anti-israel sentiment of the democratic party, and why i cant support them.

[doniston]

Shogun, you are taking particular messages to particular churches and trying to make it fit Israel, but at the same time you are ignoring the scripture that makes it plain that the bones are no longer dead and scattered but now have muscle, sinew, and skin. Though they don't have life (spirituality, if you will, as evidenced by the predominantly secular culture of Israel today), it is going to come, as prophesied in Revelation.

How is it that you can blame Israel for the situation with the Arab-Palestinians? Why is it that looking at the cause is less significant than looking at the effect? Why is it that it is not desired to see how the problem arose and who is ultimately responsible for the problem? There is also a matter of the Jewish refugees, but that is also ignored.

Shogun, I think maybe this would better explain and save typing time. If you would, please read and tell me how it is wrong:
http://www.stopsharialaw.net/?p=30
Thanks!

The attack by the arabs in '48 was because of the cleansing action partaken by the Zionists, in which, not only had they received stolen land to form their nation, but was raping, pillaging, and otherwise murdering palastinian land owners in the area to get their specific pieces of land.

Note: that isn't IN your cherished report.

 

[Shogun]

Shogun, you are taking particular messages to particular churches and trying to make it fit Israel, but at the same time you are ignoring the scripture that makes it plain that the bones are no longer dead and scattered but now have muscle, sinew, and skin. Though they don't have life (spirituality, if you will, as evidenced by the predominantly secular culture of Israel today), it is going to come, as prophesied in Revelation.

you asked a question and I gave you a direct answer that has more in common with American Christianity than my personal beliefs. I'm a proud athiest and don't give a shit about fairy tales be they burning bushs or guys named mohammed. Now, if YOU think that a significant portion of the American Christian population doesn't see the creation of Israel as a telltale sign of the second coming, complete with the 144000 virgin jews then, well, kudos for you. Enjoy that dark place where your head is at. I gave you the EXACT scripture that I took to make the comment "disposable Israel". I'd suggest you pay a bit more attention to the varied dogma and the motives all around rather than slip into the habit of hiding behind calling people like me jew hating antisemites for considering the humanity in Palestine.





How is it that you can blame Israel for the situation with the Arab-Palestinians? Why is it that looking at the cause is less significant than looking at the effect? Why is it that it is not desired to see how the problem arose and who is ultimately responsible for the problem? There is also a matter of the Jewish refugees, but that is also ignored.


um, because it doesn't take arocket scientist to know how you would react if I squatted in your back yard and partitioned your house that I claim on the word of a burning bush? The CAUSE was the creation of Israel despite the people already there. JUST LIKE the CAUSE of euro-Native conflict was, once again, the manifest destiny excuse for taking land. I promise you, if Israel were in Texas rather than where it is you'd be demonizing Texans. Your questions insinuate that you are much too ready to blame Pals despite the give and take nature of volence in Palisrael. Ill ask you the same question I asked Jillian: Who killed Yitzhak Rabin for DARING to make peace with a dirty palistinian? JEWISH REFUGEES? funny that you only give a damn about jewish refugees while totally brushing off pals behind an aparthied wall. As if Jewish refugees have not been the golden child of the west since WW2.



"Shogun, I think maybe this would better explain and save typing time. If you would, pelase read and tell me how it is wrong:
http://www.stopsharialaw.net/?p=30
Thanks!"

You know.. there are a great many websites that conform to a great number of opinions. I could look at yours but im not convinced that youd give the same effort to one I posted for you. Since you are stuck in your opinion and I in mine then im betting no amount of exchanged websites will do either of us any good. If you can stomach the degredation of pals in favour of your common team then just remember: thats exactly what the germans did too. Turning a blind eye to the machine that they allowed to roll out helped the German concience too. You might be suprised at how quickly peace would occur if your motivation were fair stablization of the area rather than piling on excuses for jewish favoratism in Israel... STARTING with the aparthied wall.

 

[jillian]

The attack by the arabs in '48 was because of the cleansing action partaken by the Zionists, in which, not only had they received stolen land to form their nation, but was raping, pillaging, and otherwise murdering palastinian land owners in the area to get their specific pieces of land.

Note: that isn't IN your cherished report.

The attack by the Arabs in '48 was because the UN partitioned a land already shared by Jews and Arabs and which had nebulous ownership. But the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem didn't like that, so told his folk to leave and said they'd drive the Jews into the sea in three days.

They always could have shared. THEY chose not to. Should Israel feel guilty that every time it was attacked, it won. Tough. Seriously. The Arabs were given, by the U.N., all the high ground, all the fortresses, all the defensible positions. And still they lost. I'd also remind you that part of the reason the mandate was divided was that Europe and the U.S. didn't want the refugee Jews from the concentration camps in THEIR countries. So, their collective guilt, together with a strong sense of NIMBY, let them figure that they should put the "sand people" together. Is it Israel's problem that the palestinians couldn't share the sandbox? I'm afraid I don't think so.

But, you know, when Jews are in diaspora or in danger, Israel takes them in. They've taken Jews in from Ethiopia and from Russia and recently, Israel was one of the few countries in the world to take in refugees from Darfur... non Jews, but people in trouble.

Perhaps Jordan should have taken in the Palestinian refugees... AS IT SHOULD HAVE. There was no palestinian people for all intents and purposes. They HAD no country. That isn't to say they shouldn't have their own place... but it SHOULDN'T be in Israel.

 

[Shogun]

heres a fun joke...


what do you call a UN decision to confiscate and carve out a nation from a US state?





a reason to load your gun.



polish the turd, Jillian..

but at least remind me why Rabin died before telling us why the only good injun is a dead injun.

 

[maineman]

you are aware, are you not, that prior to 1948, a great deal of the land in Israel was legitimately purchased by Jews? You are aware that the neighboring arab states set about to drive all Jews into the sea and would have blithely ignored Jewish property rights had they won?

I personally know a wonderful Israeli woman - Adina Hay Nissan (who actually was the Irgun member who called the King David Hotel 45 minutes before the bomb blast but that is beside the point) whose father had purchased land in the Galillee in the early 30's and was a farmer. And their neighbor was a palestinian arab farmer. The two men helped one another gather their crops... their children played together. A few days before the partitioning, the arab farmer came over to the Hay's home and told Adina's father that, unfortunately, he was taking his family for a brief stay in Damascus while the pan arab army disposed of all the Jews and kicked them all out of Palestine. When they were done, he and his family would return and he intended to assume ownership of the Hay farm.... no hard feelings.

The arab neighbor's family is still in Damascus and the Hay family farm is twice as big as it once was.

Fight a war. Lose a war. Suffer the consequences. Whiners.

 

[doniston]

That can be different, but that vast majority of the time they overlap! I would say 95% of the so-called anti-zionist are using it as a mask for their anti-semitism!

Well, this one ain't. I have nothing against Arabs. (they are semites too.)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, this one ain't. I have nothing against Arabs. (they are semites too.)

I notice you didn't include Jews though. Your ignorance on the issues of this part of the world are telling.

 

[doniston]

can you provide a source for that stat or can I pull some numbers out of my ass too?

Are you refering to the 95% just stated? or something else???

 

[doniston]

The attack by the Arabs in '48 was because the UN partitioned a land already shared by Jews and Arabs and which had nebulous ownership. But the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem didn't like that, so told his folk to leave and said they'd drive the Jews into the sea in three days.

They always could have shared. THEY chose not to. Should Israel feel guilty that every time it was attacked, it won. Tough. Seriously. The Arabs were given, by the U.N., all the high ground, all the fortresses, all the defensible positions. And still they lost. I'd also remind you that part of the reason the mandate was divided was that Europe and the U.S. didn't want the refugee Jews from the concentration camps in THEIR countries. So, their collective guilt, together with a strong sense of NIMBY, let them figure that they should put the "sand people" together. Is it Israel's problem that the palestinians couldn't share the sandbox? I'm afraid I don't think so.

But, you know, when Jews are in diaspora or in danger, Israel takes them in. They've taken Jews in from Ethiopia and from Russia and recently, Israel was one of the few countries in the world to take in refugees from Darfur... non Jews, but people in trouble.

Perhaps Jordan should have taken in the Palestinian refugees... AS IT SHOULD HAVE. There was no palestinian people for all intents and purposes. They HAD no country. That isn't to say they shouldn't have their own place... but it SHOULDN'T be in Israel.

You surely do dwell in revisionist history. it is rather laughable. Eons ago there was a palastine. the problem is there never was a Physical Israel, the israelites were nomatic tribes who lived whereever they could. literally since the dawn of time (there time) The nation of Israel was virtually like what is now called the nation of Islam simply a political designation.

 

[doniston]

you are aware, are you not, that prior to 1948, a great deal of the land in Israel was legitimately purchased by Jews? You are aware that the neighboring arab states set about to drive all Jews into the sea and would have blithely ignored Jewish property rights had they won?

Actually not. it has been considered that very little land was actually purchased from the land owners Approximately 4 percent.

the second part of your statement is true only in retaliation for the rape of the land by the Zionists. and why shouldn't they have done so???

 

[doniston]

I notice you didn't include Jews though. Your ignorance on the issues of this part of the world are telling.

of course I didn't that fact needn't have been repeated. it was after all whom we were discussing. Apparently that didn't include you.

(Did you perhaps notice the word "TOO"?) Dummy!.

 

[Annie]

That can be different, but that vast majority of the time they overlap! I would say 95% of the so-called anti-zionist are using it as a mask for their anti-semitism!

Yep, as MLK jr. recognized 40 years ago, more or less.

 

[jillian]

heres a fun joke...


what do you call a UN decision to confiscate and carve out a nation from a US state?





a reason to load your gun.



polish the turd, Jillian..

but at least remind me why Rabin died before telling us why the only good injun is a dead injun.

Rabin died because there are extremists in Israel, too. I would never say otherwise. I don't blindly support them like you seem to the Palestinian terrorists.

I also think the verbiage you used is kind of rude and unnecessary, particularly given that you didn't refute a single fact I stated.

Moreover, Israel never belonged to Palestinians. It was of nebulous ownership with NO COUNTRY flying a flag.

Good attempt at propaganda, though.

 

[jillian]

of course I didn't that fact needn't have been repeated. it was after all whom we were discussing. Apparently that didn't include you.

(Did you perhaps notice the word "TOO"?) Dummy!.

Yes. We WERE talking about Jews. And I, too, find it interesting that you couldn't say you have nothing against us. You said Arabs are "semites, too" as a response to being called anti-semitic. This is a tactic I've often heard from people who try to pretend they AREN'T averse to Jews. You know full well what is meant when people use the term anti-semitic. Clearly you DO have something against Jews unless of course they aren't self-determining. Then you can pretend we're kind of like the old minstrel show kind of thing... there for your entertainment or derision. Hell with us when we fight back, though... huh? I am unapologetic about Jews never allowing anyone else to murder us again... whether those murderers are Palestinian terrorists or anyone else.

I love when people try to weaken the meaning of words by usurping them for other things which are not comparable. Only the holocaust was The Holocaust. Hatred for Jews is Anti-Semitism. Nazis were nazis. Let's keep the terms straight, k?

 

[maineman]

Actually not. it has been considered that very little land was actually purchased from the land owners Approximately 4 percent.

the second part of your statement is true only in retaliation for the rape of the land by the Zionists. and why shouldn't they have done so???

got a non-nazi link that would support your 4% number?

I got one:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_land.php

and like I said before:

Fight a war. Lose a war. Suffer the consequences.

It would be like all the American indian tribes forming an alliance with the goal of driving the pilgrims back into the atlantic.... and losing.

reservations...refugee camps.... six of one, half a dozen of the other. Losers.

 

[jillian]

got a non-nazi link that would support your 4% number?

I got one:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_land.php

and like I said before:

Fight a war. Lose a war. Suffer the consequences.

It would be like all the American indian tribes forming an alliance with the goal of driving the pilgrims back into the atlantic.... and losing.

reservations...refugee camps.... six of one, half a dozen of the other. Losers.

From your link:

By the time Israel became a state in 1948, JNF owned 12.5 percent of all the land of Israel on which 80 percent of Israel's population now lives. With this ownership came the responsibility of transforming the land into a beautiful and fertile area that would be a suitable home for the new state.

Now let's hear them talk about how it was "palestinian" land before 1948... they will, though. And now that Jews made a desert green, the world wants it "back".

 

[maineman]

I have flown in a UN plane many times from Beirut to Heliopolis (near Cairo) and there is absolutely NO DOUBT where Lebanon ends and Israel begins. Lebanon is dusty brown. Israel is green.

 

[jillian]

I have flown in a UN plane many times from Beirut to Heliopolis (near Cairo) and there is absolutely NO DOUBT where Lebanon ends and Israel begins. Lebanon is dusty brown. Israel is green.

True. That was the thing that struck me about it when I was there.

 

[doniston]

got a non-nazi link that would support your 4% number?

I got one:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_land.php

and like I said before:

Fight a war. Lose a war. Suffer the consequences.

It would be like all the American indian tribes forming an alliance with the goal of driving the pilgrims back into the atlantic.... and losing.

reservations...refugee camps.... six of one, half a dozen of the other. Losers.

AH yes, you do indeed have a link. unfortunately it doesn't address what happened when Israel took over the land. it simply addresses that which was THEN already past history.

And as for the It would be like....." that doesn't equate to this situation.

Would you care to try again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I can name another religious group that turned useless land into farm land and for their effort were denied control of their Territory and the US Army even sent an invasion force to fight them.

But they did not suffer nearly the problems of the Jewish people. The ignorance of those opposed to Israel is appalling and the rampant anti-semite stance of whole regions and Countries of the world is shameful.