Register to Comment
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 131
Like Tree13Likes
  1. #111
    yanshuf yanshuf is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    13,102

    Quote Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
    Well, therein lies the colonialism aspect I mentioned. What 'right' did the nations of the LoN have to 'authorise' their domestic Jews to emigrate there and set up the nation for that purpose at the locals' expense? IMO, they didn't. It's a done deal by now, but it wasn't kosher, pardon the pun, to do that and the same with all sorts of other colonialist pursuits of the past.

    Again, that relates as mentioned to the sad and often torrid history of Jews being rejected and persecuted in such nations, with an end result and desire of creating and punting them off to a new nation called Israel without consideration of the Palestinians living there. Many Jews were in agreement not only for religious and ethnic subculture reasons but also to establish a safe homeland for themselves. Given all that Jews have provided to the world wherever they have gone, 'no good deed goes unpunished' when it came to how they've been received.

    I've also pointed out IMO the other flaws and crocodile tears in such resolutions. On the flip side, as Abba Eban aptly pointed out: "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the Earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions." I discussed the malice, hypocrisy, and fraud commonly found in such resolutions, including Arab complicity in creating and settling a new nation of Israel by purging its Jews at Palestinian expense, and then winding up the Palestinians and others on their behalf at Israeli expense. To them, it's like an Auschwitz plan...round them up in one spot and finish them off.

    That said, each side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict seems fond of citing loaded resolutions that are convenient for them and rejecting those that aren't as well as outside contributors to what exists now and its conflicts.
    First of all, Jews from Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, north africa, Bulgaria and Turkey had been citizens of the Ottoman empire before the "LoN'S Colonialism". They ahd the right to change a place of residence.

    And as for the colonialism aspect - well, as I have been claiming - the Arabs here are a conglomerate of peoples, they are not one nation. And as job immigrants they have no right to cry against Jewish existence, zionism or the British rule as part of the LoN's mandate resolution.

    In the start of the British rule the arabs were very happy that the ottomans were defeated. The British devided the land into two parts - Jewish and Arab, and it was quite fair. They won the war, they had the right to do this, just as it was customary in those days.

    The winner takes it all. The Arabs took most of the land - all the important places and sites they wanted - Mecca, Medina etc.

    What was left to the Jews was not much, but the Jews were willing to accept the deal.

    All in all, the LoN''s resolution did justice after centuries of ottoman injustice, and pro-muslim rule. They recognised the Jews as the indigenous people of this land. And this resolution is a binding one.

    Arabs want to be partners in this land - welcome, but if they still think that they can ethnically cleanse us from the cradle of Judaism, they are totally wrong.

    The Leftistics here and around the world strengthen the balestinians idea that they can get rid of the Jews in this land. Your assertion that Jews are colonisers is just what the arabs claim to undermine Jewish claim to this land.

    Thus if Jews have no right to be in Judea and Samaria, what right do they have to Tel-Aviv?!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #112
    O'Sullivan Bere O'Sullivan Bere is offline
    O'Sullivan Bere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    12,095

    Quote Originally Posted by roc_ View Post
    I recommend you watch the following video to understand her views better, and the solution she is outlining. I believe they are views worth seriously considering, and indeed her general perspective as a Jew should give one thought. Many Arabs agree with her too. (I might also add that the wailing and howling of most plainly vehemently antisemitic and/or ignorant on here, whenever they hear Caroline articulate her views, suggest that she is expressing worthwhile truths. - Which is another strong positive for her.)
    Nobody has a crystal ball and her vision of a one state Israel solution might work, but the odds are against it IMO. Even if Palestinians could be generally 'Westernised' and attracted to the great potentials and offerings in a 'Greater Israel', if you will, it's antithetical to human relations for people to accept a second class status, and that's what she's actually indicating even if it's 'nicer' than, say, what the Jewish Home party types desire.

    Israel wants to be a Jewish themed state with a Jewish invitation, flourish and focus. That comes at their expense. Even with 'Westernised' and 'cosmopolitan' Palestinians, they'll naturally insist upon true equality including with immigration, culture, etc. There's where the problems will come in the best case.

    The worst case is, of course, appeals and inroads sought by Islamists and/or Palestinian/Arab nationalists that want Israel overwhelmed and abolished. International laws prohibits leaving people 'stateless' for citizenship purposes for starters whereas she wants understandably but impermissibly to cherrypick from the lot.

    Yeah, many Palestinians want Israeli citizenship...just ask the 5+ million or so seeking a 'right of return' to Israel. Sure, some likely believe that it offers a better opportunity that the theocratic, oppressive, backward and otherwise dysfunctional 'crapistans' operating in the bulk of the Muslim nations. Others, however, want that land for themselves for religious and/or ethnic reasons.

    The two concepts aren't even mutually inconsistent. For example, it's a glaring contradiction--and insult--to notice Islamists that menace the West with their calls for theocratic sharia and worse, militant Islamism, whilst insisting on relocating, living and availing themselves of the opportunities, luxuries, freedoms and entitlements in the West.

    Israel itself has close to 9 million people, of which 20% are Arab non-Jews. Add in the 1969 territories, that's a huge amount of non-Jews being added to the mix. But let's say only the West Bank is annexed because it seems clear that Gaza is not of interest (and what's to do about that situation). Let's say that 2.8 million with 17% Jews, so roughly around 2.3 million Arab non-Jews get added. That's 4 million Arab non-Jews in Israel. Now you're getting up to around 1/3 of Israel being Arab non-Jewish, and with the larger population more Arab non-Jews with it.

    That's about the percentage split what Northern Ireland started with regarding its Gaelic themed nationalist Roman Catholic (CNR) population with an overwhelming CNR population adjacent to them with whom they identify. It was sufficiently large to make it unstable for its majority British themed unionist Protestant (PUL) population. She claims Jews are currently reproducing more than Palestinians, but that's subject to change. Whereas NI CNRs once often emigrated, in Northern Ireland today the population between CNRs and PULs is now largely split.

    If her plan is going to work, IMO it strongly suggests that Israel become something like the US, Canada, Australia, etc, than a Jewish themed state, and that's if it can get past more troubling hurdles to get there.
    Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 3rd January 2018 at 10:53 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #113
    O'Sullivan Bere O'Sullivan Bere is offline
    O'Sullivan Bere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    12,095

    Quote Originally Posted by yanshuf View Post
    First of all, Jews from Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, north africa, Bulgaria and Turkey had been citizens of the Ottoman empire before the "LoN'S Colonialism". They ahd the right to change a place of residence.

    And as for the colonialism aspect - well, as I have been claiming - the Arabs here are a conglomerate of peoples, they are not one nation. And as job immigrants they have no right to cry against Jewish existence, zionism or the British rule as part of the LoN's mandate resolution.

    In the start of the British rule the arabs were very happy that the ottomans were defeated. The British devided the land into two parts - Jewish and Arab, and it was quite fair. They won the war, they had the right to do this, just as it was customary in those days.

    The winner takes it all. The Arabs took most of the land - all the important places and sites they wanted - Mecca, Medina etc.

    What was left to the Jews was not much, but the Jews were willing to accept the deal.

    All in all, the LoN''s resolution did justice after centuries of ottoman injustice, and pro-muslim rule. They recognised the Jews as the indigenous people of this land. And this resolution is a binding one.

    Arabs want to be partners in this land - welcome, but if they still think that they can ethnically cleanse us from the cradle of Judaism, they are totally wrong.

    The Leftistics here and around the world strengthen the balestinians idea that they can get rid of the Jews in this land. Your assertion that Jews are colonisers is just what the arabs claim to undermine Jewish claim to this land.

    Thus if Jews have no right to be in Judea and Samaria, what right do they have to Tel-Aviv?!
    The Ottoman Empire was still an empire. People don't usually like being part of another's empire. Just ask the Americans, the Irish and all the rest that wanted to break out of the British Empire and so forth. Zionist settlers from all sorts of places benefited from approval by the British and the LoN for creating Israel, but the Palestinians were told to accept that when they got settled upon by them. I can fully understand at that time why that wasn't going to fly with them. If a mass of people from wherever claimed 'God and the UN' entitled them to settle Israel at will, and set up a new nation within it, would you have a problem with that?

    Yes, some Jews came from within the Ottoman Empire (and even a small percent were already natives of the area), but a great percent did not but came in from elsewhere with Zionism in mind at their expense.

    The Jews are as much a conglomerate as the Arabs are in the area, even far more so given who came from where when.

    Again, you're claiming that the Jews were the 'indigenous people of this land' and that the Palestinians were not properly there. Native Jews only formed a small percent--like 7%--of the population before the big settlement movements occurred under Zionism.

    I agree with you about any efforts to cleanse Israel of its Jews given the existing situations, and even for cleansing the 1967 lands of Jews. It doesn't mean the Palestinians aren't entitled to a nation of their own there though, even if there's a Jewish minority within it whose rights should be respected just as there is of the minority Arabs in Israel itself.

    Lastly, I want to make this clear about the 'colonial' claim. I am fully aware that it's a tactic of Israel haters and/or Jew bashers to delegitimise Israelis. I have not made that argument.

    I have stated clearly several times by now that Israel's existence is a fait accompli, a done deal. It's no less legitimate today than Kaliningrad is Russian, Gdansk Polish, the former Sudetenland Czech, Alsace-Lorraine French, Lvov Ukrainian, etc. A great percent of Israeli Jews today flowing from the 'aliyah' process are now born and bred there, some for a few generations by now. They are natives. I've also said a few times that Israel as a nation is entitled to admit and naturalise whomever they want. Jews have also been present in the West Bank and other areas predating the Zionist movement.

    I am discussing that term regarding how Israel was created to give it context regarding how the disputes came to be, especially towards claims that the Palestinians have subordinate or illegitimate status there.
    Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 4th January 2018 at 02:34 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #114
    Barroso Barroso is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,445

    Quote Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
    Didn't dislike them? The same link states that: "[u]nder his rule, all Jewish property was confiscated, and all debts to Jews were cancelled." He also forbade their return and bulldozed Jewish cemeteries. Nazis did that stuff.
    Two things here:
    1. was this property belonging to people who lived abroad?
    2. how many debts did this involve and how much money?
    Remember that at that time many if not most countries had laws against double nationality and property being owned by foreigners - which you would automatically become on taking up nationality in another state.
    Further,

    Gaddafi killed anyone who discovered his mother was Jewish, aide claims - The Times of Israel

    'Qaddafi is Jewish and I'm His Cousin' - Israel National News
    Nazis did that stuff too insofar as covering up any personal Jewish ancestry and connections, 'smearing' fellow Nazis of having 'Jewish ancestry" for political gain and personal vendettas, etc.
    A quick search only came up with jewish and israeli sources for this claim.
    One said she converted to Islam at the age of 9, another claimed that his grandmother was jewish and therefore his mother was too.
    If she converted, then by personal choice, she was a muslim; if she was born to a jewish mother but lived as a muslim, again she was not a jew.
    Not that it's important, but it seems that the zionists are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

    One way or another, the jews had, with few exceptions, left Libya before Gaddafi came to power.
    There was very little for him to do.
    Regarding confiscating property and cancelling debts, I suspect that research will show that if this happened to Libyan jews, that it happened to other wealthy Libyans too during Gaddafi's revolution.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #115
    O'Sullivan Bere O'Sullivan Bere is offline
    O'Sullivan Bere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    12,095

    Quote Originally Posted by Barroso View Post
    Two things here:
    1. was this property belonging to people who lived abroad?
    2. how many debts did this involve and how much money?
    Remember that at that time many if not most countries had laws against double nationality and property being owned by foreigners - which you would automatically become on taking up nationality in another state.

    A quick search only came up with jewish and israeli sources for this claim.
    One said she converted to Islam at the age of 9, another claimed that his grandmother was jewish and therefore his mother was too.
    If she converted, then by personal choice, she was a muslim; if she was born to a jewish mother but lived as a muslim, again she was not a jew.
    Not that it's important, but it seems that the zionists are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

    One way or another, the jews had, with few exceptions, left Libya before Gaddafi came to power.
    There was very little for him to do.
    Regarding confiscating property and cancelling debts, I suspect that research will show that if this happened to Libyan jews, that it happened to other wealthy Libyans too during Gaddafi's revolution.
    His record isn't friendly from what's known and reported about him vis-a-vis them. As for his maternal roots, it shouldn't be any big deal to have Jewish roots hence the absurdity of the bigotry. It's common enough amongst 'Gentiles.' Even Hitler may have had Jewish roots and he actively concealed his roots along with Ahmadinejad.

    ADOLF HITLER

    There have been rumours that Hitler was one-quarter Jewish and that his paternal grandmother, Maria Schicklgruber, had become pregnant while working as a servant in a the household of a Graz Jew called Franberger. During the 1920s, the implications of these rumours along with his known family history were politically explosive, especially for the proponent of a racist ideology. Opponents tried to prove that Hitler, the leader of the anti-Semitic Nazi Party, had Jewish or Czech ancestors.

    Although these rumours were never confirmed, for Hitler they were reason enough to conceal his origins.
    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Funny you don't look Jewish - Telegraph
    Antisemitism was and remains a long sad scam in so many ways down to the personal, e.g.,
    Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 4th January 2018 at 02:19 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #116
    roc_ roc_ is offline
    roc_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,820

    Quote Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
    ... it's antithetical to human relations for people to accept a second class status, and that's what she's actually indicating...
    How do you mean? I don't think that is true.

    Would you say the same for a Muslim living in a Christian state? - There are 103 of those in the world. e.g. Denmark, England, Greece, Iceland, Malta, Norway, Zambia... etc. - These are all countries that formally recognise a form of Christianity as its official religion, often have a state church of a Christian denomination that supports the government and is supported by the government etc.

    And there are also 57 officially Muslim countries. - No doubt non-Muslim people living in these countries typically have second class status, but that is solely because of Sharia law stipulates.

    Why do you think there would bve a problem with a Jewish state?


    Quote Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
    Yeah, many Palestinians want Israeli citizenship...just ask the 5+ million or so seeking a 'right of return' to Israel.
    That is a very different phenomenon to Israeli-Arabs (and Arabs living in the territories who interact socially and economically with Israel everyday), realising the benefits of the kind of society that Israel offers them.

    Obviously the Palestinian refugees have been wildly indoctrinated and radicalised for use as a weapon by the Muslim and Arab states against Israel. (And highly cynically multiplied and proliferated). They know nothing about Israel except for their indoctrinated dogma that the Jews are the source of all their ills, and of all evil in the world etc. etc.

    As Martha Gelhorn wrote even way back in 1961 in her superb Atlantic Magazine article - "... The refugees' misery is in the head. They are sick in their minds from a diet of propaganda, official Arab dogma and homemade fantasy, which they have gobbled for nineteen years. Schooled in self-pity, encouraged to believe they are the worlds unique victims of injustice, they have never been allowed to forget the daydream past or to settle for the real future. Since the third Arab-Israel war hardly touched them, they learned nothing from it..."

    And the above has gone on ever since, without end, and without any moral compunction from any quarter. Tragically. Shamefully. - The point is, the Palestinian refugee issue needs to be dealt with on its own, separately, in light of the entire actual reality of the weaponisation of the Palestinian refugees over the past 70 years by the Arab and Muslim states, and indeed by antisemites and "anti-Zionists" of many hues.
    Last edited by roc_; 4th January 2018 at 09:39 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #117
    yanshuf yanshuf is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    13,102

    Quote Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere View Post
    The Ottoman Empire was still an empire. People don't usually like being part of another's empire. Just ask the Americans, the Irish and all the rest that wanted to break out of the British Empire and so forth. Zionist settlers from all sorts of places benefited from approval by the British and the LoN for creating Israel, but the Palestinians were told to accept that when they got settled upon by them. I can fully understand at that time why that wasn't going to fly with them. If a mass of people from wherever claimed 'God and the UN' entitled them to settle Israel at will, and set up a new nation within it, would you have a problem with that?

    Yes, some Jews came from within the Ottoman Empire (and even a small percent were already natives of the area), but a great percent did not but came in from elsewhere with Zionism in mind at their expense.

    The Jews are as much a conglomerate as the Arabs are in the area, even far more so given who came from where when.

    Again, you're claiming that the Jews were the 'indigenous people of this land' and that the Palestinians were not properly there. Native Jews only formed a small percent--like 7%--of the population before the big settlement movements occurred under Zionism.

    I agree with you about any efforts to cleanse Israel of its Jews given the existing situations, and even for cleansing the 1967 lands of Jews. It doesn't mean the Palestinians aren't entitled to a nation of their own there though, even if there's a Jewish minority within it whose rights should be respected just as there is of the minority Arabs in Israel itself.

    Lastly, I want to make this clear about the 'colonial' claim. I am fully aware that it's a tactic of Israel haters and/or Jew bashers to delegitimise Israelis. I have not made that argument.

    I have stated clearly several times by now that Israel's existence is a fait accompli, a done deal. It's no less legitimate today than Kaliningrad is Russian, Gdansk Polish, the former Sudetenland Czech, Alsace-Lorraine French, Lvov Ukrainian, etc. A great percent of Israeli Jews today flowing from the 'aliyah' process are now born and bred there, some for a few generations by now. They are natives. I've also said a few times that Israel as a nation is entitled to admit and naturalise whomever they want. Jews have also been present in the West Bank and other areas predating the Zionist movement.

    I am discussing that term regarding how Israel was created to give it context regarding how the disputes came to be, especially towards claims that the Palestinians have subordinate or illegitimate status there.
    The Jews are as much a conglomerate as the Arabs are in the area, even far more so given who came from where when.
    I disagree! The Jewish religion has kept our collective memory in tact. Customary behaviour like putting the Land of Israel, especially Zion - Jerusalem - in the forefront of prayers when couples get married, has unified Jews, religious and secular.

    The liturgical Hebrew language and historical background made us, east and west, one nation more than the so called Balestinians.

    They have no historical background in this country, i.e. they have no Balestinian kingdoms, archaeological artifacts or remnants that can show a Balestinian past.

    Many of them are rfom arab descent, but not local. They have no special Balestinian characteristics that can be traced back in history. Yes, they can trace their arab history line IN Egypt, Syria, Jordan etc. But to claim that they have a connection to this land that can make it right for them to stop Jews from settling here is ridiculously myopic.

    Saying that, it should be mentioned that if not their antisemitic stance against the Jewish existence, and their pro-nazi leadership who did all it can to get rid of the Jews in this land, the state of Israel might have not been established.

    They, foolishly, have created the state of Israel by their own stupidity, when trying to carry out genocide against us.

    As an immigrant society they had no right to claim this land more than the Jews. They had no right to try and annihilate the Jewish existence here, as they did in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the Jews have all the right to return to their homeland, and correct this historical distortion!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #118
    roc_ roc_ is offline
    roc_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,820

    Quote Originally Posted by RasherHash View Post
    ... The pogroms today are not against Jews, the pogroms today are against the Palestinian people by the zionazis.
    Your phrase is useful actually. As the multifold "crimes" the Jews are charged with today might well be summarised by your oft repeated hateful term "Zionazi".

    Let's briefly recall the "crimes" with which the Jews have been charged in the course of history—crimes which were to justify the atrocities perpetrated against them.

    They were supposed to have poisoned wells.

    They were said to have murdered children for ritual purposes.

    They were falsely charged with a systematic attempt at the economic domination and exploitation of all mankind.

    Pseudoscientific books were written to brand them an inferior, dangerous race.

    They were reputed to foment wars and revolutions for their own selfish purposes.

    They were presented at once as dangerous innovators and as enemies of true progress.

    They were charged with falsifying the culture of nations by penetrating the national life under the guise of becoming assimilated. In the same breath they were accused of being so stubbornly inflexible that it was impossible for them to fit into any society.

    Almost beyond imagination were the charges brought against them, charges known to their instigators to be untrue all the while, but which time and again influenced the masses.

    In times of unrest and turmoil the masses are inclined to hatred and cruelty. And since the economic collapse of 2007 this ugly monster has strongly raised her head again.

    There is indeed a pogrom against Jews in Israel and all around the world. Your term "Zionazi" reveals the mind of this murderous mob. That's useful to understanding the danger.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #119
    Atlantean Atlantean is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    419

    Man is an animal ;
    But, he is even better than an animal ;
    Because, he has been created more in the likeness of God.
    Not that man is ever God.
    Except when God was man as Jesus Christ.
    And, NO ethnicity is more special than any other ethnicity ;
    Regardless what occult books say.
    None is the Chosen People.
    But, there was a People who chose God, & eventually rejected him, & murdered him ... by proxy.
    Then again, they did so to most of their Prophets.
    Returning to man in general ;
    Man can descend to be evil.
    Indeed, a nation in the main can be so ;
    A cult can be so.
    And a nation that functions as an egregore cult can be so.

    ANY FURTHER CORRUPTION IN THE MORALS OF THE ETHNICITIES DEEMED "Cattle" / "Beasts" BY SUCH A CULT WILL IN TIME RESULT IN THOSE CORRUPTED ETHNICITIES TURNING ON THEIR CORRUPTERS.

    BUT, ONE WHO IS WISE, & A DEFENDER, AGAINST THE CULT WOULD NEVER DO EVIL TO THE CULT.

    Anyway, I surprised at learning what David Attenborough said about the Israelis in the main ;
    vis.
    I very surprised that it was David Attenborough who said this.


    David Attenborough on the Plight of Palestinians


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough

    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    INDOCTRINATED & PARANOID & ORGANISED & ... SO BOO...RING !
    Well overdue that the Lion lie down with the Lamb rather than the Lion resort to clap-trap


    http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf
    Last edited by Atlantean; 4th January 2018 at 01:34 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #120
    yanshuf yanshuf is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    13,102

    And a nation that functions as an egregore cult can be so.
    The Irish workers union are a cult!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment