Will liberal Jews still support Obama if he allows The U.N. to declare "Palestinian Statehood

[Jroc]

We may find out as Obama "explores other options" on the "two state solution"....

"We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn't happen during his prime ministership, and so that's why we've got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don't see a chaotic situation in the region," the president said in an interview with The Huffington Post on Friday

.

Though he pledged to keep working with the Israeli government on military and intelligence operations, Obama declined to say whether the United States would continue to block Palestinian efforts to secure statehood through the United Nations. In a phone conversation the two had on Thursday, he said he indicated to Netanyahu that "it is going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing that negotiations are possible."

Obama Details His Disappointment With Netanyahu In First Post-Election Comments

Liberal Jews want a 2 state solution.

They don't want a terrorist state lead by Hamas, but will they abandon this pathetic president and admit they made a mistake? If he attacks Israel through the U.N.? Could very well happen

 

[natstew]

Savant idiots?

Articles Why Do Jews Vote for Their Enemies

 

[Theowl32]

We may find out as Obama "explores other options" on the "two state solution"....

"We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn't happen during his prime ministership, and so that's why we've got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don't see a chaotic situation in the region," the president said in an interview with The Huffington Post on Friday

.

Though he pledged to keep working with the Israeli government on military and intelligence operations, Obama declined to say whether the United States would continue to block Palestinian efforts to secure statehood through the United Nations. In a phone conversation the two had on Thursday, he said he indicated to Netanyahu that "it is going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing that negotiations are possible."

Obama Details His Disappointment With Netanyahu In First Post-Election Comments

The general mistake is to acknowledge them as Jews at all.

The Old Testament is a chronicle of Israel's repeated failure to obey God, of its refusal to keep His commandments and statutes. In Psalm 78:10-11, 40-42, 56-57, the psalmist mentions that Ephraim (meaning Israel at large)

They did not keep the covenant of God; they refused to walk in His law, and forgot His works and His wonders that He had shown them. . . . How often they provoked Him in the wilderness, and grieved Him in the desert! Yes, again and again they tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel. They did not remember His power. . . . Yet they tested and provoked the Most High God, and did not keep His testimonies, but turned back and acted unfaithfully like their fathers.

II Kings 17:7-8 speaks of the sins of the Kingdom of Israel, up north:

For so it was that the children of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, . . . and they had feared other gods, and had walked in the statutes of the nations whom the LORD had cast out from before the children of Israel.

The prophet Jeremiah, in Jeremiah 32:30, quotes God's scathing indictment of the people of both Kingdoms: "The children of Israel and the children of Judah have done only evil before Me from their youth."

Because of their sins, as II Kings 17:18-20 indicates, God was very angry with Israel, and removed them from His sight. . . . Also Judah did not keep the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made. And the LORD rejected all the descendants of Israel, afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of plunders, until He had cast them from His sight.

In Psalm 78:59-62, the psalmist Asaph relates that God, when He became aware of the idols of Israel, was furious, and greatly abhorred Israel, so that He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, . . . and delivered His strength into captivity, and His glory into the enemy's hand. He also gave His people over to the sword, and was furious with His inheritance.

As early as the days of the founder of the Kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam I, God understood the direction Israel was taking. In I Kings 14:15, God warns that He will ultimately strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water. He will uproot Israel from this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the [Euphrates] River, because they have made their wooden images, provoking the LORD to anger.

Much later, Amos warned Israel, "Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are on the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the face of the earth" (Amos 9:8).

The patriarchs were, as God attests again and again, faithful. However, the people of Israel failed to observe the terms of God's conditional promises to them. Israel exhibited again and again its refusal to obey God. As a result, it has yet to enter into the peace, prosperity, and eternal possession of the land He promised the patriarchs. Hebrews 3:8-11 summarizes the matter: "In the day of trial in the wilderness, [the children of Israel] . . . tested Me, proved Me, and saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation. . . . So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest.'"

Because of the peoples' recalcitrance, God withheld His blessings, ultimately separating Himself from them by casting them out of the land He had promised the patriarchs. God punished Israel for its disobedience by deferring the fulfillment of His promises to the patriarchs. This deferment did not make Him unfaithful to the people, because His promises to them were conditional, based on their obedience to His revelation.

In fact, it is not perverse to assert that God was completely faithful to the children of Israel, doing to them exactly what He promised He would do if they persistently sinned against Him. At the right time and for the right people, God will honor His unconditional promises to the patriarchs. Israel's sad history is the consequence of peoples' faithlessness, not of their God's weakness.

There are a lot more verses and quotes in the Torah along with the ancient prophets that address these situations. We see history repeating itself over and over again.


Christianity and Judaism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Another one of these examples involved Jesus being presented to the Jewish leaders by Pontius Pilate.

John 19:15

But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" "Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked. "We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered.

Here is an interesting historical fact. The last "Caesar" was Nero. He died 68AD. The TEMPLE still existed. After the LAST CAESAR, (Nero) died, two years later the TEMPLE was destroyed by Emperor Vespasian.

It is interesting stuff.

The point is the "liberal" Jews (They are left wing socialist/Marxists and they are not biblical liberals) have turned their backs on the God they do not believe in a long time ago. It reflects in their actions, their lifestyles they choose to defend, and the truth they do not defend.

They spit at the truth. Always have. In some ways I understand it. Lot of things to doubt. In the end though, it is those who stand WITH the truth who will be spared. That, may indeed not include me, but there it is.

Jroc, this is what you are seeing playing out and why Israel is mocked day and night and pursued by her enemies just it has been for millenia. There will always be Judases, wolves in sheeps clothing and those who dance around whatever version of the golden calf they erect.

 

[SwimExpert]

*yawn*

Tell me more about how Palestinians have no right to do everything that Israel has done.

Let me tell you what a stupid dumbshit asshole you are instead. Yoy might actually listen to that.

Actually, you've just said everything anyone ever needs to know about you.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

With any luck, you are correct, but the very fact that such possibilities are being bantered-about, is cause for concern, given how much damage Obumble is doing to the Democratic brand, amongst friends of Israel.

and I would think any person who truly supports liberal values.

His hostility towards the liberal society as represented by Israel coupled with his obsequious cultivation of extremely conservative Islamic interests represents such a paradigm shift as to leave little choice for any who are actual liberals -- Jewish or not.

If a liberal supports gay and women's rights, who do they vote for -- the American conservative who is against gay marriage and believes a woman's place is in the home or this new type of American "liberal" who cozies up to those who hang gays from the rafters and stones women to death for the crime of being raped?

In terms of the lesser of two evils, I'm sad to say it would have to be the former. Unless a new party arises that can start articulating actual liberalism when it comes to foreign policy, anyway.

 

[The Rabbi]

*yawn*

Tell me more about how Palestinians have no right to do everything that Israel has done.

Let me tell you what a stupid dumbshit asshole you are instead. Yoy might actually listen to that.

Actually, you've just said everything anyone ever needs to know about you.

OK so you wont listen to that either.

 

[hangover]

Liberal Jews live in the U.S. because they're smart enough not to live in Israel, where the Israeli government antagonizes the whole Muslim world.

Just like how all those black folks antagonize the whole KKK when they don't sit in the back of the bus, true.

Thank you for pointing that out.

The blacks didn't steal this land, the whites did. Just like the Jews that stole the Palestinians land. Whites committed genocide on the Native Americans, and then helped the Jews do the same to the Palestinians.

Hateful Loony Lefties say the silliest things.

According to the 1920 LoN Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine some 700,000 people - about 20% non-Muslim - lived there.

Currently there are over 6 million - virtually all Muslim - Palestinians living in the same area.
That's some genocide, eh?

There's that many Native Americans too...You gonna say that wasn't genocide? You gonna say the nazis didn't commit genocide? Here's a clue...genocide isn't extinction.

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberal Jews live in the U.S. because they're smart enough not to live in Israel, where the Israeli government antagonizes the whole Muslim world.

Just like how all those black folks antagonize the whole KKK when they don't sit in the back of the bus, true.

Thank you for pointing that out.

The blacks didn't steal this land, the whites did. Just like the Jews that stole the Palestinians land. Whites committed genocide on the Native Americans, and then helped the Jews do the same to the Palestinians.

Hateful Loony Lefties say the silliest things.

According to the 1920 LoN Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine some 700,000 people - about 20% non-Muslim - lived there.

Currently there are over 6 million - virtually all Muslim - Palestinians living in the same area.
That's some genocide, eh?

There's that many Native Americans too...You gonna say that wasn't genocide? You gonna say the nazis didn't commit genocide? Here's a clue...genocide isn't extinction.

There was no genocide against Indians, Geronimo.

 

[hangover]

Liberal Jews live in the U.S. because they're smart enough not to live in Israel, where the Israeli government antagonizes the whole Muslim world.

Just like how all those black folks antagonize the whole KKK when they don't sit in the back of the bus, true.

Thank you for pointing that out.

The blacks didn't steal this land, the whites did. Just like the Jews that stole the Palestinians land. Whites committed genocide on the Native Americans, and then helped the Jews do the same to the Palestinians.

Hateful Loony Lefties say the silliest things.

According to the 1920 LoN Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine some 700,000 people - about 20% non-Muslim - lived there.

Currently there are over 6 million - virtually all Muslim - Palestinians living in the same area.
That's some genocide, eh?

There's that many Native Americans too...You gonna say that wasn't genocide? You gonna say the nazis didn't commit genocide? Here's a clue...genocide isn't extinction.

There was no genocide against Indians, Geronimo.

You are just like the neo nazis that said there was no genocide on the Jews.

American Indian Holocaust
Jump to: navigation, search
Guide to:
U.S. Politics


Hail to the Chief?

• Chickenhawk/Iraq war vote
• Confederate States of America
• Constitution Party
• FBI biometrics database
• Iran-Contra
• States' Rights Democratic Party
• USA PATRIOT Act

Persons of interest

• Dana Perino
• Karl Rove
• Lawrence Lockman
• Robert Kennedy, Jr.
• Scooter Libby
• Wiley Drake

v - t - e
"American Indian Holocaust" is a term used by American Indian activists[citation needed] to bring attention to what they contend is the deliberate mass destruction of American Indian populations following the European arrival in the Americas, a subject which they allege has hitherto received very limited mention in history, partially because most of the deaths happened before European chroniclers arrived to record them.

Estimates of the pre-Columbian population vary widely, though uncontroversial studies place the figure for North, Central and South America at a combined 50 million to 100 million,[1] with scholarly estimates of 2 million[2] to 18 million[3] for North America alone. An estimated 80% to 90% of this population died after the arrival of Europeans,[4] overwhelmingly from factors beyond most human control — e.g., smallpox epidemics[5] — Europeans, especially the Spanish conquistadors, also killed thousands deliberately.
Acts of genocide
The UN famously distinguishes between "genocide" and "acts of genocide",[more detail please] while never answering the question: "How many 'acts of genocide' make up a 'genocide'?" Perhaps the reader shall decide.

Among the individual acts of genocide perpetrated by the American settlers during their colonization of the Americas are:

[edit] Columbus's voyages
Christopher Columbus came to the New World for King (well, Queen), honor and God. His ships brought many priests to accomplish God's work. Both his own writings and those of Bartolomé de las Casas mention the thousands of murders done in the name of God, against a people who chose not to convert. Upon discovering the New World, Christopher Columbus:

“”...coaxed Queen Isabella to support his exploits in the Americas so that the queen "might eminently contribute to diffuse the light and truth of the Gospel" upon the Indians. On Nov 6, 1492, Columbus addressed the king and queen, as recorded in his log. Our intrepid captain opined "I am convinced... that if devout religious persons knew their language, they might be converted to Christ, and so hope in our Lord that your Highnesses will decide upon this course with much diligence." His purpose, Columbus proclaimed, was to "Christianize" the Indians.[6]
A conservative estimate by anthropologist Jack Wetheford suggests that in less than 10 years time, the population of the island of Hispaniola plunged from 500,000 to less than 100,000. Sickness was not reported by De Las Casas or Columbus himself to be the largest factor.

[edit] Trail of Tears
Indians were generally disliked in the United States,[citation needed] as they got in the way of American "progress" and manifest destiny. The "Indian Removal Act" of 1831 attempted to move roughly 50,000 Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and others from their home to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma). The U.S. government did not provide any means of transportation, forcing them to walk the 2,200 miles. One can reasonably argue that the U.S. government did fully expect many of them to die on the way — especially children and the elderly. The U.S. government recorded 4,000 deaths on just one of many re-location marches among the Cherokee alone; estimates of the total death toll range from as low as 5,000 to as high as 25,000.[7] Ironically, missionaries traveled with the Indians of their own accord, to attempt to provide better provisions to the people.

[edit] Sand Creek Massacre
"Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice." - Col. John Chivington, Sand Creek massacre, 11-29-1864.
On November 29, 1864, 700 militia from Colorado and the surrounding territories surrounded a peaceful encampment of so-called "Peace Chiefs," predominantly from the Cheyenne and Arapahoe, who had been invited to end the "Indian Wars." Without warning or cause, they opened fire and slaughtered approximately 150 Indians from various "western" tribes. Colonel Chivington and his men cut fetuses out of the women, slaughtered infants by stepping on their heads with their boots, cut the genitals off men and women, and decorated their horses and wagons with scalps, genitalia, and other body parts, before parading through Denver.[citation needed]

[edit] Wounded Knee Massacre
As the U.S. government were herding Sioux onto reservations, a Paiute shaman among them named Wovoka came up with the syncretic "Ghost Dance" religion, mixing numerous indigenous beliefs and Christianity. Wovoka taught that the dance, along with loving each other, living in peace, working hard and refraining from stealing, fighting amongst each other or with the whites and traditional self-mutilation practices would hasten the reunion of the living and the deceased. This reunion would coincide with the sweeping away of the evil in the world and renewing the earth with love, faith and prosperity. Many Sioux though interpreted this sweeping away of evil and renewing the earth as meaning the cleansing of the white Americans from their lands. This interpretation spread rapidly among the Sioux, causing alarm with the U.S. authorities, who sought to quell the movement by arresting chiefs-most notoriously Sitting Bull, who was shot to death in the process of his arrest.

Sitting Bull's death caused a number of his tribesmen to flee the reservation. Later when journeying to another reservation they were intercepted by a regiment of cavalry, which attempted to disarm them. One deaf-mute man did not understand the order, so he failed to put down his rifle. It went off as soldiers took it from him, resulting in their comrades opening fire, believing they were under attack. 150 Sioux were killed in all. This massacre was committed by the Seventh US Cavalry, a unit formerly under command of General George A. Custer, so revenge for his spectacular, lethal defeat in battle with the Sioux and their allies may have contributed to it.

[edit] Gnadenhutten Massacre
Colonial militia slaughtered 96 Lenape Native Americans whose only crime was being the wrong skin color on March 8, 1782.[8] Despite being singled out as a neutral Native American tribe by Colonel Broadhead, the were still rounded up and placed into two killing homes by American miltiamen, who scalped men, women and children. When confronted by their killers and told they would die, the Christian Lenape prayed to Jesus before being killed by their fellow Christians.

[edit] Assimilation policies
The U.S. government for many years followed a policy of assimilation, attempting to wipe out the Indians as an ethnic group and integrate them into European-American culture. Practice of tribal religion was outlawed, and children were required to attend boarding schools, modeled on the "industrial schools" of Europe, in which they were forced to give up their old languages and customs.

In many Latin American countries, Indians have been virtually wiped out as a separate group through a process of assimilation known as mestizaje.

[edit] Promoters
David E. Stannard of the University of Hawaii is a proponent of this term, having written a book on the subject entitled American Holocaust: Conquest of the New World, in which he labels the actions of Europeans as a deliberate genocide comparable to the Holocaust. Holocaust expert David Cesarani said, "Stannard was angered by what he perceived as a double standard in the United States towards 'worthy' and 'unworthy' victims. While Americans readily acknowledge the Nazi crimes against the Jews, he wrote, they continued to 'turn their backs on the even more massive genocide that for four grisly centuries... was perpetrated against the "unworthy" natives of the Americas.'"[9] Others agreeing with this hypothesis include Russell Thornton, Arthur Grenke, Ralph Reed, and the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide studies.[10] The Smithsonian presented a program on the "American Indian Genocide."

Politically, the charge has been taken up by activists in the American Indian Movement, including Russell Means, Leonard Peltier, Ward Churchill,[11] the poet Joy Harjo,[12] and Vine Deloria amongst others. The term "Holocaust" is specifically used to bring attention to the stark reality of the total decimation of the indigenous peoples after the "discovery" of the "New World" by Europeans.

As with most loaded language, there is strong resistance to using the term "American Indian Holocaust" in textbooks. American Indian activists contend that their history is rarely even addressed as a "genocide," since American historiography tends not to emphasize episodes such as slavery, and the outright slaughter of the indigenous Americans. These activists contend that they have the same right to say they were victims of genocide as the Jewish people of Europe.

[edit] Detractors
When discussing the indigenous population of the United States, conservatives[citation needed] tend to deny most of the deliberate atrocities wrought by the Europeans, focusing on the role of smallpox and other diseases, and pretending that no more American Indians died than could be avoided.[citation needed]

Such denial often goes hand-in-hand with a whitewashing of the realities of late 19th century reservation life as well as the present-day situation of the American Indians, who still live under the control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs with only limited self-government in many areas.[citation needed]

More moderate criticisms of the term would not go into denialism, but would simply question the application of the term "genocide" (deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic group) to the long and disorderly course of history in the Americas after 1492.[citation needed] Such criticisms might also suggest that any comparison with the Holocaust is at least in part a false analogy, since most of the deaths were not only unintentional and unavoidable, but unknown to Europeans prior to the 20th century.[

American Indian Holocaust - RationalWiki

Oct 12, 2003 ... "The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world."
Genocide of Natives in the Western Hemisphere starting 1492 CE

Native American
Genocide Still Haunts
United States
Native American Genocide Still Haunts U.S.

Numerous atrocities against Native Americans span the hundreds of years from the first arrival of European explorers to the modern era under a wide range of .
Atrocities Against Native Americans - United to End Genocide

 

[The Rabbi]

Yawn. Quit drinking the piss. No wonder you're hungover.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong,.
You have nothing but jew hatred and stupidity. No wonder your boss fired your stupid lazy ass.

I've got nothing against Jewish folks. It's Zionism I have a problem with.

 

[JoeB131]

With any luck, you are correct, but the very fact that such possibilities are being bantered-about, is cause for concern, given how much damage Obumble is doing to the Democratic brand, amongst friends of Israel.

again, guy, Obama got 70% of the Jewish vote. Most American Jews realize that Netanyahu is making Israel an international pariah.

Of course, the real problem is, most American Jews don't care that much about Israel. The Zionists new buddies are retarded Christians who think we need Israel so Jesus can come back.