AC YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

[zaxx19]

In your posts you list a chronolgy: 1) No Israel 2) People in camps....

You conveintly left out 1/b) 9 Arab armies invade Israel vowing too "burn every Jew pig in the levantine"-- Syrian General 1948.. You also left out numerous pogroms against Jews by arabs throughout the country in 1947 in which Jewish children where thrown out windows and synagogues were burned down(see Hebron), the hooking up between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler in order to massacre the Jews of the area, and the rapid development of the land undertaken by the jews which benefited Jews AND GENTILE(and incidentally brought about 45% of these so-called arabs into Palestine in the first place) Other than these little ommisions your post is accurate. I sincerly hope the rest of these "palestinian arabs"( this is really a geographic designation) can rejoin their brethren in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and S.A.( THEY ARE ARABS SO ARABIA IS PROBABLY WHERE THEY BELONG CORRECT??) and I promise you i'll work very hard to make this a reality ASAP.

[Broken Glass Can]

<font color="red"> The more readable version: </font>

In your posts you list a chronolgy: 1) No Israel 2) People in camps....

You conveintly left out 1/b) 9 Arab armies invade Israel vowing too "burn every Jew pig in the levantine"-- Syrian General 1948..

You also left out numerous pogroms against Jews by arabs throughout the country in 1947 in which Jewish children where thrown out windows and synagogues were burned down(see Hebron), the hooking up between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler in order to massacre the Jews of the area, and the rapid development of the land undertaken by the jews which benefited Jews AND GENTILE(and incidentally brought about 45% of these so-called arabs into Palestine in the first place)

Other than these little ommisions your post is accurate.

I sincerly hope the rest of these "palestinian arabs"( this is really a geographic designation) can rejoin their brethren in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and S.A.( THEY ARE ARABS SO ARABIA IS PROBABLY WHERE THEY BELONG CORRECT??) and I promise you i'll work very hard to make this a reality ASAP.

<font color="red">Content written by zaxx19. </font>

[Cyrus]

Zaxx19,

What is the 19 for, please?

Thanks.

[nicky g]

"THEY ARE ARABS SO ARABIA IS PROBABLY WHERE THEY BELONG CORRECT?? "

No, not correct. "Arab" simply refers to people who speak Arabic as their mother tongue. It makes no more sense to suggest they should all live in one country than to suggest the same about Latin Americans who speak Spanish.

[nicky g]

IQ?

Sorry, someone had to make it.

[elwoodblues]

I love when liberals and conservatives can unite around a common cause /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The more readable version: ...


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You do business memos by any chance?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[zaxx19]

Those areas speak spanish bc of an unspeakable act of brutal colonization....the same holds true in the middle east wake up. So basically when confronted with historical reality you guys resort to nitpicking and insults....par for the course so far...you guys are such jokes.

They Must GO

[Cyrus]

"They Must GO!"

Ah but will they collect $200?

"When confronted with historical reality you guys resort to insults...you guys are such jokes."

OK, let's talk seriously. What time is curfew?

[nicky g]

"Those areas speak spanish bc of an unspeakable act of brutal colonization....the same holds true in the middle east wake up. "

Yes, a good description of the establishment of Israel, thank you.

Yes, that's true of the history of Latin America, but what's your point? You said that Arabs should all live ion one country (and by extension leave some of the countries they do live in, whioch doesn;t follow at all) because they're all Arabs. I said that all being an "Arab" means is speaking Arabic. Clearly people who speak the same language (and the day-to-day language spoken Arabs of different nationalities are not at all the same language) does not by necessity mean you are of one nationality. The rights and wrongs of the Spanish or Arab conquests (or Roman or Greek or Persian or British or whatever) don't really come into it.

[zaxx19]

Colonization of what?? A swampy marshland almost devoid of population and human development?? A far flung turkish province with a few doneky riding Arabs indistuishable from Arabs in Jordan or Syria....

[Cyrus]

Dealers Report Stolen Marijuana To Authorities (http://www.wftv.com/news/3971517/detail.html)

<font color="white"> . </font>

...How's that $17,500 bond shaping up?

[nicky g]

Colonisation of what? A few sparesly populated rainforests? A far-flung undiscovered continent with a few nose-ring wearing locals who hadn't discovered the wheel?

Etc.

[zaxx19]

Mexico's popualtion actually was about equivalent with Frances at the time...The Nazca had highly advanced civilizations on and off for millenia, and recent archaelogical findings suggest the NA indigenous population might have been as high as 5-8 million before Columbus...but hey dont ever let facts get involved with your thinking...why start now.

[nicky g]

"Mexico's popualtion actually was about equivalent with Frances at the time"

Right... and compare the size of Mexcio to the size of Palestine.

"and recent archaelogical findings suggest the NA indigenous population might have been as high as 5-8 million before Columbus"

Try the same for North America.

"The Nazca had highly advanced civilizations on and off for millenia"

Comparatively, yes. More advanced than Ottoman provinces 300 years later? No.

[zaxx19]

Actually other than the wheel...probably more advanced in many ways that Palestine 300 yrs later. Im sire superior in terms of plumbing and irrigation, urbanization......It is also hard to comment on the population question but in relative(circa circa comparison) density much much more densley populated this might be suprising since the area is so dense now look it up for yourself...In fact dont look at an Arab or Jewish author simply read Samuel Clemens account of Palestine. I think you will be suprised by what you read, the area in the late 19th century was extraordinarily empty and desolate. Jewish irrigation and development and construction brouth hudreds of thousands of Arab migrants to the area even serious Arab scholars admit this.

[nicky g]

Here we go:
Mexico: Size 1,972,550 sq km. Current population of France:
60mn (this seems high to me, and an extremely unlikely figure for the populationof Mexico at the time of the conquest, but we'll go with it): about one person for every 31 sq km.

Obviously with North America with a much smaller population and bigger territory, teh population density would be even lower.

Palestine: Size: 27,000 sq km
Population at the turn of the century: about 300,000 (I think this is probably a low estimate, but never mind). So, er, 10 people for every square km.
Which makes makes Palestine at the beginning of the Zionist era (it was much more densely populated in the run up to the establishment of Israel) about three hundred times as densely populated as Mexico at the time of the conquest.

What were you saying about those facts?

(For anyone else bothering to follow this, I realise this is a silly argument. But it's fun).

[nicky g]

"Jewish irrigation and development and construction brouth hudreds of thousands of Arab migrants to the area even serious Arab scholars admit this. "

It brought some; nothing like the number of Zionist mythology, based largely on the Joan Peters book that has been repeatedly and comprehensively debunked as fraud. There is no question that Palestine had a significant population prior to the beginnings of Zionism. In parts it's one of the most fertile parts of the region, and right on the coast of one of the busiets martime regions in the world; how could it fail to?

"It is also hard to comment on the population question but in relative(circa circa comparison) density much much more densley populated this might be suprising since the area is so dense now look it up for yourself..."

Relative circa circa comparison? Is that a scientific term? Seriously, what are you talking about?

[nicky g]

"60mn (this seems high to me, and an extremely unlikely figure for the populationof Mexico at the time of the conquest, but we'll go with it): about one person for every 31 sq km. "

Oops I can't count. That should be 30 people for every square km. I did it backwards. Blame it on the beer I had with lunch. So your point stands; Mexico, if 60mn is a fair number, was more densely populated than turn of the century Palestine. Apologies. {Embarassed}

Edit: Figures for Mexican population prior to the conquest range from around 12-25mn; so in fact, the population densities were about the same. Note that Palestinian population density at the turn of the century was about the same as US population density is now, and twice that in terms of the Arab population in 1948.

Hopefully everyone stopped reading this a long long time ago.

[Gamblor]

"Arab" simply refers to people who speak Arabic as their mother tongue.

You're obviously insane. Because Arab refers to those of the Arab ethnicity.

[nicky g]

That's what defines Arab ethnicity.

Cambridge Dictionary: Arab (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=3764&amp;dict=CALD)
A person from the Middle East or North Africa who speaks Arabic as a first language

[nicky g]

Or, for more detail:

Wikipedia: Arab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab)

"There are three factors which may assist to varying degrees in determining whether someone is considered Arab or not:

Political: whether they live in a country which is a member of the Arab League (or, more vaguely, the Arab World); this definition covers more than 300 million people.
Linguistic: whether their mother tongue is Arabic ; this definition covers more than 200 million people.
Genealogical: whether they can trace their ancestry back to the original inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula.

The relative importance of these factors is estimated differently by different groups. Most people who consider themselves Arabs do so on the basis of the overlap of the political and linguistic definitions , but some members of groups which fulfill both criteria reject the identity on the basis of the genealogical definition. Not many people consider themselves Arab on the basis of the political definition without the linguistic one —thus, Kurds or Berbers usually identify themselves as non-Arab—but some do (for instance, some Berbers do consider themselves Arabs and Arab nationalists saw the Kurds as Arabs).

On its formation in 1946, the Arab League defined an "Arab" as follows:

"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country , who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."
"

Given that we include the Arabic Sudanese, the Arabic Iraqis, the Arabic Morrocans etc, most of whom are not descendants of the Saudi Arabs but of the people who were conquered by the "original" Arabs, we can discount the "descent from the original Arabs" definition. And given that we make a distinction between Kurds and Arabs, and black Sudanese from Arabs for example, and also talk for example of Israeli Arabs, we don't usually mean the political one. So while it is something of a simplification, the basic criteria for Arab ethnicity is speaking Arabic as a mother tongue.

[jakethebake]

Arab League? What sport do they play? Can they be allowed to start their own league? That's a racist, exclusionary practice. I say we all call the ACLU and legally force our way into this "Arab League" whatever sport it is. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[zaxx19]

Arab is not an easily defined word...whether or not a particular dictionary wishes to acknowledge it there is both a ethnic and linguistic component to the word...which is why Arabic speaking Lebanese sometimes refer to themselves as Phoenician and certainly would take umbridge at being called "ARABS" same with Arabic speaking Assyrians...Coptics...Berbers...there certainly is some ethnic consideration here but it is true language is a dominant element....The real question is why are people outisde Arabia speaking Arabic....Colonism.. pure and simple. You might call Israel a Neo-colonial entity and that may be debated what cannot be debated is the colonization of the near east by Arabs(PEOPLE FROM THE ARAB PENINSULA) lesser peoples and almost all those who converted to Islam and who intermarried with Arabs and their black slaves from East africa became in effect Arabs....other relatively endogamous groups remained separate. Arab culture language and Islam is not indigenous to the levantine under any explanation...so by calling Israel a colonial invention it would only be replacing another colonial invention...

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
You might call Israel a Neo-colonial entity

[/ QUOTE ]
You might call them squatters... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is why are people outisde Arabia speaking Arabic....Colonism..

[/ QUOTE ]
The real question is why are people outside Israel speaking Hebrew? Colonism? Is that even a word?

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's talk seriously. What time is curfew?

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAHAHA
oh jeez

[elwoodblues]

For that matter, why am I speaking English in America. Shouldn't there be a language called "American."

[Gamblor]

Actually, the Jews were expelled in the 6th century from Israel and Judah, the name of the two countries they had created for themselves. When they were gone, Arab (speakers or whatever) moved in and the colonizers from Arabia took over.

So in reality, this is about the successful uprising of the Jewish people against Arab occupation of Israel.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the Jews were expelled in the 6th century from Israel and Judah, the name of the two countries they had created for themselves. When they were gone, Arab (speakers or whatever) moved in and the colonizers from Arabia took over.

So in reality, this is about the successful uprising of the Jewish people against Arab occupation of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, right. Anything you have to go back to the 6th century to justify doesn't count? If we went back to the 6th century, do you know how many different people could have claims on most pieces of land?

[Gamblor]

Anything you have to go back to the 6th century to justify doesn't count? If we went back to the 6th century, do you know how many different people could have claims on most pieces of land?

That doesn't mean such a claim is any less justified than a claim from the 19th century. I'd guess maybe 10% of the current claimants were actually alive in 1948.

More important, it matters to Israelis and Jews, who proved that while in exile when they made praying for return to Zion and Israel part of the daily services.

The UN agreed to split it down the middle. Not a single Arab recognized that compromise.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean such a claim is any less justified than a claim from the 19th century. I'd guess maybe 10% of the current claimants were actually alive in 1948.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it does. This is the same idiotic logic people in the U.S. for wanting blacks to collect slave reparations.

[ QUOTE ]
More important, it matters to Israelis and Jews, who proved that while in exile when they made praying for return to Zion and Israel part of the daily services.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well certainly prayer gives them a right to the land. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The UN agreed to split it down the middle. Not a single Arab recognized that compromise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea. The U.N. made the decision. Enough said on that one. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean such a claim is any less justified than a claim from the 19th century. I'd guess maybe 10% of the current claimants were actually alive in 1948.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes it does. This is the same idiotic logic people in the U.S. for wanting blacks to collect slave reparations.

I don't get what you're saying.

I'm saying the Arabs are no more entitled to the land than Israel is.

Yet, Israelis developed, built and irrigated the land, turned it intoit and established a functioning state. The Palestinians, instead of doing the same to the half they were given, spent all of their resources on terrorism.

[chabibi]

By your definition the majority of jewish Israelis are in fact arabs. They were born in arab speaking countries and spoke Arabic. These jewish arabs were forced to flee theyre home countries and all theyre property and land was siezed by said governments

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get what you're saying.

I'm saying the Arabs are no more entitled to the land than Israel is.

Yet, Israelis developed, built and irrigated the land, turned it intoit and established a functioning state. The Palestinians, instead of doing the same to the half they were given, spent all of their resources on terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that using something that happened centuries before any of the beneficiaries were born as justification for a claim on land is ludicrous. And the U.N. being the authority that divies up the land is even more ludicrous. I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment on what the Israelis have done with the land vs. the Palestinians, although I think that the Israelis are as equally to blame for the mess over there (but let's not turn this into another one of THOSE threads /images/graemlins/grin.gif). In your above post you refer to the land being "given" to them, which may be part of my issue with the situation. Who had the land before the U.N. gave it to Israel?

As for the U.N. I was reading something the other day that claimed the formation of Israel by the U.N. was an attempt by several countries to get the Jews out of their countries by sending them home. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this was right. Although I may debate the israeli/Arab thing here, I'm not antisemitic and grew up in an area that was very Jewish. The high school near my house was like 30%+ Jewish. But I thought that the idea that it was actually an antisemitic action was an interesting take on the formation of Israel. Curious at your thoughts on that Gamblor.

[zaxx19]

Lets see one side accepted the partition of 1948 JAKEBAKE can you tell me what the other side did??

Since the other side did ______________(im guessing you are capable of researching this question) they unilaterally chose to go the route of force to settle the problem. When they then got their monkey asses slapped up 1...2..3...4..TIMES bc they are cowardly sheep herders who smoke too much hashish they then petition the U.N. FOR A DIPLOMATIC ARRANGEMENT.Too late THEY (THE ARABS) chose to resolve the conflict using force bc they felt it was in their best interest. After they figured out it wasnt they wanted to go back to diplomacy...NUuh HOMIE DONT PLAY THAT....Let them rot in fake 60 yr old engineered propaganda vehicles(camps...) for all eternity. To quote that most moving of films CADDYSHACK-- They will get nothing and like it. I feel bad for stooges like you they continually lie to and who probably really do feel bad for the people in the camps.
Of course what you dont know is there is no reason they need to be there except to perpetuate the conflict.

[chabibi]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that using something that happened centuries before any of the beneficiaries were born as justification for a claim on land is ludicrous

[/ QUOTE ]

in that case we should throw out all the indians off theyre reservations and start making them pay taxes on their casinos

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
in that case we should throw out all the indians off theyre reservations and start making them pay taxes on their casinos

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you aren't suggesting that this position wouldn't have acceptance with a significant portion of Americans.

[zaxx19]

OMG some actual logic wow I like it Chabibi ...they will probably just crack some joke...thats there usual response to something that makes too much sense.

[jakethebake]

Congratulations, zaxx19! You've now passed the point of somewhat confused and confusing to spouting complete gibberish. Until someone informs me that you're actually speaking intelligible English, you'll be on my ignored user list. This was a simple question. It was directed at Gamblor, not you, because he speaks and writes English. As much as I enjoy debating him, I would not do so if I had to decipher his every arguement as if it were the freaking Rosetta Stone.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see one side accepted the partition of 1948 JAKEBAKE can you tell me what the other side did??

Since the other side did ______________(im guessing you are capable of researching this question) they unilaterally chose to go the route of force to settle the problem. When they then got their monkey asses slapped up 1...2..3...4..TIMES bc they are cowardly sheep herders who smoke too much hashish they then petition the U.N. FOR A DIPLOMATIC ARRANGEMENT.Too late THEY (THE ARABS) chose to resolve the conflict using force bc they felt it was in their best interest. After they figured out it wasnt they wanted to go back to diplomacy...NUuh HOMIE DONT PLAY THAT....Let them rot in fake 60 yr old engineered propaganda vehicles(camps...) for all eternity. To quote that most moving of films CADDYSHACK-- They will get nothing and like it. I feel bad for stooges like you they continually lie to and who probably really do feel bad for the people in the camps.
Of course what you dont know is there is no reason they need to be there except to perpetuate the conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
By your definition the majority of jewish Israelis are in fact arabs. They were born in arab speaking countries and spoke Arabic. These jewish arabs were forced to flee theyre home countries and all theyre property and land was siezed by said governments

[/ QUOTE ]
You've just made my point. That was exactly my arguement. You shouldn't be able to use something that happened centuries ago to change the status quo. That's what you'd be doing if you took said action against the Indians. And it's what was done when Israel was created. Those actions are equally wrong.

[chabibi]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you aren't suggesting that this position wouldn't have acceptance with a significant portion of Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what, it doesnt make them right there are Americans who believe the earth is flat (search flat earth society). I am just curious as to how jake feels about the reservations. Judging by his post he feels native Americans have no claim to any land in north America because all living American beneficiaries were born after the land was colonized 300 years ago

[chabibi]

Im not trying to be a smart ass but I don't understand your point or how I made it for you. Could you please elaborate.

[Gamblor]

Who had the land before the U.N. gave it to Israel?

The land was owned in large part by absentee Arab landowners, leftovers from the Midaeval Arab imperialist raids that spread all the way to Morocco. Although about a hundred thousand Jews were there at the time, Jews started to slowly immigrate back to the area in the mid-late 19th century.

When the Zionist movement began in Russia in an attempt to solve the problem of both antisemitism and a return from exile, they began to collect money, mainly through donations, to buy the over-priced land from those owners.

Those landlords were often subject to harrassment from extremist Arabs who were against giving up Arab land, but eventually a bunch of Jews, mainly from an organization known as the Jewish Agency For Israel (http://www.jafi.co.il).

Officially, the land was under the jurisdiction of the British, who restricted immigration of Jews into the land to placate Arabs, who frequently rioted against Jews and British, that were angry at Jewish immigration.

Eventually Jews set up organizations for defence against Arab rioters - known as the Hagana andIrgun Zva-i Le'umi (http://www.etzel.co.il). The Hagana preached restraint, refusing to take the offensive against Arab terrorists and instead focused on self-defence. The Irgun preached defence by prevention, launching attacks on Arab centres of terrorist activity.

Sounds familiar, no?

The Irgun, upon hearing about British restrictions of immigration (google the story of the ship "Exodus"). Eventually, the British tired of the Jewish revolt and petitioned the UN to take charge of the region, back when it was a unit of Western states, before they allowed dictatorial Arab states in. The UN decided to partition the region in half(ish), one part to Arabs one part to Israel.

May 15, 1948, Israel declared independence, and within hours, every Arab army in the region was on its borders and locked in battle.

But I thought that the idea that it was actually an antisemitic action was an interesting take on the formation of Israel

It's possible. Ironic how that's exactly what Israel was to provide safety from.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
When they then got their monkey asses slapped up 1...2..3...4..TIMES bc they are cowardly sheep herders who smoke too much hashish

[/ QUOTE ]
!!!


if you took the time to make sense and get the facts, instead of just shooting off your big mouth, you may not end up sounding like such an ignorant, racist, hatemongering, poorly spoken puppett of your own ideology.

nobody will take you seriously when you write things like that, and since i assume you want to be taken seriously, maybe you could try something else?

seriously.

[arabie]

Common, the point of English is communication, and you clearly understood his points. Stop worrying about meaningless technicalities and focus on the issue at hand. However, if you prefer to make excuses to not respond to his points by insulting him, then, you are the one without intellectual integrity, at least in my book.

[jakethebake]

Actually I didn't understand anything he wrote. I really don't feel like taking the time to decipher his gibberish. And the parts I have deciphered mostly consist of hime being an arrogant racist. I've never made it through a single entire post he made. He deserves to be insulted.
[ QUOTE ]
Common, the point of English is communication, and you clearly understood his points. Stop worrying about meaningless technicalities and focus on the issue at hand. However, if you prefer to make excuses to not respond to his points by insulting him, then, you are the one without intellectual integrity, at least in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ACPlayer]

So in reality, this is about the successful uprising of the Jewish people against Arab occupation of Israel.

Now we are really getting to the funny pages.

In a thread started by a person with IQ of 19 to this justification of the pogroms underway in the middle east.

[chabibi]

Acplayer, any time someone offers an argument or fact you simply state they are wrong and offer no argument or rebuttal of your own, you really need to work on this debate thing if you want to be convincing.

[ACPlayer]

.... or I could model my self after Zaxx and type in gibberish.

Gamblor's comment on the face of it is stupid and pointless and that is what I pointed out. Other's have amplified on the illogic already.

[Dr Wogga]

...you aren't dating......gulp /images/graemlins/wink.gifcyrus the anti-semite are you? seems you're both into the 19 in zaxx's handle - hmmm?

[Cyrus]

"As for the U.N. I was reading something the other day that claimed the formation of Israel by the U.N. was an attempt by several countries to get the Jews out of their countries by sending them home."

Not officially through the UN, no.

But pre-World War II, the European governments were facing a "Jewish problem" -- that's how they saw it, as a problem! There was serious talk about expatriating them somewhere else. (And this, when there have been numerous war heroes of Jewish origin/ethnicity in both sides of the conflict, during World War I, which had ended only a few years before!)

The Zionist organisations were working with European governments, secretly, to arrange for the evacuation and transportation to British Palestine. This was not done openly because the Zionist position, calling for a return to the homeland and the establishment of a Jewish state, was not exactly popular among the majority of Jews, who have settled in Europe for centuries and were not looking forward to self-imposed exile.

There were numerous contacts between Zionist German Jews and the Reich's representatives, in which there was a lot of identification of opinions about how to solve the "problem"! The Zionists and the Nazis had a different view, of course, about which one was the "chosen people", but they seemed to agree that VAMOOZIN' to Palestine would serve both the Reich's and Zionism's objectives perfectly.

I'll let Gamblor elaborate.

[chabibi]

What you just said is half-truth at best. The British were not so set on moving all the Jews to Palestine. They were more concerned about appeasing the Arabs in the neighbourhood, to have access to the reserves of oil. There was never some secrete Zionist conspiracy to get rid of the Arabs in Palestine, I think you've seen the protocols of Zion to many times. This is just complete nonsense, a bi product of years of anti-Semitic propaganda. As for the nazis, Adolph Eichmann was put in charge of the final solution to the Jewish problem, Eichmann grew up in Palestine and was familiar with the history and connection the Jews had to the land. In the early stages of the final solution Eichmann suggested removing all the Jews to Palestine but quickly resorted to what we know as the final solution

[ACPlayer]

Looking for the "Gay Agenda" in all sorts of places.

[nicky g]

"By your definition the majority of jewish Israelis are in fact arabs. They were born in arab speaking countries and spoke Arabic. "

When they lived there, they could be seen to be Arabs, although the use of the term to mean all Arabic-speaking peoples was less common than it is now (some even argue that the rise of Arab identity was in direct resp[onse to the rise of ISrael). Hence the term "Arab Jews". Having renounced Arabic as their language and no longer living in an Arabic country, they have renounced Arab identity and are clearly no longer Arabs.

It's not my definition, it's the definition. If you know of a different one, find it.

"These jewish arabs were forced to flee theyre home countries "

This is true in some cases and not in others. In many cases they were actively encouraged to leave by Israel.

"and all theyre property and land was siezed by said governments "

This is lamentable. What's your point?

[nicky g]

"Acplayer, any time someone offers an argument or fact you simply state they are wrong and offer no argument or rebuttal of your own, you really need to work on this debate thing if you want to be convincing. "

Come on, Gamblor's point is completely ridiculous, and probably deliberately phrased so. I don't believe you even take it seriously yourself. Not only is it absurd to suggest that people have a right to land because their co-religionists lived their 14 centuries ago, but it wasn't even the Arabs that expelled the Jews. Clearly the amount of time elapsed does make a difference: if for example the Serbians drove out the Bosnians from Bosnia today, we would not think it unreasonable to demand that they be allowed to go back tomorrow. Something that happened in living memory clearly trakes precedence over something that happened over a millenium ago.

[nicky g]

"Acplayer, any time someone offers an argument or fact you simply state they are wrong and offer no argument or rebuttal of your own, you really need to work on this debate thing if you want to be convincing. "

What does it make any difference whether or not there was a secret Zionist agenda to expel the Arab population of Palestine when the Zionists actually did expel (most of) the population of Palestine? Now it's a paranoid fantasy to accuse people of plotting to do something that, er, they then actually did?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, Gamblor's point is completely ridiculous, and probably deliberately phrased so. I don't believe you even take it seriously yourself. Not only is it absurd to suggest that people have a right to land because their co-religionists lived their 14 centuries ago

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the Phoenicians and related tribes who occupied the land before Abraham decided to relocate from what is today Iraq? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

But pre-World War II, the European governments were facing a "Jewish problem" -- that's how they saw it, as a problem!

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a question, Cyrus: what "problem", exactly, did these Europeans see the Jews as being? Try as I might, I can't imagine what it could possibly have been.

The Jews came to foreign countries, worked hard, minded their own businesses, didn't cause trouble, and offered a variety of services from perhaps shoe-making to banking to medicine. These services, whatever they might have been, were obviously in demand, else the Jews would not have succeeded. Thus, the Jews actually enriched the economies of the countries they inhabited and enhanced the lifestyles of the indigenous inhabitants via their services and business offerings.

The Jews also represented but a small percentage of the populations of these countries, so the "problem" could not have been one of overbearing demographics. Indeed, if anything, the Jews probably tended to keep to themselves more than most, and certainly did not attempt to impose their traditions or religion on others (unlike some other groups).

So, what, exactly, was this "problem" the Europeans perceived, in the Jews?

My strong guess is that the Europeans--and Russians--and Arabs--did not even have a "Jewish problem", but rather somehow imagined that they did...due, in all likelihood, to their own unmitigated backwardsnesses, stupidities, jealousies, resentments, and provincialistic attitudes.

Would you care to shed any additional light on the subject? Do you basically agree with my supposition?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
But pre-World War II, the European governments were facing a "Jewish problem" -- that's how they saw it, as a problem!

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a question, Cyrus: what "problem", exactly, did these Europeans see the Jews as being? Try as I might, I can't imagine what it could possibly have been.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is pretty well documented (although I don't remember any of the sources offhand. It'd been too long. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). There was fairly widespread anti-semitism throughout Europe. Before he began exterminating Jews, Hitler tried to force them out of the country, but they had no where to go because no one would accept them.

[MMMMMM]

Right, I understand there was widespread anti-Semitism, I just can't imagine any rational basis for it.

Why were the Europeans/Russians (and Arabs) so anti-Semitic?

It just makes zero sense to me, since if a few good doctors and tailors and so forth moved into my neck of the woods (especially many decades ago, when they were in shorter supply), and minded their own business except to offer their quality services as needed at fair prices, I would consider that a boon not a curse !? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[nicky g]

"Right, I understand there was widespread anti-Semitism, I just can't imagine any rational basis for it."

There is no rational basis. People are idiots. End of story.

[Cyrus]

My post was clear enough for anyone who reads honestly or can read English to understand.

The "problem" that those Europeans had with European Jews was one of anti-semitism, pure and simple. There's not much more one can say about it.

Trying to insinuate that I somehow support or condone the views of those Europeans about the "Jewish problem" is another step down the ladder of honesty for you.

(I thought you had hit the pavement already, to be honest, but life is full of novelties.)

[Cyrus]

"What you just said is half-truth at best."

The above opening is hilarious, in retrospect, when one reads the crap that follows it!

"The British were not so set on moving all the Jews to Palestine."

Where did I say the British were set on moving Jews there? In fact, they were against it. You are delusional.

"There was never some secrete Zionist conspiracy to get rid of the Arabs in Palestine."

Where did I write anything about a "conspiracy"?! You wil not find the word "conspiracy" too many times in my posts!

The objective of creating an area in Israel/ex-Palestine where the majority would be Jews was not written in some "secret" document and it was not part of some "conspiracy". It's quite openly stated in Zionist tracts and books, most notably of the Reformed persuasion. Jabotinsky was quite explicit about this (and people like Ben-Gurion, too, as the memoirs of those around him now reveal).

Getting rid of (most of) the other peoples in the area and becoming from a minority a majority, necessarily involves a lot of ...unpleasantness. Such as ethnic cleansing, terror, etcetera. No other way that I know of.

So what are you denying exactly?

"I think you've seen the protocols of Zion too many times."

Did you mean "read"? I thought they were in book form. Has someone made a movie out of them? Whoa. Should be very funny. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"Adolph Eichmann was put in charge of the final solution to the Jewish problem."

No, he was not, he was simply a high functionary, someone who took care of the logistics of mass murder. The people in charge were his higher-ups. Eichmann himself was so ordinary, so boring, as to give rise to the famous term "the banality of evil".

"In the early stages of the final solution Eichmann suggested removing all the Jews to Palestine but quickly resorted to what we know as the final solution."

Are you denying that the German Zionist leadership had numerous and serious contacts with the Nazi apparatus in order to facilitate the German Jews' exodus to Palestine? I challenge you to deny this, just so that we can get to have one more laugh at your expense.

Hint : DON'T. It's a moot point anyway. I do not "use" it to prove anything. It's merely a historical fact. (If anything, it shows the desperation of German Jews during the Nazi era. Admittedly, the Jewish ultra-nationalists were seeing this as an opportunity to claim their Israel dream but for most of those Zionists, the "deal" with the Nazis could be a way out of hell. Despite the fact that the Jewish Holocaust had not began in earnest when those Zionist - Nazi contacts were taking place.)

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to insinuate that I somehow support or condone the views of those Europeans about the "Jewish problem" is another step down the ladder of honesty for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I insinuated no such thing, nor was I trying to. I'm actually surprised that you would even perceive it that way. My apologies for not being more explicit.

I am trying to learn if there were some other (pragmatic) reasons why the Europeans et al had something against the Jews, or if it was purely due to their own backwardsness and ignorance and bigotry that they thought they had a "Jewish problem". Sometimes bigotry is tied to economics, as was the case of the Southern States and American Negro slavery. In other words, the bigoted attitude helped the plantation owners prosper. It was in their favor to maintain the status quo.

Another example is the witch-burnings in Europe in the Middle Ages. An entire industry evolved around the dispensation of the burned witches' possessions, with each person involved getting a fee or some goods. Hence it was immediately economically profitable for the ignorant and backwards--or the Machiavellian--to burn "witches".

In the European example, if the Jews had harmed the Europeans economically somehow, they might have had something against the Jews. I don't think that occurred but might guess that they could have thought the competition in business was harming them (when in fact it probably helped them overall as a society by providing more and better services). Hence their perception may have been "backwards" or skewed. So I am looking for additional information, since I think it may be overly simplistic to entirely attribute anti-Semitism to unalloyed Euro/Russian/Arab backwardsness and bigotry (though in the absence of additional information that is my first inclination).

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand there was widespread anti-Semitism [in pre-World War II Europe], I just can't imagine any rational basis for it. Why were the Europeans/Russians so anti-Semitic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity.

<font color="white"> . </font>

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

I understand there was widespread anti-Semitism [in pre-World War II Europe], I just can't imagine any rational basis for it. Why were the Europeans/Russians so anti-Semitic?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

To some extent, quite possible or likely, although the "godless" USSR was very anti-Semitic also.

Would this also suggest that the reason the Arabs are so anti-Semitic, is, in a word, Islam?

[Cyrus]

- The Russians were not godless. You are confused between the Soviet apparatus (which lasted less than a hundred years anyway) and the masses in the Russian empire (which lasted centuries). The Russian people were mostly Orthodox Christians and very religious.

- The Western European variation of anti-Semitism was bred mainly by the Catholic Church. Spain, Poland, France were champions of anti-Semitism. (The main proponents of anti-Semitism were the church and political officials of these countries, who were always trying to lead their subjects towards superstition and bigotry.)

- The Arabs were not historically anti-Semitic. There was simply nothing to base such a sentiment on! They became virulently anti-Jewish, though, to the point where a lot of them were/are still anti-Semitic, when the Jews came to take over Palestine. (One could say that the Arabs' anti-Semitism is "opportune", "un-scientific"!) It's the attitude of de-humanizing the enemy we see in every other mortal conflict between nations, and, especially, "races".


--Cyrus

[Gamblor]

Slow day in the ivory tower, eh?

They must have run out of mops.

[zaxx19]

WOW, things have really come full circle. Wasnt it Goebels who said if you tell a lie loud enough and to enough people it will eventually become reality. The new reality among the uber lefties and old school European Jew haters and Arab "street" is that: most of the Palestinians were driven from modern day Israel by the Jews during the course of the 48 war. Of course as late as about 30 years ago this notion was so preposterous that even noted Arab scholars wouldnt make this ridiculous assertion. 2 Generations of constant lying and twisted propaganda and we now have morons with Che Guevara and Erin GO Braugh posters on their walls acting like it is established fact.

Of course the irony is the man started the whole idea of the big lie and the modern day liars have the same goal the elimination of the Jewish people from the face of the earth...it seems as long as you are lying about Jews the big lie will continue to work.

Of course there are several places were ethnic groups have been driven out, gassed, starved, and otherwise destroyed in middle easst during the course of the last half century.(Lebanon. Kurdistan, Egypt,Sudan, Iraq,Chad,ALegeria, Jordan...) But remember people it was Arabs that perpetated these atrocities(SABRA AND SHATILLA for one) and these guys are only looking to stir up hate against the Jews.

“When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”--Martin Luther King Jr 1968 Harvard University

Then again what would Martin Luther King know about rascism and bias!!!!

[nicky g]

"Lebanon. Kurdistan, Egypt,Sudan, Iraq,Chad,ALegeria, Jordan...) But remember people it was Arabs that perpetated these atrocities"

The difference is that noone here is denying or defending those atrocities.

"(SABRA AND SHATILLA for one)"

Yah Arabs acting under Israeli command, who had been stuck several miles away until, in direct violation of a ceasefire agreement with the US, the Israeli army broke through the Muslim lines and took the Phalangists to the doors of the camps, where they then proceeded to wait directly outside, light up the skies of the camps and bar exit to everyone inside including all women and children inside for three days and night while the slaugher went on right in front of them.

[zaxx19]

This is where you really see how the jew baiters operate: arab christian kills Palestinians bc Palestinians start blood civil war which claims thousands of lives in Lebanon and bc Palestinians attack marionites on way too church....somehow the Jews are responsible lol.

[nicky g]

If the Israeli army (not Jews in general) were ot at all responsible for what happened at Sabra and Chatila, please explain to me what part of my account of what happened is inaccurate.

As for calling me a Jew baiter, you can go f uck yourself, you stupid piece of shi t.

[Cyrus]

I wanna make sure it's off the hook.

<font color="white"> . </font>

[ACPlayer]

Anti-semitism has a long history in the christian west (much more so than the more recent Arab/Muslim anti-semitism sentiments). In America the anti-war crowd prior to WWII had strains of anti-semitism. If you read Buchanan now he is, almost, quite anti-semitic in some of his views.

It was not that long ago that Jews were not welcome in parts of America dominated by the Christian right.

Anybody who denies anti-semitism in the Christian world is wrong.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who denies anti-semitism in the Christian world is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who denied it? I'm asking how it came to be.

[ACPlayer]

Well, you are the alleged religious scholar - Perhaps you can offer a view why the Jesus killers are so disliked by the Christians for the last 2000 years.

Look for theology based reason not a pragmatic reason.

[Gamblor]

YOU are off the hook.

Limousine liberals represent.

[Gamblor]

You must have really enjoyed the Passion.

It's a conclusive fact everywhere on earth except in Mel Gibson's head, that the Romans tried, convicted, and executed Christ.

[zaxx19]

Jews never executed people by crucifixon(sp lol lol) it was a Carthaginian practice adopted by the Romans, Jews preferrred stoning offenders.

[Cyrus]

"You must have really enjoyed the Passion.

It's a conclusive fact everywhere on earth except in Mel Gibson's head, that the Romans tried, convicted, and executed Christ."

Oh, man. You cannot make your points correctly even when you are in the right!

That "everywhere on Earth" is wrong, first of all. Millions of Christians (and anti-Semites) believe that the Jews killed Jesus. If you think this is only in "Mel Gibson's head" you are in denial. Millions of tickets sold, baby!..

Then, the argument about the culpability of Jews is not that they actually put him up on the cross and crucified him; it was that they threw him to the "wolves", to the Romans, ostensibly because Jesus was a rebel who threatened the powers-that-be of the day and the cosy relationship between occupiers (Romans) and occupied (Jews) enjoyed by the Jewish leadership.

Belittling what is at the root of centuries old bigotry would seem to be serving you badly, but modern bigots seem to be as mindless as their progeny. Only the suits change...

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[zaxx19]

The movie (The Passion) was actually shown for free in QATAR to school children as young as 8. But hey you dont need ancient blood libels when we have antisemites like AC and NickyG spreading modern day ones right now. Jews may or may not have killed Jesus but they certainly kill lots of little arab girls correct?? They also keep arabs in "camps surrounded by barb wire and with apaches shooting at them indiscrimantly". It is so ironic when I see modern day libelists pretend to actually be concerned about this old style antisemitism when they are busy as practioners of contemporary antisemitism errr anti zionism...yeah and the blood libel against the Jews was probably really only against the priests that lobbied for his execution right. Take your legalisms and shove it.

There is effectively no difference between libels accusinng Jews of Jesus' murder, poisoning wells, grinding gentile babies in Matzah(this is still popular in Arab countries) or controlling the world through some clandestine system of Jew banking(Syrian PBS produced a miniseries based on the Protocals of the elders of Zion 3 yrs ago which aired 7 times!!). They all serve the same purpose too justify violence against Jews and facilitate the ultimate subjegation or genocide of them. I really hope the people are just sucked in by the powerful arab propaganda machine and dont truly hate Jews...Unfortunately given the past 2 millenia of history and their complete disregard for Arab savagery, bigotry, and genocide, I seriously doubt this is the case.

[Cyrus]

"We dont need ancient blood libels when we have antisemites like AC and NickyG spreading modern day ones right now."

You come off as young and stupid.

And maybe I'm only half correct.

But I truly feel sad about the state of your mind. You see persecution everywhere; you feel threatened; you protest against "anti-semitism" when people disagree in the slightest with an action or a policy of Israel; you go off your rocker when people quote History to you, if that History does not throw the best possible light on the Jews; etc etc.

What a life you must be leading.

[nicky g]

"There is effectively no difference between libels accusinng Jews of Jesus' murder, poisoning wells, grinding gentile babies in Matzah(this is still popular in Arab countries) or controlling the world through some clandestine system of Jew banking(Syrian PBS produced a miniseries based on the Protocals of the elders of Zion 3 yrs ago which aired 7 times!!). "

There is an enrmous difference between these things and criticisms of well-documented human rights abuses carried out by an army/state.

"Syrian PBS produced a miniseries based on the Protocals of the elders of Zion 3 yrs ago"

Actually it was Lebanese channel al-Manar; aka Hizballah TV (literally).

"I really hope the people are just sucked in by the powerful arab propaganda machine and dont truly hate Jews...Unfortunately given the past 2 millenia of history and their complete disregard for Arab savagery, bigotry, and genocide, I seriously doubt this is the case. "

You are seriously wrong and if you knew anything about me you would know this. On the other hand, I know you advocate the ethnic cleansing of millions of people from their home, as you've said so repeatedly; and I have strong grounds to suspect you advocate the murder of innocent civilians, as your previous avatar was the logo of a group which boasts of its ties to a mass murderer.