Why is it that people think we cannot CRITICIZE ISRAEL? Israel is NOT A RELIGION, It's a Nation..wi

reply to post by MidnightTide

...those evil Jews.

You use this phrase in all Israel threads in an attempt to paint anyone who criticizes Israel automatically thinks "those evil Jews" when they are actually criticizing the Zionist Extremists within the Israeli government.

Your constant use of this tactic been duely noted and is not fooling anyone, not even the fools.

Get some new content because your current routine is rather ovious and not very effective.

I'm serious though you say "evil Jews" in every thread on this topic, what's the deal?

Are you anti semite?

Judging by your understanding of the situation I bet you don't even know who the real semites are. It's not the European immigrants who came to Israel after WW2, that's for sure. So when members such as you chant "anti semite!" you are only making a fool of yourself.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Megaphone is in the house

Oh gee... another I hate Israel thread....

This is another line that is always used in these threads. Criticizm of Israel does not equal hate of Israel. That being said, Israel has been exposed as the Apartheid state that it is. If you don't like that then too bad, sometimes the truth hurts.

There are plenty of threads agains Iran, China, Russia, Syria and you never hear "this is just another hate Iran thread". The only other country who is immune from criticizm on ATS is the USA. Just another USA bashing thread

How come all other countries on earth can be criticized, but if we criticize Israel or USA, we are labelled as a hate thread?

The OP raises a great point, and his theory has been proven on the very first page of this thread.

Criticizm of Israel is not allowed unless you are willing to get labelled as a "Jew hater".

Thankfully the world isn't falling for this crap anymore.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by JRockABM

 

like why can't I just say --- Israel in public, without being considered "hateful".

I don't know why either. I say that to all the people I love and respect. Everybody knows that's what you say to people you don't hate.

First off, being a Jew...is a RELIGION. A Black person can be Jewish (Sammy Davis Jr). If you don't like Jews...it has nothing to do with RACE, it has to do with Religion!

I'd hate to dislike Jews for the wrong reason.

It has to do with how the Religion carries themselves

And how should a Religion carry themselves?

I have plenty of friends that are Jewish...

You probably won them over by saying "F Israel," loudly and clearly. I think I'll go down to my synagogue and see how it works for me.

If a Jewish person get's offended, put them in their place. . .

Yup, that's the ticket, offend a Jew and then put 'em in their place.

OK, I'm all for criticizing any country's government which doesn't meet my standards. But, I can't recall seeing a thread like yours, and I hope I don't have nightmares over it.

edit on 30-7-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)

Your a genetic backwards step.
The OP made it pretty clear that it is the political attitude of the nation of Israel that they do not like, not jews.
If someone says that they do not like the political attitude of America then are they saying that they hate all religions practiced in America?

But you know exactly what the OP was trying to say, your just being a jerk.

reply to post by buster2010


Strapping explosives to brainwashed religious zealots and sending them into cafes and nightclubs to blow up civilians isn't heroic, it's the height of cowardice. I don't think blindly firing rockets toward civilians is admirable, I think it's at very least reckless. While I don't necessarily agree with all of Israel's actions, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that all blame should be laid at their feet. How did you feel about the slaughter of the Fogel family? Do you admire the perps for their heroism?

“I suggested to Amjad the idea that we would reach the fence of Itamar. I said, ‘let’s do something that will be special, so that in the future each one of us will grow older and tell his children about it’”.

Ruth Fogel was in the bathroom when Awad killed her husband Udi and their three-month-old daughter Hadas, slitting their throats as they lay in bed. Awad slaughtered the mother as she came out of the bathroom. He moved into a bedroom where Ruth and Udi’s sons Yoav (11) and Elad (4) were sleeping. He slit their throats. This is Awad describing the carnage: “I took the first boy to the bedroom and I murdered him with two blows to the neck. I slaughtered him.” Then he killed the infant Hadas: “The baby slept between the father and the mother and cried out loud. I stabbed him in the heart.”

iranaware.com...

I'm just trying to illustrate the point that there is unnecessary violence coming from both sides.
Do you disagree?

Originally posted by glasshouse
reply to post by buster2010

 

Strapping explosives to brainwashed religious zealots and sending them into cafes and nightclubs to blow up civilians isn't heroic, it's the height of cowardice. I don't think blindly firing rockets toward civilians is admirable, I think it's at very least reckless. While I don't necessarily agree with all of Israel's actions, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that all blame should be laid at their feet. How did you feel about the slaughter of the Fogel family? Do you admire the perps for their heroism?

“I suggested to Amjad the idea that we would reach the fence of Itamar. I said, ‘let’s do something that will be special, so that in the future each one of us will grow older and tell his children about it’”.

Ruth Fogel was in the bathroom when Awad killed her husband Udi and their three-month-old daughter Hadas, slitting their throats as they lay in bed. Awad slaughtered the mother as she came out of the bathroom. He moved into a bedroom where Ruth and Udi’s sons Yoav (11) and Elad (4) were sleeping. He slit their throats. This is Awad describing the carnage: “I took the first boy to the bedroom and I murdered him with two blows to the neck. I slaughtered him.” Then he killed the infant Hadas: “The baby slept between the father and the mother and cried out loud. I stabbed him in the heart.”

iranaware.com...

I'm just trying to illustrate the point that there is unnecessary violence coming from both sides.
Do you disagree?

I do agree, it's a horrible situation over there.
But consider this: What Israel done when they first founded their 'nation' was basically the same as a person jumping their neighbors fence and setting up a house in their backyard then being violent to the home owner when they try to get rid of them.
Also consider that pallestine does not have the same quality of military equipment that Israel has and consider how you would fight a life and death battle against overwhelming force.
Lastly, consider this phenomena of not being able to criticize Israel without being labelled as an anti-semite and what you have is a bunch of very angry people trying to evict an unwelcome and heavily armed squatter from their backyard in an environment where no one supports them.

What would you do in this situation?
I mean jeeze! can you blame em?

reply to post by Raivan31


I'm not sure I completely follow. When did the "jumping of the fence" occur and how did it happen?
In what way are Jews living in Israel squatters?

These may sound like silly questions to most of you but I think if I'm to come to some opinion on this issue I should have several different people's perspectives.

Edit: And not to be rude, but are you saying the whole suicide bombing of civilians and slaughter of young Jewish children that are disputed settlers thing is justified?

reply to post by Raivan31


Don't forget the bonus spiritual threat: you're going to get cursed with depression and mysterious disappearance. At least according to a certain hilarious recent string-commenter...

my 2cents:

israel is the evil stepsister of the U.S.

reply to post by glasshouse


No its not justified,,,its guerrilla warfare,,,its what you do when you cant overtly fight a superior enemy

reply to post by consigliere

That statement kind of contradicts itself.
You say it's not justified but then go on to justify it by saying that's what you do when you can't overtly fight a superior enemy.

reply to post by glasshouse


Sykes-Picot Agreement

The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in Western Asia should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.

The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence. The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and British Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, 'the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.'

Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets. The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas. Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including the Sharif of Mecca.

British-Zionist discussions during the negotiations

Following the outbreak of World War I, Zionism was first discussed at a British Cabinet level on 9 November 1914, four days after Britain's declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire. At a Cabinet meeting David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, "referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine." Lloyd George's law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionists to work on the British Uganda Programme. In a discussion after the meeting with fellow Zionist Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board, Lloyd George assured him that "he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine." Samuel then outlined the Zionist position more fully in a conversation with Foreign Secretary Edward Grey. He spoke of Zionist aspirations for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish state, and of the importance of its geographical position to the British Empire. Samuel's memoirs state: "I mentioned that two things would be essential— that the state should be neutralized, since it could not be large enough to defend itself, and that the free access of Christian pilgrims should be guaranteed... I also said it would be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European power as neighbour than the Turk" The same evening, Prime Minister H. H. Asquith announced that the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire had become a war aim in a speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet.

In January 1915 Samuel submitted a Zionist memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine to the Cabinet after discussions with Weizmann and Lloyd George. On 5 February 1915, Samuel had another discussion with Grey: "When I asked him what his solution was he said it might be possible to neutralize the country under international guarantee...and to vest the government of the country in some kind of Council to be established by the Jews" After further conversations with Lloyd George and Grey, Samuel circulated a revised text to the Cabinet in the middle of March 1915.

Zionism or the Jewish question were not considered by the report of the de Bunsen Committee, prepared to determine British wartime policy toward the Ottoman Empire, submitted in June 1915.

Prior to the departure of Sykes to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov in Petrograd on 27 February 1916, Sykes was approached with a plan by Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board and was strongly sympathetic to Zionism. The plan put forward by Samuel was in the form of a memorandum which Sykes thought prudent to commit to memory and destroy. Commenting on it, Sykes wrote to Samuel suggesting that if Belgium should assume the administration of Palestine it might be more acceptable to France as an alternative to the international administration which she wanted and the Zionists did not.

I hope that clarifies a couple of things as to why Israel as a nation is illegitimate.

reply to post by glasshouse


Not a justification,, but clarification,,or a narrow definition of that particular tactic. I dont justify any murder. I dont even kill bugs bro

reply to post by Raivan31

Name calling? That's it? The OP gets quoted extensively and you're unhappy? Was he misquoted? Tell me what your complaint is and we can try to work it out.

reply to post by consigliere

Thanks for the clarification.
I wasn't insinuating that you agree with it but, in my opinion, it's possible to justify without necessarily agreeing.

The problem with the OP's statement is, that you cannot "intelligently" disagree on Israel, without bringing up the whole "Jewish" question. And along with that question, comes the question on the world wars.

The entire "holocust" and everything associated with the Wars are automatically brought on. The minute you state that "Jewism" is a religion and not a race, you bring into question the "Holocust" itself. The moment, you bring about the question of "Israel" and it's leadership, you bring about a question on the entire issue of re-instating Israel.

But the entire issue is, that Israel is being discussed all the time, and being criticized. The entire issue of Judaism, is as well ... it's what brought about Genetics, in the first place.

The "riot" around the issue, is not to stop you from critizising Israel, but to stop you from moving away from Israel, and into a more intimite question. That question is never asked, because you never move on ... you are stuck on the Israel question ... and that is the intention.

reply to post by glasshouse


I completely understand,,no worries. However I do somewhat agree that any criticism of Israel is deemed anti-Semitic.

reply to post by xpernet


Thanks for the info. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it out of the ordinary for victors to claim overtaken land and parse it out to allies and interests? I think Arabs should be fairly familiar with the process since they themselves have done it on several occasions in the past

Originally posted by rootbranch2012
You have zero knowledge of what is actually going on. What you're doing is repeating spin and rhetoric from talking heads across the liberal board. Better to keep silent than be thought a fool would probably be an apt proverb to adhere to right now.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Having founded a secular state, the Jews in occupied Palestine can no longer hide behind the cover of religious tolerance. "Israel" will have to take criticism like any other state.

Given that, why should we support them given what they have done?

Further, for the benefit of those who quote Biblical verses which could be construed to mean that we should support them, let me remind you that almost all of the Jews in occupied Palestine are descendants of the Kazars, a branch of the Turkish peoples. The Turks and Kazars are descended from Japheth, and their ancestors were never in Palestine. "Israel" the secular state is a fraud - even if they had named it "Judah" it would still be a fraud. True Israel is another entity entirely.

=======================================================================

"You have zero knowledge of what is actually going on."

It's the Middle East, dude, so no one really knows what's going on, save God. Demonstrate to me my zero knowledge. Have you seen my personal library? Doubt it.

"What you're doing is repeating spin and rhetoric from talking heads across the liberal board."

Golly, I thought I was writing my own thoughts. How could you have known that I DON'T
listen to liberal talking heads? Another score of omniscience for you.

"Better to keep silent than be thought a fool would probably be an apt proverb to adhere to right now."

That works both ways, and I have yet more to say. Why don't you answer like a man instead of resorting to sputtering ad hominem?

reply to post by consigliere


I hear ya on that one. It should not be the case. Like i said earlier in the thread, I think alot of people, on both sides of the argument, blur the lines.
Thanks for the dialogue

reply to post by glasshouse


Thank you as well Glass,,,gonna add you as a friend (if thats cool) its rare to find maturity on this site these days,,,take care