Is Zionism racits? - SciForums.com

Undecided

06-01-04, 02:29 PM

Germans has their own country and they control it. they have foreigners living and working there as citizens or whatever
so do other countries.

Difference is that Germans have always lived on that land; they didn’t have to kick anyone out of that land to call it their own. Secondly they have always constituted a majority of the population, and the Germans are one race, one culture, and generally one religion. Jews are none of that, and the only claim that Jews have to that land is a religious one, of which you don’t have any support. Pseudo-Jews may pretend that Israel is racial, or even a state which exists because G-d said so, but those people are indoctrinated.

and they all determine their naturalization and immigration processes.
Israel is merely doing the same.

Yes but there is a difference don’t you see? These people aren’t going to Germany because that is what they consider their land, they go there for work. Israel is doing much more, and it is exclusive. Israel accepts only Jews as citizens.

i was thinking, if Islam is not just a religion but also a political ideology, then Islam is racist and bigotted.

As are Israel’s policy of selective immigration, and naturalization. Israel wants to maintain the demographic edge, and as a result is actively pursuing immigration of Jews to Israel. It would be counterproductive for Israel to allow non-Jews to immigrate to the country. If Israel wasn’t so racist then it should allow the Pal. Refugees come back, but we all know the truth.

the immigration and naturalization processes in Saudi Arabia for example are nonexistant. in Jordan, if you are Jewish, you are not allowed to immigrate there. same with many other "Muslim nations"

What does this have to do with anything, you can’t be so intellectual inept to try to change the conversation to the Islamic world. We are talking about Zionism, and stick to it.

each and every immigration and naturalization policy is discriminative somehow - be it English, Polish, Saudi, Chinese, whatever.

Not Canada, not the US, etc.

sideshowbob

06-01-04, 03:05 PM

Difference is that Germans have always lived on that land; they didn’t have to kick anyone out of that land to call it their own.
No. The Ostrogoths and Visigoths and Allemans, etc. fought over those lands more than a thousand years ago. And more recently, Germans fought with Poles and Lithuanians and French and Danes for territory. And yes, Germans even fought with Austrians. Every foot of land on earth has been fought over at one time or another and every "people" has been kicked out of or kicked somebody out of some place.
Secondly they have always constituted a majority of the population, and the Germans are one race, one culture, and generally one religion.
No. Germans have many cultures and many religions under the umbrella "German". I myself am 75% Mennonite and 25% Prussian - how's that for a combination?

Arguably, the Jews have a culture that is just as cohesive.

Granted that some of the Jews of the diaspora have a tenuous claim on Israeli territory. But there has always been a Jewish presence in Israel, since ancient times. The Jews have as much right to a piece of the Middle East as the Arabs - who came a-conquering from the Arabian Peninsula.

Israel accepts only Jews as citizens.
Israeli immigration laws are partially or largely based on Zionist principles, but Israeli law is not part and parcel with Zionism. You're answering the question "Is Israeli immigration policy racist?" not "Is Zionism racist?"

Undecided

06-01-04, 03:05 PM

Racism is overt in Israel and this only shows it:

Lieberman tells Russia he wants to expel Israeli Arabs
------------------
Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman has presented Russian officials with his plan to separate Jews from Arabs, which involves exiling Israeli Arabs deemed disloyal to the state.
-----------------
The plan is based on the idea of separating the populations and territories of Jews and Arabs, including Israeli Arabs. According to the plan, only those Israeli Arabs who feel a connection with the State of Israel and are completely loyal to it would be allowed to remain.
------------------
Sharon yesterday condemned Lieberman's statements on transferring Israeli Arabs to the territories. "We regard [Israeli Arabs] as part of the State of Israel," he said.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/433230.html

I am happy that Sharon has voiced his condemnation of these overtly racist and disgusting thoughts propagated by this obvious extremist. Sounds a little like Arafat don't it.

Preacher_X

06-01-04, 03:17 PM

before 1948 Jews owned 6% of the land and Palastinians owned 94%. Israelis under UN resolutions (that America bullied people into following) would after 1948 get 55% of the land and that would mean Palastinians lose 49% of their land so no wonder the tried to fight zionism and have a war with Israel. after the war Israel illegally took more war against internation law and the UN. Israel is still holding on to that land and the UN has demanded a complete withdrawal but every single UN resolution against Israel is vettoed by Israels bumchum, America.

Undecided

06-01-04, 03:21 PM

The Ostrogoths and Visigoths and Allemans, etc. fought over those lands more than a thousand years ago.

All the former mentioned people are all German today, they mixed. The fought each other for control of the same land. They all were from the same racial clan. Those were more cultural then any racial differences.

And more recently, Germans fought with Poles and Lithuanians and French and Danes for territory.

Yes so? They didn't kick them off their own land did they? Also all those states fought against the Germans as well. This has very little relevance…

And yes, Germans even fought with Austrians.

The only difference being that Austrians are Catholic...

Every foot of land on earth has been fought over at one time or another and every "people" has been kicked out of or kicked somebody out of some place.

Not necessarily, there have been shifts in territory granted but those were mostly political not demographic. You don't see people calling for the Roman Empire to be re-established do we? Or Axum? Or Great Zimbabwe? You know why, because that claim doesn't exist anymore, and the demographics of those fmr. territories have changed dramatically. So why Israel? It’s really quite ridiculous. Most Jews, especially those from Northern Europe are not Semitic; they are Slavic/Turkic/Germanic. Do Slavs have a right to the Levant, I think not. Again the only claim Jews have is religion, not racial. The only connections have with each other (by definition) is religious. Nationalism by its very nature demands racial/cultural/lingual homogeneity, and Israel doesn’t even come close to offering any of that. Nationalistic homogeneity in Israel is based on religion, and nothing else. Since that very religion bars them from going to Israel to live, they live there based on a lie. They have no claim to that land.

Germans have many cultures and many religions under the umbrella "German". I myself am 75% Mennonite and 25% Prussian - how's that for a combination?

That’s great, but you still call yourself German, but what does this have to do with anything? The unification of Germany was based on language more then anything else. Mennonite and Prussian is not a logical comparison, how can you be 75% religious and 25% nationalist? Give me a break that was pretty low…

Arguably, the Jews have a culture that is just as cohesive.

Their culture is their religion.

But there has always been a Jewish presence in Israel, since ancient times. The Jews have as much right to a piece of the Middle East as the Arabs - who came a-conquering from the Arabian Peninsula.

The Jewish Arabs who lived in the Levant at the time did not want Zionism, they rejected it. Pal. Jews are the closest relative to Hebrews out there. The Pals. didn’t conquer the region, they are descendents of the ancient people of the region the Cannaties or Phoenicians not sure. The only thing that invaded the Levant was Islam, not people. The Arabs there used to be Pagan, Christian, and then Islamic.

Israeli immigration laws are partially or largely based on Zionist principles, but Israeli law is not part and parcel with Zionism. You're answering the question "Is Israeli immigration policy racist?" not "Is Zionism racist?"

Modern Israel by its very nature (its very definition) has to be Zionist, it cannot be anything else. Who are you trying to kid here?

sideshowbob

06-01-04, 03:24 PM

It was the Arabs who rejected the UN partition plan in 1948 and tried to take 100%.

spidergoat

06-01-04, 04:15 PM

Many of the people in the middle east have racial and cultural biases. Christian Arabs against Muslim Arabs, Jews against Muslims, sedentary Arabs against nomadic Bedouins, etc... However the laws of Israel do not exclude Arabs completely, only seek to maintain overall Jewish control. In the same way, Saudi laws seek to maintain muslim control; it is not deflecting the issue to point out the common tendancies of the area. An American or EU style of total equality is foreign to the area. Arabs have sought control of other areas, notably Spain, so it is not unprecendented even in the Arab world. I would say Zionism is inherently unfair within its jurisdiction, to those who are not Jewish. But, it is a small outpost on the edge of a vast Muslim empire, an empire that is also unfair to those who are not muslim. In combatting the horrendous anti-Jewish forces in the world, a little unfairness was deemed acceptable. I would not go so far as to call it racist, although it could contribute to racist feelings in it's us/them mentality. Racism is more of an individual thing.

Undecided

06-01-04, 04:28 PM

Christian Arabs against Muslim Arabs, Jews against Muslims, sedentary Arabs against nomadic Bedouins, etc...

Why did you neglect to mention Jewish Arabs?

However the laws of Israel do not exclude Arabs completely, only seek to maintain overall Jewish control.

A land of which they have no basis for being there, or controlling it.

In the same way, Saudi laws seek to maintain muslim control; it is not deflecting the issue to point out the common tendancies of the area.

Difference is that Islam, and Arabs have a right to live on that land, it is their by blood, and culture.

I would say Zionism is inherently unfair within its jurisdiction, to those who are not Jewish. But, it is a small outpost on the edge of a vast Muslim empire, an empire that is also unfair to those who are not muslim.

Look at where Israel is situated on the map please; notice that it cuts the empire in two. Also that land is religious to the Muslims as well as Christians and Jews. That region is important to all three religions. But the Jewish religion forbids what you are doing, and yet you still do it. G-d has warned you of the consequences of Zionist Israel:

“To violate the oaths would result in "your flesh will be made
prey as the deer and the antelope in the forest," and the redemption will be delayed.”

I interpret this as the terrorism against Israel; by the looks of it G-d is trying to tell you something. You enter at your own risk Zionists.That land is by every logical, ethical, and historical reason Arabic. I didn’t say Islamic, I said Arabic. You are trying to state that all Pals are Islamic (as shown by your exclusion of Arabic Jewry). Christians are tolerated in Syria, and Egypt, their holidays are national holidays. So please refrain from such absolutist of statements.

In combatting the horrendous anti-Jewish forces in the world, a little unfairness was deemed acceptable. I would not go so far as to call it racist, although it could contribute to racist feelings in it's us/them mentality. Racism is more of an individual thing.

Israel, Zionism has created the vilest force against the Jewish people. A-S today is equated with Israel, not Jewry. Israel is doing what it is supposed to be doing, creating hatred overseas for Jewry so they can come to “Israel” and create the “state among states”. If anything Israel and this unfairness is threatening every Jew, inside or outside of Israel. As long as Jewry is ignorant of this, the situation will only get drastically worse.

spidergoat

06-01-04, 04:46 PM

Why do you so easily discount the history of Jews in the area? You say when people have a history of living in an area that they have some right to it. Jews lived in Israel before AD 70, and began returning after the Russian pogroms of about 1880 or so. Never mind religion, there is a documented history of Jews living there that is older than Arabs.

"A land of which they have no basis for being there, or controlling it."
They are there, and they do control it, that is as much basis as any civilization in history for being there. This argument is basically unworkable in light of the present situation. An entire nation is not going to get up and leave just because some disgruntled farmers lost their orange or olive grove. Remember, it was not just Jews that forced Arabs off their land, but Arabs too, that tried to force Jews out of the area. It was because they could not get along that they separated. The myth of Jews sweeping in after WWII, and terrorizing the poor Arabs off their land is not the real picture. Why were Arabs so angry about the UN partition? Could it be some racism on their part? Why do you consider an Arab who moved to Palestine in 1930 more entitled to land than a Jew, who might possibly have moved there and bought land in 1890?

sideshowbob

06-01-04, 04:48 PM

Undecided,

To try to trace the pedigrees of Palestinian Arabs back to the Canaanites and Phoenicians is a stretch, to say the very least. The Palestinian Arabs are culturally almost indistinguishable from the Arabian Arabs, from whom they descended.

Some Arabs may be able to trace their roots to Canaan, but some can not.
Some Jews may be able to trace their roots back to the 12 tribes, but some can not.

To go from that to suggesting that the Arabs have a claim on the land and the Jews do not, is ludicrous.

(By the way, I do not call myself "German". The whole point I was trying to make is that Germany is not a cohesive oneness as you suppose. It is simply one more example of a land that different peoples have fought over. Who they fought and why, is a non-issue. Whether or not they were "always" there or whether or not they want to go "back" is a non-issue.)

Finally, you ignore the reality.
Jews are in Israel, whether or not they have any right to be there. They are not going to leave.

Undecided

06-01-04, 04:53 PM

Why do you so easily discount the history of Jews in the area? You say when people have a history of living in an area that they have some right to it.

Firstly Hebrews lived in that area, the only way for there to be a connection to that land independent of religion would have to be racial connection, which doesn't exist anymore. This is a non-argument Spider.

Jews lived in Israel before AD 70, and began returning after the Russian pogroms of about 1880 or so. Never mind religion, there is a documented history of Jews living there that is older than Arabs.

Hebrews lived in Israel before 70CE no doubt, but Slavs surely didn't. Then why are Slavs moving to that land in droves, surely not because they are black Hebrews. They are moving back because they naively believe that Israel belongs to them. Wake up, the reality is quite different. That is where you get the confusion again religion forbids you from going back. You were kicked out for a reason.

This argument is basically unworkable in light of the present situation. An entire nation is not going to get up and leave just because some disgruntled farmers lost their orange or olive grove.

You know my position as to this; I do not advocate kicking anyone off their lands. I am being very nice to Zionists, who loved to do that to Arabs.

The myth of Jews sweeping in after WWII, and terrorizing the poor Arabs off their land is not the real picture. Why were Arabs so angry about the UN partition? Could it be some racism on their part?

No it’s called “fairness”, would you like hundreds of thousands of Germanic strangers coming to your land and saying, we are going to take half of it. I wouldn’t think so, there were only two regions in the Levant which had Jewish majorities at the time of partition, yet Israel got ½ of the country. Give me a break, Israel is lucky she even exists.

Why do you consider an Arab who moved to Palestine in 1930 more entitled to land than a Jew, who might possibly have moved there and bought land in 1890?

Are you insinuating that Arabs did not live in the region prior to 1880? I will be eagerly awaiting the answer…

Undecided

06-01-04, 05:00 PM

To try to trace the pedigrees of Palestinian Arabs back to the Canaanites and Phoenicians is a stretch, to say the very least. The Palestinian Arabs are culturally almost indistinguishable from the Arabian Arabs, from whom they descended.

Ermm...they never moved out of the region have they? To say that Jewry is racial, and all Hebrews is a complete fallacy. The Arabs have always lived there, just as long as the Hebrews and even longer. Today’s Arab especially in that region is an eclectic mix of Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, Turkic, etc. But they have always lived on that land. They are not only Muslim, there are Christian, and Jewish Arabs as well.

To go from that to suggesting that the Arabs have a claim on the land and the Jews do not, is ludicrous.

It is not ludicrous; it is stated by G-d. They have a claim only when their messiah comes back. I have to see anything to support the existence of Israel other then the need to have a refugee camp in the Middle East for them. Have you read anything by Herzl for example? He makes no illusions about Zionism, while amateur Zionists do.

The whole point I was trying to make is that Germany is not a cohesive oneness as you suppose. It is simply one more example of a land that different peoples have fought over. Who they fought and why, is a non-issue. Whether or not they were "always" there or whether or not they want to go "back" is a non-issue.

If those things were “non-issues” then Nationalism wouldn’t exist. Think why don’t ya! Germans would most likely disagree with your assumptions; I think most Germans would say that being German is being one people. It makes little sense to be hundreds of different people yet still call yourself German. You tried to say you were 75% religious I mean right there you lost all intellectual cred. You don’t even know what you are.

Jews are in Israel, whether or not they have any right to be there. They are not going to leave.

Where have I stated otherwise?

sideshowbob

06-01-04, 05:04 PM

... there were only two regions in the Levant which had Jewish majorities at the time of partition, yet Israel got ½ of the country.

Not even close to being true.

There were hundreds of Jewish communites all over what is now Israel. They were under constant, murderous attack by their "fair" Arab neighbours. That was the reality if the situation for 80 years.

The UN partition plan of 1948 was designed to connect the Jewish communities, so they could protect themselves from all that "fairness".
When the Arabs, Palestinian and foreign, rejected the UN plan and tried to push the Jews "into the sea", the Israelis had no choice but to set up borders that they could defend.

Undecided

06-01-04, 05:11 PM

Not even close to being true.

No? Fine then you are now going to see something that will shock you, done by the UN to determine the composition of the country. (http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg) The rest of what you wrote is to be considered irrelevant dribble.

spidergoat

06-01-04, 05:23 PM

Firstly Hebrews lived in that area, the only way for there to be a connection to that land independent of religion would have to be racial connection, which doesn't exist anymore. This is a non-argument Spider.
The connection is cultural, which combines race and religion.

Hebrews lived in Israel before 70CE no doubt, but Slavs surely didn't. Then why are Slavs moving to that land in droves, surely not because they are black Hebrews. They are moving back because they naively believe that Israel belongs to them. Wake up, the reality is quite different. Decendents are decendents, whether their racial characteristics were diluted or not. The same way Muslims gather to Mecca, they feel a connection to that place that transcends their origin.

That is where you get the confusion again religion forbids you from going back. You were kicked out for a reason.
I disagree that Judaism forbids Zionism. Even if it once did, it does not any longer. For what reason did the Romans kick the Jews out? ...and why do you imply that that reason holds any weight these days?

Let me make one thing clear, I don't think anyone's land really belongs to them. This legalism is just a temporary setup, useful for a limited time on this ever changing earth. Someday, the land we hold to be ours and our childrens will no longer exist, it will move, sink, uplift, and melt over and over again. We evolved from territorial apes, and unfortunately, we still treat the earth like it was given only to us humans to do anything we wish with it.

No it’s called “fairness”, would you like hundreds of thousands of Germanic strangers coming to your land and saying, we are going to take half of it. I wouldn’t think so, there were only two regions in the Levant which had Jewish majorities at the time of partition, yet Israel got ½ of the country.
If I was a farmer living on land as sparsely populated as Kansas, and Jews had a history of living there in the distant past, I think it would be fair, as long as I was compensated for the land lost.

Give me a break, Israel is lucky she even exists.Lucky? or maybe it had devine help.

Are you insinuating that Arabs did not live in the region prior to 1880? I will be eagerly awaiting the answer…
This is only an example. Given an Arab who moved to Palestine in 1930, and a Jew who moved there is 1890, who has more of a right to live in the area? The question of who has a right to live there is not even the major question, since before 1948, both Arabs and Jews had the right to live there. If Jews had the right to live there before 1948, then they have the right to live there after 1948 as well. The right to live there is not the issue, the issue is who gets the political power after their mutual conflict in 1948?

sideshowbob

06-01-04, 05:29 PM

Three things, Undecided:

First, your map is plainly dated 1945, before the major influx of WWII refugees. Therefore, the exact numbers on it are out of date, inaccurate and irrelevant.

Second, your map plainly shows Jewish communities spread out over the entire region, exactly as I said. The fact that they were not a majority in the arbitrarily-defined divisions on the map, is irrelevant.

Third, the only justification the Jews need for their existence in Israel is their existence in Israel. Talk of who was where first and who has "more" or "less" right to be there, is irrelevant.

If you want the Jews out of Israel, take up the gun.
Otherwise, accept reality.

Undecided

06-01-04, 05:43 PM

The connection is cultural, which combines race and religion.

Then you must exclude yourself, you are not Hebrew. If you are Hebrew as are untold thousands of Christian Europeans. The reality is that the only claim to that land is religious; Jews wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for your religion. A race just doesn’t disappear now do they?

Decendents are decendents, whether their racial characteristics were diluted or not. The same way Muslims gather to Mecca, they feel a connection to that place that transcends their origin.

Descendants are through blood, not through culture. Arabs in Arabia who go to Mecca have a blood connection to people of Mecca, Jewry doesn’t. Unless of course Chinese, Ethiopian, Indian, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Turkic, Latin, etc. Jewry all share the same blood…as we can clearly see they don’t. If Jews are racial, then so is being Christian, and Islamic.

I disagree that Judaism forbids Zionism. Even if it once did, it does not any longer.

Jewry is G-d, I haven’t heard him rescind his warning to Zionism have you? Maybe some revisionist rabbi’s but they are lying and omitting the words of G-d. That’s why G-d also said this to us Christians about you revisionists:

“I know your afflictions and your poverty-yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.”

All this Bull crap has been predetermined by G-d.

For what reason did the Romans kick the Jews out? ...and why do you imply that that reason holds any weight these days?

Does it matter if it holds weight or not? Jews were kicked out and G-d has told you to accept exile as a consequence of your actions. Your blatant denial of this has allowed us Christians to finally contemplate the second coming:

The Christian evangelicals support Israel because it fits their fixated belief that their messiah will only return if Israel is controlled by the Jews. However, when their messiah returns, they believe he will destroy the entire Jewish population, or at least those who don't instantly accept Christ as their savior. The cynical Jews, on the other hand, don't really care what the Zionist Christians think, because they don't believe in Christ at all and are merely contented by the political and financial support brought to them by a group they consider subhuman, but politically important. This is truly a match made in hell, the forging of a powerful coalition of lunatics who together aim to turn the world into a smoldering cinder merely to fulfill their own mutually exclusive and insane desires.

Indeed…

If I was a farmer living on land as sparsely populated as Kansas, and Jews had a history of living there in the distant past, I think it would be fair, as long as I was compensated for the land lost.

Well sadly most were not compensated, secondly why Kansas? I am talking about you in a Arab farmers shoes, who has farmed there for generations. I would be pretty pissed off that people would come and say that my land is their land based on literally nothing. Zionism doesn’t even try to say too much on its Jewish history or even religion, and some interesting Zionist quotes state as such:

"It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that zionism aims at the creation of an independent 'Jewish State'. But this is wholly fallacious. The 'Jewish State' was never part of the Zionist programme". 14/

But the direction was clear - the goal of zionism from the start was the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. The rights of the people of Palestine themselves received no attention in these plans.

What the political concept of a Jewish State in Palestine needed to give it reality was to transfer people to Palestine. The religious and spiritual solidarity of the Jews in the Diaspora with the Holy Land had survived over the centuries. Despite the anti-Semitism in Europe, only small groups had emigrated to Palestine to settle in Palestine for purely religious sentiments. They numbered perhaps 50,000 at the end of the nineteenth century, and personified, or symbolized, the Jewish link to Palestine which was, in essence, spiritual.

The Zionists drew on this ancient spiritual potential to build a political movement. A stirring slogan was spread abroad:

"A land without people for a people without land"

ignoring the fact that the Palestinians themselves, well over half a million at the turn of the century, lived in Palestine, that it was their home. The great Zionist humanist, Ahad Ha'am warned against the violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, and his words are well known in the literature of Palestine.

This is only an example. Given an Arab who moved to Palestine in 1930, and a Jew who moved there is 1890, who has more of a right to live in the area?

The Arab who moved there is irrelevant, he is an immigrant to that land. But most Arabs who lived on that land have lived there prior to the first wave of Zionist infiltration. Does an Arab family who has lived there for hundreds, even thousands of years before 1880 should have less rights then a German Jew who never even seen that land before? Put it in that perspective please.

If Jews had the right to live there before 1948, then they have the right to live there after 1948 as well. The right to live there is not the issue, the issue is who gets the political power after their mutual conflict in 1948?

No one denied the right of Jews to live there, at least I haven’t. My beef with Zionism is the establishment of a state that is racist, and ideological. A state that has taken away the land from hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and shamed their pride.

Undecided

06-01-04, 05:48 PM

First, your map is plainly dated 1945, before the major influx of WWII refugees. Therefore, the exact numbers on it are out of date, inaccurate and irrelevant.

Sadly for you that map was about Land ownership, not demographics. The Arabs still held much of that land even with the influx of Jews from Europe. Arabs far outnumbered Jews in 1948 anyways. Are you wiling to tell me that Jews in 1948 owned more land then the Arabs?

Second, your map plainly shows Jewish communities spread out over the entire region, exactly as I said. The fact that they were not a majority in the arbitrarily-defined divisions on the map, is irrelevant.

Actually if that were true, then borders are irrelevant. There is a reason they exist. The borders on that map show (for the most part) Israel’s modern internal borders, so they aren’t exactly irrelevant. So what if Jewish communities are spread all over, they are in minority and as a result have minority rights, representation but not statehood.

Third, the only justification the Jews need for their existence in Israel is their existence in Israel. Talk of who was where first and who has "more" or "less" right to be there, is irrelevant.

Actually no, because a Jew is by definition religious Jewish. If their religion bars them from going back to that land, they are not Jewish anymore they are “those who call themselves Jews”.

If you want the Jews out of Israel, take up the gun.

Stop talking Bull Shit you twerp, where have I said anything even close to that? Are you making up arguments as we go along?

sideshowbob

06-01-04, 05:54 PM

You're too filled with hate, Undecided.
Good-bye.

Undecided

06-01-04, 05:58 PM

You're too filled with hate,

I see you have finally completed your cognitive surrender. Secondly what hate? What have I said that is hateful? I behoove you to show me anything that I said that is hateful? Thirdly if you think I am hateful for speaking logically about the situation then these people are the devil:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/index.html

So go and pretend to be 75% Mennonite twit!

sideshowbob

06-01-04, 06:10 PM

You just did it for me.
Good-bye.

Undecided

06-01-04, 06:12 PM

Like that made any sense or even attempt to? I asked you to show me. I will not have my character defamed by some twerp who thinks he knows what he is talking about. Show me this hate? (If it’s about you, no I don’t hate you, I feel sorry for you instead you Mennonite from Mennonitia!)

spidergoat

06-01-04, 06:30 PM

Then you must exclude yourself, you are not Hebrew. If you are Hebrew as are untold thousands of Christian Europeans. The reality is that the only claim to that land is religious; Jews wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for your religion. A race just doesn’t disappear now do they?

Since there is no governing body to ajudicate a "claim", it is not really a claim, in the sense of a deed or legal document, just a common dream, shared by the cultural descendents of Judaism. Races do dissappear, they are caused by isolation, and fade with assimilation. I don't believe ties of blood are more credible or legalistic than ties of culture.

If you think God kicked the Jews out, acting through the Romans, than you must believe God killed Jesus, and futhermore, God must have founded Israel, through the British! God must have been pretty angry at those Muslims, then. Come on, I don't believe in God, and I don't think those arguments have much weight here. Only 10% of Israelis consider themselves religious anyway.

I don't deny that some Arabs who were refugees of the 1948 war suffered a loss, and were not compensated. They should be, and Palestine should be a state. There is much suffering in the world due to ideologies of one sort or another, but eventually we have to move on, and not contribute to futher ideological conflict. It's not like Israel is Yellowstone, or Alaska, there is not that much there, except what you build there.

Undecided

06-01-04, 07:06 PM

Since there is no governing body to ajudicate a "claim", it is not really a claim, in the sense of a deed or legal document, just a common dream, shared by the cultural descendents of Judaism.

Firstly there is an organization that decides what a claim is or not, that is the UN. The UN has accepted the Israeli state existence, as well as a Pal. State. Secondly Zionism cannot be deemed a common dream, the desire to go back to the Promised Land is, but many Jews today reject Israel because it is a “Gold Calf”.

Races do dissappear, they are caused by isolation, and fade with assimilation. I don't believe ties of blood are more credible or legalistic than ties of culture.

The problem with ties of culture is that it cannot exist independently of a secondary, and in most cases tertiary bond. Jewish Culture is a Religious one, not a racial one. There is no doubt that religiously Jews have no claim (as of yet). Jews can go back to their land when they are allowed to go back. Now you can go back all you want, but don’t complain when a terrorist attacks you, don’t complain when there is a rise in A-S worldwide. G-d has told you the Jewish people that if you go back great suffering will happen to you.

We have to awaken ourselves to the fact that Eretz Yisroel belongs to G-d. Eretz Yisroel is for Torah and Mitzvos, and not for a state. It can be a state sometime, but only when it will be to prepare the world for the Kingdom of G-d through the coming of Moshiach.
Such a state the Torah does want, and then the complete hatred of the Jews will go away. It will be as the prophet says – "and all the nations will flow unto you" - but till then, we are not allowed a state. The Torah does not want it. It is contrary to the Torah and contrary to our faith. It is completely incomprehensible how anyone can be so silly as to perform a holy dance in front of such an idol, and not to feel that with this, we are taking upon ourselves the goal of being like all the nations.
A word of advice for Zionists who think they are Jews; you sew what you reap. I don’t want Jews to die for the sins of some atheists, wake up. All signs lead to something rather bad..
If you think God kicked the Jews out, acting through the Romans, than you must believe God killed Jesus, and futhermore, God must have founded Israel, through the British!

As a Christian yes, it sure does look like that. But you forgot to mention how it ends for you and your fellow “Jews”, holocaustic death. All of you will all die as a result of your state and as a result of your actions unless you convert. (Looking at it from a Christian perspective). Looking at it from a Jewish perspective, your messiah, the one who is to bring you back to your land is delayed. As a result Jews will suffer from injustice, and hatred for a prolonged period of time.

Come on, I don't believe in God, and I don't think those arguments have much weight here. Only 10% of Israelis consider themselves religious anyway.

Thank you for proving me correct, this is what Zionists wanted. They wanted a Goy state; they don’t want a Jewish state. They are using the word of G-d for their own uses. This is why Israel is not a Jewish state, and you are not Jewish. This is why G-d is super pissed at you Pseudo-Jews, and calls you the “Synagogue of Satan” the greatest sin you can do against G-d is betray him. I would not want to be in a Zionists shoes. Israel, Zionism, all this is based on one thing and one thing only. Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and Israel are a reaction to a cause, and now Israel is becoming the cause. You might want to realize it, or deny it but it is undeniable that G-d has told us of people like you. You deal with it as you may wish (that is in the book of revelations, the predictions of the bible.)

There is much suffering in the world due to ideologies of one sort or another, but eventually we have to move on, and not contribute to futher ideological conflict.

I think we can both mutually agree with this statement. We must look at this conflict from the eyes of those who truly suffered. Arabs have had their land taken away from them, kicked out of their homes, and pushed into refugee camps which have horrid conditions. Wouldn’t you want to kill some Israeli’s? You know my position on Pal. Terrorism, and my position of the state of Jewry. Again if these two people can join forces and expel their extremists peace looks like a more feasible possibility.

mza

06-01-04, 11:40 PM

people have different definitions of racism. i consider racism to be a hatred of a race simply because they are not the race you belong to, not the preference of your race over another. having pride and love for your race, whilst still having respect and love for others is not racism. i'd never treat someone worse but id help someone of my own race before another. this stems from instinct, as was mentioned, and the fact that in most situations it is easier to relate to someone of a similar race or upbringing, but its not a definite rule, after all i can relate to a middle class person of another race more than i can to a person of my own race who lives in the street. so i don't think there is anything racist about wanting a separate state for a certain religion or type of people, they could relate to each other a lot better and it would more than likely be a great place to live for those people. but of course, i only skimmed the article given and it is time for me to stop dribbling fecal matter from my mouth.

savory

06-02-04, 12:09 AM

It is not a tenet of Zionism that Jews are somehow better than any other people, just that Jews should all get together in one country, so they can all be Jewish together without discrimination. It is not different from any other nationalistic movement.

Umm lets see what happens when a group of whites get together and want to preserve their DNA or culture.. Very hippocritical behavior would surely follow.

spidergoat

06-02-04, 11:36 AM

Thank you for proving me correct, this is what Zionists wanted. They wanted a Goy state; they don’t want a Jewish state. They are using the word of G-d for their own uses. This is why Israel is not a Jewish state, and you are not Jewish. This is why G-d is super pissed at you Pseudo-Jews, and calls you the “Synagogue of Satan” the greatest sin you can do against G-d is betray him. I would not want to be in a Zionists shoes. Israel, Zionism, all this is based on one thing and one thing only. Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and Israel are a reaction to a cause, and now Israel is becoming the cause. You might want to realize it, or deny it but it is undeniable that G-d has told us of people like you. You deal with it as you may wish (that is in the book of revelations, the predictions of the bible.)

But you see, I am Jewish. You don't understand Judaism, which is less strict than Islam. Doubt and discussion are what keep Judaism alive. Jews do not blindly submit to religious authority, but are seen to be engaged in a dialogue with themselves and others about the meaning of God. God does not want forced belief.

crazy151drinker

06-02-04, 03:38 PM

Unde,

The Arabs lost the land because they keep getting their asses kicked in war. That is a common theme throughout History. Finders Keepers Losers Weepers. Even your precious Germans lost it all to the Huns.

Undecided

06-02-04, 04:29 PM

But you see, I am Jewish.

If you are Jewish then so am I, your revisionist semantics and logic don’t fool anyone. Don’t you understand how very simple my logic is? If you don’t believe in G-d, then you by definition cannot be Jewish. Even Zionists haven’t alluded to that, you are indoctrinated (I seriously mean it) look even what your fellow Zionists say:

"It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that zionism aims at the creation of an independent 'Jewish State'. But this is wholly fallacious. The 'Jewish State' was never part of the Zionist programme".

Really now Spider who are you trying to kid here? You are a goyim just like the rest of us, and that’s exactly what Zionism wants.

You don't understand Judaism, which is less strict than Islam.

But it’s still religious, just because it is not strict is not relevant. The level of severity is really only in your head. What you are comparing Judaism to is another religion, not a race. Thus even by your definitions it is a religious group. You are not Jewish by definition.

Jews do not blindly submit to religious authority, but are seen to be engaged in a dialogue with themselves and others about the meaning of God. God does not want forced belief.

Irrelevant, that’s almost like me absolving murder, because G-d doesn’t necessarily care. Either you are a Jew or not, you make the decision.

Undecided

06-02-04, 04:32 PM

The Arabs lost the land because they keep getting their asses kicked in war.

International law dictates that land illegally occupied be given back to their former inhibitors. If Crazy this were true then why don’t we have good ole Hitler ruling Europe? There is a time when you cannot be so absolutist, and the Pals. should have their own state independent of what Israel wants. It is only fair, and Israel will collapse sooner or later, either through the divine will of G-d, Demographics, or nuclear war. Israel will eventually be destroyed, at least with my plan no one would die. Do you decide...

spidergoat

06-02-04, 04:41 PM

"If you don’t believe in G-d, then you by definition cannot be Jewish."
Not true, in Judaism, you have a grace period of at least one generation. I'm jewish because my mother was jewish, and you don't have to believe in God to be religious. You don't have to believe in God to be Jewish. In fact no one can believe in God, because no one knows the nature of God. You can't believe in something you don't know. Jesus had very different ideas about God than most Jews, but he considered himself to be Jewish. You only have to be culturally Jewish to want a place where people like yourself are not discriminated against. I believe in Israel and Zionism for secular, humanistic reasons, not religious ones.

spidergoat

06-02-04, 04:45 PM

"International law dictates that land illegally occupied be given back to their former inhibitors."

National soverenty supercedes international law. Otherwise the UN would be the world's government, which it is not. It is a voluntary organization that works only as long as the members agree to participate, so its power is limited.

Undecided

06-02-04, 04:52 PM

Not true, in Judaism, you have a grace period of at least one generation. I'm jewish because my mother was jewish, and you don't have to believe in God to be religious.

Firstly I would like to see some substantiation about that one generation grace period. Which literally makes no sense (and you know it). Secondly you are right one doesn’t have to believe in G-d to be religious but you aren’t Jewish. To be Jewish is to believe in G-d, stop the revisionism.

In fact no one can believe in God, because no one knows the nature of God. You can't believe in something you don't know.

Completely subjective, and this is not shared by about 14 million religious Jews (if they really are that many). That is why we have something called faith, it faith illogical? Yes, but faith transcends all human intellectual qualities.

Jesus had very different ideas about God than most Jews, but he considered himself to be Jewish.

Jesus did not want to start a new religion, he wanted to reform Judaism. It was Paul who perverted Christ’s teachings into that of another religion.

You only have to be culturally Jewish to want a place where people like yourself are not discriminated against.

Mind telling me where the Jewish culture comes from? Could it be…Torah?

I believe in Israel and Zionism for secular, humanistic reasons, not religious ones.

That’s good; at least you are wiling to admit it. Secondly Israel cannot be Jewish if only 10% consider themselves to be Jewish. You are nothing more then a Goyim, and you are the dream of Herzl, I don’t see why you don’t realize this? Jews cannot be like other states, Goyim can. You want to be accepted by us, but you cannot be accepted as long as you tell lies, and indoctrinate. If you were a real humanitarian Israel is not the place to live let me tell you.

Undecided

06-02-04, 04:54 PM

It is a voluntary organization that works only as long as the members agree to participate, so its power is limited.

Which Israel has...thus the Israeli's are legally bound by UN laws. If the Israeli's don't want to follow UN law, she can leave. But by default the region would be Arabic, Israel isn't that stupid. The Israeli state exists by UN law, and the UN can take it away as well. Israel needs the UN to survive as a legal entity.

spidergoat

06-02-04, 05:33 PM

Jesus did not want to start a new religion, he wanted to reform Judaism.
Me, too.

Firstly I would like to see some substantiation about that one generation grace period. Which literally makes no sense (and you know it). Secondly you are right one doesn’t have to believe in G-d to be religious but you aren’t Jewish. To be Jewish is to believe in G-d, stop the revisionism.
I'm sort-of kidding about the grace period. The confusion starts because Jewishness means two things. One is the religion of Judaism, the other is the culture of Jewishness.

Secondly Israel cannot be Jewish if only 10% consider themselves to be Jewish. I said 10% of Israelis consider themselves religious, many more than that consider themselves Jewish. You can be a non-religious Jew. Many Christians and Muslims are the same way.

Back to the question, is Zionism racist? I think not, because even Undecided says Jews are not a race.

Undecided

06-03-04, 11:03 AM

I'm sort-of kidding about the grace period. The confusion starts because Jewishness means two things. One is the religion of Judaism, the other is the culture of Jewishness.

That makes very little sense, you know as well as I do that culture cannot exist on it's own. This notion of the atheistic "Jewish" culture is quite literally the most idiotic thing I have heard in a long while. Not only does it throw the logical definition of culture out of the window, it throws away rationalism. Zionists are in a state of denial, Zionists are as evidenced by this are self-hating. They have to be by definition, so really all this is a disservice to Judaism.

You can be a non-religious Jew. Many Christians and Muslims are the same way.

That makes NO sense at all, you do realize this? Do you know what we call this Christian ethos gone atheist, we call it Western culture, and no one says you are a Christian atheist? Please let’s try not to fool ourselves here; I know Zionists like to be lied too , but let’s stick with some semblance of logic shall we?

Back to the question, is Zionism racist? I think not, because even Undecided says Jews are not a race.

The problem lies in the fact that Zionism considers you a race, and as a result is racist. As you now know, how completely idiotic that really is.

crazy151drinker

06-03-04, 11:43 AM

"International law dictates that land illegally occupied be given back to their former inhibitors. If Crazy this were true then why don’t we have good ole Hitler ruling Europe?"

Well I guess we better give the States back to the Indians. Tibet needs to go back to the Tibetians, South Vietnam will have its own country.......no wait, they French had Indo China so we better give South East Asia back to them......no wait before that the Japanese were there......
It goes on and on and on and on and on. The Jews were there in BIBLICAL times. That was ROMAN land. The Palastinians are illegally on ROMAN land.

There is no Hitler because we had a WAR and kicked him OUT. Just like the Arabs keep TRYING to do and they keep getting their ASSES handed to them.

I guess we better hand Iraq back over to Saddam.......

Undecided

06-03-04, 02:40 PM

Well I guess we better give the States back to the Indians.

No because although those Indians did fight, they usually signed treaties effectively ending their claims. The Arabs have yet to do that.

The Jews were there in BIBLICAL times. That was ROMAN land. The Palastinians are illegally on ROMAN land.

Firstly the Hebrews were there in Biblical times, today no such race exists. Thus that claim no longer exists, that is fools Gold, and not even Spider touches that one. Jews since they are only religious have a claim only through their religion since that religion forbids that immigration they have no claim. If they have a claim to that land so do the White South Africans who also said that was God Given land. Essentially should the White South Africans been able to keep South Africa even with a Black majority population? The international answer was no, where is the difference here? Not much. Also for your information, the Egyptians owned that land before the first Jewish Kingdom, so it is Arabic either way.

I guess we better hand Iraq back over to Saddam

I guess Crazy you should the difference btwn leadership and nationalism…;)

Preacher_X

06-03-04, 06:48 PM

It was the Arabs who rejected the UN partition plan in 1948 and tried to take 100%.

before 1948 Jews owned 6% of the land
the UN partition would give Jews 55% of the land
meaning the Palis would lose 54% of the land that is actually theres. that means more then half the entire population would have to evacuate.

no wonder the Arabs fought back.

also remeber the UN partition was due to US bullying and not what the country's that voted wanted.

and how hypocritical, Zionists use the UN as an excuse for pro-Israel even though Israel has more UN resolution against it then ANY other country in the world (for example Iraq has 17 while Israel has over 100 and still counting).

if it was not for US vettos against the resolutions then by now Israel would be fully sanctioned and most likley attacked by NATO forces

spidergoat

06-03-04, 06:56 PM

Evacuation was not necessarily a part of the partition plan. And the UN was anticipating further Jewish immigration as a result of WWII. It is not like there is an extreme shortage of land in the Arab world. I think it was a matter of pride, the Arabs wrongly considered the whole area theirs, and the Jews are infidels. There were people there, but no nation. The Arabs fought and lost, now they have to live with the consequences.

Undecided

06-03-04, 07:14 PM

It is not like there is an extreme shortage of land in the Arab world.

That is completely irrelevant and a non-argument. There are lots of land in Antarctica, or the Amazon. That land was owned by Muslims, irregardless of lack of a Pal. State. You cannot expect to move into a land populated by Arabs, and land that is religious to them as well, and expect to greeted nicely.

I think it was a matter of pride, the Arabs wrongly considered the whole area theirs, and the Jews are infidels.

Why are you brining Jews into this? Jews have lived there for a very long time with their brethren. Zionists are seen as the problem not Jews, please stop abusing the term. The area was theirs, it was their home. They owned the vast majority of the land, really where do you get these imaginative theories from?

sideshowbob

06-03-04, 07:41 PM

no wonder the Arabs fought back.
The Arabs didn't "fight back". They started the fight, and lost. Boo hoo.

Working Class Hero

06-04-04, 07:11 AM

The Arabs rightly considered the whole area theirs. They did live there for a few thousand years, and fought for the land in world war one. The Jews shouldve been allowed to settle in Palestine, theyd been doing that for years, but they shouldntve got their own state. The truth is, Britain is to blame. We promised the Arabs their own independant state in both world wars, and then went back on that and in 1918, kept the land, and in 1945 gave it to the Jews, so we didnt have to look after them in Europe.

And i dont think Zionism, the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world actually exists, so it can hardly be racist. But i have been told by people who have met Israelis that they are some of the most racist people around.

Raj Ganatra

06-04-04, 07:52 AM

Zionism is basically the Jewish equivalent of Eurocentrism. While people like David Duke (http://www.davidduke.org/) desire national politics to serve White interests, Zionists prefer national politics to serve the interest of ethnic Jews. So, what we have here are two sides of the same coin.

Tiassa

06-04-04, 08:20 AM

i like what tiassa said, but i wouldn't say that "it's as racist as anything else"
it's just given more scrutiny than other things, which makes it more contravercial. but it isn't.

I thought you should know a couple things.

First, note that my post is a year and a half old.

Secondly, consider when you've advised me that, not being Jewish, I don't understand the Israeli situation.

You're correct on at least one part of that second count.

Being that you claim to speak for all Jews, and that, not being Jewish, I couldn't possibly have an opinion worth respecting, you might wish to consider that you have demonstrated clearly that Zionism is exceptionally racist.

And perhaps you could help me with something, then, since you have a problem with the idea that Zionism is racist.

Why do some Israeli advocates call UN resolutions against Israeli actions in the Palestinian conflict "racist"? (I admit, my favorite source, an American site called Netanhayu.org/com--I forget which--seems to have disappeared from the web.)

I mean, people are really cynical about this. When you get right down to it, the only problem I have with you is your insistence on misrepresenting various aspects of the situation.

I think it's repugnant how you disqualify Palestinians from humanity, and hold even infants guilty of terrorism.

I think it's repugnant how you make the issue about all Jews.

I think it's repugnant how you're afraid to look at Israeli actions honestly. You won't accept a criticism of Israel unless it's hedged in on all sides by condemnations of Arabs.

Aside from that, I'm aware it's not a simple situation. I know for a fact it's not nearly as simplistic as you try to cast it.

But aside from my discussions with you, I don't hold that Israel is about all Jews. Unlike you, I give time and consideration to Jews--both Israeli and otherwise--who happen to disagree with you. It's one of the ways I know you don't represent all Jews in word or behavior.

Zionism, eighteen months ago, seemed to me little more than overzealous patriotism, and every nation and people are entitled to a certain amount of jingoism as long as we humans choose to split ourselves up this way.

But you've made an admirable effort to remind me that such an opinion of Zionism is ill-informed. As you demonstrate, I underestimated the poisonous effects of Zionism.

Look, Otheadp ... in the US we've grown up with the Jews having the corner on anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is racism, but it's also functionally synonymous with anti-Judaism in this country. And in all the propaganda to help spare the Jews further hardship at the hands of the stupid, we Gentiles were taught that certain attributes cannot be laid over all Jews.

So please understand, it's actually rather puzzling when a Jew comes along and demands that I picture Jews according to terms equal to many of those stereotypes. Hell, you even undid one of my schemes against the neo-Nazis and actually gave them a single shining moment of credibility.

And that does take balls. More balls, indeed, than holding infants accountable for terrorism.

Working Class Hero

06-04-04, 08:27 AM

Wow. Go you!

sideshowbob

06-04-04, 10:20 AM

... Britain is to blame. We promised the Arabs their own independant state in both world wars, and then went back on that and in 1918, kept the land, and in 1945 gave it to the Jews...

The British didn't "give" Israel to the Jews.
They gave weapons to the Arabs and practically fought alongside the Arabs to prevent the state of Israel from existing. (For example, many of the officers of Jordan's Arab Legion were seconded from the British Army.)

By the way, the Arabs have several independent states.

Undecided

06-04-04, 10:36 AM

The British didn't "give" Israel to the Jews.

Well you are right; the Brits gave Zionism the promise of a state in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration, and then rescinded that promise in 1939 with the White Paper. So if it wasn’t for the UN Palestine would be…Palestine.

They gave weapons to the Arabs and practically fought alongside the Arabs to prevent the state of Israel from existing. (For example, many of the officers of Jordan's Arab Legion were seconded from the British Army.)

Hmm…could it be because these states were former British colonies, and that they were under British influence? The Brits didn’t give weapons to the Arabs to stop the formation of Israel, which is not only idiotic but unsubstantiated. If the Brits didn’t want the state of Israel to exist they would have easily vetoed the resolution making the state exist. Try to learn some history please.

By the way, the Arabs have several independent states.

So? Using your logic the Gypsies can take over England, because there are lots of other independent Anglo-Saxon states. :rolleyes: Truly amazing, truly.

sideshowbob

06-04-04, 11:23 AM

Using your logic the Gypsies can take over England, because there are lots of other independent Anglo-Saxon states.

If the British try to exterminate the Gypsies, or "throw them into the sea", then, yes, the Gypsies do have the right to fight back. And if the Gypsies win the war, yes, they do have a right to form their own state to protect themselves in the future.

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Undecided

06-04-04, 11:33 AM

the British try to exterminate the Gypsies, or "throw them into the sea", then, yes, the Gypsies do have the right to fight back.

No, that didn’t happen prior to the establishment of the state of Israel. The Arabs didn’t try to exterminate anything, what I was talking about (and you but I don’t think you realize it) was if the Zionists can come into a country which doesn’t belong to them and setup a state, then why not Gypsies do the same thing? There are tonnes of Anglo Saxon states those English can go to. :rolleyes:

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

If there were only a point being made…

sideshowbob

06-04-04, 11:54 AM

First, the Arabs collaborated with the Nazis in WWII, fought alongside the Nazis, learned bomb-making from the Nazis, etc.

Second, the long history of Arab crimes against Jewish settlers in Palestine is well-documented for anybody who chooses to research it honestly.

Third, if the Gypsies in Britain were in the same situation as the Jews were in Palestine, then they absolutely would have the right to do the same as the jews did.

Undecided

06-04-04, 11:59 AM

First, the Arabs collaborated with the Nazis in WWII, fought alongside the Nazis, learned bomb-making from the Nazis, etc.

Firstly there are extensive Zionist-Nazi collaboration as well, there were French-Nazi collaborations, everyone dealt with the Nazi’s. This is a non-argument.

Second, the long history of Arab crimes against Jewish settlers in Palestine is well-documented for anybody who chooses to research it honestly.

There wasn’t Zionist aggression against the Pals? Secondly they were justified in attacking settlers, like Indians attacking British settlers. The Zionists were invading their homeland. If you were to look at the situation honestly you would see that you are bias beyond belief.

Third, if the Gypsies in Britain were in the same situation as the Jews were in Palestine, then they absolutely would have the right to do the same as the jews did.

So you are endorsing a Gypsy state in the UK? Kicking all the Brits off their land and expatriating them to other Anglo countries? You are delusional.

sideshowbob

06-04-04, 12:14 PM

Firstly there are extensive Zionist-Nazi collaboration as well, there were French-Nazi collaborations, everyone dealt with the Nazi’s. This is a non-argument.
We weren't discussing everybody who collaborated with the Nazis. We were discussing what the Arabs did. The Arabs tried to "throw the Jews into the sea" - their own words, not mine.
... they were justified in attacking settlers, like Indians attacking British settlers. The Zionists were invading their homeland.
The early Jewish settlers bought land from the Arabs and settled peacefully. That is not an "invasion". It is in no way equivalent to the European takeover of America.
The Arab persecution of those settlers is documented - look it up.
I have not suggested that there have never been Jewish crimes against Arabs. What I'm saying, and what history shows, is that there has been a systematic campaign by Arabs (and not necessarily all Arabs) to remove
all Jews from Palestine.
So you are endorsing a Gypsy state in the UK? Kicking all the Brits off their land and expatriating them to other Anglo countries?
I don't know how to make it clearer.
If the British start a war with the Gypsies and lose, then YES YES YES the Gypsies have a right to their own state in Britain.

Undecided

06-04-04, 02:52 PM

We weren't discussing everybody who collaborated with the Nazis. We were discussing what the Arabs did.

Which was what specifically? What did the Arabs do that is so different then Zionist collaborators? The Arabic connection to the Nazi’s is not relevant. They didn’t kill Jews in the camps Germans did. If anyone should suffer and have their lands confiscated it should the Germans. The Arabic connection merely shows that there was a connection. Zionists had it as well, if we are wiling to give land to Zionists because Arabs collaborated with Nazi's we should take it away because they did the same thing. Alas...no argument.

The Arabs tried to "throw the Jews into the sea" - their own words, not mine.

The only way this is relevant (in this context) is if the Arabs said that with the Nazi’s. I ask you to show me the quote firstly, when, and who said it.

The early Jewish settlers bought land from the Arabs and settled peacefully. That is not an "invasion". It is in no way equivalent to the European takeover of America.

Oh yes it is, Europeans “bought” much of their lands from the natives. New Amsterdam was bought by beads. Much of Ontario was bought with merely 1,000 pounds, etc. But this is not the issue, I never objected to the purchasing of land by Zionists, or their immigration to the region. What I object to is the forceful deportation of 750,000 persons, and their land.

The Arab persecution of those settlers is documented - look it up.

Zionist murders of Arabs is also present, so really too bad.

What I'm saying, and what history shows, is that there has been a systematic campaign by Arabs (and not necessarily all Arabs) to remove all Jews from Palestine.

There have been elements which want that to happen, but their reasons are justifiable, and understandable. The Zionist settlement post 1939 was largely illegal, and post 1947 it was reckless. Most of the land was not bought, and you clearly saw in that map that Arabs controlled the vast majority of the land was Arabic owned, the influx of Jewish immigration post-WWII did not change the property composition so much to the point where Zionists held most of the land.

If the British start a war with the Gypsies and lose, then YES YES YES the Gypsies have a right to their own state in Britain.

The Arabs didn’t start a war with Jews in the pre-1880 did they? Otherwise your point is moot.

Working Class Hero

06-04-04, 03:31 PM

Undecided really knows what hes talking about. I wont post, because he just says it all for me! Are you arabic in decent or something?

sideshowbob

06-04-04, 04:31 PM

Undecided and WorkingClassHero,

I can't make up my mind whether I'm really that bad at communicating, or whether you're deliberately ignoring what I say.

I'll try to explain one more time my understanding of the situation, making an extra effort to be unbiased, and then you can explain where I'm wrong:

1. Beginning 1870's, Jews buy land in Palestine (part of Ottoman Turkish Empire). Everything legal and above board. Nobody taking advantage of nobody.
2. Tensions between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. Possible wrongdoing on both sides. (This tension continues to the present, so I won't mention it repeatedly.)
3. World War I, Jews and Arabs suspend their animosity (for the most part) to fight the Turks. British promise hiomelands to both the Jews and the Arabs. (I don't think we disagree much about British duplicity, do we?)
4. Post WWI, creation of Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, etc. No fruition of British promise of a homeland for the Jews.
5. 1930s, rise of Nazism. Increase in illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine (fleeing from Nazi persecution). Jews begin terror campaign directed at the British (which I neither condone nor condemn, at this point).
6. World War II, Jews and Arabs again "unite" to fight with the Allies. Notable exception: Menachem Begin's Irgun Zvai Leumi, which continues struggle to evict British from Palestine.
7. Post WWII, Further increase in illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine. Continuation of Jewish terror campaign against the British.
UN Partition plan proposed, in which areas of predominantly Jewish population are joined together into some sort of cohesive mass. Compensation (whether fair or not) proposed for Arab lands turned over to Jews and Jewish lands turned over to Arabs. Jews consider the plan. Arabs reject it.
8. 1948. British pull out of Palestine. State of Israel is born. Mufti of Jerusalem tells Arabs to "throw the Jews into the sea", tells non-combatant Arabs to voluntarily leave their homes to avoid becoming "collateral damage".
Israel invaded by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. Jews fight back. Wrongdoing on both sides (not unusual in war). Israel is on the brink of annihilation when UN ceasefire is imposed. Jews take advantage of the ceasefire to bring in arms, ammunition and supplies. Arabs celebrate impending victory.
Britain, realizing that wholesale massacre of Jewish people would make them look like the villains, withdraw their support from the Arabs. No more shipments of ammunition. British officers in Arab Legion (the only "professional" army in the Arab world at the time) recalled.
War continues, Israel wins.

The situation today:
1. Israel exists. Whether it's existence is legitimate or not, it does exist. It has a right to exist because it exists, just like an illegitimate child has a right to exist, regardless of it's origins.
2. International law is irrelevant. No international law can stop Israel from existing.

My understanding of your argument:
1. Arabs had more than 90% of land.
2. UN offered to divide the land about 50-50.
3. Arabs said, "No, we'll take 100%".
4. War, now Arabs have less than 50%.
5. Therefore....

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't see where your argument goes from there.

Undecided

06-04-04, 05:17 PM

I can't make up my mind whether I'm really that bad at communicating, or whether you're deliberately ignoring what I say.

I’d vouch for the former.

1. Beginning 1870's, Jews buy land in Palestine (part of Ottoman Turkish Empire). Everything legal and above board. Nobody taking advantage of nobody.

Ok no one denies this, and no body really objected to this. What the Ottoman Empire didn’t do was allow a Zionist state to form. I have repeated said that the immigration and land settlement is not the problem; it is you who is ignoring what I am saying.

3. World War I, Jews and Arabs suspend their animosity (for the most part) to fight the Turks. British promise hiomelands to both the Jews and the Arabs. (I don't think we disagree much about British duplicity, do we?)

The Balfour Declaration was given to the Zionists post-WWI indeed, but it said:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Not only did this ignore the interests of the native Palestinians, but it was a deliberate violation of their rights (see sect. IV below). The third is that through the Declaration the British Government made commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the land of the Palestinians at a moment when it was still formally part of the Ottoman Empire.

"The most significant and incontrovertible fact is, however, that by itself the Declaration wasp legally impotent. For Great Britain had no sovereign rights over Palestine, it had no proprietary interest, it had no authority to dispose of the land. The Declaration was merely a statement of British intentions and no more" 38/

Other authorities in international law have also held the Declaration to be legally invalid 39/ but this was not an issue in 1917, when the Balfour Declaration became official British policy for the future of Palestine. The ambiguities and contradictions within the Declaration contributed heavily towards the conflict of goals and expectations that arose between the Palestinian Arabs and the non-Palestinian Jews. The Zionist Organization was to use the assurances for "a national home for the Jewish people" to press its plans for the colonization of Palestine on the basis of the Balfour Declaration and its implementation through the League of Nations Mandates System. The Palestinian people were to resist these efforts, since their fundamental political right to self-determination had been denied, and their land was to become the object of colonization from abroad during the period it was under a League of Nations Mandate.

With the idea of self-determination was ignored (one of Wilson’s 14 points), and the fact that Pals. have been fighting for a Palestinian homeland since the early 1800’s from the Ottomans:

PALESTINIAN IDENTITY
For the people who would become the Palestinians, the seeds of a strong national identity began in the early 1800s with struggles against the ruling Ottomans, who had controlled the territory since the 1500s, and in 1834 against the Egyptians, who for a short time ruled the area. These revolts, and later revolts against other outside powers, unified Arabs from diverse backgrounds — peasants, urban traders, religious leaders — by pitting them against common enemies.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/mideast/revolts/

The idea of Palestine preceded that of Zionist Israel by at least 9 years if not even more. By 1939 Britain had rescinded her promise to the Zionists, and thus the Arabs by defacto owned the land.

5. 1930s, rise of Nazism. Increase in illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine (fleeing from Nazi persecution). Jews begin terror campaign directed at the British (which I neither condone nor condemn, at this point).

Illegal immigration indeed, not only did the British have a beef but so did the Pals. and for good reason.

7. Post WWII, Further increase in illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine. Continuation of Jewish terror campaign against the British.

And Pals:
Israeli Irgun Zvai Leumi and Stern Gang forces massacred the 254 Palestinian Arab inhabitants of the village Deir Yasin, near Jerusalem (April 9); most of those killed were noncombatants.
UN Partition plan proposed, in which areas of predominantly Jewish population are joined together into some sort of cohesive mass.

Of which only two existed, this is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Arabs reject it.

Which is understandable, no one asked them about the fate of the region. If there were a vote to decide the fate of the region (self-determination) then the situation would have been different. No Arab state voted for the existence of Israel in the UN, and thus they did not recognize it as a political entity. Also note that Pals. did not attack Israel at this time, it was the Pals. neighbors. They had no choice either.

8. 1948. British pull out of Palestine. State of Israel is born. Mufti of Jerusalem tells Arabs to "throw the Jews into the sea", tells non-combatant Arabs to voluntarily leave their homes to avoid becoming "collateral damage".

Yes, but many are forcibly kicked out of their homes by marauding Zionist gangs, or are threatened if they don’t. Not all 750,000 left out of their own volition; also they are refugees and by definition should be allowed to go back to their land.

Israel is on the brink of annihilation when UN ceasefire is imposed.

Note it is a ceasefire, thus war never really ended btwn Israel and the surrounding states. The surrounding states then took the West Bank and Gaza (which was wrong) and then the Israeli’s took it illegally in 1967 where the real trouble begins.

Britain, realizing that wholesale massacre of Jewish people would make them look like the villains, withdraw their support from the Arabs. No more shipments of ammunition. British officers in Arab Legion (the only "professional" army in the Arab world at the time) recalled.

Substantiation would be nice.

1. Israel exists. Whether it's existence is legitimate or not, it does exist. It has a right to exist because it exists, just like an illegitimate child has a right to exist, regardless of it's origins.

Nor have I actually denied this, if you read my statements I have fully acknowledged that Israel has a right to exist as a state. This whole conversation is not whether or not Israel legally has a right to exist, but whether it has a moral right to exist, and continue to repress the original inhabitants of the land.

2. International law is irrelevant. No international law can stop Israel from existing.

Too bad it was International law is what makes Israel exist today, too bad it was International law that made Israel, International law dictates what is a state or not. International law is extremely relevant, and it adds the moral authority to the offended party, in most cases the Pals.

1. Arabs had more than 90% of land.
2. UN offered to divide the land about 50-50.

Which was unfair, imperialistic, and has caused all the problems of today. Why grant a minority ½ the country, mind explaining that?

3. Arabs said, "No, we'll take 100%".

Completely understandable, and legitimate.

4. War, now Arabs have less than 50%.

They have 0%.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't see where your argument goes from there.

My argument is one of eventuality, I am a firm believer in Karma, and Israel, Zionism/Zionists will get their just deserves soon enough. It is only a matter of time when Israel is indeed destroyed. In my plan that Spider knows about that can be avoided, but the states of both Palestine and Israel cease to exist. I don’t support a Pal. State, nor a Israeli one.

sideshowbob

06-04-04, 05:39 PM

I think the "moral authority" ploy is a little thin, considering the level of violence on both sides. You can't determine morality by body counts or who was where first.

I hope you're wrong about Israel being "destroyed". (Frankly, I don't think the Arabs are up to the task.)
And I don't want to see the wars go on and on, regardless of who is "right".

You keep repeating that Arab actions are "understandable" and "justifiable". It's a pity you don't have the same level of understanding for other people.

Undecided

06-04-04, 05:54 PM

I think the "moral authority" ploy is a little thin, considering the level of violence on both sides. You can't determine morality by body counts or who was where first.

The level of violence is largely irrelevant; this conversation transcends the little actions on the ground. This conversation is to show the perversion of Zionism, and its ethos. If you like a ideology which teaches self-hatred, and rejection of being Jewish, and is forcibly racist to millions, and even has tendencies of Nazism in it’s unique sense of barbarism then you would understand why this is a moral question.

I hope you're wrong about Israel being "destroyed And I don't want to see the wars go on and on, regardless of who is "right".

Israel will be destroyed eventually, either from within, outside, or by divine intervention. Israel is bound to be destroyed sooner or later. My solution is to merge the two countries into one state so Israel can avoid the death and destruction that will eventually happen.

You keep repeating that Arab actions are "understandable" and "justifiable". It's a pity you don't have the same level of understanding for other people.

Zionist actions are not justifiable on land that isn’t theirs. The only argument for Israel’s existence is for a refugee camp for millions of Jews. To “de-jewify” them into a goy country, and settle a “empty” land. I have no empathy for a people who have stolen land, and have committed unspeakable horrors against innocent Arabs. Arabs are paying for the sins of Europe, and that to me is unjustifiable. I would support a Zionist state in Germany, hell yes! But there is no reason for its existence in the Levant. I understand the Zionists position and it scares me.

spidergoat

06-04-04, 05:56 PM

Undecided, you are right about Deir Yasin, but you conveniently leave out equaly brutal atrocities committed by Arab gangs against Jews even before that. Israel was founded as a result of the hostile atmosphere, not the other way around.

1. Arabs had more than 90% of land.
2. UN offered to divide the land about 50-50.

Which was unfair, imperialistic, and has caused all the problems of today. Why grant a minority ½ the country, mind explaining that?
I disagree that the Arabs "had" 90% of the land. Only a small percentage of the land was actually owned and used. Why should Jews get 50% of the land? A little thing called WWII accellerated the need for a home for all the displaced Jews. Also, Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. The anger of the Arabs was disproportionate to what actually occurred. Obviously, the anger of these Arabs, and the surrounding Arab countries had nothing to do with land rights, and everything to do with the xenophobia and anti-semitism which is inherent in Islam.

sideshowbob

06-04-04, 06:04 PM

...this conversation transcends the little actions on the ground.
That says it all.
Here "on the ground" we have a little thing called "reality".

When you can speak casually about the destruction of a nation (and presumably many of the inhabitants), your thinking is far more frightening to me than anything Zionism can offer.

Undecided

06-04-04, 06:04 PM

Undecided, you are right about Deir Yasin, but you conveniently leave out equaly brutal atrocities committed by Arab gangs against Jews even before that. Israel was founded as a result of the hostile atmosphere, not the other way around.

I didn’t discount that those atrocities happened, but Israel is a result of the barbarism of the Zionist gangs. Not unlike the actions taken by the Pals. today, that’s why I ask Israel to really stop complaining.

I disagree that the Arabs "had" 90% of the land. Only a small percentage of the land was actually owned and used.

The map clearly shows that the land was overwhelmingly Arabic in ownership. You may not “believe” but that is truly irrelevant, the facts say otherwise.

Why should Jews get 50% of the land? A little thing called WWII accellerated the need for a home for all the displaced Jews.

True, but even post WWII Zionists did not compose 50% of the population, Arabs still were over 50% not only in population, but in land ownership. The 50% of the region to the Zionists was really a gift.

Also, Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.

We all know this is a fallacious argument, why repeat this nonsense. Even in other threads you yourself have agreed that this line of argumentation was irrelevant, and a straw man. Again Jewish people don’t exist, Judaism does. Stop lying to yourself please.

Obviously, the anger of these Arabs, and the surrounding Arab countries had nothing to do with land rights, and everything to do with the xenophobia and anti-semitism which is inherent in Islam.

Actually AS grew out of the Zionist immigration in the 1880’s and afterwards. By far Europe was more AS then the Arabs. The Arabs have always tolerated Jews, in Spain it was under Islamic rule that the Talmud was written, do you think that would happen in Christian Spain? Your arugment is not only fool hearty it completely false.

Undecided

06-04-04, 06:10 PM

Here "on the ground" we have a little thing called "reality".

Which blurs the line of history and logic. I never denied that violence happens, and I have condemned Israeli and Pal. terrorist attacks are barbaric. So I don't need to talk about such things.

When you can speak casually about the destruction of a nation (and presumably many of the inhabitants), your thinking is far more frightening to me than anything Zionism can offer.

I am talking about a reality that is readily accepted by many intellectuals, Israel cannot stand much longer in her current state. I am sorry if you are a short sighted individual who cannot see past the immediate, but Israel in the long term is in very hot water. You might not like what I have to say, but the trends show me to be correct. G-d even agrees with me on this stance, if you are a Christian then you cannot deny that Israel will be destroyed. I am offering Israeli’s a way out, but you conveniently ignored that now didn’t you? I don’t want anyone to die it is stupid. But you seem to ignore my more telling stances now don’t you?

sideshowbob

06-04-04, 06:29 PM

Israel has been in "hot water" all my life and the Jews have had their "problems" for centuries before that.
If you think you see some "trend", it's been seen before, and it hasn't materialized.

I don't need to "win" this debate because every day that Israel continues to exist is a victory.

G-d even agrees with me on this stance, if you are a Christian then you cannot deny that Israel will be destroyed
(I can't even begin to fathom what that means. :m: ?)

spidergoat

06-04-04, 06:36 PM

The Arabs have always tolerated Jews...
Sure, as long as they were an impotent minority, the problems began when they saw that Jews were going to get the same political power as them. Blacks were also "tolerated" in the American south, as long as they used their own water fountains, and stayed in their own restaurants, and didn't look at a white woman.

I didn’t discount that those atrocities happened, but Israel is a result of the barbarism of the Zionist gangs. This is the contentious point, Israel is the result of conflict on both sides (we could argue forever about who started first) ,which resulted in the need for separation. You are trying to basically dehumanize one side of a complex equation, saying that Zionists are somehow greviously morally deficient, and the poor Arabs acted in a morally superior way, and thus are more worthy of sympathy these days. You dehumanize Zionists in the same way you accuse them of doing to Arabs.

Undecided

06-04-04, 06:40 PM

If you think you see some "trend", it's been seen before, and it hasn't materialized.

Yes its that there is a perfect storm gathering against Israel, historically any state based on ideological imperatives have collapsed, and Israel is really no different. Since Israel is essentially based on lies, and indoctrination its mere survival is dependant on its military, not its will to survive. Israel economically is already feeling the strain of hyper-militarization, and regional agitation. Israel is beginning to lose demographically; the countries population growth is simply not enough to sustain a majority “Jewish” population for much longer. Israel will eventually will give into fascist tendencies, and begin some really scary shit. Israel is dependant on the US, and I foresee the US eventually having to pull out of the ME, and it wouldn’t be able to afford to support Israel for much longer either. There is a dramatic shift in International politics, and the new powers don’t care much for Israel. Eventually you will have a major nuclear power in the region apart from Israel, and I believe Israel would lash out against Arabic states again and start a nuclear war, or visa versa. I give Israel 50 years TOPS!

I don't need to "win" this debate because every day that Israel continues to exist is a victory.

A victory for oppressive, racist, and innately anti-Semitic Israel, then yes, yes it is. The longer Israel exists, the worse it is for Judaism.

Undecided

06-04-04, 06:49 PM

Sure, as long as they were an impotent minority, the problems began when they saw that Jews were going to get the same political power as them. Blacks were also "tolerated" in the American south, as long as they used their own water fountains, and stayed in their own restaurants, and didn't look at a white woman.

Thus showing you that this is not exclusively an Arabic idea, Arabs have been much better patriarchs of Jewry then Christian Europe ever has. Who Ghettoized Jews? Who killed 6 million of them? Surely not the Arabs, Jewry was considered a part of society, Arabic hatred of Jewry began after the Zionist infiltration with he confusion btwn the Zionist and Jew. Your anger and your hate is very much misplaced, if anything Jewry and the Arabs should be allies not enemies. Arabs got angry when immigration destroyed their way of life, the same way that natives in America did, or any other resistance movement against imperialism. Also stop saying Jews you are incorrectly using the word, say goy it is much more appropriate.

You are trying to basically dehumanize one side of a complex equation, saying that Zionists are somehow greviously morally deficient, and the poor Arabs acted in a morally superior way, and thus are more worthy of sympathy these days. You dehumanize Zionists in the same way you accuse them of doing to Arabs.

No that is not what I was saying all along, if I were to dehumanize Zionists, I wouldn’t have even uttered a word about the right of Israel to exist. I wouldn’t even have offered an alternative to Israel so people in Israel can live in peace, is that indicative of dehumanization? I realize the state of Israel exists today as a legal entity, and c’est la vie mentality exists, but that doesn’t mean that its right. Arabs do have a moral high ground vis-à-vis the Zionist imperialist efforts. Did not the Black South Africans have the moral high ground over their white masters? Arabs lived on that land, Zionists simply didn’t. You took their land, and as a result they have no option but to fight back. Don’t pretend this is foreign, or illogical it’s the natural human reaction to a massive wrong.

jadedflower

06-04-04, 06:49 PM

The thing about Judaism is that it is a rascist religion to begin with.

Why?

Becuase it believes in the supremacy of one people - the chosen people. And that all the 'gentilics' aren't good enough.

I'm not saying that their bad people or whatever so don't try to read into what I'm saying.

Tiassa

06-04-04, 08:13 PM

SideshowBob

(I can't even begin to fathom what that means. ?)

If I might stick my nose into what's not my part of the discussion ....

A common reference to remind people of is a crack from Bill Maher last year ... let me see if I can find it ... ah ... got it:

Now, in addition to this, with all the press Mel Gibson has been getting about making his movie about Jesus, I think people would like to know that the road map to the Middle East which our president is trying to put forth – and I agree, it’s a good plan – is opposed by some people in our government, including Tom DeLay – they call themselves Friends of Israel. And what they really are, are people who do not want to share the Holy Land, because in the Bible, the Jews have the Holy Land, and when Jesus comes back, the Jews have a part to play, which is, of course, to die.

And my question – of course, that’s what they’re saying. They’re saying they don’t want to share the land with the Arabs because in the Bible, the Arabs don’t have the land, it’s the Jews . . . . (Bill Maher)

Source: Real Time (http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_082903.htm)

What's odd is that the point puzzled his panel, but then again I've heard Bill make references to his childhood Catholicism. And so the point isn't odd to me because I heard a watered-down version at Catholic school. Of course, in such a setting, the point was considerably less political.

Nonetheless, the point still seemed obscure; I hadn't given the idea thought in years. So I fished around on the web, and didn't find anything I really wanted to pick through in order to find the obscure rhetoric.

But there is, indeed, a subtle current pushing the point. There's a group, for instance, called "Christian Action for Israel (http://christianactionforisrael.org/index.html)," whose rhetoric includes casting Arabs as Amelekites (who were blotted out from the Earth by God's will through the actions of the Jews; God even punished a King for failing to carry out the genocide) and also discussion of the End Times.

We might look to a year-old opinion piece from the Guardian:

What is astonishing about this marriage of convenience is that their version of evangelical Christianity believes that biblical prophecy leads to Armageddon and finally to the conversion of the Jews to Christ. According to the most influential of the Christian Zionists, Hal Lindsey, the valley from Galilee to Eilat will flow with blood and "144,000 Jews would bow down before Jesus and be saved, but the rest of Jewry would perish in the mother of all holocausts". These lunatic ravings would matter little were they not so influential. Lindsey's book, The Late Great Planet Earth, has sold nearly 20m copies in English and another 30m-plus worldwide. (Fraser)

Source: Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,973320,00.html)

Strangely, the Reverend Doctor Giles, being Protestant, echoes what I learned from the Catholics. But strange days are not End Times.

Or so says my two cents.
_____________________

Works Cited

• Fraser, Giles. "Apocalypse soon." Guardian Unlimited, June 9, 2003. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,973320,00.html
• Maher, Bill. Real Time With Bill Maher. August 29, 2003. See http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_082903.htm

See Also

• Christian Action for Israel. See http://christianactionforisrael.org/index.html