Who honestly believes that Jews have a future in the Diaspora?

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,344
Just briefly checking in, I see the usual suspect vultures are all a fluster again, half mad with the scent of carrion.

It’s always the same is it not. Any slight opportunity to portray Israel and its people as “land-grabbing”, blood thirsty, inhumane monsters, and the mob comes to life.

Is it not exactly this that vindicates Zionism? That makes it moral and just (whether Jews could have a future in the Diaspora or not)?

Why do people think that now is any different to seventy years ago? To forty years ago even?

I have never seen such one sided narratives in my life.

Seventy years ago, most people came to understand that the Jews had no future in the Diaspora. When they learned about the environment and ensuing events of the 1930's leading to the Holocaust that settled the question in most minds of that era.

But that was not the first period of persecution that vindicated Zionism by any means. - Just taking for example, one of our own patriots, Michael Davitt, say, he settled the question in his own mind by 1903. (He was appointed as special commissioner to investigate the situation of the Jews in Russia. He subsequently wrote a book on his experiences, "Within the Pale: the true story of anti-Semitic persecutions in Russia". He declared, "I have come from a journey through the Jewish Pale, a convinced believer in the remedy of Zionism.”)

Today again, one only has to roam internet forums like this one, listening carefully to what people say, listening to the intent, and they can only come to the conclusion that Jews have no future in the Diaspora.

Tell me why is there hardly any of the Jewish perspective on here? Why does no one make the case for the Jews?

- No mention of the Arab invasions of 1948, 1956, and 1967 making it very clear that Israel needed to make it their business to be in the West Bank to protect itself from future similar invasions. (Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace)

- No mention that the Palestinians never held sovereignty over the West Bank. That the West Bank was captured from Jordan. - And even though "Palestinian" claims were acknowledged and respected, these newly defined people rejected all promises of sovereignty over those areas in all subsequent attempts at peaceful negotiation. (They had also rejected promises of sovereignty over those areas in 1936-1937, 1938, and 1947).

- No mention that many of these "settlements" like Gush Etzion and Hevron, have had Jewish communities existing sometimes for thousands of years before they were depopulated in Arab riots and by Arab armies in Israel's war for independence.

- No mention that other settlements are intended to mitigate security concerns where enemy borders are close to population centers. For example, the distance between the West Bank city of Qalqilya and the Mediterranean sea is only about 9 miles. So many settlements involve establishing a foothold on land that Israel can use to protect herself.

- No mention about what happened to Gaza after their withdrawal and concessions in 2005. And how the Islamic militants overran it and used it as a fortress from which to try and attack Israel.

- No mention of the Arab Jihad against the Jews and how that threatens all Jews.

- And much much more.

Of course the situation in Palestine has escalated from the beginning of Zionism to something terrible today. But how has it done so? Recall At the beginning of Zionism, in the early nineteenth century, the total population of Palestine was 350,000 according to Ottoman statistics. That's including the area of present day Jordan. And that was the figure for the total numbers of Arabs, Jews, Christians and others there.

Subsequently, many Arabs immigrated from the surrounding Arab countries to avail of the economic opportunities that the Jews created.

Later on, with the advent of the Mufti, they came at the behest of the Mufti. From around 1923 on (the year the area of Palestine now called Jordan was excluded from future Jewish immigration as a sop to the Mufti after Arab attacks on Jews). He then encouraged Arab mass immigration to the present region of "Palestine", purposefully adding demographic fuel to the fire.

Then of course, in the early to mid 1960's, the PLO began their "demographic bomb" strategy, renaming what had formerly been termed 'Arab refugees' or 'displaced Arabs' from Palestine as "homeless Palestinians".

We see now there are around 12 million "Palestinian-Arabs" in the world. Essentially used as pawns.

No doubt there has been much suffering on the back of all this. And there continues to be.

But in this respect, no one even asks themselves truthfully how the interests of the Palestinians might best be served, and what acts against those best interests. Consider for example perspectives such as these. The Arab regimes will not pay for their crimes against the Palestinians - Blogs - Jerusalem Post

Have the so called “pro-Palestinian” mob any real concern for the actual fate of the Palestinians, or may they in fact be more concerned with inciting people against the evil "Zionists", and rationalising the taking of a righteous retribution against them?

It doesn't matter what the Israeli Jews do or do not do. They will always be the bad guys.

Even if they did actually sign their own death warrant by ending the West Bank occupation, it would not satisfy the so called “pro-Palestinians” on here. - It would not take long for these bigots to start on how "Zionists" are also manipulating the banking, media, and other world systems. How they seek "a new world order” of one type or another. How the "Zionist neocons" are trying to murder half the people of the middle east. How the "Israel lobby" are full of the most unspeakable motives and intentions. Or some variant of the foregoing. And on and on. Same as always.

It doesn't matter what Israel and her Jews do or what they do not do. The same goes for Jews anywhere in the world, if not now, then sooner or later. And that's where Zionism essentially comes from. What is posted on this forum day in, day out, vindicates Zionism.
 


The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,040
So wanting justice for the Palestinians and Israel to obey international law means you want all Jews dead? Try harder.

But part of your narrative is insightful. The more the world condemns us the worse we will behave. How childish.
 

PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
9,242
When the oil runs out America wont need friends in the region.

Then we start to see what the end game will produce.

Nobody will give a ************************ about the middle east or a primitive battle between two groups of backward ignorant religious fanatics.

Or climate change.

Whichever happens first.

https://chomsky.info/197703__/

As predicted in the 70s by Chomsky.
CHOMSKY: Israel is virtually a dependency of the United States. U.S. exports to Israel, amounting to $1.4 billion in 1976, are exceeded only by those to Saudi Arabia and Iran. But because every other aspect of the problem of the Middle East is fitted into the framework of old reserves, American attitudes towards Israel will vary as they bear on the problem of maintaining control of Middle Eastern energy resources.

Consider the U.S. reaction to Israel’s conquest of the Sinai in 1956 and in 1967. In 1956, the U.S. strongly opposed that action. Eisenhower and Dulles were quite forthright and outspoken about it a few days before the presidential election, allegedly a time when political considerations are paramount. Political considerations aside, the U.S. openly compelled Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, not caring about its impact in the presidential election. In contrast, the U.S. supported Israel’s conquest of the Sinai in 1967 and has been backing it since that time.

What was the difference between 1956 and 1967? In 1956, Israel was allied with France and England who were trying to reestablish some position of significance in the Middle East, believing still they had some role to play in regulating the affairs of the region. Since Israel was collaborating with rivals of the U.S. in the region, the conquest became illegitimate.

In 1967, Israel was closely allied to the U.S. directly. As a result, the conquest was quite legitimate. U.S. government support of Israel is more or less in accord with the American perception of Israel’s strength. The stronger Israel becomes, the more it is able to assist the U.S. in maintaining control of the region, so the more the U.S. will support it. Though the pretense has always been that we’re supporting Israel because it is in danger, the opposite would be a much more accurate statement. American support for Israel is contingent upon its strength and ability to aid in maintaining American domination of the Middle East.
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,167
Does this apply to other diaspora that do not have a religious link to a homeland? For example, could the Roma argue that their persecution might give them a moral right to travel across Europe regardless of who it might impede?
 

PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
9,242
Why do the majority of Jews live outside of Israel?

Seems they are happy to be living abroad instead of a buffer zone for others Jews who stole all their wealth.
 

Truth.ie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
27,354
Jews are disproportionately represented on the roster of the World's wealthiest.
I'm not sure what the OP is getting at.
 

PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
9,242

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Jews are disproportionately represented on the roster of the World's wealthiest.
I'm not sure what the OP is getting at.
Indeed I would see prejudice against a group with masses of wealth and power as being very different to one without those things but for some reason people on here have much more moral indignation against anything that can be considered "anti-Semitic" than they do against hatred for Travellers; to me it should be the other way around and I find it both weird and wrong that it isn't.

Anyway while some forms of what is called Anti-Semititism are very wrong and deeply sinful, a lot of what roc_ would call Anti-Semitic I think is just; Rabbinic Judaism which is a Religion younger than Christianity has many very unpleasant features to it and the Zionist colonial project is not one that I think can be justified from a universal ethical point of you no mind the destabilization of the region that it has been causing of late.
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,040
And noone on her making a case for 'the Jews'? Really?
 

PeaceGoalie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,459
Many of the Holocaust survivors live in abject poverty.

Tens of thousands of Israeli Holocaust survivors are living in abject poverty - Telegraph

All their wealth was stolen by North African and Middle Eastern Jews who benefited the most from the setting up of Israel.

The monies paid to Israel by Germany didn't benefit Holocaust survivors as much as other Jewish people.
Not so. Israel is ruled mostly by East European "Jews" who look down on "Arab" Jews. Getting in early was part of the game. A great scam when all is said and done
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,344
Jews are disproportionately represented on the roster of the World's wealthiest.
I'm not sure what the OP is getting at.
They are also disproportionately represented in every other area of achievement, from the arts to the sciences.

Consider for example that Jews account for 22% of all individual recipients of the Nobel prize worldwide between 1901 and 2016.

No doubt such achievement creates resentment among never-do-wells.
 
Last edited:

DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
12,700
Website
darrenjprior.blogspot.com
Twitter
https://twitter.com/DarrenJPrior
- No mention of the Arab invasions of 1948, 1956, and 1967 making it very clear that Israel needed to make it their business to be in the West Bank to protect itself from future similar invasions.
Are you staying that what the Palestinians call "Nakba Day" starting in 1948 was actually started by Palestinians invading or trying to invade the land designated by the UN as being the new Israel? As with 1956 and 1967?
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,040
Are you staying that what the Palestinians call "Nakba Day" starting in 1948 was actually started by Palestinians invading or trying to invade the land designated by the UN as being the new Israel? As with 1956 and 1967?
Don't ask for logic. It's because we hate Jews.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,344
Are you staying that what the Palestinians call "Nakba Day" starting in 1948 was actually started by Palestinians invading or trying to invade the land designated by the UN as being the new Israel? As with 1956 and 1967?
Oh for God's sake. Where does one even start with such "logic".

Palestinian Arabs were not even called "Palestinian" in 1948. Not until the early 60's in all of the UN and other world body public records. Look and see. - Arabs of Southern Syria. Arabs from Palestine once or twice. Just plain displaced Arabs most often in UN discussions of their fate.

But anyway who ever tried to say the indigenous Arabs, today's "Palestinians" were the ones who "invaded"?! Of course it wasn't. Typical of your kind of logic. Of course the invaders were the same Arab states who today hold hostage the Palestinian people as their pawns, as they have done ever since 1948 - Here is a link to some extracts from the public record from these same Arab states on their intentions with regard to those Arab invasions.

And the commemoration of "nabka day" is a relatively recent innovation btw.


Don't ask for logic. It's because we hate Jews.
Yes, I know you - you are one of the worst of the new wave.
 
Last edited:

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,562
Are you staying that what the Palestinians call "Nakba Day" starting in 1948 was actually started by Palestinians invading or trying to invade the land designated by the UN as being the new Israel? As with 1956 and 1967?
Who says that ?
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,562
Oh for God's sake. Where does one even start with such "logic".

Palestinian Arabs were not even called "Palestinian" in 1948. Not until the early 60's in all of the UN and other world body public records. Look and see. - Arabs of Southern Syria. Arabs from Palestine once or twice. Just plain displaced Arabs most often in UN discussions of their fate.

But anyway who ever tried to say the indigenous Arabs, today's "Palestinians" were the ones who "invaded"?! Of course it wasn't. Typical of your kind of logic. Of course the invaders were the same Arab states who today hold hostage the Palestinian people as their pawns, as they have done ever since 1948 - Here is a link to some extracts from the public record from these same Arab states on their intentions with regard to those Arab invasions.

And the commemoration of "nabka day" is a relatively recent innovation btw.



Yes, I know you - you are one of the worst of the new wave.
Yes they were. As were Jews. As Golda said, " I had a Palestinian passport ". However that ceased when the Mandate became Israel and Jordan.
 

Morgellons

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2012
Messages
4,911
Just briefly checking in, I see the usual suspect vultures are all a fluster again, half mad with the scent of carrion.

It’s always the same is it not. Any slight opportunity to portray Israel and its people as “land-grabbing”, blood thirsty, inhumane monsters, and the mob comes to life.

Is it not exactly this that vindicates Zionism? That makes it moral and just (whether Jews could have a future in the Diaspora or not)?

Why do people think that now is any different to seventy years ago? To forty years ago even?

I have never seen such one sided narratives in my life.

Seventy years ago, most people came to understand that the Jews had no future in the Diaspora. When they learned about the environment and ensuing events of the 1930's leading to the Holocaust that settled the question in most minds of that era.

But that was not the first period of persecution that vindicated Zionism by any means. - Just taking for example, one of our own patriots, Michael Davitt, say, he settled the question in his own mind by 1903. (He was appointed as special commissioner to investigate the situation of the Jews in Russia. He subsequently wrote a book on his experiences, "Within the Pale: the true story of anti-Semitic persecutions in Russia". He declared, "I have come from a journey through the Jewish Pale, a convinced believer in the remedy of Zionism.”)

Today again, one only has to roam internet forums like this one, listening carefully to what people say, listening to the intent, and they can only come to the conclusion that Jews have no future in the Diaspora.

Tell me why is there hardly any of the Jewish perspective on here? Why does no one make the case for the Jews?

- No mention of the Arab invasions of 1948, 1956, and 1967 making it very clear that Israel needed to make it their business to be in the West Bank to protect itself from future similar invasions. (Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace)

- No mention that the Palestinians never held sovereignty over the West Bank. That the West Bank was captured from Jordan. - And even though "Palestinian" claims were acknowledged and respected, these newly defined people rejected all promises of sovereignty over those areas in all subsequent attempts at peaceful negotiation. (They had also rejected promises of sovereignty over those areas in 1936-1937, 1938, and 1947).

- No mention that many of these "settlements" like Gush Etzion and Hevron, have had Jewish communities existing sometimes for thousands of years before they were depopulated in Arab riots and by Arab armies in Israel's war for independence.

- No mention that other settlements are intended to mitigate security concerns where enemy borders are close to population centers. For example, the distance between the West Bank city of Qalqilya and the Mediterranean sea is only about 9 miles. So many settlements involve establishing a foothold on land that Israel can use to protect herself.

- No mention about what happened to Gaza after their withdrawal and concessions in 2005. And how the Islamic militants overran it and used it as a fortress from which to try and attack Israel.

- No mention of the Arab Jihad against the Jews and how that threatens all Jews.

- And much much more.

Of course the situation in Palestine has escalated from the beginning of Zionism to something terrible today. But how has it done so? Recall At the beginning of Zionism, in the early nineteenth century, the total population of Palestine was 350,000 according to Ottoman statistics. That's including the area of present day Jordan. And that was the figure for the total numbers of Arabs, Jews, Christians and others there.

Subsequently, many Arabs immigrated from the surrounding Arab countries to avail of the economic opportunities that the Jews created.

Later on, with the advent of the Mufti, they came at the behest of the Mufti. From around 1923 on (the year the area of Palestine now called Jordan was excluded from future Jewish immigration as a sop to the Mufti after Arab attacks on Jews). He then encouraged Arab mass immigration to the present region of "Palestine", purposefully adding demographic fuel to the fire.

Then of course, in the early to mid 1960's, the PLO began their "demographic bomb" strategy, renaming what had formerly been termed 'Arab refugees' or 'displaced Arabs' from Palestine as "homeless Palestinians".

We see now there are around 12 million "Palestinian-Arabs" in the world. Essentially used as pawns.

No doubt there has been much suffering on the back of all this. And there continues to be.

But in this respect, no one even asks themselves truthfully how the interests of the Palestinians might best be served, and what acts against those best interests. Consider for example perspectives such as these. The Arab regimes will not pay for their crimes against the Palestinians - Blogs - Jerusalem Post

Have the so called “pro-Palestinian” mob any real concern for the actual fate of the Palestinians, or may they in fact be more concerned with inciting people against the evil "Zionists", and rationalising the taking of a righteous retribution against them?

It doesn't matter what the Israeli Jews do or do not do. They will always be the bad guys.

Even if they did actually sign their own death warrant by ending the West Bank occupation, it would not satisfy the so called “pro-Palestinians” on here. - It would not take long for these bigots to start on how "Zionists" are also manipulating the banking, media, and other world systems. How they seek "a new world order” of one type or another. How the "Zionist neocons" are trying to murder half the people of the middle east. How the "Israel lobby" are full of the most unspeakable motives and intentions. Or some variant of the foregoing. And on and on. Same as always.

It doesn't matter what Israel and her Jews do or what they do not do. The same goes for Jews anywhere in the world, if not now, then sooner or later. And that's where Zionism essentially comes from. What is posted on this forum day in, day out, vindicates Zionism.
Jeez, if it's all such a hassle being Jewish why don't they just give up the ghost and assimilate?
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,344
Yes they were. As were Jews. As Golda said, " I had a Palestinian passport ". However that ceased when the Mandate became Israel and Jordan.
I am not taking away fro their identity as Palestinians. Or any of their claim to historical rights or associations. Same as the Israelis have consistently done (without having the same recognition granted to them in reciprocation). But look to all of the public records of the period. They were never termed as such. The term "Palestinian People" for the indigenous and immigrant Arabs in the region only began to be commonly used around the sixties - when the PLO decided to adopt a demographic based strategy as a complement to their direct terrorism, revolving around renaming what had been called up to then, "Arab refugees" as "homeless Palestinian people". Up until the late fifties, Arab spokesmen and the Palestinian leadership insisted that Palestine was Southern Syria and that to confer independence on the region infringed on the Arab nationalist vision. Even present day Hamas representatives also regularly state that "there is no Palestinian people" in their speeches for Jihad.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top