TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- "Jewish like me"
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r True. But then there's already tons of that already going on here. I simply can't side with Islamic radicalism when it has more relevance to me than Zionism. I emphasize 'to me' not to say that Zionism isn't bad however Zionism isn't why we (Canada) have soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq. Zionism didn't tighten airport security around the world. Zionism isn't cutting the heads off of innocent people. Zionism isn't planting bombs in London or Madrid. Zionism isn't responsible for the deaths of millions of people in conflicts around the World; radical Islam wins that by a land slide. You say I choose sides, I agree with you. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX See when you start taking sides, that's when problems start emerging. We attribute so much of things that happen to the internal processes of people, when most of what people do is mostly due to particular circumstances in particular situations. Extremism in the muslim and jewish community IS what is driving this problem. It's not just one side, and as soon as you side with one by exclusion the other side most be wrong. This problem didnt come about just because of the jews or just because of the muslims. Why are some people arguing that the jewish tactics are more cruel? Well because they have more money and better and more efficent ways of hurting people then the muslims do. The muslims can build a road side bomb, but the israelis can nuke their asses. So you see, those that have more power need more regulation, are more publicly shamed because even if their 'retaliations' are less frequent then the 'attacks', they cause alot more damage, alot more despair, and in the end alot more 'attacks. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX See when you start taking sides, that's when problems start emerging. We attribute so much of things that happen to the internal processes of people, when most of what people do is mostly due to particular circumstances in particular situations. Extremism in the muslim and jewish community IS what is driving this problem. It's not just one side, and as soon as you side with one by exclusion the other side most be wrong. This problem didnt come about just because of the jews or just because of the muslims. Why are some people arguing that the jewish tactics are more cruel? Well because they have more money and better and more efficent ways of hurting people then the muslims do. The muslims can build a road side bomb, but the israelis can nuke their asses. So you see, those that have more power need more regulation, are more publicly shamed because even if their 'retaliations' are less frequent then the 'attacks', they cause alot more damage, alot more despair, and in the end alot more 'attacks. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Sorry, where did I say I was supporting him again? I'm simply pointing you out at calling him 'extremist'. By that logic Clinton must be one hardcore extremist after seeing him repent with the wife in more post-Lewinsky church photo ops than I've ever seen George in lol  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r In principle, I do agree with you but when domestic policies are changed in a country thousands of miles away, across a major ocean and with no connection for the reasons they were implemented, people are going to start pointing fingers and taking sides. In the example of "Palestine", it has been vacated by the Israelis once before and peace wasn't for lack of trying. The vacancy situation was abused and Israel retaliated. If the Palestinians would just rid themselves of the Hizbullah fleabags (no thanks to Iran and Syria) that keep dragging them in, I would hazard to guess that things would have been much better than they have been. It's not that I'm so much pro-Israel (as I have no affiliation with them at all) as much as the facts help hone my opinion. Had the facts been reversed, my opinion, no doubt, would be as well. If there was one well spoken pro-Palestine supporter who was above a grade 5 reading level here in, opinion could be swayed but after a couple years, that has yet to surface... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r I'm sure it's no different that Islamic extremists ruining Islam but of course you won't see that posted here (or heaven forbid even suggested by those posted here thus far). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Islamic extremists ruining Islam |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z I originally chose to ignore this comment, but now I feel obligated to respond to it. News flash: The vast majority of western Muslims aren't radical extremists of any type. And it certainly isn't the case in the Middle East. or atleast wasn't. |
| quote: |
But we have the Bush administration to thank for radicalizing people in the region for that. You know, like wars of agression, torture etc. But you can hold on to whatever fictitious view you want. It kind of funny how you'll try to assure the rest of us that you don't think most Muslims are radical extremists/terrorists whenever you post your right wing neo con propaganda articles, but now you're clearly contradicting yourself with the implication of this statement: |
| quote: |
Does that tell you something about yourself? You don't need to answer that. Just ponder over it for a bit. I'm not going to respond to any empty arguments you present, so don't bother hijacking this thread. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Moderate Western Muslims never were an issue in any debate I've been involved with so why bring it up? So Bush is to blame for radical Islam? Interesting. Yes, Islamic extremists are ruining Islam, most so for the innocent moderates which unfortunately have to deal with a lot of ignorant people in the Western world; I feel for them the most. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium When you force thousands of people from their homes, kill innocent civilians and their family members by air strike, raids - you don't expect these traumatizied people to sit there and think "Yeah, I am OK, I am happy." You sit there in your comfortable chair, with a good job, good house, and blame the victims attempting to fight back on the pains they've went through. You don't understand that. These people cant fight back traditional methods - I mean, if you are a small group of people and you arm yourselved with Kalashnikovs and attack an Israeli fortified post - you dont have a chance and you'll be wiped out and even the western media might not even put the story on the last page. So their strategies have shifted, and they'll continue to be implemented because they work. Arab states have noticed that they cant defeat Israel using coonventional weapons. The true fighters will use any means to achieve their goals. Haven't you noticed that terrorism/extremism occurs where one side is far better equipped and outmanned? So the big guy just labels the smaller guy as the terrorist because he feels cheated, and wants a one on one "FAIR" fight, but he doesnt understand that his victory will be inevitable in that kind of a fight - and you cant have a bully fight on even terms with a victim, because the victim knows the bully will win every time. You would label a world war II russian soldier fighting Nazis as a terrorist when, down to his last grenade and all surrounded, he would take that grenade, go on the German tank and disable it killing himself as well. A famous Soviet World War II hero was down to his last bullets so he took his molotov cocktail and made a suicidal jump on a German tank, but he killed a dozen Germans in the process. In the same war, a female Russian intelligence gatherer was captured and after torture, was publicly hanged by Germans, naked. She became a big propaganda tool inspiring Russians to fight the sick evil German machine. But I guess the Russians were the terrorists according to you, Firestarter, and some others like LazFX Are we learning now? |
LOL @ Bad Guys!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King The Israeli's have a duty to leave palestine |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dopey and where would you have them go? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dopey and where would you have them go? |
Thanks for posting this article! I actually know the author personally and I can say it's intelligent, compassionate people like him who are the true future of the Jewish nation, not the scumbags in the Knesset. A very interesting question has been brought up in this thread about the future of the Jews in Palestine (where would you have them go?). It is a question that has troubled me quite a bit because on the one hand I fully support the right of Palestinians to have their state and be free of colonial occupation, and on the other hand I recognize the need of the Jewish people to have a nation of their own, a place of refuge from the bigotry that has plagued them from centuries (yes, antisemitism is still a real problem). Liberation for Palestinians AND Jews. In a just world I think a Jewish state would have been carved right out of Germany, the perpetrators of the Holocaust, rather then foisted upon innocent Palestinians. In fact I think that would have been brilliant poetic justice but we all know what really happened (well, some of us at least 
). So in the interest of justice for both peoples I propose side by side but separate independent and sovereign states for Jews and Palestinians. The borders for such a two-state solution already exist, they were drawn up by the UN in 1947. Some Israelis won't like it because it will require giving up a lot of land and dismantling many (illegal) settlements, but this is the price of peace and stability. Some Palestinians won't like it 'cause Israel will still exist and they'll most likely have to give up on the right to return, but it sure as hell is a better outcome then they'll get from the status quo situation and the perpetual intifada it fuels. Far from ideal, but the only realistic option at this point for a lasting peace. Here, check out the map I'm speaking of:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/...ael_founded.stm
Your friend's a great person Spliffire 
.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dopey and where would you have them go? |
| quote: |
| Friday, February 9th, 2007 Independent Jewish Voices: New British Group Speaks Out on Israeli Policies in Occupied Territories A group of prominent British Jews have launched an organization to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK. The organization, called Independent Jewish Voices, or IJV, includes well-known public figures in Britain's Jewish community, including Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter and fashion designer Nicole Farhi. We go to London to speak with two of the group�s members. [includes rush transcript] This week in Britain, a group of prominent British Jews launched an organization to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK. The organization, called Independent Jewish Voices, or IJV, includes well-known public figures in Britain's Jewish community, including Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter and fashion designer Nicole Farhi. IJV criticizes Britain's well-known Board of Deputies of British Jews for claiming to represent all Jews. The IJV Declaration states that �those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews in Britain and other countries consistently put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of an occupied people.� Reclaiming what they call �the tradition of Jewish support for universal freedoms, human rights and social justice,� members urge other Jews to express their views about Israeli policies without fear of being labeled anti-Semitic, self-hating, or disloyal. Joining us now from a studio in London are two original signatories of Independent Jewish Voices. * Sir Geoffrey Bindman. Chairman of the British Institute of Human Rights. Bindman is also a Professor of Law at University College London. He has practiced law for over forty years. He has participated as a jurist on multiple international human rights missions around the world, including in Israel, Palestine, and South Africa. * Susie Orbach. Writer and psychotherapist. She is a prominent feminist and author of several books, including �Susie Orbach On Eating� and �Fat is a Feminist Issue.� RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more... JUAN GONZALEZ: This week in Britain, a group of prominent British Jews launched an organization to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK. The organization, called Independent Jewish Voices, or IJV, includes well-known public figures in Britain's Jewish community, including Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter and fashion designer Nicole Farhi. IJV criticizes Britain's well-known pro-Israeli Board of Deputies of British Jews for claiming to represent all Jews. The IJV declaration states that �those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews in Britain and other countries consistently put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of an occupied people.� Reclaiming what they call the Jewish tradition of �support for universal freedoms, human rights and social justice,� members urge other Jews to express their views about Israeli policies without fear of being labeled anti-Semitic, self-hating, or disloyal. AMY GOODMAN: Joining us now from a studio in London are two founding members of Independent Jewish Voices: Sir Geoffrey Bindman is a human rights jurist and chair of the British Institute of Human Rights; Professor Susie Orbach is a writer and psychotherapist in London, well-known for her groundbreaking book, Fat is a Feminist Issue. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Sir Geoffrey Bindman, let's begin with you. Explain this statement that you have put out. SIR GEOFFREY BINDMAN: Well, what we are concerned about is that the so-called organs that represent the Jewish community are not expressing the views of many Jews in Britain, who support strongly the human rights of Palestinians, as well as Israelis. And there is even an attempt by these organizations to suppress and demonize those who do not wholeheartedly support the policies of the Israeli government. AMY GOODMAN: Susie Orbach, tell us how you came to this issue and how you became one of the original signatories to the statement. SUSIE ORBACH: Well, I came to this, because for a very, very long time I�ve always been struck by this sort of strange phenomenon that in Britain, as a Jew, you get criticized for publicly wanting to talk about Israeli government policy, but when you're in Israel, there's such a kind of vibrant conversation and so much support for various kinds of settlements with the Palestinians, and that actually it's quite crazy for both the Israeli government to claim that it speaks in the name of all Jews and for the British organizations of Jews to say that we speak with one voice, when patently we don't. And as part of Jewish writers who were trying to make contact with and have that voice heard, we came together with another group and formulated this proclamation, I suppose you might call it. And what's been really, really interesting is the kind of support we've garnered this week. The front of the Jewish Chronicle, which is the mainstream Jewish newspaper, not something that Sir Geoffrey and I particularly read, because we're both secular Jews and active in human rights issues in other kinds of ways, has come out with, you know, seven pages, I think, of articles about this, and they are not hypocritical, which is what we usually expect. So I think the mood has really changed, where people feel less frightened and that the kind of monolith position, which is that all Jews everywhere have to keep their disputes within the family, rather than be able to say, no, there are other voices -- I think something is being broken by our statement, and I�m very, very pleased about that. JUAN GONZALEZ: Sir Geoffrey Bindman, you're no doubt aware of the book by former President Jimmy Carter here, that compares the situation in Palestine to apartheid. SIR GEOFFREY BINDMAN: Yeah. JUAN GONZALEZ: You've been a jurist on missions to both South Africa and to the Occupied Territories. What's your sense of that and also the sharp criticism that he's received and controversy that's arisen as a result of his book? SIR GEOFFREY BINDMAN: Yes, well, I must admit, I haven't read the book, but I do believe that criticism of people who make some comparisons between the policies of the Israeli government and the apartheid state in South Africa are wrong, because there are comparisons. Of course, they're not identical situations by a very long way, but the subjugation of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the demonization of Arabs, which takes place in Israel, and the attitude towards Palestinians does resemble, in some respects, the attitude of the former South African regime towards black people in South Africa. I wouldn't overemphasize these parallels, but when you mention apartheid at all, you mention South Africa, there�s a storm of abuse, hits you, from the people who are totally uncritical about Israel and feel that any kind of analysis or comment, which is in any way picking any fault with Israeli policies, is somehow letting the side down, is even anti-Semitic. One commentator, extreme commentator, recently described it as genocidal, as if we, the critics of Israel, are in some way contributing towards the ultimate destruction of the Jewish people. It's just such nonsense. AMY GOODMAN: Susie Orbach. SUSIE ORBACH: Can I come in here? Because I think one of the motivations for me joining IJV -- and we are a network, so we don't all have the same point of view -- is that actually I am very concerned about the survival of Israel, and I think its actions now do not speak well for it, and that is one of the things that really concerns me. It kind of feels like a terrible stain that a Jewish state is acting in this way. And so, there are people in our network who are very, very strong supporters of either the two-state solution or of the continuation of the state of Israel, but who are disturbed by its practices vis-�-vis Palestinian people. SIR GEOFFREY BINDMAN: May I say, I very much agree with Susie on that point. And it does seem to me that there is a real problem for Israel, which is a democracy and believes in human rights internally within the state and has a very proud record, in many respects. There is real freedom of expression in Israel. Israel's constitution is enviable and could be a model for other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. Unfortunately, it seems to me, it lets itself down very badly by its treatment of the Palestinians, by its occupation of the West Bank, which has been condemned by the United Nations and which, in my opinion and that of many, many lawyers, is clearly illegal, and by the treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, which contradicts the Geneva Conventions in all sorts of ways. It violates international law. This lets down Israel. It undermines Israel�s valid claims to be a democracy and a model society. JUAN GONZALEZ: Susie Orbach, I would like to ask you about the reaction outside the Jewish community in England to your announcement. Here in the United States, the biggest support, outside the Jewish community, for Israel comes from fundamentalist Christians who uncritically support Israel. What about in England, in terms of the general non-Jewish population? SUSIE ORBACH: I mean, I think -- I don't know. I think it�s -- we don't have fundamental Christianity in that way. SIR GEOFFREY BINDMAN: It's not an issue that has ever raised itself in Britain. We're not really aware of fundamentalist Christians having that kind of influence. I mean, there are obviously such people. SUSIE ORBACH: But don't you feel that in England, that the situation in the last few years has escalated, so that if one is, as one often is in England, because it�s not like being in New York City -- it is an incredibly heterogeneous -- I mean, it�s a very, very mixed culture -- that people feel very uncomfortable until they've addressed the question of what is going on in Israel, if they're from the progressive or liberal elements in our society? When they are sitting with somebody who they know to be a Jew, they actually feel they need to have a conversation with you, and they feel exceedingly uncomfortable. Many people have written to say that they like this statement, because it gives a chance for us to have a debate which is on human rights grounds, rather than on ethnic grounds. AMY GOODMAN: I just wanted to read the five principles, quickly, that you have signed onto, the original signatories. SIR GEOFFREY BINDMAN: Yes, please do. AMY GOODMAN: �Human rights are universal and indivisible and should be upheld without exception. This is as applicable in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories as it is elsewhere. Two, Palestinians and Israelis alike have the right to peaceful and secure lives. Three, peace and stability require the willingness of all parties to the conflict to comply with international law. Four, there is no justification for any form of racism, including anti-Semitism, anti-Arab racism or Islamophobia, in any circumstance. And, five, the battle against anti-Semitism is vital and is undermined whenever opposition to Israeli government policies is automatically branded as anti-Semitic.� Where do you go from here, Sir Geoffrey Bindman, with this declaration? SIR GEOFFREY BINDMAN: I don't know that we need to go anywhere. It seems to me that�s a very succinct statement of those attitudes, which are held in common by the people who�ve signed our declaration. As was said earlier, we don't agree on everything. We don't even know each other, necessarily. We are not a group, in the sense of a tightly knit organization, at all. We're simply people who have signed up to these general principles. We are concerned, in the main, about human rights, social justice, and I think most, if not all, of us feel that Israeli government policies have undermined its own commitment, the commitment of the Israeli state in its founding declaration, to respect human rights, to observe human rights, because they have not properly behaved -- AMY GOODMAN: Sir Geoffrey Bindman, we'll have to leave -- SIR GEOFFREY BINDMAN: -- towards Palestinians in a way consistent with those principles. AMY GOODMAN: We�ll have to leave it there. I want to thank you for being with us, Sir Geoffrey Bindman, chair of the British Institute of Human Rights, co-founder of Independent Jewish Voices, also a professor of law at University College London; also Susie Orbach, writer and psychotherapist, co-founder of Independent Jewish Voices, as well, in Britain. I want to thank you both for being with us. |
I think this is a good article that should clear up any confusion in terminology and dispell assumptions about the implications of each term.
Plus I thought it was a good 'article' worth posting. Thoughts?
| quote: |
| Judaism And Zionism A broadcast by one of our members over Station WBAI-FM, New York (8/27/69) I am a member of the Friends of Jerusalem, an American affiliate of the world wide Jewish Neturei Karta movement, the leadership of which is in Jerusalem. In commenting on Jewish affairs, there is no topic more vital today than a clarification on the differences between Judaism and Zionism. All too many Americans are still under the impression that these terms are more or less synonymous - that being a Jew means automatically to be a Zionist and that this also implies a certain loyalty to the State of Israel. Let me there state right at the beginning that Judaism and Zionism are completely incompatible and are mutually exclusive. If you are a good Jew, you cannot be a Zionist. If you are a Zionist, you cannot be a good Jew. The reason for this is fairly simple to explain. The Jews are not a race, such as Caucausians or Negroes, as Hitler contended. The Jews are not a nation, like France, Great Britain, the United States, or any other of the nations. And they are not just a religion, like Catholicism, Buddhism, or any of the Protestant denominations. They are, rather, a unique combination, unlike any other. It is true that Jews are, according to the Bible and their own belief, the Chosen People. But they are not chosen for domination; they are not elected to rule over other people; but they are chosen for one purpose only: for service - to serve the Creator of the Universe and the Father of us all in a very special way, and thereby to serve all mankind. While, according to the Jewish faith, there are only seven laws that are automatically binding and valid for each human being and while there are the Ten Commandments which have been accepted by the civilized world and particularly by the monotheistic faiths as appropriate basic rules for human behavior, the Jews are subject to 613 commandments which are in one way or another mentioned in the Five Books of Moses. These laws, which have been codified and spelled out and commented on throughout the centuries in an immense number of books, constituting the Rabbinic and Halachic literature, are obligatory for everyone born of a Jewish mother or one who has voluntarily accepted the Jewish faith. Political Zionism started in Europe more then seventy years ago under the impact of anti-semitism. It is a complete departure from this ancient and holy tradition. The leading figures in Zionism from the very beginning have always been men and women who rejceted the obligatory nature of these Jewish religious laws, who have never lived by this code and who indeed deny categoricallyeven that the Bible is of divine origin, there by reducing the Five Books of Moses, the writing of the Prophets, and the other books which together make up the Tenach - the Hebrew Bible - to mere foklore and ancient sagas and tales [heaven forfend]. The aims of Zionism are: to give the Jewish people a country of their own, to revive Hebrew as its everyday language, to give it a government of its own, a plariament, an army, navy and air force - and all the other paraphernalia and characteristics of a nation like all others. The Jews, who in the words of the Bible are to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, are supposed to lose their special character. Zionists consider it a great day when they declared the State of Israel to be in existence and again when the flag of their state was raised on a flagstaff in front of the United Nations among the banners of all other countries. This creation of a secular, so-called Jewish state is treason to the Jewish people, as constituted on Mount Sinai. It is not only a crass degradation from a lofty and singular level, but in thus changing the character and mission of the Jewish people, it would also do the following: 1. Free the Jews as a people from their religious obligation as outlined above. 2. Subject the Jewish people to the ordinary laws of national existence, thus ending the unique and extraordinary qualities that let the Jews, as a people, survive through the milennia, and make these people (G-d forbid) vanish like all the other nations that have apperared on the surface of the earth and long since have been relegated to history. 3. It would automatically and inevitably - the State of Israel now being a nation like the others, but claiming a special relationship to Jews everywhere - force these Jews, in case of conflict, to face and decide questions of their primary loyalty. It is hardly necessary to add that this problem of loyalty has already been posed in a number of countries during the past twenty years. In this short presentation, it is impossible to deal with the impact of Zionism on the United States, although this would be a very interesting topic, or with the danger that it creates for other countries. We are tonight concerned only with the difference between Zionists - and Jews who are loyal to their faith. It might be mentioned that there are minority groups and parties in Israel and elsewhere who try to combine the traditional practice of Jewish faith with Zionist activity, but by its very nature, this is a hopeless cause. By accepting the leadership of irreligious or anti-religious Jews, who under Jewish law are not qualified to exercise any leadership or occupy a position of trust within the Jewish community, and also by subjecting matters of faith and religious law to parliamentary and other majority votes, they actually admit the priority of the secular national Jewish state over the divinely instituted special nationhood of the Jewish people. After these basic considerations, the remaining minutes will be used to answer some obvious questions, such as: 1. Isn't it very beneficial for the self-respect of the Jews that they now have a country of their own and a highly efficient and dependable army? 2. If Zionism is so absolutely contrary to Judaism, how is that so many Jews are sympathetic toward Zionism? 3. If there were no State of Israel, where would persecuted Jews find a place of refuge? 4. Who is going to speak in the name of those Jews who are helpless and who is going to defend them? Let us answer these questions in order: 1. The Holy Land is and always has been beloved by religious Jews and that land, and the city of Jerusalem, are mentioned innumerable times every single day in prayers said by Jews everywhere. These prayers have been said for thousands of years, but they have nothing to do with the atheists who founded the State of Israel or with their state. On the contrary, these prayers also state [that] the Jews' exile from Eretz Yisroel is willed by the Ruler and Father of us all; and as to self-respect because of victitious army and bombers, the Bible states that the Jews have been chosen because they are the most humble and self-demeaning of all nations, not because of their worldly or military power. And the fact, that during the past twenty years more Jews have been killed in the Israeli wars than anywhere else on earth and that more non-Jews have been killed there by Jews than anywhere else, is not a source of pride, but one of the deepest regret to all Jews who have not been infected by the poison of Zionism. 2. It is not all suprising that so many Jews have been swayed by Zionism. Anyone who is suprised by this fact reveals an abysmal ignorance of Jewish history. Right from the start of Jewish peoplehood - and it is significant that the Bible tells us that the Jews became a nation in the wilderness, not in the land of Israel - it happened all too often that the vast majority of Jews were misled and followed false prophets and false gods - from the Golden Calf and the Baal, to the fake messianic movements of all ages down to today's Zionism. But any student of Jewish history knows that in the long run, all these movements failed and that only that Judaism and those Jews survived as Jews who accepted the primacy and totality of the Jewish Written and Oral Law. 3. As to the State of Israel as a place of refuge, this is perhaps the greatest fallacy of them all. Anyone who has read such books as Min Hametzar by the late Rabbi Weissmandl or Perfidy by the late Ben Hecht is aware of Zionist treachery during the most critical time of the Nazi persecution. In fact, Zionism is most interested in undermining the position of Jews in other countries so as to make them emigrate to the State of Israel and this plan has already been systematically carried out in a number of countries. One prime example is the burning of the synagogues in Iraq sixteen years ago, not by anti-Jewish enemies but admittedly by Zionist emissaries, who actually succeeded thereby in uprooting a Jewish community that had endured literally for thousands of years. The Zionist giant ghetto, far from being able to support Jewish communities elsewhere, has its hands full and needs support from abroad just to defend itself! And finally, as to the Zionists as the legitimate spokesmen for all Jews, they have been neither appointed nor elected by a majority of Jews to speak or act for them.* From a religious point of view, they are completely and utterly disqualified from exercising any function, even within a local Jewish community, let alone being authorized to act on a national or international basis, except, of course, for Zionist party members. Let me sum up by repeating what I said initially. A good Jew cannot be a Zionist. A Zionist cannot be a good Jew. *Note: During the convention of the Zionist Organization of America in August 1969 it was announced that their membership decreased from 250,000 members to 100,000. |
Excellent article Shaolin.
I'm very proud of the fact that I'm pro-zionist
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles I'm very proud of the fact that I'm pro-zionist |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer Proud because you enjoy watching Arabs getting killed for no reason? or proud for watching Palestinian houses getting destroyd for new Israeli settlements? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles Arabs oftentimes don't ask but rather just set up camp anywhere they want to, both in the West Bank and all over Israel, without any building permits. As such, their settlements are the ones that are illegal. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley |
I wonder why you don't see stuff like this in the mainstream corporate media...
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.