• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,310
Odd how the same people who affect concern over international law regarding annexation don't seem to let the annexation of Crimea bother them so much.
Bullshit.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,988
Bullshit.
Is it really ? I suppose that would account for the piece in the Irish Times by Eamonn McCann entitled " If you must take a side over Crimea let it be Russias ".
And nobody hates Jewssorryzionists more than oor Eamonn. He'd nearly put them ahead of Prodssorryunionists.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,310
Is it really ? I suppose that would account for the piece in the Irish Times by Eamonn McCann entitled " If you must take a side over Crimea let it be Russias ".
And nobody hates Jewssorryzionists more than oor Eamonn. He'd nearly put them ahead of Prodssorryunionists.
Wow. One whole opinion piece. Thats the point proven.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
5,531
Wow. One whole opinion piece. Thats the point proven.
Russia is suffering from severe sanctions over Crimea and support for Ukrainian rebels,sanctions that deprive it of western technology and markets. With the decline of the oil and gas industry in peak oil in five years, Russia wil experience a fall in living standards which already are way below western European levels. Putin's governing circle will have to become very repressive to survive.
 

yanshuf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,708
Historically the strong conqeured the weak. Only with global communicatiion in the second half of the 20th century did such aggressions become totally unacceptable. Attempts to righti past wrongs done to the weak would lead to endless wars, however.
So the argument that descendants of Jews largely expelled from the Old Testament territory over a thousand years ago can come back and lay claim to it is less valid than a claim American Indians could make to most of the USA.
But that is not my claim.

My claim is that the so called "balastinian" immigrants ethnically cleansed Jews from Judea Samaria and Gaza, and a few times until 1949.

That's why it's a historical correction. It has also other elements, that the Ottoman prevented Jews from settling, that the Jews have always existed in the land of Israel and so on.

The main issues here are that an invented people, made from immigrants, who has no connection to this land tried to eliminate nazi-wise the Jewish indigenous population of this land.
 

yanshuf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,708
Last edited:
Last edited:
This zio would’ve been helping the nazis load poor innocent Jews onto trains.
Apropos nazis, the ones who are trying to help the so called "balastinians" to ethnically cleanse, yet again, Judea and Samaria from Jews are leftistics from Europe, lots of them from Ireland.

Ireland and the Nazis are quite similar, when it comes to boycotts against Jews.

And we didn't even start talking about the nazis who sought refuge in Ireland after WWII!
 

font

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
303
Last edited:
Last edited:
Whereas you would do no such thing about the other groups who have lived there for 3,000 plus years.
3,000 plus years? Provide please a complete list of these groups.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
54,829
Israeli governments have reluctantly tolerated settlements that make it impossible politically to allow a meaningful Palestinian state, so the present course is towards an apartheid state. In a decade or two, this will lead to sanctions that isolate Israel diplomatically and economically and would lead to permanemt tensions with arab states if and when the common enemy Iran becomes peaceful. Iran's government is under great pressure for change as the economy has been sinking under low oil prices and its own economic ineptitude. Large areas of the economy are mismanaged by the Revolutionary Guard and Islamic charities.
Your five points above are a description of democracy at work in a constructive way. Jewish settlers would benefit from recognition of the legal status of settlements but they would have to compensate Palestinians for confiscated lands. A potentially violent backlash from their fanatical minority would have to be confronted.
As for the Ultra-Orthodox, Israelis are fed up with Orthodox social welfare dependence on the state. Communities devoted to religion like them are usually self reliant,living in communes.
Changing the character of the Jewish state out of all recognition need not happen with constitutional guarantees of minority rights that applied to both Jews and Palestinians alike.
I agree, but it is pretty clear that Israel is not ready. It took many years for South Africa to face up to Black Majority Rule, and you are asking for Isrealis to make a similar leap right now.

The best argument against annexation of the Jordan Valley by Israel is that it might destabilise the status quo which suits Israel fine. It has "facts on the ground" now, annexation might be an overreach into an uncertain and riskier future.

Rather than a sweeping change in Israel-Palestine relations, we should be looking for incremental changes, but do not ask me what they should be.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,942
Seems like annexation is imminent now.
There has been de facto annexation for a long time. "Liberal Zionism" never opposed it in any real way- what they are getting upset is that by it being made de lege it exposes, or at least help exposes more, the reality of what they actually support. A lot of this it has be said has to be blamed on Arafat.
 

yanshuf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,708
Just to remind you:

No he does not, yes it does not come out and say that there definitely was but strongly suggests there was.

Jews never denied the charge of sometimes sacrificing Christian children until the Enlightment era.

He specifically said the opposite.
 

yanshuf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,708
3,000 plus years? Provide please a complete list of these groups.
He doesn't understand what he writes.

In fact, most of the anti-zionists here (lots of posters) don't know what they're talking about, except that they want to ram Israel!
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,942
Apropos nazis, the ones who are trying to help the so called "balastinians" to ethnically cleanse, yet again, Judea and Samaria from Jews are leftistics from Europe, lots of them from Ireland.

Ireland and the Nazis are quite similar, when it comes to boycotts against Jews.

And we didn't even start talking about the nazis who sought refuge in Ireland after WWII!
Just to remind you:



He specifically said the opposite.
He said the opposite after death threats were made to him and his carreer was on the verge of being destroyed. If he said specifically the opposite in the actual book than why do you think all the credible death threats and other actions taken against him for what was seen by even "moderate" Jewish tribalists as a massive "Chillul Hashem"? There were even plans in the Knesset to jail the Professor. No one denies that Rabbi Yitzhak ben David in Mainz a while after the danger from the Crusaders had passed slaughtered two of his own children in the Synagogue and poured their blood on the Ark calling on Hashem to unleash a bloody revenge on Christendom/Edom/Rome, and that this act of human sacrifice was acceptable to the Ashkenazi of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. So why is it so hard to imagine that Ashkenazi Jews at the time would have had serious problems in human sacrificing Christian children? Again the Knesset would have started moves to imprison him if in his book he had said what you claimed.

Here I am linking the actual text of the book below, read it, learn some actual history as opposed to Zionist fantasies.

 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,942
I agree, but it is pretty clear that Israel is not ready. It took many years for South Africa to face up to Black Majority Rule, and you are asking for Isrealis to make a similar leap right now.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union South Africa very quickly moved to majority rule. The Boers honestly believed before than that majority rule would mean a Communist government under which Christianity would be illegal. The situation in Palestine is completely different. Zionism has always held by the doctrine "as much land as possible with as little Arabs as possible". The indigenous population actually make up a fifth of the populatioin within the Green Line or "Israel proper" but travelling around you would not know that because they are crammed into very tight pockets and are almost always refused permission to build and the colonial regime has never had any interest in building houses for them. Two thirds of their kids live below the poverty line. The Jewish system in Palestine is a lot more cruel de facto than ever Apartheid South Africa was, and it also unlike the Apartheid regime in South Africa is magnificent at spin and propaganda and as far, far, far more powerful lobbies in the West.

The situations are radically different.

The fact that you say the "Israelis" when a fifth of the population of "Israel" proper are indigenous Palestinians is deeply racist- please when you mean Jews say Jews, otherwise you are engaging in a racist erasure of the indigenous population.
 

font

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
303
He doesn't understand what he writes.

In fact, most of the anti-zionists here (lots of posters) don't know what they're talking about, except that they want to ram Israel!
I know. I just enjoyed exposing his lie in one line comment. :)
 

yanshuf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,708
He said the opposite after death threats were made to him and his carreer was on the verge of being destroyed. If he said specifically the opposite in the actual book than why do you think all the credible death threats and other actions taken against him for what was seen by even "moderate" Jewish tribalists as a massive "Chillul Hashem"? There were even plans in the Knesset to jail the Professor. No one denies that Rabbi Yitzhak ben David in Mainz a while after the danger from the Crusaders had passed slaughtered two of his own children in the Synagogue and poured their blood on the Ark calling on Hashem to unleash a bloody revenge on Christendom/Edom/Rome, and that this act of human sacrifice was acceptable to the Ashkenazi of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. So why is it so hard to imagine that Ashkenazi Jews at the time would have had serious problems in human sacrificing Christian children? Again the Knesset would have started moves to imprison him if in his book he had said what you claimed.

Here I am linking the actual text of the book below, read it, learn some actual history as opposed to Zionist fantasies.

He said what he said as a response from calls from inside the Jewish community. He understood (after all he is a son of a rabbi) what he had done, and felt he has to clarify his book.

And clarify he did!

So what you posted is in total opposition to what he said and clarified he did not say!
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,310
I know. I just enjoyed exposing his lie in one line comment. :)
What lie?

The one that there are more than one group who historically lived in the region? Or the fella you agree with who is so bigoted he won't even allow the Palestinians the dignity of a name?
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom