jews, even at the cost of human rights and humanitarian law. And if the threat is sufficiently grave, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Israel would be justified if likely to be necessary for assuring the stateís survival, the bitter price of large number of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding."

Chilling read, befitting of stormfront: When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, Thereís No Place for Morals (http://www.forward.com/articles/13388/)

The author is a top Israeli party theoretician--Yehezkel Dror, the founding president of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, is a professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A recipient of the Israel Prize, he served as a member of the Winograd commission of inquiry into Israelís war with Hezbollah in 2006.

Perry
06-07-2008, 06:23 PM
Don't worry Perry; this problem can be solved in a might-makes-right fashion. Now remember that we are speaking of the fourth largest military in the world, IDF, that has a multitude of nuclear weapons:

"Similarly, Jewish leaders should support harsh measures against terrorists who potentially endanger Jews, even at the cost of human rights and humanitarian law. And if the threat is sufficiently grave, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Israel would be justified if likely to be necessary for assuring the state’s survival, the bitter price of large number of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding."

Chilling read, befitting of stormfront: When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals (http://www.forward.com/articles/13388/)

The author is a top Israeli party theoretician--Yehezkel Dror, the founding president of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, is a professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A recipient of the Israel Prize, he served as a member of the Winograd commission of inquiry into Israel’s war with Hezbollah in 2006.

I'm not sure if you've noticed Lucius but I have never held the view that extreme violence is the solution. You frequently seem to counter me with the most far right wing propaganda. My hope is that you can recognize simply that the Palestinians are not some innocent band of gypsies. If all I read were your posts I'd think the Palestinians were saints and the Jews Nazis.

lucius
06-07-2008, 08:55 PM
...You frequently seem to counter me with the most far right wing propaganda...If all I read were your posts I'd think the Palestinians were saints and the Jews Nazis.

The Forward is a legendary name in American journalism and a revered institution in American Jewish life. Launched as a Yiddish-language daily newspaper on April 22, 1897, the Forward entered the din of New York's immigrant press as a defender of trade unionism and moderate, democratic socialism.

I would say Marxist/Zionist is closer to the mark.