Inventing the Jewish Race
Offline This is a complement to the invention of the Jewish people. This also gives a concise summary of how the myth of a jewish "race" got started. The author does make a mistake in referring to Jews as an ethnic group. Anyone wishing to claim they are needs be prepared to describe their ethnic characteristics which are independent of religion. They get desperate. Once some nerfbrain tried to argue that their ethnic characteristics became their religion and therefore only an antisemite™ would disagree with him.
http://www.counterpunch.org/portis12262008.html
Weekend Edtion December 26-28, 2008
How the Zionists Created "Races" in Palestine
Changing the Ethnic Vocabulary
By LARRY PORTIS
Between the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and the creation of the United Jewish Agency in 1929, the evolution of political vocabulary in relation to ethnic groups in Palestine accompanied the emergence of an increasingly difficult geopolitical problem.
At the time, notions of nationhood were at the center of all questions of foreign affairs. Although touted as a solution to collective conflicts in general, national self-determination was at best a tenuous idea that tended to obscure the re-composition of empires or, at least, the transfer of their control from one powerful entity to another.
Spokespersons for the Zionist movement intervened actively in the US popular press during this period of transition between the defeat of the Turkish Empire (end of 1917) and the eventual implementation of the British Mandate in Palestine (April 1920). This journalistic activity was particularly important in the United States because financial donations from the large and relatively wealthy Jewish population in the US were vital to the Zionist project in Palestine.
Contrary to predictions of stability under the British Mandate, British control was inaugurated by riots caused by increased Jewish immigration. In July 1921, after one year of the new British administration, the Literary Digest noted that fears concerning the Zionist project were articulated in Palestine and also in neighboring countries and in the United States. Reviewing reactions to the events in Palestine in Arab-American publications, the Digest found, as did Arab newspapers in the Middle East, that there was a careful distinction drawn between attitudes concerning Jewish people and those concerning Zionism. In Al-Bayan, a Syrian newspaper published in New York, it was feared that there was much misrepresentation “as to the real ground of opposition in Palestine to Zionism”. This concern was echoed by the Meraat-ul-Gharb (New York) asserting that “the people of Palestine do not hate the Jews, but hate Zionism.” The Syrian Eagle (New York) found it ironic that it was the Palestinians who were being accused of religious fanaticism when it was the Zionists who were immigrating to Palestine out of “religious sentimental” motivations. The editorialist then asked: “Has it come to this, that we must plead with England for possession of our own country, and prove to a credulous world that Palestine really does not belong to the Zionists?”
Although it was never explicitly stated, confusion existed over how to refer to the members of different ethnic groups in Palestine. In an article in the Literary Digest of November 5, 1921, for example, reference is editorially made to “Arab Mohammedans”, “native Christians” and “Jewish colonists”. But this circumspection is in contrast to the ethnic characterizations of Chaim Weizmann, president of the Zionist Congress, who in the same article referred simply to “Jew and Arab”, or to those the British High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, quoted as approving “the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish race (my italics)”. Samuel (who was Jewish) tended to reduce the population of Palestine to “the Jew”, on the one hand and “the Arab”, on the other.
Even as he attempted to allay the fears of the non-Jewish population of Palestine, Samuel systematically employed a schematic vocabulary that obscured perceptions of the situation. For him, the “Jewries of the world” were simply attempting to establish their home “in the land which was the political, and has always been the religious, center of their race.” Several years later, the political secretary of the World Zionist Organization, Conrad Stein, castigated the “few mischief makers” who were “doing their best to keep the two races in Palestine apart.” (my italics)
In 1926, an anonymous “Friendly Visitor” wrote in the magazine Living Age about the “racial situation” in Palestine stating that “up to the present the two races are living side by side without intermingling” explaining that such exclusiveness was good because the Zionist policy was not to exploit Arab labor, but rather to encourage Jews to work in all sectors of the economy. The idea was that separate development, avoiding ethnic segmentation of the work force, would lead to more rapid improvement of Arab living standards: “as soon as the Arabs' standard of living has risen and the wages of the two races are equalized such discrimination will automatically disappear.” In addition, Jews must be encouraged to do agricultural labor, for “[n]othing but agriculture can change the Jews from a nation of traders into a nation with a normal distribution of its people into all branches of productive labor. The movement to the farm is the corner stone of racial regeneration.”
Zionist spokespersons incessantly emphasized that the Jews were a separate and distinct people or race. At the same time, the Muslim and Christian Palestinians were also referred to as a racial group: the “Arabs”. Less and less were the different participants in the drama designated as Europeans and Palestinians, or Jews, Muslims, Christians or Druzes. Increasingly, only two groups seemed to be present: the “Jews” and the “Arabs”. In only a few years, non-Jewish representatives of the region would also begin to speak in terms of “race” when referring to the different ethnic groups in Palestine.
Arnold Toynbee, the famous historian, raised a related question in The New Republic in 1922. For him, the trouble in Palestine lay in the imposition of a western idea — nationalism — in a region culturally unprepared for it. Palestine, regardless of its religious complexity, was in fact “a comparatively homogeneous country”. But a western political idea called “nationality” and the rise of national feeling in Palestine has “produced two effects. On the one hand, the Moslem and Christian Arabs began to feel themselves one with their Arab neighbors, especially with those of Syria, from which Palestine is divided by no physical boundaries. On the other hand, the Palestinian Jews, especially the agricultural colonists, and, still more, a majority of the Jewish ‘Dispersion’ all over the world, began to look forward to making Palestine eventually their own in the sense in which the United States belongs to the American people or France to the French.” Toynbee observed that the commitment of the British, United-Statesian, French and Italian governments to the “hazardous experiment” of the implantation of Zionism in Palestine would lead to more and more explosions of violence.
By the end of 1922 the future of social conflict within Palestine, and the uses of Palestine by powerful states, had been thoroughly discussed. The nature of Zionism as a nationalist political movement, its uses by the governments of the major western countries, the determining events in the creation of an almost intractable political situation, all of these dimensions of the “question of Palestine” were well known by educated readers. The way towards the eventual creation of a Jewish state seems to have been traced out well in advance of the actual event.
By the late 1920s, outbreaks of ethnic violence in Palestine tended to reinforce the idea that the population was divided into two irreconcilable camps. One result was the attenuation of disagreements between Jewish people over the legitimacy of the Zionist project. The creation of a reorganized Jewish Agency supportive of the colonization of Palestine, but not declaredly Zionist, seems to be related to the situation.
In November 1928, the Literary Digest cited a variety of Jewish-American periodicals (such as the American Hebrew in New York, the Jewish Tribune in New York, the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia, and the Canadian Jewish Chronicle in Montreal) in which various “non-Zionist” spokespersons expressed their solidarity with the Jewish immigration to Palestine. At a conference in New York organized by the jurist Louis Marshall, Marshall proclaimed: “there are no longer Zionists and non-Zionists. We are all Jews together.” “American Israel”, ran the conclusion, “is at last united in a ‘pact of glory’ […] for the up-building of Palestine.” Here, the use of the term “Israel” in reference to the Jewish population of the United States is significant for its “national” implications. The expression “Israel”, used to designate a people seen as a nation, will eventually denote the nation as concretized in the “nation state”.
When the United Jewish Agency was officially formed at the Zionist congress at Zurich in August 1929, its creation announced a new phase in the conflict over the destiny of Palestine.
The new Agency created at the Zionist meeting was composed of one-half non-Zionist members. The importance was that these non-Zionists promised to support the pursuit of the Jewish projects in Palestine, projects that, in fact, are properly called “Zionist”. But now the Jewish colonization of Palestine was no longer presented as a specifically Zionist project, but rather as a “Jewish” aspiration. Consequently, the demographic transformation of Palestine no longer expressed the same degree of dissension among Jews.
To refer to “Zionists” would henceforth tend to be perceived as an implicitly critical assessment of the project itself. The new political correctness was not the word “Zionist”, which implied a secular political movement in favor of a particular ethnic group, but rather a new application in this particular political context of the word “Jewish”. Replacing “Zionist” by “Jewish” consensually united all members of the confessional group in the same project by agreeing to not to disagree over modes of expression and ultimate goals.
It is possible that the new consensus among non-Palestinian (European and North-American) Jews, symbolized by the United Jewish Agency, contributed to the tragic events accompanying its emergence. The inter-ethnic violence of August 1929 may have been directly related to the creation of the United Jewish Agency. This is the opinion of the well-known writer John Gunther, who was not unfriendly to the Zionist cause. According to him, “the formation of the Agency was a direct factor contributing to the riots, because it incited outbursts of chauvinism by Jews in Palestine, and this led to Arab retaliation.”
Whatever the case, the decade of the 1920s saw the emergence of ethnic hostilities in Palestine that would not be resolved by the eventual creation of the state of Israel. The dilemma of “national” identifications linked to racialist notions is a field for political exploitation that has remained all-too-fertile and tempting for demagogues of all persuasions. In this particular case, by incessantly juxtaposing the two terms, “Jew” and “Arab”, often in a context of comparative evaluation detrimental to the latter, a confusion was created between, on the one hand, religious confession and, on the other hand, culture regardless of religion.
From a Zionist standpoint, such terminological amalgamation was perhaps necessary in order to unite Palestinian Jews and the new arrivals. The “Jew-Arab” dichotomy was also convenient in that it drove a wedge between Jewish and non-Jewish Palestinians. The problem was (and is) that the terms refer to populations, real people, who were encouraged to see themselves and “the others” as different in some qualitative way.
Is not surprising that the term “race”— that in the nineteenth century had connotations that were as much cultural as racial — should be used in reference to the general characteristics of both broadly defined groups. It is unfortunate, however, that “Jews” and “Arabs” came to be thought of as such separate peoples. All the old “orientalist” prejudices of the nineteenth century, including anti-Semitism, could now be applied in a new geopolitical environment in which great-power interests would, once again, be justified by the principle of national self-determination, but this time by helping to create a national entity where the people designated as its active population were not only a minority but also recent immigrants. It was a project legitimized in great part by the idea that “Arab” populations were incapable or unready to assume responsibility for their political destinies.
After the interwar period the term “race” was avoided in reference to the “Jewish-Arab” conflict (because of the prominence of racist ideology in the carrying out of the genocide perpetrated by the Nazi regime against Jews and others). But are racialist connotations excluded from such terminology? Certainly not. Even after the creation of the state of Israel and the emergence of the new mode of referring to the conflict as “Arab-Israeli”, invidious connotations remain attached to the term “Arab”. This is, alas, but one example of how imprecise or misleading language is a tool for political manipulation that holds out the promise of instilling tenacious prejudices, all in the interest of ethnic cleansing.
Israel was created on this basis, and its culture and law are infused with racist presumptions. The very idea of a “Jewish state”, the low-intensity ethnic cleansing operative as state policy, the “law of return” designating Israel as “homeland” for all “Jews” regardless of their existing citizenship or their geographical origins, the biological definition of the term “Jew” (those who are born of a “Jewish” mother), the genocidal practices of control and repression inflicted upon those uprooted from their land and homes in the territories appropriated in 1948 and those living in the territories occupied in June 1967 (see the UN Convention on Genocide for the definition), the second-class status suffered by non-Jewish Palestinians in Israel, all of these things stem from a racialist conception of ethnicity. The Zionist movement was founded on this conception, and in spite of wordplay or wishful thinking the Zionist state continues its long-term project unabated.
Larry Portis is a professor of American studies at the University of Montpellier, France and a founding member of Americans for Peace and Justice in Montpellier. He can be contacted at [286][email protected]
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline LEARN HOW TO USE THE QUOTES CORRECTLY!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU'VE SCREWED UP SEVERAL POSTS
- Login to post comments
Offline Israel, in my opinion, is a terrible, terrible country. I think the things the Israeli government has done, and how America has aided them in doing so, is despicable.
This is somewhat presuppositional and onesided.
Israel is merely defending itself.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
- Login to post comments
Offline Carpe_Omnis wrote:Israel, in my opinion, is a terrible, terrible country. I think the things the Israeli government has done, and how America has aided them in doing so, is despicable.This is somewhat presuppositional and onesided.
Israel is merely defending itself.
And when the Mafia has a shootout with the FBI the Mafia is merely defending itself.
The issue is extremely simple.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all there anyone needs to know about the subject.
Jews are killing their victims to keep what they stole.
Palestinians have the absolute right in international law to use deadly force to regain the property stolen from them.
Palestinians have an absolute right by the Geneva conventions to kill those who occupy them.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline aiia wrote:Carpe_Omnis wrote:Israel, in my opinion, is a terrible, terrible country. I think the things the Israeli government has done, and how America has aided them in doing so, is despicable.This is somewhat presuppositional and onesided.
Israel is merely defending itself.
And when the Mafia has a shootout with the FBI the Mafia is merely defending itself.
The issue is extremely simple.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all there anyone needs to know about the subject.
Jews are killing their victims to keep what they stole.
Palestinians have the absolute right in international law to use deadly force to regain the property stolen from them.
Palestinians have an absolute right by the Geneva conventions to kill those who occupy them.
We actually agree on something - though I lean towards both sides being complete asses because they have gods that tell them they both have divine rights to the same piece of dirt.
However, aren't Palestinians as artificial of a group as Jews (by your logic)?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:aiia wrote:Carpe_Omnis wrote:Israel, in my opinion, is a terrible, terrible country. I think the things the Israeli government has done, and how America has aided them in doing so, is despicable.This is somewhat presuppositional and onesided.
Israel is merely defending itself.
And when the Mafia has a shootout with the FBI the Mafia is merely defending itself.
The issue is extremely simple.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all there anyone needs to know about the subject.
Jews are killing their victims to keep what they stole.
Palestinians have the absolute right in international law to use deadly force to regain the property stolen from them.
Palestinians have an absolute right by the Geneva conventions to kill those who occupy them.
We actually agree on something - though I lean towards both sides being complete asses because they have gods that tell them they both have divine rights to the same piece of dirt.
I have no interest in either side per se. However the Palestinians are simply the people of Palestine who have existed by name for at least 2500 years. They may or may not have a religious aspect to their claim. If they do I have not heard it.
They have the common interest in private property in the form of land, homes, and possessions just as does everyone else. Those things are what were stolen by the Jews.
They were driven out with only what they could carry. Their personal property was looted by Jews, clothing, furniture, rugs, kitchen utensils, everything. A later Israeli study found less than half of it made it to the government warehouses. What did make it to the warehouses was given away to Jews. The entire warehouse thing was just a PR scam to say they were "caring" for abandoned possessions. But when the owners did not come back they pleaded the stolen property had to be put to some use for the cost of the warehousing.
From the beginning those who tried to return were murdered for their efforts. It became common to make them dig their own graves before the Jews murdered them -- in the name of the "jewish people" of course. Not just Muslims but Christians.
Any mention of the above in the west was and is considered proof of antisemitism even though it is confirmed in Israeli records.
If these things are done in the name of the Jews why is not the whole world antisemitic?
However, aren't Palestinians as artificial of a group as Jews (by your logic)?
Palestinians are people from Palestine. They are first mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th c. BC. Herodotus mentioned no "jews" or anyone who could have been them. The name Palestinian means no more than Californian or Mexican.
They have no unity of religion as they were and are Christian, Muslim and Jewish. The first freedom fighters, aka terrorists, against the Zionists were Christians. The Muslims were late comers to it.
Today the term Palestinian means simply the victims of the Jews.
=====
Thought for the hour: Jews wiped Palestine off of the map and no one misses it. Why would anyone care if Israel is wiped off the map? Who would miss it? I would expect the world to sigh with relieve.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:
However, aren't Palestinians as artificial of a group as Jews (by your logic)?
Palestinians are people from Palestine. They are first mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th c. BC. Herodotus mentioned no "jews" or anyone who could have been them. The name Palestinian means no more than Californian or Mexican.
They have no unity of religion as they were and are Christian, Muslim and Jewish. The first freedom fighters, aka terrorists, against the Zionists were Christians. The Muslims were late comers to it.
Today the term Palestinian means simply the victims of the Jews.
=====
So you have no problems with races/peoples created by politics but only with the ones you believe were created by religion?
After all, naming the region Palestine was Hadrian's idea, If you want to go the Palestinian/Philestine route, you'd have a bit more of a case with the attacks on Gaza.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:However, aren't Palestinians as artificial of a group as Jews (by your logic)?Palestinians are people from Palestine. They are first mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th c. BC. Herodotus mentioned no "jews" or anyone who could have been them. The name Palestinian means no more than Californian or Mexican.
They have no unity of religion as they were and are Christian, Muslim and Jewish. The first freedom fighters, aka terrorists, against the Zionists were Christians. The Muslims were late comers to it.
Today the term Palestinian means simply the victims of the Jews.
=====
So you have no problems with races/peoples created by politics but only with the ones you believe were created by religion?
By what failing of the public educational system and/or remedial reading program can you possibly get biological races out of describing people by their political nationality or geopolitical place of residence?
After all, naming the region Palestine was Hadrian's idea, If you want to go the Palestinian/Philestine route, you'd have a bit more of a case with the attacks on Gaza.
Dear fool. Herodotus traveled the region in the 5th c. BC and learned the people called themselves Palestinians. You claim about Hadrian is just plain ignorant.
No one knows how or why the corruption 'Philistine' crept into English translations. Nor does anyone know what lead to the use of the corruption in the Hebrew translation after the proper name was used in the Greek. The one thing that is certain there is no physical evidence of anyone calling themselves Philistine any more than of any other mythical bible people such as Hebrews and Israelites.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:jcgadfly wrote:However, aren't Palestinians as artificial of a group as Jews (by your logic)?Palestinians are people from Palestine. They are first mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th c. BC. Herodotus mentioned no "jews" or anyone who could have been them. The name Palestinian means no more than Californian or Mexican.
They have no unity of religion as they were and are Christian, Muslim and Jewish. The first freedom fighters, aka terrorists, against the Zionists were Christians. The Muslims were late comers to it.
Today the term Palestinian means simply the victims of the Jews.
=====
So you have no problems with races/peoples created by politics but only with the ones you believe were created by religion?
By what failing of the public educational system and/or remedial reading program can you possibly get biological races out of describing people by their political nationality or geopolitical place of residence?
jcgadfly wrote:After all, naming the region Palestine was Hadrian's idea, If you want to go the Palestinian/Philestine route, you'd have a bit more of a case with the attacks on Gaza.Dear fool. Herodotus traveled the region in the 5th c. BC and learned the people called themselves Palestinians. You claim about Hadrian is just plain ignorant.
No one knows how or why the corruption 'Philistine' crept into English translations. Nor does anyone know what lead to the use of the corruption in the Hebrew translation after the proper name was used in the Greek. The one thing that is certain there is no physical evidence of anyone calling themselves Philistine any more than of any other mythical bible people such as Hebrews and Israelites.
So, yes, your double standard sticks out like a sore thumb. Thank you.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:jcgadfly wrote:However, aren't Palestinians as artificial of a group as Jews (by your logic)?Palestinians are people from Palestine. They are first mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th c. BC. Herodotus mentioned no "jews" or anyone who could have been them. The name Palestinian means no more than Californian or Mexican.
They have no unity of religion as they were and are Christian, Muslim and Jewish. The first freedom fighters, aka terrorists, against the Zionists were Christians. The Muslims were late comers to it.
Today the term Palestinian means simply the victims of the Jews.
=====
So you have no problems with races/peoples created by politics but only with the ones you believe were created by religion?
By what failing of the public educational system and/or remedial reading program can you possibly get biological races out of describing people by their political nationality or geopolitical place of residence?
jcgadfly wrote:After all, naming the region Palestine was Hadrian's idea, If you want to go the Palestinian/Philestine route, you'd have a bit more of a case with the attacks on Gaza.Dear fool. Herodotus traveled the region in the 5th c. BC and learned the people called themselves Palestinians. You claim about Hadrian is just plain ignorant.
No one knows how or why the corruption 'Philistine' crept into English translations. Nor does anyone know what lead to the use of the corruption in the Hebrew translation after the proper name was used in the Greek. The one thing that is certain there is no physical evidence of anyone calling themselves Philistine any more than of any other mythical bible people such as Hebrews and Israelites.
So, yes, your double standard sticks out like a sore thumb. Thank you.
You continue your nazi insistence that Jews are a race.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline It is not Nazi to insist that Jews are a race. Otherwise Jews are Nazis, aren't they? FTW
...But, and I can't remember if you mentioned this or not so if so, 'good job'... but Zionism really was an idea promoted by Hitler and his regime. I believe that if you research your facts, which it seems you have on this topic, you'd find that many Jews find Israel to be not only blasphemous to their religion (which insists that they must not re-inhabit the land until their Messiah leads them back to it), but birthed by Anti-Semitic ideals and promotion. I believe we are in agreement on this.
What you don't seem to grasp, is that to blame the atrocities committed by the nation of Israel on "Jews" does not make sense, given what I just spoke of (that is, that many Jews do not support Israel, and that Jews live all over the world... and that the term you are really looking for is 'Israelis... who also happen to be Jews." ) .
Also,
jcgadfly wrote:
"So, yes, your double standard sticks out like a sore thumb. Thank you."
I completely agree. Your defense for your double standard makes no sense. Everything you've said here makes no sense.
The only things you've said which have any foundation in logic is your accusations against Israel and their inhumane military actions, and that Zionism is heavily rooted in anti-Semitism.
- Login to post comments
Offline It is not Nazi to insist that Jews are a race. Otherwise Jews are Nazis, aren't they? FTW
Your opinion is your own. The only agreed definition of race is from the science of anthropology. Being followers of a religion does not satisfy that criteria.
I noted the Latter Day Saints are a religion and they intermarry. Are you going to tell me there is an LDS race? Christians also intermarry. Is there a Christian race? A Muslim race? A Hindu race?
It is well known that Ashkenazi and Sephardim are unrelated by ancestry. Is it also well know they do not share a common culture outside of religion. The Sephardim are as kind and generous and friendly as Muslims. The Ashkenazim are New Yorkers.
So I invite you to present your personal, private definition of race which fits the fantasy about Jews being a race.
...But, and I can't remember if you mentioned this or not so if so, 'good job'... but Zionism really was an idea promoted by Hitler and his regime. I believe that if you research your facts, which it seems you have on this topic, you'd find that many Jews find Israel to be not only blasphemous to their religion (which insists that they must not re-inhabit the land until their Messiah leads them back to it), but birthed by Anti-Semitic ideals and promotion. I believe we are in agreement on this.
Yes, the NSDAP financed getting Jews into Palestine in the 30s. The WJO called the zionists on the carpet for violating the jewish embargo on Germany over it. And the refusal of German Jews to denounce that embargo and defend Germany was proof positive they were not loyal Germans.
What you don't seem to grasp, is that to blame the atrocities committed by the nation of Israel on "Jews" does not make sense, given what I just spoke of (that is, that many Jews do not support Israel, and that Jews live all over the world... and that the term you are really looking for is 'Israelis... who also happen to be Jews." ) .
I make EXACTLY the same distinctions between Israel and Jews that Israel makes and that the overwhelming majority of Jews make. I decline to make any distinction that is not made in common usage by Israel and Jews. It is not possible to make any such distinction as there is no common public criteria for any distinction.
I have been following the public demonstrations for and against the current slaughter in Palestine. The JEWISH PRO-SLAUGHTER rallies have been at least ten to one over the rallies by Jews against the slaughter. It is not now nor has it ever been a custom to bother making a distinction when there is only ten percent against.
I do not see why you would want to substitute "90+% of Jews" for Jews. That would highlight only 10% of Jews can be considered to have a normal human conscience.
jcgadfly wrote:"So, yes, your double standard sticks out like a sore thumb. Thank you."
I completely agree. Your defense for your double standard makes no sense. Everything you've said here makes no sense.
The only things you've said which have any foundation in logic is your accusations against Israel and their inhumane military actions, and that Zionism is heavily rooted in anti-Semitism.
Zionism is rooted in murder and theft and nothing else. Its fundamental premise was that Jews could never assimilate into Christian Europe. This premise was later adopted by the NSDAP. And for 60 years they have demonstrated they cannot assimilate into the middle east.
As to the claim I have a double standard, please recite BOTH standards or have the courtesy to admit you are making up an accusation without foundation.
My sig is an active link. It shows what has been done to the Palestinians this time around. Down at the bottom of the page is a link showing the Jews' justification for it all. Excuse me, showing 90% of the Jews ... etc
When Israel started this slaughter, it announced it was going to remove Hamas. Hamas is still there. They have lost this war too.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Carpe_Omnis wrote:Israel, in my opinion, is a terrible, terrible country. I think the things the Israeli government has done, and how America has aided them in doing so, is despicable.This is somewhat presuppositional and onesided.
Israel is merely defending itself.
Israel is defending itself from this http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/GAZA-2/index.html
by doing this http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/index.html
You know you are antisemitic unless http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/index.phtml
<P><HR><P>
If atheists need promotional material all they have to do is agree Israelis are God's chosen People. -- The Iron Webmaster, 448
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline It seems like you're making the mistake that the Israeli and American governments are making.
You say "All Israelis are Zionists". They say "All Palestinians are Muslim terrorists".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Why don't we destroy America before destroying Israel? Look at the attempted genocide of native Americans and the theft of their land. Even after the defeat of the various tribes, treaty violations and evil experiments involving radioactive iodine were performed on the natives. If we are to follow the neo-Nazi's logic, we must hold all American's accountable for these crimes. And according to little Hitler here, the punishment is death. All American's must be executed for these crimes against humanity. Germany must be destroyed as well, because they did not pay in full the death penalty for genocide. We also have to destroy France, Russia, Armenia, South Africa, Bosnia, Ireland, the Philippines, Guatemala, Australia, Cambodia, Brazil, China, and Great Brittan. Lets not waste time with a small fry like Israel until we have fully punished these other countries.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
- Login to post comments
Offline We came to the question: what to with the women and children? I decided to find a clear solution here as well. I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men - that is, to kill them or have them killed - and allow the avengers of our sons and grandsons in the form of their children to grow up. The difficult decision had to be taken to make this people disappear from the earth__Heinrich Himler, speech at Posen, Oct 6, 1943.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
- Login to post comments
Offline It seems like you're making the mistake that the Israeli and American governments are making.
You say
"All Israelis are Zionists". They say "All Palestinians are Muslim terrorists".
I want you to note I make exactly the same distinctions as are made the elected officials of the government of Israel. If you have any complaints you have a much more important entity to correct before you get to little me.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Why don't we destroy America before destroying Israel? Look at the attempted genocide of native Americans and the theft of their land.
At least you agree Jews are engaged in genocide.
Even after the defeat of the various tribes, treaty violations and evil experiments involving radioactive iodine were performed on the natives.
Do not forget the 100,000 children Israel dosed with 35,000 times the safe dosage of X-Rays in medical experiments.
If we are to follow the neo-Nazi's logic, we must hold all American's accountable for these crimes. And according to little Hitler here, the punishment is death. All American's must be executed for these crimes against humanity. Germany must be destroyed as well, because they did not pay in full the death penalty for genocide.
You just said attempted genocide. If they has succeeded Palstinians would not be suffering from Jews.
We also have to destroy France, Russia, Armenia, South Africa, Bosnia, Ireland, the Philippines, Guatemala, Australia, Cambodia, Brazil, China, and Great Brittan. Lets not waste time with a small fry like Israel until we have fully punished these other countries.
When you show me Israel's treaties ceding the land to the Jews as the US has wtih the Indians you may have a case.
Should you be interested in posting any other lame propaganda please review the following and come up with one I have not ridiculed for being simplistic lies that only a Zionist is stupid enough to believe.
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/myth-fact.phtml
From the early 1920s Jews planned to murder the Palestinians and steal their land. They did so in 1948. They renewed their efforts in 1967. They are doing it to this very day.
If you support thieves and murderers you are the same as the thieves and murderers.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline We came to the question: what to with the women and children? I decided to find a clear solution here as well. I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men - that is, to kill them or have them killed - and allow the avengers of our sons and grandsons in the form of their children to grow up. The difficult decision had to be taken to make this people disappear from the earth__Heinrich Himler, speech at Posen, Oct 6, 1943.
Well over half of the victims of the Jews in Gaza were women and children.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline
If you support thieves and murderers you are the same as the thieves and murderers.
Wow, an admission that you are the same as a thief and murderer, since you support, defend, and lie to justify the actons of the Nazis.
So what does that make me, seeing as I have not defended the actions of anyone? Oh, yeah, I remember. It makes me the guy that is anxiously awaiting your example of an ethnic group. 
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:If you support thieves and murderers you are the same as the thieves and murderers.
Wow, an admission that you are the same as a thief and murderer, since you support, defend, and lie to justify the actons of the Nazis.
You are invited to either show where I have ever justified, which is different from explained, the actions of the Nazis or retract that lie. Why is it all you can do is lie about what I have said?
So what does that make me, seeing as I have not defended the actions of anyone? Oh, yeah, I remember. It makes me the guy that is anxiously awaiting your example of an ethnic group.
I have never claimed there were any ethnic groups. Who but an idiot would be waiting an example from me?
I have simply shown Jews are not an ethnic group and NO ONE has answered my evidentiary recitals of why they are not. You have been been studiously silent on answering the reasons they are not.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:It seems like you're making the mistake that the Israeli and American governments are making.
You say
"All Israelis are Zionists". They say "All Palestinians are Muslim terrorists".
I want you to note I make exactly the same distinctions as are made the elected officials of the government of Israel. If you have any complaints you have a much more important entity to correct before you get to little me.
Which distinction would that be? Or do you agree with both statements?
As for your double standard - It seems that you're insisting that Palestinians are an ethnic group even though both groups were created by politics.
Feel free to correct, not insult. Insults just show me you have no counter.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline How on earth the man can deny that he is defending the Nazi's is beyond my comprehension. Here is just a sample of his numerous defenses.
Self confessed murdering thief: I find it interesting that followers of the holocaust religion are unable to agree among themselves as to exactly what happened and refrain from disagreement as deligently as Christians at a World Council of Churches convention.
( Defense of Nazis by pretending the holocaust never happened. )
Self confessed murdering thief: All I know about numbers is that in 2004 Israel formally stated that there were one million holocaust survivors still alive in that year.
www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/20/news/holocaust.php
( A newspaper article is NOT a formal statement by Israel. You have intentionally lied about this, and with malicious intent used deliberately flawed math to pretend the holocaust did not happen. More support of the Nazis. )
Self confessed murdering thief: But if you had ever read the Nuremberg transcripts I would be telling you things you already know. But you have no idea what that kangaroo court was like.
( If this is not defense of them, I don't know what is. )
Self confessed murdering thief: My path was simply an interest in science. I had read descriptions of death by Zyklon-B and never could figure out what the gas was. I didn't care much about it. It wasn't of much interest to me. I was/am US Navy even if civilian. Remember the USS Liberty! Never forgive! Never forget! is our motto. But one day I came across the true statement that Zyklon-B was plain, ordinary cyanide as is used in US gas chambers. My first thought was that had to be wrong because cyanide does not kill in the manner of the descriptions I had read. The pathology of cyanide poisoning was entirely different from the descriptions of death by Zyklon-B.
( Nazi's confessed that Zyklon-B was used to gas prisoners. We also know from their own confessions that they learned how to apply it through trial and error. Despite their own confessions, you still lie about the use of Zyklon B in order to defend them, trying to pretend that there is some discrepancy in the use in order to make people doubt the holocaust. And what is this about the description of death not matching that of cyanide? Here is a quote from one of your murdering peers regarding its use.
" As the Zyklon B -- as already mentioned -- was in granular form, it trickled down over the people as it was being poured in. They then started to cry out terribly for they now knew what was happening to them. I did not look through the opening because it had to be closed as soon as the Zyklon B had been poured in. After a few minutes there was silence. After some time had passed, it may have been ten to fifteen minutes, the gas chamber was opened.The dead lay higgledy-piggedly all over the place. It was a dreadful sight."
Maximillian Grabner, Head of Political Department, Auschwitz
There is no difference in this description and that of descriptions of death in prison gas chambers. Again, this is a clear, deliberate attempt to defend the Nazis. )
I find it hilarious that our resident racist proclaims in his own words that he is no better than a murderous thief. I don't think he intended for it to be applied to him, but it certainly seems to fit.
Now, as for the ethnic thing. If the liar does not believe that there are ethnic groups, why did he try so hard to demonstrate that a specific group was not an ethnic group? Seems kind of stupid to set the parameters for an ethnic group, then insist that there are none, doesn't it? Oh well, can't expect a liar to be consistent.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:It seems like you're making the mistake that the Israeli and American governments are making.
You say
"All Israelis are Zionists". They say "All Palestinians are Muslim terrorists".
I want you to note I make exactly the same distinctions as are made the elected officials of the government of Israel. If you have any complaints you have a much more important entity to correct before you get to little me.
Which distinction would that be? Or do you agree with both statements?
As for your double standard - It seems that you're insisting that Palestinians are an ethnic group even though both groups were created by politics.
Feel free to correct, not insult. Insults just show me you have no counter.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:I make exactly the same disctions which is none.A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:It seems like you're making the mistake that the Israeli and American governments are making.
You say
"All Israelis are Zionists". They say "All Palestinians are Muslim terrorists".
I want you to note I make exactly the same distinctions as are made the elected officials of the government of Israel. If you have any complaints you have a much more important entity to correct before you get to little me.
Which distinction would that be? Or do you agree with both statements?
jcgadfly wrote:I have never claimed Palestinians were an ethnic group.As for your double standard - It seems that you're insisting that Palestinians are an ethnic group even though both groups were created by politics.jcgadfly wrote:It is difficult to avoid "insults" when I read nothing but deliberate misrepresentations of what I have said. Perhaps if you stopped lying about what I have said your tender sensibilities would escape unscathed.Feel free to correct, not insult. Insults just show me you have no counter.
If it reads like you're misrepresenting yourself either:
1. You're not expressing yourself clearly.
2. You're misrepresenting yourself.
In either case, fix the ptoblem.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline How on earth the man can deny that he is defending the Nazi's is beyond my comprehension. Here is just a sample of his numerous defenses.
The truth is merely the truth. That you take the truth as a defense is your desired interpretation. I cannot be responsible for what you choose to do.
Self confessed murdering thief: I find it interesting that followers of the holocaust religion are unable to agree among themselves as to exactly what happened and refrain from disagreement as deligently as Christians at a World Council of Churches convention.
( Defense of Nazis by pretending the holocaust never happened. )
Unlike gullible believers I require physical evidence particularly in light of the 27.5 million survivors in 1945.
Self confessed murdering thief: All I know about numbers is that in 2004 Israel formally stated that there were one million holocaust survivors still alive in that year.
www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/20/news/holocaust.php
( A newspaper article is NOT a formal statement by Israel. You have intentionally lied about this, and with malicious intent used deliberately flawed math to pretend the holocaust did not happen. More support of the Nazis. )
If you are claiming the report is in error you are free to correct all the people using the one million number including the newspaper. As to the math, when and if you are capable of presenting the correct calculation you are simply incapable of understanding the subject. Your ignorance does not make my correct calculation erronious. PLEASE learn elementary arithmetic. It will serve you well after you graduate from high school.
Self confessed murdering thief: But if you had ever read the Nuremberg transcripts I would be telling you things you already know. But you have no idea what that kangaroo court was like.
( If this is not defense of them, I don't know what is. )
It was a kangaroo court. That is a statement of fact. Why do you dislike the facts? Do they harm your adolescent fantasies?
Self confessed murdering thief: My path was simply an interest in science. I had read descriptions of death by Zyklon-B and never could figure out what the gas was. I didn't care much about it. It wasn't of much interest to me. I was/am US Navy even if civilian. Remember the USS Liberty! Never forgive! Never forget! is our motto. But one day I came across the true statement that Zyklon-B was plain, ordinary cyanide as is used in US gas chambers. My first thought was that had to be wrong because cyanide does not kill in the manner of the descriptions I had read. The pathology of cyanide poisoning was entirely different from the descriptions of death by Zyklon-B.
( Nazi's confessed that Zyklon-B was used to gas prisoners. We also know from their own confessions that they learned how to apply it through trial and error. Despite their own confessions, you still lie about the use of Zyklon B in order to defend them, trying to pretend that there is some discrepancy in the use in order to make people doubt the holocaust. And what is this about the description of death not matching that of cyanide? Here is a quote from one of your murdering peers regarding its use.
As cyanide does not kill as described by the so-called eyewitnesses does that not indicate to you they are lying? If not, why not?
" As the Zyklon B -- as already mentioned -- was in granular form, it trickled down over the people as it was being poured in. They then started to cry out terribly for they now knew what was happening to them. I did not look through the opening because it had to be closed as soon as the Zyklon B had been poured in. After a few minutes there was silence. After some time had passed, it may have been ten to fifteen minutes, the gas chamber was opened.The dead lay higgledy-piggedly all over the place. It was a dreadful sight."
Maximillian Grabner, Head of Political Department, Auschwitz
There is no difference in this description and that of descriptions of death in prison gas chambers. Again, this is a clear, deliberate attempt to defend the Nazis. )
It does not take much research to find descriptions of death by the same cyanide gas in US gas chambers. If you were to do the elementary research you would see the pathology is different from described.
Besides that, the only place Grabner could have "said" that is to the communists. And you know communists never lie.
I find it hilarious that our resident racist proclaims in his own words that he is no better than a murderous thief. I don't think he intended for it to be applied to him, but it certainly seems to fit.
Now, as for the ethnic thing. If the liar does not believe that there are ethnic groups, why did he try so hard to demonstrate that a specific group was not an ethnic group? Seems kind of stupid to set the parameters for an ethnic group, then insist that there are none, doesn't it? Oh well, can't expect a liar to be consistent.
You are really too stupid to participate in this exchange. I can only suggest you find something better to do with your time.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:I make exactly the same disctions which is none.A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:It seems like you're making the mistake that the Israeli and American governments are making.
You say
"All Israelis are Zionists". They say "All Palestinians are Muslim terrorists".
I want you to note I make exactly the same distinctions as are made the elected officials of the government of Israel. If you have any complaints you have a much more important entity to correct before you get to little me.
Which distinction would that be? Or do you agree with both statements?
jcgadfly wrote:I have never claimed Palestinians were an ethnic group.As for your double standard - It seems that you're insisting that Palestinians are an ethnic group even though both groups were created by politics.jcgadfly wrote:It is difficult to avoid "insults" when I read nothing but deliberate misrepresentations of what I have said. Perhaps if you stopped lying about what I have said your tender sensibilities would escape unscathed.Feel free to correct, not insult. Insults just show me you have no counter.If it reads like you're misrepresenting yourself either:
1. You're not expressing yourself clearly.
2. You're misrepresenting yourself.
In either case, fix the ptoblem.
Most likely I am writing above your reading level.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:I make exactly the same disctions which is none.A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:It seems like you're making the mistake that the Israeli and American governments are making.
You say
"All Israelis are Zionists". They say "All Palestinians are Muslim terrorists".
I want you to note I make exactly the same distinctions as are made the elected officials of the government of Israel. If you have any complaints you have a much more important entity to correct before you get to little me.
Which distinction would that be? Or do you agree with both statements?
jcgadfly wrote:I have never claimed Palestinians were an ethnic group.As for your double standard - It seems that you're insisting that Palestinians are an ethnic group even though both groups were created by politics.jcgadfly wrote:It is difficult to avoid "insults" when I read nothing but deliberate misrepresentations of what I have said. Perhaps if you stopped lying about what I have said your tender sensibilities would escape unscathed.Feel free to correct, not insult. Insults just show me you have no counter.If it reads like you're misrepresenting yourself either:
1. You're not expressing yourself clearly.
2. You're misrepresenting yourself.
In either case, fix the ptoblem.
Most likely I am writing above your reading level.
So you're admitting I'm right? Insults are little more than a concession. I accept your surrender.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:I make exactly the same disctions which is none.A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:It seems like you're making the mistake that the Israeli and American governments are making.
You say
"All Israelis are Zionists". They say "All Palestinians are Muslim terrorists".
I want you to note I make exactly the same distinctions as are made the elected officials of the government of Israel. If you have any complaints you have a much more important entity to correct before you get to little me.
Which distinction would that be? Or do you agree with both statements?
jcgadfly wrote:I have never claimed Palestinians were an ethnic group.As for your double standard - It seems that you're insisting that Palestinians are an ethnic group even though both groups were created by politics.jcgadfly wrote:It is difficult to avoid "insults" when I read nothing but deliberate misrepresentations of what I have said. Perhaps if you stopped lying about what I have said your tender sensibilities would escape unscathed.Feel free to correct, not insult. Insults just show me you have no counter.If it reads like you're misrepresenting yourself either:
1. You're not expressing yourself clearly.
2. You're misrepresenting yourself.
In either case, fix the ptoblem.
Most likely I am writing above your reading level.
So you're admitting I'm right? Insults are little more than a concession. I accept your surrender.
The word games that worked for you on the schoolyard playground demonstrate your immaturity in adult company.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:I make exactly the same disctions which is none.A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly wrote:It seems like you're making the mistake that the Israeli and American governments are making.
You say
"All Israelis are Zionists". They say "All Palestinians are Muslim terrorists".
I want you to note I make exactly the same distinctions as are made the elected officials of the government of Israel. If you have any complaints you have a much more important entity to correct before you get to little me.
Which distinction would that be? Or do you agree with both statements?
jcgadfly wrote:I have never claimed Palestinians were an ethnic group.As for your double standard - It seems that you're insisting that Palestinians are an ethnic group even though both groups were created by politics.jcgadfly wrote:It is difficult to avoid "insults" when I read nothing but deliberate misrepresentations of what I have said. Perhaps if you stopped lying about what I have said your tender sensibilities would escape unscathed.Feel free to correct, not insult. Insults just show me you have no counter.If it reads like you're misrepresenting yourself either:
1. You're not expressing yourself clearly.
2. You're misrepresenting yourself.
In either case, fix the ptoblem.
Most likely I am writing above your reading level.
So you're admitting I'm right? Insults are little more than a concession. I accept your surrender.
The word games that worked for you on the schoolyard playground demonstrate your immaturity in adult company.
quit surendering to me - you're embarrassing yourself.
Why can't you accept that you have two sets of rules because you don't like Israelis? You're deluding yourself when you claim you don't have a position.
The "All Israelis are Zionist animals and should be killed" bit that you espouse has one thing in common with the government's stand that "all Palestinians are terrorists and should be killed" rule. Neither concept is effective at solving the underlying problems.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline This is a complement to the invention of the Jewish people. This also gives a concise summary of how the myth of a jewish "race" got started. The author does make a mistake in referring to Jews as an ethnic group. Anyone wishing to claim they are needs be prepared to describe their ethnic characteristics which are independent of religion. They get desperate. Once some nerfbrain tried to argue that their ethnic characteristics became their religion and therefore only an antisemite™ would disagree with him.
http://www.counterpunch.org/portis12262008.html
Weekend Edtion December 26-28, 2008
How the Zionists Created "Races" in Palestine
Changing the Ethnic Vocabulary
By LARRY PORTIS
Between the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and the creation of the United Jewish Agency in 1929, the evolution of political vocabulary in relation to ethnic groups in Palestine accompanied the emergence of an increasingly difficult geopolitical problem.
At the time, notions of nationhood were at the center of all questions of foreign affairs. Although touted as a solution to collective conflicts in general, national self-determination was at best a tenuous idea that tended to obscure the re-composition of empires or, at least, the transfer of their control from one powerful entity to another.
Spokespersons for the Zionist movement intervened actively in the US popular press during this period of transition between the defeat of the Turkish Empire (end of 1917) and the eventual implementation of the British Mandate in Palestine (April 1920). This journalistic activity was particularly important in the United States because financial donations from the large and relatively wealthy Jewish population in the US were vital to the Zionist project in Palestine.
Contrary to predictions of stability under the British Mandate, British control was inaugurated by riots caused by increased Jewish immigration. In July 1921, after one year of the new British administration, the Literary Digest noted that fears concerning the Zionist project were articulated in Palestine and also in neighboring countries and in the United States. Reviewing reactions to the events in Palestine in Arab-American publications, the Digest found, as did Arab newspapers in the Middle East, that there was a careful distinction drawn between attitudes concerning Jewish people and those concerning Zionism. In Al-Bayan, a Syrian newspaper published in New York, it was feared that there was much misrepresentation “as to the real ground of opposition in Palestine to Zionism”. This concern was echoed by the Meraat-ul-Gharb (New York) asserting that “the people of Palestine do not hate the Jews, but hate Zionism.” The Syrian Eagle (New York) found it ironic that it was the Palestinians who were being accused of religious fanaticism when it was the Zionists who were immigrating to Palestine out of “religious sentimental” motivations. The editorialist then asked: “Has it come to this, that we must plead with England for possession of our own country, and prove to a credulous world that Palestine really does not belong to the Zionists?”
Although it was never explicitly stated, confusion existed over how to refer to the members of different ethnic groups in Palestine. In an article in the Literary Digest of November 5, 1921, for example, reference is editorially made to “Arab Mohammedans”, “native Christians” and “Jewish colonists”. But this circumspection is in contrast to the ethnic characterizations of Chaim Weizmann, president of the Zionist Congress, who in the same article referred simply to “Jew and Arab”, or to those the British High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, quoted as approving “the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish race (my italics)”. Samuel (who was Jewish) tended to reduce the population of Palestine to “the Jew”, on the one hand and “the Arab”, on the other.
Even as he attempted to allay the fears of the non-Jewish population of Palestine, Samuel systematically employed a schematic vocabulary that obscured perceptions of the situation. For him, the “Jewries of the world” were simply attempting to establish their home “in the land which was the political, and has always been the religious, center of their race.” Several years later, the political secretary of the World Zionist Organization, Conrad Stein, castigated the “few mischief makers” who were “doing their best to keep the two races in Palestine apart.” (my italics)
In 1926, an anonymous “Friendly Visitor” wrote in the magazine Living Age about the “racial situation” in Palestine stating that “up to the present the two races are living side by side without intermingling” explaining that such exclusiveness was good because the Zionist policy was not to exploit Arab labor, but rather to encourage Jews to work in all sectors of the economy. The idea was that separate development, avoiding ethnic segmentation of the work force, would lead to more rapid improvement of Arab living standards: “as soon as the Arabs' standard of living has risen and the wages of the two races are equalized such discrimination will automatically disappear.” In addition, Jews must be encouraged to do agricultural labor, for “[n]othing but agriculture can change the Jews from a nation of traders into a nation with a normal distribution of its people into all branches of productive labor. The movement to the farm is the corner stone of racial regeneration.”
Zionist spokespersons incessantly emphasized that the Jews were a separate and distinct people or race. At the same time, the Muslim and Christian Palestinians were also referred to as a racial group: the “Arabs”. Less and less were the different participants in the drama designated as Europeans and Palestinians, or Jews, Muslims, Christians or Druzes. Increasingly, only two groups seemed to be present: the “Jews” and the “Arabs”. In only a few years, non-Jewish representatives of the region would also begin to speak in terms of “race” when referring to the different ethnic groups in Palestine.
Arnold Toynbee, the famous historian, raised a related question in The New Republic in 1922. For him, the trouble in Palestine lay in the imposition of a western idea — nationalism — in a region culturally unprepared for it. Palestine, regardless of its religious complexity, was in fact “a comparatively homogeneous country”. But a western political idea called “nationality” and the rise of national feeling in Palestine has “produced two effects. On the one hand, the Moslem and Christian Arabs began to feel themselves one with their Arab neighbors, especially with those of Syria, from which Palestine is divided by no physical boundaries. On the other hand, the Palestinian Jews, especially the agricultural colonists, and, still more, a majority of the Jewish ‘Dispersion’ all over the world, began to look forward to making Palestine eventually their own in the sense in which the United States belongs to the American people or France to the French.” Toynbee observed that the commitment of the British, United-Statesian, French and Italian governments to the “hazardous experiment” of the implantation of Zionism in Palestine would lead to more and more explosions of violence.
By the end of 1922 the future of social conflict within Palestine, and the uses of Palestine by powerful states, had been thoroughly discussed. The nature of Zionism as a nationalist political movement, its uses by the governments of the major western countries, the determining events in the creation of an almost intractable political situation, all of these dimensions of the “question of Palestine” were well known by educated readers. The way towards the eventual creation of a Jewish state seems to have been traced out well in advance of the actual event.
By the late 1920s, outbreaks of ethnic violence in Palestine tended to reinforce the idea that the population was divided into two irreconcilable camps. One result was the attenuation of disagreements between Jewish people over the legitimacy of the Zionist project. The creation of a reorganized Jewish Agency supportive of the colonization of Palestine, but not declaredly Zionist, seems to be related to the situation.
In November 1928, the Literary Digest cited a variety of Jewish-American periodicals (such as the American Hebrew in New York, the Jewish Tribune in New York, the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia, and the Canadian Jewish Chronicle in Montreal) in which various “non-Zionist” spokespersons expressed their solidarity with the Jewish immigration to Palestine. At a conference in New York organized by the jurist Louis Marshall, Marshall proclaimed: “there are no longer Zionists and non-Zionists. We are all Jews together.” “American Israel”, ran the conclusion, “is at last united in a ‘pact of glory’ […] for the up-building of Palestine.” Here, the use of the term “Israel” in reference to the Jewish population of the United States is significant for its “national” implications. The expression “Israel”, used to designate a people seen as a nation, will eventually denote the nation as concretized in the “nation state”.
When the United Jewish Agency was officially formed at the Zionist congress at Zurich in August 1929, its creation announced a new phase in the conflict over the destiny of Palestine.
The new Agency created at the Zionist meeting was composed of one-half non-Zionist members. The importance was that these non-Zionists promised to support the pursuit of the Jewish projects in Palestine, projects that, in fact, are properly called “Zionist”. But now the Jewish colonization of Palestine was no longer presented as a specifically Zionist project, but rather as a “Jewish” aspiration. Consequently, the demographic transformation of Palestine no longer expressed the same degree of dissension among Jews.
To refer to “Zionists” would henceforth tend to be perceived as an implicitly critical assessment of the project itself. The new political correctness was not the word “Zionist”, which implied a secular political movement in favor of a particular ethnic group, but rather a new application in this particular political context of the word “Jewish”. Replacing “Zionist” by “Jewish” consensually united all members of the confessional group in the same project by agreeing to not to disagree over modes of expression and ultimate goals.
It is possible that the new consensus among non-Palestinian (European and North-American) Jews, symbolized by the United Jewish Agency, contributed to the tragic events accompanying its emergence. The inter-ethnic violence of August 1929 may have been directly related to the creation of the United Jewish Agency. This is the opinion of the well-known writer John Gunther, who was not unfriendly to the Zionist cause. According to him, “the formation of the Agency was a direct factor contributing to the riots, because it incited outbursts of chauvinism by Jews in Palestine, and this led to Arab retaliation.”
Whatever the case, the decade of the 1920s saw the emergence of ethnic hostilities in Palestine that would not be resolved by the eventual creation of the state of Israel. The dilemma of “national” identifications linked to racialist notions is a field for political exploitation that has remained all-too-fertile and tempting for demagogues of all persuasions. In this particular case, by incessantly juxtaposing the two terms, “Jew” and “Arab”, often in a context of comparative evaluation detrimental to the latter, a confusion was created between, on the one hand, religious confession and, on the other hand, culture regardless of religion.
From a Zionist standpoint, such terminological amalgamation was perhaps necessary in order to unite Palestinian Jews and the new arrivals. The “Jew-Arab” dichotomy was also convenient in that it drove a wedge between Jewish and non-Jewish Palestinians. The problem was (and is) that the terms refer to populations, real people, who were encouraged to see themselves and “the others” as different in some qualitative way.
Is not surprising that the term “race”— that in the nineteenth century had connotations that were as much cultural as racial — should be used in reference to the general characteristics of both broadly defined groups. It is unfortunate, however, that “Jews” and “Arabs” came to be thought of as such separate peoples. All the old “orientalist” prejudices of the nineteenth century, including anti-Semitism, could now be applied in a new geopolitical environment in which great-power interests would, once again, be justified by the principle of national self-determination, but this time by helping to create a national entity where the people designated as its active population were not only a minority but also recent immigrants. It was a project legitimized in great part by the idea that “Arab” populations were incapable or unready to assume responsibility for their political destinies.
After the interwar period the term “race” was avoided in reference to the “Jewish-Arab” conflict (because of the prominence of racist ideology in the carrying out of the genocide perpetrated by the Nazi regime against Jews and others). But are racialist connotations excluded from such terminology? Certainly not. Even after the creation of the state of Israel and the emergence of the new mode of referring to the conflict as “Arab-Israeli”, invidious connotations remain attached to the term “Arab”. This is, alas, but one example of how imprecise or misleading language is a tool for political manipulation that holds out the promise of instilling tenacious prejudices, all in the interest of ethnic cleansing.
Israel was created on this basis, and its culture and law are infused with racist presumptions. The very idea of a “Jewish state”, the low-intensity ethnic cleansing operative as state policy, the “law of return” designating Israel as “homeland” for all “Jews” regardless of their existing citizenship or their geographical origins, the biological definition of the term “Jew” (those who are born of a “Jewish” mother), the genocidal practices of control and repression inflicted upon those uprooted from their land and homes in the territories appropriated in 1948 and those living in the territories occupied in June 1967 (see the UN Convention on Genocide for the definition), the second-class status suffered by non-Jewish Palestinians in Israel, all of these things stem from a racialist conception of ethnicity. The Zionist movement was founded on this conception, and in spite of wordplay or wishful thinking the Zionist state continues its long-term project unabated.
Larry Portis is a professor of American studies at the University of Montpellier, France and a founding member of Americans for Peace and Justice in Montpellier. He can be contacted at [286][email protected]
That's one fucking long article. I was hoping for a few pictures thrown in.
BTW. What does Semitic mean?
- Login to post comments
Offline ...Anyone wishing to claim they are needs be prepared to describe their ethnic characteristics which are independent of religion. ...
True, Jews are NOT distinguished simply distinguished by their religion, as they are Semitic, just as Arabs are.
Being of the same ethnicity, (although I'm not a geneticist) it would be logical to assume that Semites share more genetic similarities to each other, than to other ethnic groups.
It's NOT true that Jews are distinguished simply by their religion, as their are Atheist Jews whom follow Jewish traditions, and are no less Jewish than religious Jews, except in the minds of the right-wing Jews, and neo-Nazi's.
(Frankly, I can't find any difference between right-wing Jews and neo-Nazi's), but that's aside from the point...
Which is... that Jews CAN ALSO be distinguished by their ancestry, as well as, their belief in and / or practice of a variety of Jewish traditions.
The point being that Jews may OR MAY NOT be religious (i.e. believe in "God"). So, your statement above is FALSE, and as it is fundamental to your topic, I can reliably inform you that you are ignorant with regard to your claim as to what a Jew is.
BTW. It could also be said that some Jews may simply identify themselves as Jews simply because of their ancestry and WITHOUT REGARD to the religious belief that
one's mother must be a Jew, for her offspring to also be
a considered as Jewish.
Interestingly, that statement would be a similarity between Nazis and very liberal minded Jews, not to say that they share much else in common.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:True, Jews are NOT distinguished simply distinguished by their religion, as they are Semitic, just as Arabs are....Anyone wishing to claim they are needs be prepared to describe their ethnic characteristics which are independent of religion. ...
I notice you are not prepared to describe these characteristics which are independent of religion. Why is that?
Being of the same ethnicity, (although I'm not a geneticist) it would be logical to assume that Semites share more genetic similarities to each other, than to other ethnic groups.
The term "semite" refers to a native speaker of one of the semitic languages. While there are some genetic markers associated with people from regions where semitic languages are the norm, most self described Jews do not have them. Simply, Jews from eastern Europe, the Ashkenazi, do not have these markers. Therefore all Jews do not share a genetic heritage.
As noted many times in other posts the Sephardi, the "asian" Jew and the Palestinians are the same people and are unrelated to the Ashkenazi.
Therefore this cannot be used to identify Jews as a group as it is not a unifying factor. Even if by some miracle or weasel-wording someone should try to do so these haplogroups never form distinct sets which is much of what Sforzi's work shows.
It is also impossible to make an issue of the birth language being modern Hebrew as that is a modern resurrection of a dead language and would mean before its resurrection there were no Jews.
It's NOT true that Jews are distinguished simply by their religion, as their are Atheist Jews whom follow Jewish traditions, and are no less Jewish than religious Jews, except in the minds of the right-wing Jews, and neo-Nazi's.
And that leaves you solely with self-declaration as a Jew making one a Jew. It would be quite foolish to arrive at Ben Gurion airport and simply declare being a Jew and expecting citizenship.
(Frankly, I can't find any difference between right-wing Jews and neo-Nazi's),
They won the last election and now run Israel.
but that's aside from the point... Which is... that Jews CAN ALSO be distinguished by their ancestry, as well as, their belief in and / or practice of a variety of Jewish traditions.
As noted above ancestry is meaningless as Ashkenazi and Sephardi do not share a common ancestry. Therefore it cannot be used to make such a claim. Should you persist maybe we can get a court order to exhume Sammy Davis Jr. for a sample of his DNA which will show his shared ancestry with other Jews.
As to practicing jewish traditions they are all religious traditions unless you are going to identify traditions shared by ALL those who claim to be Jews which do not have a religious origin. I once had someone try to claim Yiddish as such an example. What a putz!
Getting back to Sammy Davis, you are now stating for the record that he was not a convert to Judaism as for a fact he had no traditions even remotely related to Jews. Or you can say there are lawful converts to Judaism and in so doing negate any possible claim to being united by traditions. And as the Ashkenazi are converts and do not have the traditions of real Sephardic Jews ...
No need to go further as it is obvious how much twisting and turning there has to be to even pretend traditions are a discriminant.
The point being that Jews may OR MAY NOT be religious (i.e. believe in "God". So, your statement above is FALSE, and as it is fundamental to your topic, I can reliably inform you that you are ignorant with regard to your claim as to what a Jew is.
You have just blown your reputation as a usually reliable source. But you know that.
Even after reading what I have posted and in fact quoting the part where I assert examples are required you fail to produce a single example. You merely assert there are things shared and leave it at that. As you obviously read none of the previous exchanges on this subject you do not know how many people have tried to get away with mere assertion. You have now joined their ranks. You have faith but no evidence.
What you have differs little from faith in the existence of a god or gods without the least evidence of their existence. Yet they appear so different. Perhaps it is like the big lie, the greater the claim the more credible it appears.
BTW. It could also be said that some Jews may simply identify themselves as Jews simply because of their ancestry and WITHOUT REGARD to the religious belief that one's mother must be a Jew, for her offspring to also be a considered as Jewish. Interestingly, that statement would be a similarity between Nazis and very liberal minded Jews, not to say that they share much else in common.
With ancestry, the Ashkenazi do not go back to Roman times in Palestine but appear in history with the conversion of the Khazars. Therefore you have to define ancestry in a manner which does not require ancestry.
Your second problem is it is not simply ancestry but only RELIGIOUS ancestry.
Finally you said "identify" rather than are. Anyone can identify with anything they like but it won't play in either Peoria or on the Ben Gurion tarmac.
If the issue were merely "identify with" this and a couple other threads would never have arisen. Even Ernst Zundel spent a day on court as a Jew because he declared he was.
If you want to let it drop with anyone can be a Jew by merely identifying with Jews or declaring one is a Jew, even for a day, I have no problem. That is the natural absurdity of the idea which Zundel so effectively lampooned.
However if you wish to claim something real is involved then I repeat the requirement to actually present examples of things unrelated to religion which are shared by ALL Jews. So far no one has even proposed something shared by even 90% or any other significant percentage. Your approach of merely asserting such things exist is as (il)legitimate as asserting a god exists or angels exist.
Not only does this group appear to be heavily committed to whitewashing Israel it is certain many of the participants are Jews pretending to be atheists. Factually they are merely cowardly atheists. They are so very afraid to give up the Jewish identity they have to pretend with all their little hearts that there is a Jewish identity independent of Judaism.
Unfortunately for them despite all the opportunities they have been given they have not produced a single thing common to all Jews which is independent of the religion.
What we do see is the attempt to substitute Ashkenazi judaica for Judaism. That is like an atheist claiming to be a Christian because he decorates a tree at Christmas.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Damn! That really puts me in my place! If it meant something different before WWII, then we can't use it as evidence.
Oh, gee, did I mention that one of my ancestors was a WWII ace? I guess he wasn't a very good ace, because he only shot down allied planes, and just six of them at that. I share his namesake, in fact.
But I digress. Lets look at a pre WWII dictionary entry for the word Ausrottung.
Der Sprach-Brockhaus deutsches Bildworterbuch ( 1935 )
die Ausrottung: vollige Vernichtung.
And the translation of vollige Vernichtung, you ask? Complete annihilation/destruction.
So it meant extermination way back in 1935, which I do believe was before the war. Or as the Muret-Sanders Worterbuch of 1906 renders it
Ausrottung: 1. cf. Ausrotten.
2. (eines Volkes [of a people], einer Rasse [of a race] etc) extermination, extirpation: Systematische Ausrottung von Volkern [systematic extermination of a people, genocide]
Whoa now! Didn't Himmler say something close to the later, there?
" Ich meine die udenevakuierung: die Ausrottung des judischen Volkes."
Meaning " I am talking about the Jewish evacuation: the extermination of the Jewish people. "
Sorry schmuck, but the meaning predates your attempted mistranslation. Try it on someone unfamiliar with the language. Bonus points for contemptable, intentional, and malicious dishonesty, though. You've went from liar to superlugner.
As always, I eagerly await an example of ANY ethnic group from your definition of ethnicity, or an admission that your definition is incorrect.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Bezuglich der Judenfrage ist der Fuhrer entschlossen, reinen Tisch zu machen. Er hat den Juden prophezeit, dass*, wenn sie noch einmal einen Weltkrieg herbeifuhren wurden, sie dabei ihre Vernichtung erleben wurden. Das ist keine Phrase gewesen. Der Weltkrieg ist da, die Vernichtung des Judentums muss* die notwendige Folge sein.
Goebbels diary entry, Dec 12, 1941. Emphasis mine.
Translation: In respect of the Jewish Question, the Fuhrer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that if they again brought about a world war, they would experience their annihilation in it. That wasn't just a catch-phrase. The world war is here, and the annihilation of Jewry must be the necessary consequence.
* ss inserted here by me to replace the eszett, a character that looks sort of like a capital B, but is pronounced as a long S or sh sound.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
I have said two things.
Germany attacked Russia and we never thanked them. I don't give a damn why they did it. It was the right thing to do. To bad they failed. In their failure several hundred million people were condemned to communist poverty and oppression. Twenty years later those countries are still trying to recover from the greed of the communist party members.
I then addressed the reasons given by Germany and pointed out the facts of history support the German position. Russia did not honor the treaty.
The facts of history have nothing to do with propaganda. Russia did in fact continue to promote communists revolutions in countries within Germany's sphere of influence. Russia did incite armed resistance against German occupation forces.
What do either of those facts have to do with Nazi Hasbara?
You appeared to simply dislike the idea of Dresden. I pointed out Dresden and a host of other "gallant and brave" activities of the Allies were criminal.
More French were killed by the Allies in the "liberation" than in the entire fall and occupation which is odd because France started the war with Germany and was preparing to invade Germany when attacked.
All you "know" about what the Nazis left behind is what the communists said they left behind. That is all anyone knows. Believing communists is a very stupid thing to do.
Food for thought, the "ashes" from the current mythology of 1.2 million cremations at Auschwitz results in 5200 cubic yards of ash weighing some 3000 tons. So how much ash have you seen in pictures and where did you find an analysis of the kind of ash?
You mean like Elie Wiesel who never mentioned gas chambers in the original Night, who reported sexually segregated flaming pits for Jews and belching fire from crematoria chimneys which he later admitted never having seen?
Only what survivors testify to under oath with penalty for perjury and subject to crossesamination where there is a presumption of innocense is of interest. We know people as "esteemed" as Wiesel lie like a rug when talking about the subject. And then, as in ALL trials, testimony can only be to the physical evidence accepted by the court. All of factors were absent from Nuremberg.
Where do you see an agenda? I know a lot of traitorous Americans downplay and even deny the British atrocities during the war of colonial independence. That they did not occur is unimportant. They have an agenda in saying they did not occur.
But if one sticks with verifiable facts of WWII and ignores the tons of propaganda that were produced by the Allies (a million Poles we gassed by the Germans in October 1939 for example) the picture is quite different. The Allies were worse than the Axis by every measure both going into the war and in the course of the war. The Allies committed more war crimes and more kinds of war crimes than the Axis.
It seems to me the one with the agenda is the one who insists upon believing what is not in evidence but only in the winners propaganda.
And if Hitler had managed to destroyed the communists, billions of Chinese would have been spared the tens of millions of mass murders and enslavement to the greed of the Chinese communist party. They are recovering slowly. China just passed Germany in total GDP with 1/20th of Germany's per capita GDP.
No, just the invention of the gas chamber myth.
And a half million criminal Jews living in the occupied territories are protected by the Israeli Occupation Force when they attack and murder the occupied people. These events are reported in all the major Israeli newspapers and they are on the internet and ordinary Jews around the world, not just in Israel, remain silent.
They also remain silent when when the IOF harrasses entire villages, drags people off to prison and holds them without charges for years and at time decades.
Please do not get me wrong. I am not saying the Nazis were better than today's Jews. I have this little film clip of a "kill the Palestinians" rally in NYC yesterday.
Israel was a democracy when it started the war against the lawfully elected government of Palestine. That it no longer is a democracy only absolves its Muslim population of the crime.
That the lawfully elected government of Palestine exercises its right to resist the occupation in accordance with the 4th Geneva Convention does not make them terrorists.
I had nothing to do with the bomb. If they send a sub, consider it sunk. You appear to be working at missing the obvious here. The moral right exists for Iraqis as it does for Palestinians. Without legal recourse to adjudicate murder in the case of the Iraqis and both murder and theft in the case of the Palestinians they have the moral right to revenge.
What does that have to do with your false assertion? Idiots is plural. Now why did you lie?
Zionists are thieves and murderers. Israel has a national holiday to celebrate it every year. Do you not know these things?
What does plural zionists have to do with any individual?
All you are doing is arguing for a bigger gallows. But you do not know history or you deliberately lie about it. Given your propensity to lie about me, I assume the latter. The zionists started their terror campaign against the Palstinians and Brits in the 1920s.
Jews exist. They are followers of Judaism. I don't see atheists giving a damn if they are murderers and thieves or not. Atheists cannot be Jews as they are not followers of Judaism.
Are you one of those stupid zionist animals? The US has TREATIES with the Indians which ceded land claims. Indians go to court to have those treaties enforced not annulled. Zionists have no such treaty with the Palestinians.
Are you really claiming you do not know the difference? Maybe it takes being brain damaged to be a zionists.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Here is a real big hint for the mentally handy. Esperanto exists but there are not Esperantians.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Nice work comparing apples to starfruit there. Glad to see the brook hasn't frozen over. Or did you not know that Esperanto is a constructed language? It didn't evolve from a culture. Were you too busy spanking it to "Mein Kampf" to notice?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Ich denke, dass die Bedeutung unabhängig von der Sprache klar ist.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
You really didn't think this one out did you. If Hitler had been sucessful in conquering all of the USSR exactly in what position do you think that would have put the US?
No point in explaining to you Hitler implemented his ideas pretty much to the letter, you have master race blinders on that filter out that which my relatives did.
No, as the allies pretty much were free to do virtually anything after the London blitz, V1s and V2s.
France did what to start the war? Come to the aid of Poland, too late of course. Or do you mean the unfair reparations at the end of WWI?
It doesn't matter what I say in response to this as you won't consider it anyway.
Here too it doesn't matter what I say in response.
Such great effort to distract from the main point I made.
Not really, as the war you claim to not have a dog in would have made up for it.
Hamas is only in charge of the Gaza strip as they killed off the Fatah followers or drove them out. An election today would not find the terrorist Hamas in charge. The government was officially dissolved by Abbas in 2007. There is no lawfully elected gov't in terrorist controlled Gaza.
Sorry, I wasn't aware of a national murderers and thieves day in Israel.
Or build no gallows at all and work out the problems.
This has origin in your ideas that Jews can't be a race or culture which you prove in the same way theists do using the bible, you do by using your own web site as proof.
You have 2 sets of rules. 1)If it relates to Jews they are terrorists. 2)Everyone else has a right.
You show complete ignorance of the Indian wars and terrorist activities of the white man and the US.
Thanks for the insults. This will be my last response to you.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
JC,
You and Desdenova can continue to chew on the Mouse if you'd like but I need to buy an economy size bottle of Scope to get the bad taste out.
As to Paisley, I gave up on him last summer on his third attempt to present his recycled crap.
Have fun, but look for a sale on mouthwash as you'll need it.
PJTS
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I've gone to insults with both as neither give a damn about facts. Cheap lulz but lulz nonetheless.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Die Tatsachen schreien heraus, aber der Eiferer ist taub.
Or as I more often say, Blosse tatsache tut nicht der fanatische einfluss.
Now why do I have this sudden desire to march through Poland?
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Yeah. Sigh. Do you know where that comes from? That actually reminds me of Augustine's "Tanta est caecitas hominum de caecitate etiam gloriantium!" (So blind is man that he boasts even of his blindness). Well, deafness, blindness ... there's a connection ... okay, I've been translating too long.
I'd say "can't fight genetics", except that would imply a dozen composers, painters, philosophers and various other luminaries before we got to the disastrous crescendo of the 20th century. I think the contemporary version would be, "Why do I suddenly feel like demanding a long vacation, and single-handedly propping up the economy of Europe?"
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
When these Judeans first appear in world history after Pompey arrives in the region they were speaking Aramaic. There is no evidence this thing called Hebrew was ever the native spoken language of anyone. There is no evidence this thing called Hebrew is more than an invented, liturgical language.
You know there is no evidence. Why do you pretend otherwise?
For my next trick I will rename one of the Apache languages Atlantean and bring Atlantis into existence.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Germany declared war on the US first. What would it matter to the US?
What is the point of demonstrating the foolishness of 20/20 hindsight? The most likely result would have been Germany and Russia exhausting each other and D-Day could have been carried out using ferryboats.
The more rational thing would have been for the US to have allied with Germany against Russia. It is not clear where it fit into US ideals to ally with Britain and France who had together enslaved nearly a billion people around the world. Join the slave masters to prevent Germany for doing what exactly?
Every time I have asked what his ideas were with references I find the person I have asked is making it up and has not the least idea what those ideas were from any credible source. They can quote his ideas from Hollywood war movies verbatim.
Are you any different?
Given the fact that Britain was the first to start bombing german cities and not vice versa who would you blame for bombing London? Recent biographies of Churchill have explained his decision to bomb german cities to force Germany to divert its efforts from attacking British airfields. While that is a strategic choice ranking up there with letting Coventry burn it does not change who started it.
And I do know that one party violated the conventions of war, in this case Britain, does not justify another party, Germany, in also violating the conventions. At the time of German manned bombing of London Britain was not yet allied with Russia and thus nullified any claim to the conventions of war.
Of course the V-1 and V-2 came after Britain lost any claim to violations of the conventions of war by its alliance with Russia which was not a signatory.
Yes, nasty things happen during war. Yes, the winners write the history. No, you have no patriotic obligation to believe the history written by the winners.
It is well known and in the history books that Britain and France chose to "ally" with Poland solely as a pretext to start a war with Germany. It was solely to sell the war to the stupid peasants in their countries. Those peasants were so stupid they did not ask why there was no war on Russia for doing exactly the same thing to Poland.
However, despite everything you might wish to say about France doing it was its free choice to declare war on Germany. It did exercise the free choice by not declaring war on Russia. So also did Britain. Obviously "honoring" the agreement with Poland, signed only seven days before the invasion of Poland, was selective.
We are left with the fact that Britain and France started WWII. Without their aggression it would have no more than Russia and Germany reclaiming territory which had been theirs for centuries.
I simply ask you how you know. You have yet to say how you know. I certainly will not consider a blind faith in honest communists. I will not consider divination.
At least now you realize you have no basis for your 'knowledge' of what was left behind.
At least now you know survivors lie. Will that lead you to reconsider all the stories they tell? Probably not.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
I don't mean to be confrontational, so I hope the mods here don't get pissy with me over this.
But I think you're a completely ignorant, mind-warped, psychotic, anti-Semite.
Israel, in my opinion, is a terrible, terrible country. I think the things the Israeli government has done, and how America has aided them in doing so, is despicable.
HOWEVER. Israeli doesn't necessarily equal Jew.
Out of all the religions out there, Judaism (at least nowadays) is the least troublesome. When's the last time you had a Jew cram his beliefs down your throat or anything like that? They don't. They don't even WANT you to be a part of their religion.
But anyway, tangeant... my point in posting here was to tell you that you are completely, 100% wrong about 'Jewish' not being a race. And all the ways you have tried to discredit the term "Jewish" are just silly. 'Jewish' IS a culture, seperate from that it IS also a race, and seperate from that there is also the religion, Judaism.
And yet, obviously, the three are connected. I'm sorry that the concept of an ethnic group of people founding a religion, which leads to a set of complex cultural practices, which stuck with many of these people (naturally, you hand your cultural practices down to the younger generations, right?) as they spread across the world (some of them changing their religion, often for reasons of persecution, i.e, THE HOLOCAUST, WHICH DID HAPPEN) is so confusing to you.
...Even though the majority of other people manage to grasp the concept. I mean, seriously, how do you deny the Holocaust? And how do you not understand that someone can be Jewish by birth? Even if you can't grasp the latter part, it is a religious practice among Jews- anyone whose mother was Jewish, IS Jewish (which isn't really is wacky as it sounds, it's just a matrilineal system...) which means that even if you want to pretend the Jewish race doesn't exist, and that if someone is not spiritually Jewish then they are not Jewish period... it doesn't change the fact that other Jews would call that Jew a Jew as would the Jew himself (re-read that, it does make sense.) Meaning those people who were born Jewish, though maybe not practicing the religion, would be welcome within the Jewish community, in their synagogues and at their celebrations, any time. Meaning that they're all connected in the end. Meaning that they are their own group of people, regardless.
How is that so complicated?
*breathes*
I'm done. This is pointless.
(Sorry for posting this twice, I got kinda click-happy).
{NoT a problem - erased redundancy MOD}
Don't let it bother you. It doesn't bother me.
I also have the facts and I carefully speak them. From the replies I have received here, including yours, it appears people have no ability to read and respond to plain English. From your reply it appears you are still a theist of the Mosaic confession.
What gets me is they chose to go live in the most dangerous place in the world for them to live, knowing that the rightful owners would never rest until they have their property returned and then whine that it is not their fault even though they know they live on stolen property.
Nor have I ever said it does. I said the government of Israel at all levels openly states that it speaks and acts for all the Jews in the world. I further point out that one has to search, often even know where to look to find any Jewish objection to this. And in researching those few who do object I find mainstream jewish organizations condemning them as self-hating and the like. These are organizations such as Naturei Karta and Not In My Name.
It is impossible for any objective observer to disagree with the position of the government of Israel in that it does speak for the overwhelming majority of all the Jews.
When speaking of Israelis I have agreed there are Muslim Israelis. I have said that when Israel was a democracy they were equally responsible for the actions of their government. No that Israel is no longer a democracy they have been absolved of culpability.
OTOH I look at AIPAC which does cram its beliefs down the throat of America. I can look at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC which makes about as much sense as an American Indian museum in Berlin. This is built on US government property, receives nearly twice the tax dollars as the Kennedy Center and refuses to follow its mandate.
I can look at the conquest of Iraq and see fifteen years of Israeli propaganda about Iraq and its "imminent nuclear weapons." I can review all those years and see Israel as the only country literally demanding the US attack Iraq. I can look at Congress being bought by that same AIPAC to support it.
And I can read the news and read of Israel's PM bragging about telling Bush to order Rice to abstain from her only cease fire resolution. And just today I read in http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3657080,00.html an Israeli newspaper of Israel getting the US to stop a condemnation of the Israeli attack on the UNRWA in Gaza.
These are the actions of the government of Israel and with only trivial objection are acts for all the Jews.
But if you mean religious beliefs one front atheist backed by all lawyers in the ACLU get Christian religious symbols off of public property around Christmas yet they insist the Menorah is not a religious symbol. The term Judeo-Christian is a heresy for Christians yet look at all the public figured mugged into using the term. (By Christian theology, it totally and completed superceded and replaced Judaism. There can be no hyphen possible.)
Now I really don't give a rat's ass one way or the other. Using public property that would otherwise go unused really doesn't bother me as long as it is not harmed/properly insured. If Jews want a Menorah, fine. Both give atheists an opportunity to speak out. How often does one get a chance to point out Jewish religious holy days are mostly around the death of enemies?
There is more if you really want to go further.
And I am here to tell you there are only two kinds of scientists in the field of anthropology. The politically correct type says there are no races at all. The non-PC type will say there are races in broad groupings like Caucasian and Amerind. Most Jews are Caucasian. Sammy Davis Jr. was an exception.
If you have a private definition of race you are free to present it any time you are ready to defend it. There is only one other I know and it was decredited by WWII when the Judenvolk became a target of the Herrnvolk mainly for unpatriotic behavior and communist support but that is a whole other digression.
But should you try to claim Jews are an intermarried group then you must address the well established fact that eastern European Jews have no genetic relation to Asian Jews. The Ashkenazim are not related to the Sephardim. They became Jews by conversion of the Khazars. And there you are with religion, not ancestry, as their only connection with Jews of near eastern ancestry. If OTOH you still insist upon common ancestry then the Palestinians and the Sephardim have the same common ancestry. Therefore, despite their religion, must be considered Jews.
If you really want to run with first we convert, them we intermarry and then we are a race then it is about time you start talking about the race of Latter Day Saints which is exactly the same thing. Of course they know how to do intermarriage better than anyone else but that is another story.
I do not expect you to be able to follow the facts of the case.
If you are going to claim Jews represent a culture separate from religion then you have to present the cultural similarities between the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim which are unrelated to religion. Other than religion Jewish and Muslim Palestinians completely shared the same culture before the foreign Ashkenazis started coming and still shall most of their non-religious culture. Needless to say the Europeans look down on the Sephardim and treat them as second class citizens.
But feel free to demonstrate you think all Jews do drunken Russian circle dances while singing Hava Negilah to the tune of Irving Berlin. Berlin's version replaced an earlier tune that was slower than a Gregorian chant throughout, never changing tempo. Tell me all about New York Jews who ululate like Arabs instead of applaud. I never heard it but maybe you have. Maybe you think they all eat German potato pancakes and call it Latke. The circle dance is Russian and not found among the Sephardim. The tendency to get blind drunk at religious celebrations is also Russian not Sephardic. The lyrics of Hava Negilah were written in 1916 in Europe.
Tell me what they share outside of religion. Like Mr. Spock, I am all ears.
As a matter of fact the native Jews of Palestine were against the Zionist goal of creating a state for Jews. They were bribed into silence by being given control over the religious affairs of Israel. That is a fact of history. It is often referred to in editorials in Israeli newspapers such as Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. If you did not know it, now you do.
The Zionists started their plotting against the Palestinians before Hitler was born. The holy holocaust had nothing to do with it. And even if it did, why should Palestinians be punished for what Europeans did?
As for changing their religion, just shows stupid people remain stupid. No religion at all is the only intelligent thing. Forced to change from one stupidity to another? My heart bleeds. But if they switched to Christianity infant mortality among the males decreased significantly due to the end of unsanitary genital mutilations.
The early Christians were persecuted by the Jews who tried to exterminate them. Don't start a fight you can't finish.
Christians got the idea of persecuting members of other religions from the Old Testament. Don't set a bad example.
All the complaints of Jews can be traced back to themselves, the eternal innocents.
People who solemnly believe they exterminated dozens of peoples because of their religions should be the last to whine if it happens to them. And I have several quotes from jewish Israelis in the last few weeks calling for the extermination of the Palestinians. I even have a film clip of a "destroy them all" rally in NYC this week. They never learn.
Define it in a manner that you can support from physical evidence you have critically examined. The idea of exterminating other religions because of their religion is found ONLY in the Old Testament. Again, don't set a bad example. Do not whine when what you believe you did to others is done to you.
The idea of jewish by birth is a concept which comes solely from a religious idea in the Old Testament and it only worked for women. Men have to have three specific rituals starting with genital mutilation and in addition lead a Jewish life to be considered Jews. Ask a Rabbi if an atheist can be a Jew without the quibble of a conversion being involved to leave. But then you are asking for a religious opinion which you. as an atheist, know is meaningless gibberish.
Rational people know one is nothing by birth other than provided by statute law. Only for a few lawyers does statute law constitute a religion.
How is that so complicated?
It simply shows you are substituting religious beliefs for rational thought. If you give credence to this religious nonsense you are not an atheist and should not be posting here.
As there is no other foundation for this idea but the religion then a person who claims to be an atheist has rejected this religious idea and cannot possibly consider himself a Jew. You cannot an atheist and have any acceptance of an idea based solely in religion.
It is not only pointless but pathetic to see a person who claims, by posting here, to be an atheist promoting the idea that a religious idea has any meaning whatsoever. Perhaps you never faced what rejecting all religous crap means. It is about time you face it. You will be a better person for it.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml