• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

US Israel-Palestine policy


Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,093
Last edited:

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,468
You always draw on alleged Irish analogies, like for example our colonial history.

So why not bring up say that Irish Americans who contributed towards advancing home rule here in Ireland, rather than having accusations of "dual loyalty" flung at them, were in fact probably better men and better Americans for the sacrifices they made?

What's the difference? Why do you think it's fair to fling this "dual loyalty" accusation at Jews for supporting other Jews in the Jewish state?

Or since this is by no means the first time we've heard this particular accusation flung at Jews, it has been a favoured accusation for a very long time, why did people think it fair to say it only about Jews who supported other Jews being persecuted under the Nazis, or Jews trapped behind the Iron Curtain, etc.

Knowing the history of this accusation, and that history goes back well before the twentieth century, and it is just as heinous as twentieth century history, why do people react like you do at the suggestion that this woman should be made answerable for her evoking this history?

I'm only taking the last thing she said, btw.

There is also the more general point that it doesn't take much to observe that the Islamic countries are inciting against Israel and Jews as strategy towards reclaiming their "waqf". They are deliberately stoking antisemitism. Is she using her position as a platform to further that agenda?

This petition at least should raise the debate. We need to get over this fear of saying anything against Islamic interests, and start pointing to some glaring truths in all of this.

Of course, people on here will know my own view on this. I don't like what I am hearing said against Jews and their homeland anymore than I liked what was said against the gays not so long ago. If 70 years from those persecutions I heard the same accusations being recycled by a new generation of homophobes, I would be just as appalled as I am at this.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,093
What's the difference? Why do you think it's fair to fling this "dual loyalty" accusation at Jews for supporting other Jews in the Jewish state?
Dual loyalty between friendly countries is not necessarily an insult or a "canard". After all, Irish American support for Irish independence was crucial in pressuring the British to allow it. But when dual loyalty becomes a buttress for colonial oppression and Apartheid, its a bad thing. The German American Bund was another example in the 1940s.

Furthermore liberal Jews are increasingly critical of Israels policies, as the Deborah Lipstadt rrmarks illustrate.

As for the Waqf - Israel agreed to the Jordanian role on the Temple mount in the peace deal with them. Israel has violated the spirit of that agreement in recent weeks by its raids on Waqf members.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
14,666
You always draw on alleged Irish analogies, like for example our colonial history.

So why not bring up say that Irish Americans who contributed towards advancing home rule here in Ireland, rather than having accusations of "dual loyalty" flung at them, were in fact probably better men and better Americans for the sacrifices they made?

What's the difference? Why do you think it's fair to fling this "dual loyalty" accusation at Jews for supporting other Jews in the Jewish state?

Or since this is by no means the first time we've heard this particular accusation flung at Jews, it has been a favoured accusation for a very long time, why did people think it fair to say it only about Jews who supported other Jews being persecuted under the Nazis, or Jews trapped behind the Iron Curtain, etc.

Knowing the history of this accusation, and that history goes back well before the twentieth century, and it is just as heinous as twentieth century history, why do people react like you do at the suggestion that this woman should be made answerable for her evoking this history?

I'm only taking the last thing she said, btw.

There is also the more general point that it doesn't take much to observe that the Islamic countries are inciting against Israel and Jews as strategy towards reclaiming their "waqf". They are deliberately stoking antisemitism. Is she using her position as a platform to further that agenda?

This petition at least should raise the debate. We need to get over this fear of saying anything against Islamic interests, and start pointing to some glaring truths in all of this.

Of course, people on here will know my own view on this. I don't like what I am hearing said against Jews and their homeland anymore than I liked what was said against the gays not so long ago. If 70 years from those persecutions I heard the same accusations being recycled by a new generation of homophobes, I would be just as appalled as I am at this.
To be fair, Irish immigrants to America and their progeny were frequently accused of being a 'fifth column' going back the arrival of the United Irishmen exiles, especially if they engaged themselves in the political affairs of Ireland and/or sought US involvement in them, e.g.,

"We have no room in any healthy American community for a German-American vote or an Irish-American vote, and it is contemptible demagogy to put planks into any party platform with the purpose of catching such a vote. We have no room for any people who do not act and vote simply as Americans, and as nothing else." President Theodore 'Teddy' Roosevelt, April 1894.

Teddy was an especially fierce and avowed opponent and critic of O'Donovan Rossa during his time in the US and the Fenian movement in the US, the Fenians of which actually invaded Canada following the US Civil War in an effort to achieve Irish independence.

I don't go as far as Teddy. IMO, benevolent and principled activities regarding nations of other affinity, alliance and/or friendship consistent with national interests are positive things. Being a dual citizen myself, it's a common feature of many people and IMO there's no actual problem so long as a person doesn't act treacherously with it, which treacherous people do anyway regardless of it. I'm also mindful of the ancient antisemitic canards regarding 'treacherous Jews'.

That said, someone like Sheldon Adelson is the type of person that's highly influential in US politics by throwing around cash that IMO is the kind of divisive and subversive problem that Teddy addressed:

[video=youtube;2TFi-9wnspk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TFi-9wnspk[/video]

The Times of Israel, Haaretz and other Israeli papers have run OP-EDs criticising Adelson for empowering the ancient general slander that Jews are a fifth column because he is in fact divisive and subversive. IMO, the GOP has enough problems with the Russians getting their cash and influence into the Trump Admin and NRA, etc, along with the Saudis and others to have this problem too.

Let's also not kids ourselves with what you said here: "We need to get over this fear of saying anything against Islamic interests, and start pointing to some glaring truths in all of this. Ilhan Omar has already received some of the vilest anti-Muslim attacks even within GOP official politics, e.g.,
Poster connecting Rep. Ilhan Omar to 9/11 terror attacks ignites outrage at West Virginia capitol - FOX News

IMO, Omar takes things too far but has said some things in whole or in part that need to be said. Israel-Palestine is a difficult topic, but it shouldn't be shut down by demagogic accusations of being either antisemitic or anti-Muslim or tolerating genuine acts of it, and whatever the aims, any decisions should be made in what's in the best national interests--not another's--with all due considerations for doing what's also ethical and just where it can and should be done.
 
Last edited:

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,468
...
As for the Waqf - Israel agreed to the Jordanian role on the Temple mount in the peace deal with them. Israel has violated the spirit of that agreement in recent weeks by its raids on Waqf members.
I was quite obviously referring to the whole of Palestine being an Islamic Waqf, since it was conquered by the Muslims in the seventh century and thus must always remain Muslim. This is what "waqf" actually means, you need to look into it. As per the Hamas charter:

"... The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day..."
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,468
Dual loyalty between friendly countries is not necessarily an insult or a "canard". After all, Irish American support for Irish independence was crucial in pressuring the British to allow it...
Indeed, and that was my point.

It is apparently only when the accusation is levelled at Jews that a certain sentiment becomes an underlying current in the accusation (as you will observe particularly in the case of the so called "Jewish lobby" in the US.). Neither is this notion of "dual loyalty" even raised in other cases.

And there is historical form in this accusation being levelled at Jews. From wiki: "... Jews in the Jewish Diaspora have been accused of dual loyalty by the Romans in the 1st century, by the French in the Dreyfus Affair in the late 19th century, in Stalin-era Soviet Union in the 20th century. Before the creation of Israel, Jewish anti-Zionists used the accusation against other Jews..."

There are a number of other historical examples of this accusation being used to justify persecution, expulsions and massacres of Jews throughout history. Let us have no doubt Omar as an educated woman is unfamiliar with this history.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,093
Indeed, and that was my point.

It is apparently only when the accusation is levelled at Jews that a certain sentiment becomes an underlying current in the accusation (as you will observe particularly in the case of the so called "Jewish lobby" in the US.). Neither is this notion of "dual loyalty" even raised in other cases.

And there is historical form in this accusation being levelled at Jews. From wiki: "... Jews in the Jewish Diaspora have been accused of dual loyalty by the Romans in the 1st century, by the French in the Dreyfus Affair in the late 19th century, in Stalin-era Soviet Union in the 20th century. Before the creation of Israel, Jewish anti-Zionists used the accusation against other Jews..."

There are a number of other historical examples of this accusation being used to justify persecution, expulsions and massacres of Jews throughout history. Let us have no doubt Omar as an educated woman is unfamiliar with this history.
Well in fact Israel doesnt speak for all Jews as polls in western countries of their opinions on the settlements show. Bibis intransigence has done great damage to the Jewish Diaspora. On the other hand, leaders of Jewish Establishment bodies like AIPAC, ZOA, the British Board of Deputies etc tend to robotically defend Israels policies no matter what they are.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,184
Indeed, and that was my point.

It is apparently only when the accusation is levelled at Jews that a certain sentiment becomes an underlying current in the accusation (as you will observe particularly in the case of the so called "Jewish lobby" in the US.). Neither is this notion of "dual loyalty" even raised in other cases.

And there is historical form in this accusation being levelled at Jews. From wiki: "... Jews in the Jewish Diaspora have been accused of dual loyalty by the Romans in the 1st century, by the French in the Dreyfus Affair in the late 19th century, in Stalin-era Soviet Union in the 20th century. Before the creation of Israel, Jewish anti-Zionists used the accusation against other Jews..."

There are a number of other historical examples of this accusation being used to justify persecution, expulsions and massacres of Jews throughout history. Let us have no doubt Omar as an educated woman is unfamiliar with this history.
It is anachronistic to speak of a Jewish diaspora in the first century. One of your huge problems is that you have no interest in actual history when it does not serve apologetic ends. Uri Avnery, that very beautiful and wonderful character, used to rail against the way history was taught in "Israeli" schools because history was something he was actually interested in. Actual Hebrews of the first century A.D. liked to stay put in Palestine/Eretz Israel- Josephus speaks about this, and what is more when they did travel it was usually with missionary activity in mind.

Did you know that at one time Jews were banned from Rome because they were annoying everyone so much with their proselytizing? Judaism was extremely attractive to a lot of people in the Roman Empire who were fed up with degeneracy and general evil and intellectual bankruptcy of paganism. Judaism of the first century A.D. though had much like Islam today extremely violent currents. The Tannaim after the suppression of the insurgency of Simon the Son of a Star edited away most of these aspects (you won't find Masada in Rabbinic literature) and that suppression figured very much in the Zionist critique of Classical Rabbinic Judaism. So yeah Jews were suspected of sympathizing with or supporting the Fourth Philosophy (have you even heard that term before?- probably not because you are not interested in history)- very much like Muslims today are suspected of Jihadism, in fact Judaeophobia up to the third century A.D. when the division between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism became a very real and serious thing, splitting what had been Second Temple Judaism in two had and bringing so into play other factors (which I am happy to discuss but I doubt you) was eerily similar to contemporary "Counter-Jihadism"/Islamophobia which of course is heavily promoted by Zionist Jews such as yourself.

Yes very many Jews bitterly opposed Zionism because they saw it as denying their just right to see themselves as British, French, German, etc as much as anyone else. Nasty stuff against Jews in the Muslim world was extremely sporadic because of a lot of factors, one which you will ignore being that Jews never had the animosity against Muslims that they held towards Christians. It is completely ignorant to speak of Judaeo-Christian civilization but it is not at all so to speak of Judaeo-Islamic civilization. Look for example how the Zohar speaks about Muslims and how it speaks about Christians.

You love to boast about the Zionist colonial project's success in the servile arts, which is impressive but as only made an elite few wealthy while everyone else rots in poverty in what is supposed to be the wealthiest country in the Levant, however a leading "Israeli" Jewish academic was very correctly when you actually examine the question that the dire actual intellectual poverty among Jews in "Israel" is a in many ways a result of Jews as a result of Zionism almost completely turning their intellectual backs on the Islamic world. It should not be a surprise than the greatest Jewish "Israeli" thinker of recent times, Rabbi Menachem Froman, a really amazing and astonishingly brilliant character was very much an Islamophile. The thing is though that in his time as a totally head the ball Religious Zionist Ultra (he was a founding member of the Gush) before he had the realization that indigenous Palestinians were fully human (if a founding member of the Gush can have that realization than so can you and Speedfreak) which made him formulate an incredibly interesting version of Post-Zionism (which would be useless to you as you are not interested in living in Eretz Israel- Palestine is only a Shoah survival shelter to Jews like you, while as to him it's soil was Sacred), he had no interest in Ben Gurion's project of "Occidentalizing" the Jews, he wanted to be a Jew and not some trashy athiestic standard Westerner.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,184
Well in fact Israel doesnt speak for all Jews as polls in western countries of their opinions on the settlements show. Bibis intransigence has done great damage to the Jewish Diaspora. On the other hand, leaders of Jewish Establishment bodies like AIPAC, ZOA, the British Board of Deputies etc tend to robotically defend Israels policies no matter what they are.
In Britain as roc well knows there is also Jewish Independent Voices and the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations both of whom are far from being trouble makers. The thing is that Zionist Jews like roc tend to be extremely belittling of Jews who do not go along with the Zionist narrative, often questioning their Jewishness (for instance roc no doubt believes that Rachel Riley is more authentically Jewish than Rabbi Daniel Boyarin), that is when they are not bullying or outright intimidating them. roc loves to claim that agrarian Catholic communities in 1980s Ireland were hothouses of conformist authoritarianism all the while being jolly in his support of iron fisted fanatics such as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,820
"To find out who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize."
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,184
I was quite obviously referring to the whole of Palestine being an Islamic Waqf, since it was conquered by the Muslims in the seventh century and thus must always remain Muslim. This is what "waqf" actually means, you need to look into it. As per the Hamas charter:

"... The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day..."
That is the old Hamas charter written when they were actually fundamentalists and very much a fringe movement. I have told you before that rather than argue with Paddy Goy you need to start talking to people in or "close" to Hamas. The new charter gives the best definition of actual existing Zionism that I have come across.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,184
"To find out who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize."
I don't think that Jews actually rule the contemporary West though do have disproportionate wealth and power, particularly in the United States. I think the major problem is that white men from historically Christian backgrounds seem to have become incapable of standing up to out of control Jews (when I say out of control Jews I am not implying that all Jews by any means are out of control) in order to prevent them being a danger to self and others. History has clearly illustrated- and one of roc's problems is that he has no interest in history outside of apologetic reasons- that Jews do best under Muslim control. European Christians or people from historically Christian backgrounds tend to either let Jews walk all over them or else go into out of control head the ball actual anti-Semitism a lot of the time. By supporting Hamas, Islamic Jihad in Palestine and the Islamic Movement in Israel (Northern Branch- the Southern Branch are cucks) I am actually supporting what is "best for the Jews".
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,468
Quelle surprise, the antisemitic anti-Israel zealots on here pile in to defend antisemitic behaviour. I'll just make one more post to clarify my points and refute a central deflection, and then you all can circle jerk to your hearts' content.

"To find out who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize."
Why are you quoting a piece of filth like Kevin Alfred Strom.

(Whatever, it just highlights the antisemitism that is in this type of thinking, and world-view, that Omar has been reinforcing with her public statements. Just study the character of the originator of your insidious dogmatic statement.)


That is the old Hamas charter...
Their five-page policy document they strategically wrote to try and evolve the group to a PA level of legitimacy (and hand over the dirty work of terror to younger off-shoots) was clearly stated by them not to formally replace their founding charter.

And even if it did, that does not refute the Islamic understanding of the Islamic Waqf, or Dar al-Islam.

All of the strict Muslim countries (and many of the not so strict) follow Islamic jurisprudence (shari'a) in viewing Palestine as an Islamic Waqf, as it has been since it's conquest in the seventh century. - The statement from the Hamas charter I highlighted is merely a universal statement of Islamic jurisprudence, restated. Here it is again:


“... the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered; it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Muslim generations till Judgement Day? This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgement.”


Or as Arafat put it right after signing the Oslo accords, referring to the Muslim "Uma" (meaning the supra-national Muslim community):

"... The Jihad will continue and Jersualem is not for the Palestinian People. It is for all the Muslim Uma, all the Muslim Uma. You are responsible for Palestine and for Jerusalem before me. (Verse from the Koran in Arabic) And we saved him (Abraham) and Lot, and we brought him to the land which is blessed for ever..."​

Because of course the Palestine conflict is significantly a religious war, a universal 'Jihad' on Palestine (and accompanying 'Hijra', especially so in the earliest stages of this conflict), that by Muslim design masquerades as a nationalist "Palestinian" one towards the strategic aim of appealing to Western sensibilities (at least from the pan-Islamic perspective which is the authoritative perspective in this conflict), and to very cynically make the refugees weigh as much as possible on the conscience of the western world.

Towards this, both ordinary Palestinians living in the "territories", and the Palestinian refugees and their descendants are kept in the poorest conditions by the Palestinian leadership and their host Arab countries - to better radicalise them, weaponise them, manipulate the pathos and chorus of the mobs in the peanut gallery overlooking this conflict, and hopefully eventually deploy the refugees towards 'Hijra'.

Because these mobs in the peanut gallery never want to appreciate these shari'a based realities of this conflict. No, they only want the story told in terms they can relate to - of mere nationalist aspiration, and of the bad guy, Israel the horrid ogre, oppressing the poor Palestinians, who are innocent and blameless. That's the story they want, and that's the story they'll get.

However that paragraph I highlighted in the charter (and there are multi-fold corroborations one might draw on) is the reality held by the faithful of the "Muslim Uma", that comprises the basic fact of this conflict, never mind that it is deliberately overlooked, which is certainly another aspect of the conflict (an aspect that sucks in the "audience" so that they become players).

It is a basic fact that casts a light on what is actually going on in this conflict that many in the West seem to find very "inconvenient".
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,184
Because of course the Palestine conflict is significantly a religious war, a universal 'Jihad' on Palestine (and accompanying 'Hijra', especially so in the earliest stages of this conflict), that by Muslim design masquerades as a nationalist "Palestinian" one towards the strategic aim of appealing to Western sensibilities (at least from the pan-Islamic perspective which is the authoritative perspective in this conflict), and to very cynically make the refugees weigh as much as possible on the conscience of the western world.
I know to some people I come across some of the time as a completely head extremist Catholic fundamentalist however I am essentially a very Liberal Christian just not a Libtarded one, and part of my Liberal Christianity which is very dear to my part is the promotion of mutual understanding, respect and co-operation between the Believers of all three Abrahamic Faiths. You talk about Sharia however a fact that you run away in your desire to "Other" Muslims in order to ease your conscience over the horrors going on now in Palestine which are taking place with your support the fact is that the Sharia which comes in a lot of shapes and sizes is essentially a more humane and universalistic form of Halakhah. Zionism is playing an extremely dangerous game by pushing the whole "Clash of Civilizations" thing on multiple levels. The conflict is not in essence Religious- the indigenous Palestinians were Buddhists the situation would be the same basically, only probably worse because contrary to the understanding of trashy uneducated Western Goyim Buddhists very often tend to be significantly more violent than Muslims. People tend to react badly to Settler Colonialism.

There is of course a Religious dimension to conflict but I am convinced that Religion can offer a key to creating not only a just and lasting peace both a mutually beneficial one. Again I refer you to brilliant and important work Rabbi Menachem Froman who by the way was a founding member of Gush Emunim- so if a founding member of the Gush can come to see the Palestinians as fully human than so can you. Did you know that in the past Jews used to be members of Sufi orders? You should look into historic Judaeo-Sufism (yes Jews in the past were members of Sufi orders and Sufism along with Shia Islam was immensely influential in the development of Rabbinic Judaism)- I think it's literature would be extremely helpful for you in curbing the excesses of your "Ashkenazi (or should I say Yiddish?) discussion style". There is a brilliant Judaeo-Sufi order some of who's members are also members of Hamas and the illegal Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel (the legal Southern branch are a bunch of cucks).

The thing is that Religion does not just play a role on the Palestinian side but also increasingly it plays a role on the Zionist side as well and not just in the Jewish Home Party, Jewish Power and New Right (who by the way your Caroline Glick is a member of). The last government had Rabbi Yehuda Glick who is a fanatical Jewish Religious supremacist who sees his life's work in having the Dome of the Rock demolished served as an important Minster but more than that as a Likud MK. Very many Religious Zionists are extremely opposed to giving up the West Bank on Religious grounds. A significant majority of Religious Zionists consider the "Arabs" Amalek and you more than anyone else on here should understand exactly what that entails.

Also no Muslim outside of total head the ball Salafi Jihadists and Hizb ut-Tahrir types who are fringe elements even dreams of re-conquering Spain. Rabbi David Bar-Hayim who is a very influential over the entire Chardal who are the fastest growing sector of Orthodox Judaism in Palestine and possibly globally does though state openly that a Jew who murders a Goy for whatever reason should suffer no legal consequences what so ever in Eretz Israel and he backs this up using Halakhahic sources- and do not even try to suggest that he is not respected through the at least non-Hassidic world (he is not fond of Hassidism- and his reasons are quite interesting for not being, I would be happy to discuss this subject with you if you so desire).

You should no also that Jews living in Eretz Israel at the time of the Proto-Islamic conquest welcomed the Arab conquerors as liberators and over time the vast majority of them converted to Islam which after all is extremely similar to Judaism. The Arabs did not ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jews at all. Historically also it was the Bedouin who were called Arabs in Eretz Israel and the Palestinians historically called themselves the Arabic for Am Ha'aretz.

Also intellectually speaking Jews because of Zionism have cut off noses to spite their faces so to speak by shutting themselves off from the Islamic world which they used to be very much engaged with. This is especially true in "Israel".

One cannot truly speak of Judaeo-Christian civilization without showing yourself a total moron however you can speak about Judaeo-Islamic civilization.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,581
The Lobby is trying to get Rep Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) removed from her seat on the House Foreign Relations Committee on phony charges of "anti semitism".

Sean Hannity on Twitter:

Pelosi, a supporter of the Lobby and House Speaker, is reportedly preparing a bill or resolution to confront Omar for telling the truth.

House Dems will take floor action to confront Omars latest Israel comments - POLITICO
One of the rare occasions I agree with you, Dame Enda.

Republican Juan Vargas says: "Questioning support for the US-Israel relationship is unacceptable". Huh? What happened to free debate?



As this post says " ... attacking Omar is just going to alienate a generation who is increasingly seeing through the propaganda surrounding our Middle Eastern policy, seeking justice and peace for everyone in and around Israel." A new American generation could just walk away from Israel, as many younger American Jews already have.

Islamophobia in Action - Lawyers, Guns Money

[TWEET]1102759536878907392[/TWEET]

Alexis Goldstein on Twitter:
 

Speedfreak

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,614
One of the rare occasions I agree with you, Dame Enda.

Republican Juan Vargas says: "Questioning support for the US-Israel relationship is unacceptable".

Huh? What happened to free debate?
You might ponder on why he said that, what he meant, what he was thinking.

Think carefully about the whole situation that the Israelis are in, their history, and why they must always be active in defending their rights to their homeland.

The fact that the US aligns themselves with Israel where her security is at stake, that they align themselves with Israel when it comes to making sure that they are not held to a double standard in international fora, that they align themselves with Israel when it comes to making sure that the Israelis are not isolated, is a very significant thing.

Think about what could transpire if it was not so.


Here are a few words from Obama about the US-Israeli relationship:


"... The United States and Israel share interests, but we also share those human values that Shimon spoke about: a commitment to human dignity. A belief that freedom is a right that is given to all of God’s children. An experience that shows us that democracy is the one and only form of government that can truly respond to the aspirations of citizens.

America’s Founding Fathers understood this truth, just as Israel’s founding generation did. President Truman put it well, describing his decision to formally recognize Israel only minutes after it declared independence. He said, “I had faith in Israel before it was established. I believe it has a glorious future before it - as not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.”

For over six decades, the American people have kept that faith. Yes, we are bound to Israel because of the interests that we share - in security for our communities, prosperity for our people, the new frontiers of science that can light the world. But ultimately it is our common ideals that provide the true foundation for our relationship. That is why America’s commitment to Israel has endured under Democratic and Republican presidents, and congressional leaders of both parties. In the United States, our support for Israel is bipartisan, and that is how it should stay....."​

The unconditioned support the US gives Israel is based on a lot of things that warrant careful pondering.
 

Speedfreak

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,614
You try to pretend your "Zionists" would ever support such a thing.

Of course they don't. No doubt you will bleat and bleat otherwise to try and make the case for a renewed assault, a renewed hate and persecution, by the entire world if possible, on your reviled "Zionists".

As for this woman, this Palestinian-Arab Israeli woman working as a professor at the highest level of an Israeli university, free to make her charges based on the hearsay of radicalised children, against the honourable defense forces of the country that gave her her citizenship and the kind of rights that she has taken good advantage of - free from the fear of being imprisoned, charged, arrested, beaten, or otherwise intimidated as she would in any other Arab country for doing the same thing...

Let her present her proof and evidence of her very serious accusations. Then let the accusations be investigated. Of course people like you don't need "proof" of your malevolent attributions. The reason for that is of course because you are the utter scum, not your detested "Zionists".
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,184
You try to pretend your "Zionists" would ever support such a thing.

Of course they don't. No doubt you will bleat and bleat otherwise to try and make the case for a renewed assault, a renewed hate and persecution, by the entire world if possible, on your reviled "Zionists".

As for this woman, this Palestinian-Arab Israeli woman working as a professor at the highest level of an Israeli university, free to make her charges based on the hearsay of radicalised children, against the honourable defense forces of the country that gave her her citizenship and the kind of rights that she has taken good advantage of - free from the fear of being imprisoned, charged, arrested, beaten, or otherwise intimidated as she would in any other Arab country for doing the same thing...

Let her present her proof and evidence of her very serious accusations. Then let the accusations be investigated. Of course people like you don't need "proof" of your malevolent attributions. The reason for that is of course because you are the utter scum, not your detested "Zionists".
For Heaven's sake my dear Ashkenazi supremacist Zionists back in the 1950s carried out thousands of gruesomely sadistic medical experiments on mainly Yemenite children with the full knowledge of David Ben Gurion- and you honestly find it hard to believe that they would carry out less gruesome medical experiments on Palestinian children?

Also "Arab Israelis" live in constant fear of the Shin Bet, they can be imprisoned very easily at the drop of a hat with very little evidence, they as a supposed "minority" actually have it among the toughest of all groups in the Levant.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,054
Top