Haha, so...Zionist positions?

Because Jews live there?

Because it was the holy city of Judaism first?

Because Jews allow Christians to go and pray there whereas Christians, when they controlled the city, did not extent the same privilege to Jews?

Because Jews control it now?

There are so many reasons.

But the number one reason for me personally is that I am sick and tired of people demanding that Jews give up theor holy city to foreign control just because of the weird belief that Jews shouldn't rule or live in their own capital.

You are free to worship my god, but you are NOT free to redefine my people or my religion, thank you very much.

Blame Israel for the barrier that was built because of Arab terrorists. How righteous of you.

You probably believe that Jews are so evil, they ENJOY spending lots of money to build a barrier for no reason other than the evil in their hearts.

Read this about who should control Jerusalem: https://forums.joeuser.com/367718

In short: Why not ask the people who live there?

Trust me, the last thing people there, Jews and Arabs, want is Roman control of Jerusalem!

Well you lump the Palestinian people in with the PLO and Hamas, why not lump them together, right?  >_> 

Um, racism isn't about ethnicity or culture (specifically) - it's about race, so setting that and the fact of  the lack of a real biological basis for race...there can be a palestinian people, for your information. In fact, they would fall under an ethnic group. Just as you have the Jewish people, americans, etc. 

It's a misconception to think of them as merely just Arabs. That's like saying that Sunni's and Shiites are simply Moslims. It ignores the differences and the uniqueness of the culture that has been fostered in that area. Yeah, they may qualify as Arabs, because they speak the language, but they're still their own group/people, etc. You can have sub cultures, so to speak, within larger ones (or larger ethnic groups).

Well honestly, you have not shown it to me. Your comments continuously have shown to me that you lump them together. Perhaps you need to reconsider how you word things? In fact, a bit ironically, I've suggested the possibility to you, that there are those palestinians who are merely trying to live. You've, to my memory, never acknowledged that. I could be wrong though. 

Likewise, those Israelies who vote for, support, or agree with the actions are promoting what many consider overreacting, restraint and velvet gloves or not. Like it or not, the same logic you're applying can be applied to Israeli's. 

Whether or not they did that, I don't know. I highly doubt that you have such priviliged insight into their minds, tactics, etc. 

On the matter of oppression: Right, and Hitler built his camps cause he wanted to be random. Pol Pot merely did his thing for shits and giggles. Mao just had bad days. 

>_> 

Sarcasm aside...whether or not people are protected isn't an issue to me, I'm positive that they are taken care of. Israeli does tend to hve an advantage with their military. What is an issue to me is how they implement this. Like, when they build these walls near houses, remove refugee places (and dont even say no, there are countless reports that say contrary. What, the press is out to get them? Puh-lease, that's egocentric and border line meglomanic). Sorry, but my ethical and moral standards just cannot allow me to support people who, in the claimed defense of their people, hurt others who have no say in what their gov't does. 

Likewise, your throwing around the label whenever someone doesn't agree with Israeli's policies is fucking bullshit. You're wearing down the true meaning behind it, and that's unfortunate. 

Haha, you're funny. You speak of prejudice like you think you're any better? Dude, get a grip, you're just as biased and prejudiced as I am, if not more so. 

Where did I lie about what you said? If you're not seeing what you're doing, then that's not my fault. Maybe you need to go back and look your choice of words.

But you know, whatever right? This is merely a fucking online forum, not real life. Fantasies, ignorance, and wet dreams prevail where intelligence, critical thinking and open mindedness do not. That's unfortunate. 

There is no Israeli party that advocates war and there is no Israeli majority (or even large minority) who would vote for such a party.

There simply isn't an Israeli or Jewish equivalent to Fatah or Hamas and no Jewish secular or religious leader has ever called for the extermination of another nation or even the murder of individuals and managed to gain any public support for such policies.

You are trying to apply moral relativism by claiming that a Jewish party that doesn't advocate racism and murder is morally the same as an Arab party that does. It's not.

"Palestinians" (exclusively Arab such) did not exist until the 1960s. The region you call "Palestine" was made up of the Ottoman provinces of Jerusalem and Beirut.

The British called it "Palestine" after the Roman province because "Palestine" was the Latin name for the land called "Canaan" or "Eretz Yisrael" in Semitic languages. ("Canaan" literally means "lowland".) During that time anyone living there was a "Palestinian", Jewish or otherwise.

Today's "Palestinians" do share common characteristics and traditions but those traditions are only a few decades old. The inhabitants of "Palestine" under Ottoman rule, Jewish, Arab, Armenian and so on also shared common characteristics and traditions, but none of these were Arab-only characteristics and traditions.

"Palestinians" are not a "subgroup" of Arabs, "Palestinians" are inhabitants of "Palestine".

What makes matters worse is that the word "Palestine", which derives from the Hebrew/Phoenician for "invader" originally referred to Greek invaders living around Gaza 3000 years ago. The Romans renamed Judaea and Samaria "Palestine" ("invaderland") to insult the Jews. And oddly enough those who want to insult Jews or Israel still use the name.

If you read texts from the 19th century you will find that the word "Palestinian" was then used in Europe to refer to Jews living in Europe. The word has travelled with anti-Semitism for 2000 years. It is no coincidence that it was picked up by racist Arab nationalists and that Bedouins and Druze in Israel rarely associate themselves with the term.

Political correctness protects everyone but the Jews and hence calling the land "Palestine" has become an accepted way of insulting Jews.

Yes, and so there are German Jews and French Jews and Spanish Jews.

Just like there are "Palestinian" Jews and "Palestinian" Arabs.

But if you now tell me that since a majority of "Palestinians" (people living in "Palestine") were at some point in history Arabs, Palestinians are now an exclusive Arab (sub-)group, you are advocating a racist principle.

In the 1930s the vast majority of Germans were non-Jewish. And then Hitler decided that ONLY non-Jewish Germans were "Germans". You are making the same statement about "Palestinians". I don't buy it.

In 1900 the vast majority of Americans (people living in North-America) where white, descendants of European invaders of, by then, a long time ago. But that doesn't mean that Indians or the descendants of black slaves were not Americans as well, even though white nationalists would support the idea that they aren't.

The borders Britain created in its mandate were completely artificial. There is no cultural, religious, or linguistic basis for claiming that Arabs (and only Arabs) living in exactly the western part of the mandate of "Palestine" were a specific sub-group named "Palestinians".

By calling the land with a name the Romans invented to insult Jews, you are insulting Jews. I realise you have no problem with it. Neither had the British or the Arab nationalists who made us of the term.

But can I at least ask you not to use racist metrics in determining what a "Palestinian" is?

I linked before to this excellent article that explains what "Palestinians" are:

http://nizos.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-zionism-arabs-and-democracy.html

It's written by a second-generation "refugee". If you are looking for a "Palestinian people", a "sub-group" of Arabs, look here:

To go back to the Palestinians, what you call Palestinians today were Levantines who were living under the Ottoman boot. Their Palestinian identity as it is known today crystallised in the refugee camps in the 1960's.

He also wrote an article about Turkish words once in common use in "Palestine" but which Arab nationalism has replaced with Arab words. (Turkey itself underwent a similar nationalist purge to "clean up" the Turkish language, as did Israel with the Hebrew language which was similarly Hebraized.)

No, Alderic, you don't get. While this is not real life, the place outside where people who believe the crap you and others are propagating walk around is quite real. And when I walk through the streets I dare not show that I have any connections with Israel or even Judaism in many places because there are people out there in real life, MANY people, who believe what they read on the Web and in the news and who I do not want to engage in real life.

For YOU this is just an online forum where you can make claims about Israel as you like.

But for Jews and Israelis this is the place where people like you tell stories that add to other people's real life hatred of Jews and Israel.

You have to realise that people BELIEVE the crap you and others write and that many of those who believe it are not as laid-back and friendly as you are. (And frankly, if I found that my beliefs were shared by people who blow up schools I would change them.)

The entire story about a "Palestinian people" hasn't helped a single Arab living in Canaan, but it did help to prolong an unecessary war by adding fake legitimacy to the idea that Jews have no right to live in a "country" known as "Palestine" which is purely and exclusive Arab. What's so great about that?

It was the 1960s.

The only relevance 1834 has, if I recall correctly, was that it was the date of a pogrom against Jewish Palestinians by Arab Palestinians. To use that date as a defininf moment for the formation of an alleged "Palestinian nation" that are a "sub-group" of the Arab nation is probably the most insulting definition of the "Palestinian people" that I have heard in some time.

And yes, there are differences between Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs. I didn't say they weren't. I am saying that there were no stark differences between Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians (at least not differences that didn't also exist among, say, Iraqi Jews and Iraqi Arabs) and that "Palestine" didn't exist before the British called it such. What you refer to as "Palestinians" were simply Arabs that lived in the Levant. They are culturally different from, say, the Arabs of Arabia, but they are NOT culturally different from Arabised Lebanese or Arabs from Transjordan or the Sinai.

Yes, it's bias. I am biased towards not seeing such stark differences between Arabs and Jews and other nationalities as you do.

It's the thing I have been mentioning before. You just don't get it and that's where our differences lie.

I explained it. Not all inhabitants of "Palestine" are Arabs, and to use the term "Palestinian" to refer to only Arab inhabitants of "Palestine" is racist, just as using the term "American" for white Americans exclusively is racist.

You are not looking at something in an "anthropological sense". You are SPECIFICALLY and ON PURPOSE ignoring facts in order to end up with a pure Arab "Palestinian" people. That's the opposite of anthropology.

There is a Levantine Arab dialect. It's spoken by Arabs in Lebanon and Israel (including disputed territories and Gaza) as well as by Arabs in Transjordan. (The river Jordan is not a cultural border. The same people lived on both sides of the river. You can walk through it.)

It was the British who decided which parts of which Ottoman provinces would be "Palestine".

And it was later the PLO who decided that exactly those Arabs that lived within the borders defined by the British but west of the river Jordan are "Palestinians". (And that Jews who lived in the same place are not. Incidentally, the "Palestinian people" includes Arabs from Egypt when necessary, including Arafat himself.)

Contrary to what you think, decisions of the British foreign office and the PLO do not constitute "anthropology" for you to study.

What you are doing here is like looking at Africa and defining people's cultures according to borders made up by European imperialists. But tribes and nations are not defined by artificial borders.

There is such a thing as a "Nigerian" (someone who lives in Nigeria) and there are "Hausa" (members of the Hausa people). Some Hausa are Nigerians, but that doesn't make Nigerians a "sub-group" of the Hausa. And neither are non-Hausa people living in Nigeria not Nigerians.

LEAUKI WRITES:

LULA POSTS: 2

LEAUKI 3

LEAUKI

KFC 36

AJ POSTS 53

70

LULA POSTS 78

kfc  posts 98

106

122

132

135

Keeping in mind that my mother taught that "sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you"..Leauki and KFC's false charges of anti-Semitism just rolled off me.  I was ignoring them until this last statement.

2,000 years ago, Christ came and established Christianity. Anti-Semitism is not 2,000 years old. It's a word created in 1870 by a German, Wilelm Marr referring to hatred of Jews becasue of certain ineradicable biological characteristics.  After Hitler, "anti-Semitism" got a different meaning. Today any criticism or anything derogatory of Isreal, Jews, modern Judaism, the Talmud, or calling the eviction of Palestinians from their land morally wrong, is labeled as anti-Semitic.

I have no interest to harm Jews or see them harmed in any way, but I will defend against Jewish and Protestant subversion of and calumnies against the Catholic Faith.

that means I will condemn anti-Semitism which means hatred of Jews as a "race" or an ethnic or cultural people, but at the same time, I won't let the Jews redefine the term "anti-Semitic" as a designation any form of opposition to themselves.

Earlier in the discussion Leauki described Zionism as the only way...and I believe it. I oppose Jewish (and Protestant) Zionism whose ambition is to impose its rule on other nations or people and that's not anti-Semitic. I oppose the revolutionary Talmudic agenda of opposition to Christ that fuels Jewish Zionism and that's not anti-Semitic.  

If that "criticism" is made up of lies about Israel, Jews, Judaism, the Talmud or consists of propagating the lie that "Palestinians" were "evicted" from their land, it IS anti-Semitic.

Why exactly would telling lies about Jews not be anti-Semitism?

I have shown you the map of the land the Zionists bought. The Arabs were not "evicted". The land was _bought_.

Unfortunately it was bought by Jews and hence we left ourselves wide open for accusations of having "stolen" the land and when the Arabs fled (after other Arab countries called on them to do so), the Jews obviously "evicted" them.

No, you are too much of a coward for that.

But if you tell and repeat enough lies, other people will do the job.

But telling lies about the Talmud and Judaism and claiming that the land the Jews bought was really "stolen" is fine with you?

If I had a penny for every anti-Semite who claims he doesn't want to harm Jews, I'd be a Rothschild.

I totally believe you two. You don't want to harm Jews.

But you don't find anything wrong with telling the worst lies about Jews and Israel and that's why other people want to harm Jews. Do you not understand than when you (Lula) tell stories like "the Jews stole the land" or when you (both of you) claim that "Palestinians" were "evicted", other people will believe that nonsense and try to murder Jews as punishment?

It is people like you who keep the conflict going. Thank you for that.

Alderic, before you agree again with Lula, you might want to check what she wrote about Islam in other threads. I think you will find that Lula is an equal-opportunity hater and liar who hates not only Judaism but also Islam (and she knows little about either religion). She is not "for the Palestinians" because she has any respect whatsoever for them (her statements about Islam make that very clear) but because she is adamantly against a Jewish state because it goes against her religion.

Apart from that I find it just disappointing. When the Arabs attacked in 1948 Jewish leaders _begged_ local Arabs to stay and help defend the country. But they ran away and left the Jews to die. Nobody at that point knew that Israel would survive.

And not only did most of them run away and leave the Jews to die, but now it is the Jews' fault and the Jews "evicted" them.

Jews must be the most powerful and all-knowing beings on earth. They were so secure in their knowledge that they would beat the British-equipped and British-led Arab armies, that they even spend some time making more local enemies by deploying part of their troops to "evict" local Arabs. Does that make sense to you? Do you REALLY believe that the Zionists were so certain of their victory that they would actually make more enemies and divert troops from the front just out of hatred for Arabs?

And on the other side, Israel won the war because the Arabs failed to mobilise all their troops. The reason the Arabs didn't mobilise all their troops was because they were certain that they would win. And it was close.

But you are not an anti-Semite, right? You look at this from an unbiased point of view and just rationally decided that the Jews must have had the evil energy and the will to evict local Arabs while fighting for their lives. That's not anti-Semitism, that's perfectly rational, right?

Alderic, that is what anti-Semitism is: the belief that Jews are somehow different and evil, and the belief that Jews are very powerful. That is what Lula believes and that is what guides your opinions.

But you don't realise it's anti-Semitism. It's so ingrained in your mind that it doesn't occur to you that THAT is it. To you it makes total sense that Jews would obviously want to evict Arabs and obviously would take the time to do so while under attack and obviously would think that they can afford to divert troops and create more enemies during a war for their lives. Tou you that all makes perfect sense and it is not anti-Semitism.

Can you try applying it to another people and see if it still works?

If the US attacked Quebec, would you find it plausible that

1. Quebec would not call on English-speaking Canadians to help against the attackers.

2. Quebec would use the opportunity to evict all English-speaking people from Ontario (similar in number to the French-speaking Quebecers).

3. Quebec would succeed in evicting all English-speaking people from Ontario while fighting off the Americans.

4. Quebec would from the beginning know that they would beat the United States, which is only possible if the US do not deploy all their troops, which would only happen if the US themselves disagreed that Quebec would easily win.

5. Quebec has enough troops to fight off any number of Americans and therefor had the ability to deploy troops to evict English-speaking Canadians from their homes in Ontario during the war with the US.

Do these things still make sense when the attacked party are not Jews?