A Most Amazing Example Of Anti-Semitic Brainwashing.

[ShahdagMountains]

You don't care about the truth, that's eminently clear:

View attachment 1256507

You are a rabid fascist, support fascism and eagerly align with other non-Jewish fascists who frequent the forum, those who deny Musks' Nazi salute, those who dismiss Trump's words "Schumer's not a real Jew anymore", you should be deeply ashamed of yourself young lady.

Blah blah.

 

[Churchill]

Blah blah.

Note the bolded text, note the killing of Jews by Zionist terrorists:

See? the first political assasinatrion carried out by Zionists was a Jew and you say you don't care? what does that make you then?

This day in Jewish history / Zionism's first political assassination

When Dutch Poet and Journalist Jacob Israel De Haan Became Too Vocal With His anti-Zionist Writing in Mandatory Palestine, the Haganah Silenced Him.

www.haaretz.com

 

[rosends]

Since when are you the appointed authority in this matter? It seems to me that you do not understand history.

I'm not, but if they make clear statements which reflect a lack of knowledge, then I have the right to say so. Their claims about Judaism ignore the differences among branches Judaism. They treat Judaism as monolithic, as do you. That is an error. Did you want to defend that?

Note what you like and ignore what you like, that's not my problem.

I say the same to you.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Note what you like and ignore what you like, that's not my problem.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Note the bolded text, note the killing of Jews by Zionist terrorists:

View attachment 1256513

See? the first political assasinatrion carried out by Zionists was a Jew and you say you don't care? what does that make you then?

This day in Jewish history / Zionism's first political assassination

When Dutch Poet and Journalist Jacob Israel De Haan Became Too Vocal With His anti-Zionist Writing in Mandatory Palestine, the Haganah Silenced Him.

www.haaretz.com

Should l call an ambulance for you?

 

[Churchill]

I'm not, but if they make clear statements which reflect a lack of knowledge, then I have the right to say so. Their claims about Judaism ignore the differences among branches Judaism. They treat Judaism as monolithic, as do you.

But they do not, saying that the vast majority of Jews opposed Zionism does not insinuate that all anti-Zionist Jews are the same only that they have something in common.

That is an error. Did you want to defend that?

Yes, you wrote "not that there was any problem conceptually with Israel".

So you ignored:

and

and

So "non democratic" and "zionists aligned with antisemites" and "heretical" you ignored these (and a few other) reasons that most Jews wanted nothing to do with the ideology.

I say the same to you.

 

[Churchill]

Should l call an ambulance for you?

Another Zionist trick attempt? no thank you.

 

[Churchill]

Should l call an ambulance for you?

Why do you support an ideology that began its assasination habit, by killing Jews?

Please explain how that doesn't matter in your world? why its OK to "not care"?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Why do you support an ideology that began its assasination habit, by killing Jews?

Please explain how that doesn't matter in your world? why its OK to "not care"?

You’re as thick as a brick.

 

[Churchill]

You’re as thick as a brick.

Please explain why you're never able to defend your own claims and never able to refute mine.

 

[rosends]

But they do not, saying that the vast majority of Jews opposed Zionism does not insinuate that all anti-Zionist Jews are the same only that they have something in common.

except that they do not and that's the whole point. The reluctance to accept political Zionism was a problem for different groups of Jews, but it was a different problem for different reasons. Reducing this to "they have something in common" is therefore erroneous. They have an end expression which is parallel to other groups who also have problems with it. But they are in no way uninfied.

Yes, you wrote "not that there was any problem conceptually with Israel".

So you ignored:

View attachment 1256517

and

View attachment 1256519

and

View attachment 1256523

no, I didn't ignore it. I was citing statements like

Ignoring what I note is no less ignoring on your part.

So "non democratic" and "zionists aligned with antisemites" and "heretical" you ignored these (and a few other) reasons that most Jews wanted nothing to do with the ideology.

Except that you still don't know that "most Jews" subscribed to any specific reasong. There were a variety of reasons and the diversity of Jews reflects a diversity of reasons.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Please explain why you're never able to defend your own claims and never able to refute mine.

Are you still here?

 

[Churchill]

except that they do not and that's the whole point. The reluctance to accept political Zionism was a problem for different groups of Jews, but it was a different problem for different reasons. Reducing this to "they have something in common" is therefore erroneous. They have an end expression which is parallel to other groups who also have problems with it. But they are in no way uninfied.

no, I didn't ignore it. I was citing statements like
View attachment 1256571
Ignoring what I note is no less ignoring on your part.

Except that you still don't know that "most Jews" subscribed to any specific reasong. There were a variety of reasons and the diversity of Jews reflects a diversity of reasons.

except that they do not and that's the whole point. The reluctance to accept political Zionism was a problem for different groups of Jews, but it was a different problem for different reasons. Reducing this to "they have something in common" is therefore erroneous. They have an end expression which is parallel to other groups who also have problems with it. But they are in no way uninfied.

no, I didn't ignore it. I was citing statements like
View attachment 1256571
Ignoring what I note is no less ignoring on your part.

Except that you still don't know that "most Jews" subscribed to any specific reasong. There were a variety of reasons and the diversity of Jews reflects a diversity of reasons.

By all means cite them, but do not insinuate that there were no other reasons why Jews opposed zionism back at that time.

How do uou reconcile your claim:

"not that there was any problem conceptually with Israel".

with the examples I chose, which where "heretical" and "non-democratic" and "aligned with antisemites"? each of these and more are conceptual problems associated with establishing a Zionist state in Palestine.

 

[rosends]

By all means cite them, but do not insinuate that there were no other reasons why Jews opposed zionism back at that time.

show me where I insinuated that. My point is that there were MANY reasons but some of them would not match others. The Agudah had a very different position from the Pittsburgh Platform.

with the examples I chose, which where "heretical" and "non-democratic" and "aligned with antisemites"? each of these and more are conceptual problems associated with establishing a Zionist state in Palestine.

the question isn't about the examples you chose, but about the examples you didn't.

 

[Churchill]

show me where I insinuated that. My point is that there were MANY reasons but some of them would not match others. The Agudah had a very different position from the Pittsburgh Platform.

the question isn't about the examples you chose, but about the examples you didn't.

I didn't choose those three examples in my post #126 until after you claimed the piece treated Judaism as monolithic. They were chosen to prove that the piece did not treat Judaism and anti-Zionists Jews as monolithic and that no Jew opposed Israel other than a fear of what other gropups might do.

Well the article cited this, from Zionism and the future of Palestine.

this single example suffices to refute your statament. It argues againts a Jewish state!!

 

[rosends]

I didn't choose those three examples in my post #126 until after you claimed the piece treated Judaism as monolithic. They were chosen to prove that the piece did not treat Judaism and anti-Zionists Jews as monolithic and that no Jew opposed Israel other than a fear of what other gropups might do.

this makes no sense. "to prove that the piece did not treat Judaism and anti-Zionists Jews as monolithic and that no Jew opposed Israel other than a fear of what other gropups might do." makes no sense.

Jewish opposition was, like Judaism, not monolithic. The quoted text treats Jews as monolithic. That is wrong.

View attachment 1256579

Well the article cited this, from Zionism and the future of Palestine.


View attachment 1256584

this single example suffices to refute your statament. It argues againts a Jewish state!!

yes, it does. That represents an opinion but not the opinion of everyone. And the reason certainly doesn't represent the feelings of all the anti-Zionists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is there a picture of the Mall today? I’m not happy with the one I found

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Another Zionist trick attempt? no thank you.

Trick attempt? So you're now in weirdo conspiracy land where every bad thing that happens is because of Jews and not because of your own poor choices? Like using ambulances to transport terrorists and weapons.

Poor choice, wouldn't you agree?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Let’s hear Starmer on this:

A Jewish British doctor who is immigrating to Israel has said doctors he met told him they would not treat patients who come from Israel, even if their life was in danger.
Speaking to ITV News for a program on the rise in antisemitism aired Monday, the London doctor, identified only as Baruch, said:
“It is very scary to me that I have met doctors who’ve said that they will not, point-blank, treat somebody who has come from certain areas of the world,” he said. “If they are dying in [the ER], I’ve been told by doctors that if they’re from Israel, then they will not treat that person. That to me is disgraceful.”

Read more on The Times of Israel.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

Let’s hear Starmer on this:

A Jewish British doctor who is immigrating to Israel has said doctors he met told him they would not treat patients who come from Israel, even if their life was in danger.
Speaking to ITV News for a program on the rise in antisemitism aired Monday, the London doctor, identified only as Baruch, said:
“It is very scary to me that I have met doctors who’ve said that they will not, point-blank, treat somebody who has come from certain areas of the world,” he said. “If they are dying in [the ER], I’ve been told by doctors that if they’re from Israel, then they will not treat that person. That to me is disgraceful.”

Read more on The Times of Israel.

The Hippocratic oath is one of the foundations of medicine. Saying you won't treat someone whose politics you disagree with violates that oath and you should lose your license to practice medicine at the very least. It should also be prosecuted as criminal misconduct because you're actively harming someone.

"Do no harm" includes not doing anything to treat a patient.