Simon Wiesenthal Center: Top 10 Anti-Semites, Israel-Haters for 2012

Originally posted by DJW001

 

Why is it okay to murder Israelis?

I will disengage from this discussion because I believe we both have stated our opinions. There is no need to keep repeating them any longer. I prefer to move on to another topic within this thread.

Originally posted by DJW001

 

Who are these omnipotent, invisible Zionist of whom you speak? What are their distinguishing characteristics? How have you discerned their methods and agenda? What are the sources of your knowledge? And why has your literary style changed so dramatically all of a sudden?

Actually, I didn't change my literary style on purpose, I just tried to write in a way that is meaningful to the reader (in that post not specifically you). I tried to be as specific as possible because I am aware that these thoughts are different from what most people have studied in school as a child.

My knowledge comes mainly from Wikipedia. That is where I get my data. The conclusions I drew by myself. They are not things I have read.

I learned to study complex material and pick out the truth behind it when my son was born with a congenital disease which could not be identified and the medical care he received was inadequate. Though my life story is not heroic like some that were made into movies about the same type of issue, I learned that we can discover truth if we are patient enough to start with the assumption that we know nothing. Every bit of knowledge must meet your expectation of certainty. (sorry, OP, for the off-topic)

Knowledge is like a giant puzzle, or a giant number of dots. Normally, we rely on other people to connect them for us. But my experience has shown me that you cannot do that. If you accept conclusions, theories, from other people you get their bias, not truth. Even doctors do not know truth, they can only give you medical opinions. Knowledge about history is almost impossible because who are you going to believe?

Who will disagree with me, for example, that while the motivation for Jews is understandable, based on the historical background, and the desire to have a homeland, (so I don't hold a grudge against them), the indisputable fact is that Palestinians must feel and do feel victimized by invaders. Another indisputable fact is that American Jews have a choice whether they want to live a peaceful, productive live in the US, or whether they want to move to a war zone where they will be hated. So who disagrees with my conclusions in the previous post? Anybody?

I have yet to see anybody disagree with my statement that Zionism CAUSES Anti-Semitism. If everybody is in agreement with me, then whose purpose does it serve to cause Anti-Semitism?

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

I have yet to see anybody disagree with my statement that Zionism CAUSES Anti-Semitism. If everybody is in agreement with me, then whose purpose does it serve to cause Anti-Semitism?

I disagree. This is like saying that the American Civil Rights Movement caused segregation. If people had treated Jews with respect and allowed them to integrate peacefully into their society, there would have been no need for Zionism. Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people need and deserve a homeland where they can practice their religion without fear for their lives. This homeland has traditionally been identified with the Levant. Even the ultra-orthodox Jews in the YouTube video are Zionists; they just believe that Zion is in Brooklyn.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ThinkingHuman

 

I have yet to see anybody disagree with my statement that Zionism CAUSES Anti-Semitism. If everybody is in agreement with me, then whose purpose does it serve to cause Anti-Semitism?

I disagree. This is like saying that the American Civil Rights Movement caused segregation.

You misunderstood my point. Zionism does not cause Anti-Semitism in Europe (that is what your analogy infers), and that I agree with. Europeans don't care if Jewish people move out.

My point was that Zionism causes Anti-Semitism in Palestine. From the Palestinian perspective, foreign people moved into their country, took over land and power. Of course they will hate those invaders.

This homeland has traditionally been identified with the Levant. Even the ultra-orthodox Jews in the YouTube video are Zionists; they just believe that Zion is in Brooklyn.

And that is why I said that I do not hold a grudge against the Jewish people (but I am not Palestinian and my land has not been taken away). If Zion is considered to be in Brooklyn, if that causes people to encounter less hate, then is that not a better choice?

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
From the Palestinian perspective, foreign people moved into their country, took over land and power. Of course they will hate those invaders.

Pretty much Sums it up to me.

Iraq rolled South to take over Kuwait, and the World came together to Remove Iraq.

Why hasn't the World Responded in the Same Manner to help Palestine?

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

 

Pretty much Sums it up to me.

Iraq rolled South to take over Kuwait, and the World came together to Remove Iraq.

Why hasn't the World Responded in the Same Manner to help Palestine?

Rather than stopping or reversing it, then-World power Great Britain aided the invasion in 1917, as did the United Nation in 1947.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

My point was that Zionism causes Anti-Semitism in Palestine. From the Palestinian perspective, foreign people moved into their country, took over land and power. Of course they will hate those invaders.

People have things taken from them all the time, and anger is usually the first response. It is rare, however, that the anger lasts so long and obsessively that it ferments into hatred. Look at examples of other peoples who were displaced. Ten years after the Palestinians lost title to their land, there was a revolution in Cuba. The revolutionaries seized all the land and much of the private property. Those who could afford to fled. After an abortive attempt to invade their homeland and liberate it from the Communists, the Cubans in exile realized that they would never re-take their land and property by force of arms. Instead, they chose to make the best of their new homeland, becoming successful business people and enriching the United States with their lively, life affirming culture. Sixty years after their exile began, one of their sons is poised to become President of the United States and the Communist regime is in its death throes. Peace, patience and love of life will ultimately triumph.

In fairness, the Palestinians did not have the luxury of being welcomed in a new land. If you research the history of the region during the Cold War, you will discover that the Palestinians were forced to live in terrible refugee camps not by the Israelis, but by their Arab neighbors who refused to welcome them. Even now, Arabs of Palestinian descent seeking to flee the civil war in Syria, are being turned away by Jordan and Lebanon.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

Rather than stopping or reversing it, then-World power Great Britain aided the invasion in 1917, as did the United Nation in 1947.

Until 1917, Palestine did not even exist. The region the British came to call "Palestine" was composed of three separate Ottoman provinces, ruled by three different Governors. Because the inhabitants of the region were first and foremost members of a particular village or clan, it is not entirely clear if there was such a thing as a "Palestinian identity" before the Mandate. But this is way off topic. Again, research the history of the region. It is not quite what any of the interested parties would have you believe.

Originally posted by DJW001

 

People have things taken from them all the time, and anger is usually the first response. It is rare, however, that the anger lasts so long and obsessively that it ferments into hatred.

So its okay for the invaders to take the Palestinians' land. It is their problem if they are obsessive about it. They must be killed for their hatred?

Moral compass? You keep on astounding me.

Originally posted by DJW001

 

Rather than stopping or reversing it, then-World power Great Britain aided the invasion in 1917, as did the United Nation in 1947.

Until 1917, Palestine did not even exist. The region the British came to call "Palestine" was composed of three separate Ottoman provinces, ruled by three different Governors. Because the inhabitants of the region were first and foremost members of a particular village or clan, it is not entirely clear if there was such a thing as a "Palestinian identity" before the Mandate. But this is way off topic. Again, research the history of the region. It is not quite what any of the interested parties would have you believe.

Rather than stopping or reversing it, then-World power Great Britain aided the invasion in 1917, as did the United Nation in 1947. I was correct.

Originally posted by DJW001

 

Rather than stopping or reversing it, then-World power Great Britain aided the invasion in 1917, as did the United Nation in 1947.

Until 1917, Palestine did not even exist.

I need to add that I find it extremely deceitful when you try to play on words like this.

Before 1917 Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. Of course, they did not give it an English name!

If Palestine did not exist in 1917 why did Great Britain call its military campaign in 1915 "Sinai and Palestine Campaigns"?

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

I need to add that I find it extremely deceitful when you try to play on words like this.

This is not a play on words, nor is it deceitful. Christian Europeans referred to the area as "Palestine" in order to tie it in with the Christian Bible. It did not exist as a nation or even unified province.

Before 1917 Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. Of course, they did not give it an English name!

If you were to ask the average person there what their province was called, they would use the Arabic term for "Southern Syria."

If Palestine did not exist in 1917 why did Great Britain call its military campaign in 1915 "Sinai and Palestine Campaigns"?

For the same reason they called the whole area "The Middle East." The locals certainly didn't call it that. To the British, it was half way between Britain and China, the Far East. Hence, Middle East. They called the entire region from what is now Iraq ("Mesopotamia" to the British), through Syria and Lebanon right down to the Sinai peninsula Palestine because that is what it was called in Sunday School.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

Rather than stopping or reversing it, then-World power Great Britain aided the invasion in 1917, as did the United Nation in 1947. I was correct.

Actually, Great Britain tried to suppress the settlement of the area by Jews and tried to put down the Israeli secession by force of arms.

reply to post by DJW001

Until 1917, Palestine did not even exist.

Oh yeah?

How bout some historical maps and a passport from the British Mandate...









Scroll this way to see the full map...




Oh let's not forget my dear Lena...





Yes, I aware that some of the content is post 1917, bu the maps sure aren't, excecpt the land theft map. Do you honestly the land of Palestine did not exist before 1917?[

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Rather than stopping or reversing it, then-World power Great Britain aided the invasion in 1917, as did the United Nation in 1947. I was correct.

GB did not aid any invasion. GB was the one doing the invading thank you very much!

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

So its okay for the invaders to take the Palestinians' land. It is their problem if they are obsessive about it. They must be killed for their hatred?

Did I say that it was okay to take the Palestinian's land? Did I say it was okay to kill them just because of their hatred? No, I did not.

Moral compass? You keep on astounding me.

You spend a great deal of time condemning me for things you only think I said. You still cannot understand how moral judgement is a question of intent, not numbers. Let me give you asome examples that might shed light on other issues.

In response to the last intifada, the Israelis bulldozed Palestinian homes and businesses to the ground, ostensibly to clear out potential terrorist nests and munitions works. This pretense is so thin as to be transparent. They could have conducted house to house searches as the British did in Ireland. Instead, they simply destroyed the Palestinians'quality of life. There is no doubt they did this to inflict economic suffering on the Palestinians, irrespective of whether a given individual supported Hamas or not. It was clearly intended as an act of economic terrorism, to destroy Palestinian morale and erode confidence in Hamas. It does not matter if they bulldozed a thousand homes, a dozen homes or even just one. It was criminal because of its intent, not the number of victims. What's more, to paraphrase Bismark, it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.

Then there is the long standing blockade on goods. This is ostensibly to cut off the flow of arms into Gaza. This has resulted in Palestinians being deprived of even some of the simplest consumer goods, yet it was somehow unable to prevent Hamas from smuggling short range ballistic missiles into the territory. The policy is an utter failure at meeting its stated goals, and should be reversed. The fact that the current right wing government does not lift it suggests that the intent is also to cause material suffering. I consider this intent immoral.

Does this make me an "Anti Zionist?" Absolutely not, any more than my supporting the legitimacy of the state of Israel makes me a Zionist. The policies I find so reprehensible on Israel's part are not the master plan of some inhuman "Zionists" cooked up secretly in a dark room. They are the openly debated policies of a duly elected parliamentary government. Individuals to the center and left can freely protest against them in the media or street without fear of reprisal.

On the other hand, the decisions of Hamas are not made publicly; indeed the identities of those who implement these policies are not generally known. They persist in killing Israeli civilians, knowing that innocent Palestinians will die when the Israelis return fire in self defense. The Palestinians are being held hostage as human shields. I find this behavior detestable.

When the Israelis finally realize that the Likkud government's policies are not merely a failure, but are making the situation worse, they can peacefully remove the party from power. When Hamas lost an election, they pulled out of the West Bank and turned Gaza into a killing zone. Now, are you beginning to understand the calculus of morality?