Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectTruth hurts for Israel..EU Survey.
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=3126
3126, Truth hurts for Israel..EU Survey.
Posted by nyc_rootsfan, Mon Nov-03-03 07:52 AM
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3744017

Israel expressed outrage Monday at a European Commission opinion poll suggesting more EU citizens see Israel as a threat to world peace than any other country including Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

They have put the Jewish state below the level of the worst pariah states and terror organizations," Israel's mission to the EU said in a statement
(they are a terror organization!)


The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a U.S.-based Jewish rights group, said the survey "shows that anti-Semitism is deeply embedded within European society" and said Israel should draw the only conclusion possible and exclude the European Union and its members from any future Middle East peace process

(of course..it couldnt be the factual evidence, must be the anti semites..again the oppressor becomes the victim.)


3127, Was it "anti-semitism" when...
Posted by Eli_B, Mon Nov-03-03 10:25 AM
Britain and France joined Israel in invading Egypt's Suez Canal in 1956?

3128, No. It was France and Britain
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 11:33 AM
Trying to retain a stable means of accessing their oil.

Other than that, let's see... France pretty much restricted Jewish mobility, land ownership, and right to worship up until (and then AFTER) the Napoleonic codes were passed. Britain at once point exiled all of us. Never mind the whole 'making their matzoh with the blood of Christian children' - I mean, that kind of goes without SAYING, right?


3129, yeah but it was the same
Posted by CantCBob, Mon Nov-03-03 01:33 PM
France and GB who made Israel possible through the McMahon letter, The Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Balfour Declaration. so apparently it all evens out in the end.

"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3130, Because of the guilt
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 02:56 AM
They knew about the concentration camps all the way through the war....
3131, Give me a fucking break...
Posted by dhalgren718, Tue Nov-04-03 10:54 AM
Because, what both nations have such a log hisotry loving and snuggling Jews? Guilt may have played a part, but just as much was washing their hands of the 'jew problem'.

Fuck outta here...
3132, RE: Give me a fucking break...
Posted by Eli_B, Tue Nov-04-03 11:07 AM
Guilt nothing, the McMahon letter, Sykes-Picot, and the Balfour Declaration happened loooonnnggg before anyone heard of a man named Adolf.

3133, exactly
Posted by CantCBob, Tue Nov-04-03 12:37 PM
people round here need to reup on their chronology before speaking out

"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3134, who's arguing?
Posted by dhalgren718, Tue Nov-04-03 02:22 PM
I agree with both you and eli on this issue.
3135, RE: Give me a fucking break...
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Tue Nov-04-03 07:42 PM
I must agree with Eli on this. And to your comment Dhalgren, it is not that both countries have a "history of snuggling up with Jews" it is that both countries have a history of snuggling up with wealthy and influential capitalists. The Balfour declaration was signed between Lord Balfour and Lord Rothschild, a very wealthy, influencial and prominant British Zionist.
3136, 2 things
Posted by CantCBob, Wed Nov-05-03 08:30 AM
1. dhalgren, that wasn;t meant for you it was to insane jake

2. pinko again, you're way off. Rothschild was not a Zionist. but i guess in your world zionist=jew. Rothschild was a prominant jew yes, but he was by no means a zionist. in fact, the WZO and Rothschild were at odds for years over what should be done in regards to jewish immigration to palestine. so please, learn something about what you're talking about before you go spouting off at the mouth next time.


"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3137, RE: 2 things
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Wed Nov-05-03 11:51 PM
>2. pinko again, you're way off. Rothschild was not a
>Zionist. but i guess in your world zionist=jew. Rothschild
>was a prominant jew yes, but he was by no means a zionist.
>in fact, the WZO and Rothschild were at odds for years over
>what should be done in regards to jewish immigration to
>palestine. so please, learn something about what you're
>talking about before you go spouting off at the mouth next
>time.

Are you f'ing joking?! You accuse ME of not reading my history, well my revisionist friend, if you don't know that Rothschild was a Zionist then I think its time for you to take some remedial first year history courses. Just because I am not in a Marxist party does not mean that I am not a Marxist. Who gives a flying shit if he and the WZO were at odds, Zionism is not reserved for only those who are members of the WZO. Zionism is the nationalist construct(and construct because nationalism itself is a very new concept. It didn't even exist until almost 2000 years after the Romans expelled the Jews from the region) that Jews need a nation state of Jewish character, Rothschild supported this idea. Endless amounts of monies flowed from Rothschild in order to buy Palestinian land for Zionist settlement up until his death in 1934. He sympathized with the Zionist cause and agreed with the fundemental ideal of Jewish settlement of Palestine. Why do you think he signed the Balfour declaration? Further, had he not signed the Balfour declaration the Zionists wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in their argument for settling Palestine.

Second, why do you make such careless assumptions about me? I have never said that all Jews are Zionists and if you have ever actually read a fucking word I have said then you would realize that I claim that Jews are also oppressed by wealthy ruling Zionist elites. I think even Dhalgren could find the humility to attest to this. Pay a little fucking attention if you are going to talk to people like a beligerent little spoiled brat.
3138, hard to take you seriously when you say shit
Posted by CantCBob, Thu Nov-06-03 06:46 AM
like this:

"Why do you think he signed the Balfour declaration? Further, had he not signed the Balfour declaration the Zionists wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in their argument for settling Palestine."

it just shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Balfour Declaration was a LETTER written TO Rothschild. it wasn't like some Declaration of Independence type shit with a signing convention. It was sent TO Rothschild by the British Foreign Minister of the time, Arthur Balfour, asking Rothschild to take it to the WZO. So how could Rothschild sign it??? you have no idea what you're talking about. Rothschild was not a Zionist, just because someone gives charitable contributions that aid in jewish immigration to palestine does not mean that they are a zionist. his ideas differed greatly with that of the zionists, he just happend to be a multi millionaire sympathetic to the plight of his fellow jews. but he was an assimilationist, not a zionist. now, I think I hear your mommy ringing the dinner bell so you better get inside before you get a spanking. nobody wants your little bitchass around here anymore kid, get the idea. you're wasting all of our time. you should have bounced when you first thought of bouncing, you're just a whiny punk kid with no clue. and to be honest, that act is getting tired. go hit up the Nick Junior boards, the kids there might actually be impressed with your bullshit. round here, we've seen it before and its just getting tired.

"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3139, RE: hard to take you seriously when you say shit
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Thu Nov-06-03 08:26 AM
Thanks dick head, I know what the Balfour declaration was. I think you should work on your vocabulary understanding. To sign does not necessarily require a physical ink signature. You can also sign your approval for something. The crux of what I am saying is still correct, so if you prefer, if Rothschild was not a Zionist then why would Balfour want his Zionist influence?

Anyhow, I don't know why I pay you any mind. You sound like a diseased flow of gonorrhea personified. Is this how you argue with people? You call me kid, yet you are the one who acts like he's no more than 12 years old having a temper tantrum because of his complete idiocy regarding human interaction.

>like this:
>
>"Why do you think he signed the Balfour declaration?
>Further, had he not signed the Balfour declaration the
>Zionists wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in their
>argument for settling Palestine."
>
>it just shows you have absolutely no idea what you are
>talking about. The Balfour Declaration was a LETTER written
>TO Rothschild. it wasn't like some Declaration of
>Independence type shit with a signing convention. It was
>sent TO Rothschild by the British Foreign Minister of the
>time, Arthur Balfour, asking Rothschild to take it to the
>WZO. So how could Rothschild sign it??? you have no idea
>what you're talking about. Rothschild was not a Zionist,
>just because someone gives charitable contributions that aid
>in jewish immigration to palestine does not mean that they
>are a zionist. his ideas differed greatly with that of the
>zionists, he just happend to be a multi millionaire
>sympathetic to the plight of his fellow jews. but he was an
>assimilationist, not a zionist. now, I think I hear your
>mommy ringing the dinner bell so you better get inside
>before you get a spanking. nobody wants your little
>bitchass around here anymore kid, get the idea. you're
>wasting all of our time. you should have bounced when you
>first thought of bouncing, you're just a whiny punk kid with
>no clue. and to be honest, that act is getting tired. go
>hit up the Nick Junior boards, the kids there might actually
>be impressed with your bullshit. round here, we've seen it
>before and its just getting tired.
>
>"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last
>week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a
>moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "
>
>"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay
>Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or
>not." The Source
>
>"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the
>greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3140, please expound on something for us
Posted by CantCBob, Sun Nov-09-03 04:29 PM
then oh wise old sage. how was Balfour in anyway seeking Rothschild's "zionist influence"? what was this influence? to what degree was it present? and what was Balfour's agenda exaclty? how would it have been impossible without Rothschild's "Zionist influence". and what exactly was Rothschild "signing his approval" on? please educate us. I'll give you all the time you need for your google searches, I'm really in no rush. please though, come back this time with quotes that can actually be attributed to the people I name or are actually pertinent to the discussion at hand.

and on a side note, I did like your attempt to dodge the fact that you were completely wrong about the Balfour declaration being "signed" by Rothschild. But in no way does your little explanation add up in any possible fashion. Rothschild did not "sign his approval" as you say is possible without actually even signing something. He had the letter addressed to him by Balfour due to his prominance within both the jewish community and the english community as a whole. he was a lord mind you, so him being asked to deliver a letter to the Zionist organization(which is what the balfour declaration asked him to do) does not seem so far fetched, nor does it require him to be a zionist.

"I think you should work on your vocabulary understanding. To sign does not necessarily require a physical ink signature. You can also sign your approval for something."

so when you sign your approval for something, how exactly do you do this? in some figurative manner? or do you put pen to paper and ACTUALLY sign your approval? cuz that's how it works everywhere I've been in the world. but that is a new technique in terms of okayplayer idiocy. I've never actually seen someone try to add a new definition to a word just to get out of a jam where their lack of knowledge on an issue was totally exposed.
I am, however, impressed with your ability to use big words like gonorrhea, so I guess I'll just cast all the rest aside. good job kid, you get a gold star for today. now please make sure you finish your snack before nap time.

"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3141, RE: Truth hurts for Israel..EU Survey.
Posted by BarTek, Mon Nov-03-03 10:38 AM
im fucking dead tired of this anti-semetic card..those fuckers piss me the fuck off.....fucking war mongering motherfuckers. fuck the jewish state at this point. i don't give a fuck who is offended. call me a damn anti-semite when those fuckers are foul and everryryyoonn knows it. id love to slap this following asshole:

"The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a U.S.-based Jewish rights group, said the survey "shows that anti-Semitism is deeply embedded within European society" and said Israel should draw the only conclusion possible and exclude the European Union and its members from any future Middle East peace process"

what he really mean to say is this:

Israel should draw the only conclusion possible and exlcude the European Union and its members from any future Middle East War Process.

peace.
3142, You're not an anti-Semite
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 11:37 AM
You're anti-Israeli. That's fine. I don't like it, but it's not particularly racist. I don't like Syria. Also, not so fond of Australia.

I wouldn't call you anti-Semitic unless you started singling Jews out specifically for mythical, racist reasons.

Do you do that?
3143, RE: You're not an anti-Semite
Posted by BarTek, Mon Nov-03-03 11:46 AM
my good friend...im anti-war.

those motherfuckers, are anti-peace.

i don't give a fuck if he's a jew. israeli. semite. whatever the label is. tell me, how valid was his response, and how correct it was. at least, show me where i made the mistake of losing my patience, beacuse i really can't stand all the jews always crying "anti-semite" when someone is opposed to any policy they support. its fucking pathetic.

peace.
3144, RE: You're not an anti-Semite
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 12:14 PM
I don't think what the guy from Simon Wiesenthal said was wrong. On the contrary, Anti-Jewish sentiment has and always will exist in Europe. It practically INVENTED Anti-Jewish behavior. I think the context it was said in was foolish and knee-jerk.

I think what the guy should have said was that it's sad how little Europe's changed.

Pulling the 'Anti-Semite' card is a joke these days.
3145, RE: You're not an anti-Semite
Posted by BarTek, Mon Nov-03-03 12:30 PM
this what is wrong with most jews:

"I don't think what the guy from Simon Wiesenthal said was wrong. "

and the rest was "blah blah blah blah blah"

Your stance on the situation is obvious.
3146, And THERE'S the racist comment
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 12:54 PM
**this what is wrong with most blacks:

"I don't think what the Al Sharpton said was wrong. "

and the rest was "blah blah blah blah blah"**

I think it's great when I can cut and paste, and just sub some shit. here, let's try this one!

**this what is wrong with most Arabs:

"I don't think what the guy from the Americna Islamic Center said was wrong. "

and the rest was "blah blah blah blah blah"**

Make a few more blithe, sweeping comments about a group of people! It's GREAT!
3147, because as we know
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 12:57 PM
You've MET most Jews, so you can freely comment on MOST of us! What a popular guy!

... as opposed to saying 'This is what bugs me about most jews I've encountered' it's 'Here's what wrong with...'

THAT'S a racist statement, and if I dared to use that in a sentence about ANY other ethnic group, I'd get HAMMERED for it.
3148, I have to agree
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 03:14 AM
one can say things about Jews and Israel that wouldnt be acceptable under any circumstances for black people and Africa.
3149, RE: And THERE'S the racist comment
Posted by BarTek, Mon Nov-03-03 01:01 PM
you clearly missed the point i was trying to make.
3150, Then say it clearer.
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 01:11 PM
>ahem< 'ridah'.
3151, Semites aren't just Jews though
Posted by MANHOODLUM, Mon Nov-03-03 12:09 PM
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but...
3152, Let me make myself clear:
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 12:18 PM
I use the term 'Anti-Jewish' because I like to dot my 'I's and cross my 'T's.

But when you're talking about slurs against Arabs, Muslims, Persians, or what-have-you, I don't hear them using the term 'Anti-Semitic' - i hear 'Anti-Arab prejudice' and the like.

What does it matter? Bigotry is bigotry. If hate blacks, does it matter if I say 'Anti-Colored', 'Anti-Black', or 'White Supremist'?
3153, I'm not pulling your card, I'm just saying
Posted by MANHOODLUM, Mon Nov-03-03 12:23 PM
I think you been in "OkayDefensive" (Activist) too long lol
3154, word...
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 12:50 PM
... point taken (THROWS ON FOOTBALL PADS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION). lol.
3155, RE: You're not an anti-Semite
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Mon Nov-03-03 12:22 PM
so is this so when you imply that I am anti-semitic when I draw parallels between zionism and racism?
3156, Tell me Marcus Garvey's
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 12:36 PM
Black Star movement was racist, too, and I'll at least acknowledge consistency in your logic.

Otherwise, I completely disagree with you and think your arguments are based on a very flawed assumptions. You can inbox me, we can discuss at length. Otherwise, that's my stance.
3157, RE: Tell me Marcus Garvey's
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Mon Nov-03-03 01:12 PM
Can you even quote on time that I've even talked about black nationalist movements, slavery or Marcus Garvey. You're so full of effed up assumptions!

Also, I am very much opposed to the nation-state in general yet I understand that as long as the capitalist system exists, so will borders. However, by the same logic I do not support the Zionist aspirations to dispose of an entire race of people in order to create a State of Jewish character. Especially the Palestinian people who have absolutely no historical hand in the oppression of the Jews. In fact it is a well known fact that the Jews of the Ottoman Empire were treated far better than the European Jewish population. But by antagonising the Arab world, what the Zionist movement is doing (and a make a strong differentiation between Zionist and Jew) is creating more enemies for the Jewish people as a whole. This is why I support a secular, democratic one state solution between Jews and Palestinians. Why support Zionism and perpetuate hatred against your own people when you could be creating links with other oppressed peoples in order to strengthen and solidify our common struggles. Stop your narrow and short sightedness of explaining things as "Jewish struggle" or "Black Struggle" or "Gender Struggle". Realize that we are all oppressed in common by class struggle.
3158, interesting take on Zionism pinko
Posted by CantCBob, Mon Nov-03-03 01:47 PM
unfortunately you haven't a clue. that's not what zionism is about nor ever has been. you see any such aspirations in reading any Pinsker? how about Smolenskin? you won't even find it in Herzl, Ahad Ha'am either. you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in regards to Zionism or Israel. so just shut the fuck up. in fact, if you knew anything about Zionism you'd be lauding many of its early proponents due to their aspirations towards your precious Marxism. go read some Borochov and then come talk to us.


"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3159, RE: interesting take on Zionism pinko
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Mon Nov-03-03 02:18 PM
Obviously you haven't been attending your Zionism 101 classes. I have read hundreds of pages of transcripts from Zionist meetings as well as books by Herzl, Anon, et al.

In fact, don't take my effing word for it, here are a few quotes of interest:

*-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25,1982:

"The Palestinians are beasts walking on two legs."

*-David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff.
From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978:

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."


*-Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department.

From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5:

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them."

***** HERZL ALERT!*****-Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine, "Complete Diaries," June 12, 1895 entry.:

"Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

*Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, head of the Kever Yossev Yeshiva (school of Talmud) in Nablus stated:

"The blood of the Jewish people is loved by the Lord; it is therefore redder and their life is preferable."

Yitzhak Ginsburg, "Five General Religious Duties Which Lie Behind the Act of the Saintly, Late Rabbi Baruch Goldstein, May his Blood be Avenged":

"The killing by a Jew of a non-Jew, i.e. a Palestinian, is considered essentially a good deed, and Jews should therefore have no compunction about it."
*OOHH THAT'S A GOOD ONE!

*-Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969:

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'"

*Here is your great Smilansky -Zionist leader Moshe Smilansky said in 1914:

"We must not forget that we are dealing here with a semi-savage people, which has extremely primitive concepts. And this is his nature: If he senses in you power- he will submit and will hide his hatred for you. And if he senses weakness- he will dominate you .... Moreover ... owing to the many tourists and urban Christians, there developed among the Arabs base values which are not common other primitive people ... to lie, to cheat, to harbor grave suspicions and to tell tales.... and a hidden hatred for the Jews. These Semites- they are anti-Semites." (Righteous Victims, p. 43)

*-In 1926 Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote of the national struggle between the two conflicting, but just, national Jewish and Palestinian movements:

"The tragedy lies in the fact that there is a collision here between two truths ..... But our justice is greater. The Arabs is culturally backward , but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and noble as our own; it can not be bought, it can only be curbed ... force majeure." (Righteous Victims, p. 108)

*-In 1934 Ze'ev Jabotinsky introduced for his youth movement followers the Betar Oath:

"I devote my life to the rebirth of the Jewish State, with a Jewish majority, on both sides of the Jordan." (Israel: A History, p. 76)

*-Ze'ev Jabotinsky stated in a letter to one of his Revisionist colleagues in the United States dated November 1939:

"There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 29)

And he also stated:

"We Jews, thank God, have nothing to do with the East. . . . The Islamic soul must be broomed out of Eretz-Yisrael. . . . yelling rabble dressed up in gaudy, savage rags." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 29)

Just before his death in 1940, Ze'ev Jabotinsky expressed a justification for implementing "population transfer" for the Palestinian Arabs to realize Zionism as the following:

"The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has become fond of them." He later added, "Hitler--- as odious as he is to us---has given this idea a good name in the world." (One Palestine Complete, p. 407)

*-In October 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines, few of the earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote describing the indigenous Palestinians:

". . . There are now only five hundred Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems without drawing upon us their hostility before we become a the strong and papules ones." (Righteous Victims, p. 49)

Anyway, there are hundreds more but I think I have made my point




3160, That's 'Hell froze Over' pt 2
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 02:31 PM
Walk away from this one:

Pinko is living by a very different theoretical paradigm.

Also, he apparently never READ Marcus Garvey, who actually used terms like 'colonise Africa' and 'civilise our savage brethren'.


3161, RE: That's 'Hell froze Over' pt 2
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Mon Nov-03-03 03:23 PM
Uhh...boss? Why the hell do you keep on bringing up Marcus Garvey and making assumptions about what I have and have not read. Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is when you make up ficticious claims about somebody and then use those claims to attack the person. This is what you are doing with me and your constant bringing up of Marcus Garvey. I have never claimed to defend him or any nationalist movement.
3162, RE: Tell me Marcus Garvey's
Posted by ConcreteCharlie, Mon Nov-03-03 07:12 PM
OK, I'll grant consistency in disagreeing with Garvey, but do you really think the arab world needs antagonism to hate jews? i am not making a flamboyant statement here, jews and arabs have funk with one another; that is not the extent of it, but believe, the hateful underpinnings are a large part of what make these matters so difficult to resolve.
3163, To be honest
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 03:20 AM
Jews and Arabs did get along pretty well, even in the Zionist period before independance was declared.
3164, yes they did
Posted by CantCBob, Tue Nov-04-03 12:55 PM
and many of the tensions that began to arise came about because of upper class arabs who sold the land that arab peasants had worked for hundreds of years to the incoming jewish immigrants as a result of a change in Ottoman land laws. Pinko has no idea what he's talking about. all he did was throw out a bunch of quotes that were completely irrelevant and were not even uttered by leaders of the WZO. then he made the mistake of believing that
Smilanski and Smolenskin were the same person, totally ignored Smolenskin who did more for Zionism than anyone else he named. quoted herzl out of context and in a private diary, not in any speech made at any of the Zionist Congresses or in front of any foreign dignitaries, completely ignored my mention of Borochov who sought to fuse marxism and zionism. then he starts getting all excited quoting Jabotinsky when he probably doesn't even know the first thing about him. jabotinsky is hated just as much as he is deified by Israelis and Jews all over the world. his rise to power within the WZO and his creation of the Association of Zionist Revisionists led to the ongoing battle between the Likud and Labour(the same labour party who was founded by zionists who adheared to your precious marxism kid, meaning that one could argue that one brand of zionism = marxism) party that exist today. basically all he gave us was a bunch of quotes which did nothing to refute anything I said or to strengthen whatever bullshit argument he is attempting to put forth. it was a very incomplete google search if you ask me. he only featured a couple quotes from people actually involved in the WZO and instead just tried to pass off quotes from a bunch of jews or israelis under the assumption that all jews and israelis are zionists, that all zionists are jews or israelis, and that zionism can be definied simply through quotes by jews and not actually by the programs which the World Zionist Organization put into action, or deliberations by leaders of the WZO during the Zionist congresses. this kid cries all the time about how Marxism is totally misrepresented by all the people who have tried it and that pure marxism is this or that. but then he can't apply the same principles to zionism. zionism by definition of its own founders is simply "the goal to create, for the jews, a homeland in Palestine secured by public law". there is nothing in there about wiping out arabs, or even anything about that homeland being necessarily an exclusive jewish state. so why must we judge marxism by what it is in pure theory and not what it has been in practice, but not extend that same standard towards zionism? perhaps because he's a piece of shit little punk kid who has nothing better to do with his time then try and make himself appear smart by exhaustive google searches and pointless posts on this website. I still can't beleive he tried to pass smilanski off as smolenskin. hilarious. be more careful on google next time kid, check your dates and even your spelling. you can't attribute a quote to a guy who doesn't even share the same last name as the guy I brought up and then cite it as coming from a year long after the actual Smolenskin had died. pathetic at best kid. your shit is so weak that you've actually got me and dhalgren agreeing on this board more often than we're disagreeing. is that really what okayactivist has come to???

so in summation, you don't know shit. your attempts to make us think you know shit failed. zionsism does not equal terrorism and smilanski does not equal smolenskin shithead. now go read some actual books instead of searching for sound bites on the internet.


"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3165, Im so pleased that someone said this
Posted by insanejake, Wed Nov-05-03 01:36 AM
....
3166, And am I the only one
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 12:04 PM
...who finds it ironic that on a board where Europe and Europeans are blamed for every single woe since the invention of the flint spear-head; Europeans are being touted as a font of >ahem< 'truth'?
3167, RE: And am I the only one
Posted by BarTek, Mon Nov-03-03 12:08 PM
no, the ironic thing is that you are a jew trying to shift the focus of this topic away from jews onto the europeans.

that is far worse i think. first, defend this asshole if there is anything to defend, or have enough balls to admit, that he is lying and making jews look like war mongering assholes.

peace.
3168, RE: And am I the only one
Posted by jumanji3000, Mon Nov-03-03 12:21 PM
You always get so touchy whenever anyone says anything that could even remotely be interpreted as dissing white people.

Twisted logic:
"Zionist Israel's occupation of Arab Palestine has forced the Arab world to waste billions of precious dollars on armaments making it impossible for these newly independent Arab nations to concentrate on strengthening the economies of their countries and elevate the living standard of their people."
-Malcolm X
3169, RE: And am I the only one
Posted by BarTek, Mon Nov-03-03 12:25 PM
only when it is racist. but, this was not becuase i do not deny that europeans exploited the slave trade.

i am not getting touchy, i am just challenging your boi. and by the way, you are a damn fool, ignore my posts.

peace.
3170, Wow.
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 12:34 PM
So... if I quote Europeans in any of my other posts, that's cool? Great! I've got some really cool studies made by Europeans about Black people, Arabs, and other 'Orientals' that I think would go just swimmingly!

Listen, I'm trying to be civil. If you want this to be some catty, gay Internet argument, go for it. Otherwise, here's my response:

The source of a poll is as indicative of the information as the infromation itself. Europe has a long ingrained history of xenophobic behavior towards Jews, Roma, Catholic/Protestants (depending on your region of residence) and just about anybody who deviates. I'm supposed to NEGATE that little historical point when shown this poll? Especially when a Muslim country like Iraq is also included with 53% of the poll? That doesn't say anthing to you?

Also, the article says:

"There's no comparing the amount of media exposure Israel gets in Europe in comparison to Iran or North Korea. The images broadcast from here have an impact but we should not get excited about it," Haaretz daily quoted Shalom as saying.

LEADING QUESTION

Italy, which holds the rotating EU presidency, stepped in to calm the diplomatic furor, saying the findings were due to a "leading question" and did not reflect the EU's position.

----

And about Simon Wiesenthal foundation...
The SW foundation was designed to explore, examine, and expose Anti-Jewish behavior and sentiment before it reaches terminal levels. So what response were you looking for from them? They went there looking for a sound bite, and got the sound bite they were looking for. It's not a government organization - it's a private non-profit group. So... what am I looking for? They don't directly vontrol policy. At best, they are consulted by AIPAC - THE TRUE OVERLORDS OF OUR EARTH! But either way, I won't validate a statement like that because it's been beaten to death.
3171, RE: Wow.
Posted by BarTek, Mon Nov-03-03 12:45 PM
This is going to turn into a long and re-run discussion, but all I will say is this:

I support the EU when it calls Israel a terrorist state.
You don't have to dig too deep to agree.

peace.

3172, RE: Wow.
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 12:49 PM
No, you don't. I agree with that statement. Sharon just tossed a 100-plus million dollars into MORE settlements, when the social fabric of Israel is B R O K E. Which is the most bass-ackwards - look, whatever.

I also think most states are terrorist states in one way or another, so I don't use that as the sole basis for judgement.

I am obviously biased, to whatever degree, as a Jew discussing a Jewish state.

I would like to point out, however, that no gets called on this board about supporting wholly Muslim states, or even really Christian ones- and most of these are built on the same level of brutality Israel levies. So I don't feel very guilty.
3173, RE: Wow.
Posted by BarTek, Mon Nov-03-03 12:56 PM
Well, I would have to disagree. Perhaps, there are not enough posts dealing with Islamic practices, but, there have been a great deal of them dealing with Christian run states. Maybe you were away for a bit?

peace.
3174, RE: Wow.
Posted by Rexdale, Mon Nov-03-03 01:25 PM
I just want to know, which Muslim countries have tried to do what Israel has and trying to do a native population like the Phalestinians. Israel is straight racist, and the Europeans are right in thinking that Israel is a danger to world peace, because any fool can tell you the next major world war will be probably in the Middle-east, and will some how involve Israel and the its ally the US.

Peace
3175, RE: Wow.
Posted by dillinjah, Mon Nov-03-03 02:17 PM
>I just want to know, which Muslim countries have tried to do
>what Israel has and trying to do a native population like
>the Phalestinians.
Maybe the Turks and Saddam's Iraqi regime against the Kurds?
3176, GTFOHWBS
Posted by dhalgren718, Mon Nov-03-03 02:37 PM
Try the present Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Or How Iran treats its native and religious minorities, ie Persians and Zoroastrians. Or how Iraq treats its Kurdish minorities. These are really BASIC examples - are you fucking CRAZY?! Like there's ANY country in that region with a quality record on human rights... fuck outta here with at Billie Dee Bullshit...
3177, RE: GTFOHWBS
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Mon Nov-03-03 03:28 PM
yes, but the whole middle east is a region that has been systematically artificielly carved up into regions that have absolutely no cultural commonalities. The British and French imperialists divided the region into blocs friendly to their attainment of resources. This is the only reason why conflict is so hot in the Middle East. And Israel today is also completely guilty of perpetuating this order in the middle east.
3178, GTFOHWBS PT 2
Posted by dhalgren718, Tue Nov-04-03 10:58 AM
So... the only reason there's violence and oppression in the Middle East is because of modern artificial boundaries?

So... the Ottoman, Persian, Byzantine, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Kemetic, and Sumerian civilizations in the region were UTOPIAS?!

Wow. Your 2-dimensional answers are getting REAL thin.
3179, RE: GTFOHWBS PT 2
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Tue Nov-04-03 11:08 PM
Once again, Dhalgren the king of unfair strawman arguments strikes again. I never implied that the several empires of the middle east were utopias nor did I imply that war and bloodshed did not exist. I said today there are "hot conflicts" and they are spiraling out of control because of the unnatural borders that they were confined to by the Great Powers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Iraq for example was forced to become a national entity after the British forced the three culturally, ethnically and religious incompatible Ottoman provinces of Mosul, Basra and Baghdad to become one national entity. Needless today, unity was never found under this national construct. Further, the British and French signed a myriad of treaties that basically sold the regions resources to Europe while empowering Arab notables that were completely out of touch with the peasant and working populations of the region. This has created a hundred years of revolt, poverty and despotism. This kind of violence in which the populations of the ex-Ottoman region never existed in such a way that mass pockets of society have starved to death by the millions. Don't be such an ass with your assumptions about me.

>So... the only reason there's violence and oppression in the
>Middle East is because of modern artificial boundaries?
>
>So... the Ottoman, Persian, Byzantine, Carthaginian,
>Babylonian, Kemetic, and Sumerian civilizations in the
>region were UTOPIAS?!
>
>Wow. Your 2-dimensional answers are getting REAL thin.

3180, RE: GTFOHWBS
Posted by CantCBob, Tue Nov-04-03 12:59 PM
do some more reading kid. see what part the arabs played in that carving, cuz they didn't just sit idly by and watch it get carved up. in fact they artificially carved themsleves a nice little piece. well at least the leader who claimed to speak for them did. but then again, wasn't the same thing happening forever in the region. the romans did it, the ottomans did it, the egyptians did it, the persians did it, the arabs did it, etc. you are just some punk kid and your presence on here is really starting to piss me off. you should have just bounced after you put up that bullshit post crying about whether or not you should be here because of your age. I think if anyone knew what we'd be in for from you at that time, we all would have said you should have left. go watch the disney afternoon or some shit kid, stop wasting our time

"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3181, Iran with Sunni Muslims
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 03:25 AM
Iraq (which is a secular state with a decided muslim slant) and the Kurds...
3182, No, you dont
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 03:24 AM
so long as you agree that the US and the UK are also terrorist states...
3183, Now you are talking about Jews
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 03:22 AM
and not zionists or Israelis...
3184, lmao
Posted by AZ, Mon Nov-03-03 01:17 PM
all of europe must hate jews, b/c the results couldn't possibly have to do w/ the fact that israel is one of the few countries in the world w/ nuclear weapons and that they routinely make military forays into soveriegn nations. and it couldn't possilby have anything to do w/ israel's statements that it isn't afraid to use nuclear weapons or that it will make preemptive strikes.



3185, RE: lmao
Posted by BarTek, Mon Nov-03-03 01:18 PM
"."
3186, Have you been watching the news recently?
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 03:27 AM
Have a look at what the US has been up to.
3187, Then look at the threats from sovereign countries
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 03:27 AM
that is Israel has and continues to face.
3188, RE: Truth hurts for Israel..EU Survey.
Posted by mansface, Mon Nov-03-03 02:22 PM
Damn straight. Even if you think Israel is justified, they are a nuclear power that are many times more aggressive than any nation on the planet. They make North Korea look like a bunch of sissies. How could you describe them as anything other than a threat to peace.

As for Israel's response, Fuck Israel. That is just an insult and not one that I take lightly. Israel in it's current form is a discrace to Judaism.
3189, RE: Truth hurts for Israel..EU Survey.
Posted by BarTek, Mon Nov-03-03 03:14 PM
PREACH!
3190, to be honest here ....
Posted by les_fleurs, Mon Nov-03-03 04:00 PM
i don't think the poll was biased or anything like that. I am not anti-jewish or semite or israeli whatever you wanna call it. But i think they need to realize that their policy concerning Palestine is not popular. Even if the media doesn't portray the never-ending middle east crisis like they want to, the reality is:
Israel is backed by the US. therefore, they got more power. On the other side we got Palestinians without military equipment. the suicide bomber is the poor's weapon - because they're poor and hopeless.
Now Europeans and people elsewhere realize this. this is why they're obviously agaisn't Israel's way of handling things. The war in Afghanistan, Iraq... the problems with syria and iran just make things look as if Israel and the US are working hand in hand, and that they're objective is to stop violence with violence. Well we know where that policy is leading them in Iraq.
All i'm saying is you don't need to search to far for explanations: reality speaks for itself! I'm not denying that anti-semitism is involved but ... what shocks me is the Israelis, & the Jewish react so strongly about these kind of things all the time! ok it's natural but they make it seem like the whole worlds owes them something, and that nobody should be agaisnt what they're doing or thinking. that is scary...sometimes questioning oneself is good ... i don't feel like they're doing that.
and on the other hand when it's about africans of course nobody gives a fuck...
anyway this is what i think

peace
3191, Both sides are wrong.
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 03:30 AM
Just because one has more power doesnt stop that from being true.

Also, when you are discussing this, remember that the UK is part of Europe, and is busy invading Afghanistan and Iraq......
3192, RE: Truth hurts for Israel..EU Survey.
Posted by HoChiGrimm, Mon Nov-03-03 04:18 PM
> Israel expressed outrage Monday at a European Commission
>opinion poll suggesting more EU citizens see Israel as a
>threat to world peace than any other country including Iran,
>Iraq and North Korea.

Despite Europe's legacy of anti-Jewish
behavior, Europeans are wholly correct:
Israel is indeed, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, more of a threat to world peace
than any Third World rogue state.

This claim is not only an accurate one
it is corroborated by an observation
made by General Lee Butler, head of
Clinton's Strategic Command in the early
90s, that "it is dangerous in the extreme
that in the cauldron of animosities that
we call the Middle East, one nation has
armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles
of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in
the hundreds, and that inspires other nations
to do so."

He's talking about Israel of course. The Is-
raeli military authorities claim to have air
and armored forces that are larger and more
advanced than those of any European NATO power
(Yitzhak ben Israel, Ha'aretz, 4-16-02, Hebrew).
They also announce that 12% of their bombers and
fighter aircraft are permanently stationed in
Eastern Turkey, along with comparable naval and
submarine forces in Turkish bases, and armored
forces as well, in case it becomes necessary to
resort to extreme violence once again to subdue
Turkey's Kurdish population, as in the Clinton
years.
3193, Lets go back to the cold war
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 03:32 AM
To my knowledge the Far north of the US, was very close to the North of the USSR.

And the US has more nukes than the whole of the rest of the world put together. Surely that was not conducive to promoting peace in the area....
3194, RE: Truth hurts for Israel..EU Survey.
Posted by ConcreteCharlie, Mon Nov-03-03 07:07 PM
I agree that Israel cant sit well with Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Intl, etc but I see a lot of very one-sided views against it. People act like anti-semitism is non existent because Jews have achieved some level of power and control in the world. Maybe that is a dangerous side effect of the power based definition of racism that are so common in college cirriculums now.

There IS anti-semitism in Europe, America and for that matter the ARAB world. Particularly in the Arab world, and if you look at countries like Morocco you'd see the opposite where Arabs rule and persecute Jews. Now, Jews are running out of there, like they have COUNTLESS other nations where they have been ostracized, persecuted and murdered. It doesnt take a fabrication to paint Jews as victims, sorry.

If you look at the people trying to halt this anti-Jew juggernaut, no one is saying that Palestinians are beasts nor is that a tenet of zionism or any related doctrines, though there are those who feel that way, unforuntately. The logical thinkers here are acknowleding this is a two way street.

I am not Jerry Falwell and shit, I happen to have two people whom I know very well, one of whom (Syrian) was once very pro-Palestinian and still is to some degree and another who is Palestinian who moved to Miami then to CA. I have also read literature with a good deal of balance on the subject and people have to realize that yes, this is not a cut and dry issue. It IS convoluted by world and local economics and furthermore by intense prejudices from both parties. You dont have to look far past Israel to find places where the shoe is on the other foot where Arabs have fucked Jews over and Europe has a long legacy of anti-semitism that can be found on sugar packets readily, let along history books.
3195, Thankyou
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 03:33 AM
I said stuff along the same lines as this before in a different post.
3196, RE: Thankyou
Posted by ConcreteCharlie, Tue Nov-04-03 05:25 AM
yeah i read some similar sentiments from you

i am curious though, do you have any recommendations on pre-independence relations between jews and arabs? i was talking about tension on an international level before, i am actually interested in learning more about the development of tensions between israelis-palestinians. i cant say i have dedicated as much time to learning about it as a lot of people in these posts so i am kinda fuzzy on some things...
3197, RE: Thankyou
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 05:57 AM
The thing is that the only account that I can find is in a fictional work. I havent read it for years but it was based on fact. The book I am thinking of is by Leon Uris and is called Hajj.
3198, Arab-Jewish relations
Posted by Eli_B, Tue Nov-04-03 11:54 AM
>The thing is that the only account that I can find is in a
>fictional work. I havent read it for years but it was based
>on fact. The book I am thinking of is by Leon Uris and is
>called Hajj.


There's 500 year period of history where Arabs ruled over a nice chunk of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe. It was between the years 700-1200. Many Jews came under Arab jurisdiction, and for the standards of the time, Jews were treated much better than Europeans ever did. There was no Arab Inquisition of Jews (like the Spanish Inquisition), nor was there a Holocaust of the Jews committed by the Arabs. By today's standards, you might criticize Arab treatment of Jews back then, but it was a much less enlightened time back then, and you must judge their treatment by the standards of that time, and it was much better than Europeans ever treated Jews, even as recent as 60 years ago.

And during the Ottoman Empire, many Jews lived in Arab countries, spoke Arabic, celebrated Arabic culture, ate Arabic food, etc. and coexisted peacefully with Arabs. It wasn't until Zionism reared its ugly head that Arabs and Jews became antagonists.

Zionists, especially European Zionists, treated Arabs with virulent RACISM while Arab animosity towards Jews was based on political events, not a cultural/ethnic/religious hatred of Jews such as European anti-semitism. A natural, yet still wrong, reaction of the antagonism of Israel-era Arab-Jew animosity was to expel Jews from Arab countries. Had political Zionism never poisoned the atmosphere, Jews and Arabs could've coexisted peacefully, and might still be to this day.

3199, Semi-BS
Posted by dhalgren718, Tue Nov-04-03 01:52 PM
I have Persian friends with very old grandparents, Eli.

Most of them still choke up when they talk about their childhoods (in the early 1920s) in Esfehan: secret police used to kidnap their uncles, rocks were thrown through their homes and synagogues' windows, relatives were murdered for talking with Muslims... and Iran is considered a relatively cosmopolitan nation.

Dont' give me this "they responded soundly to politics" line: Arabs are just as capable now and historically sa their 'virulently racist' neighbors.
3200, RE: Semi-BS
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Tue Nov-04-03 08:50 PM
I am Iranian and I can attest that we are not Arabs. Not that I have any allegiance to any one ethnicity but the dynasties of Iran, unfortunately, treated the religious minorites of their lands very poorly. The country has for most of its period been dominated by harsh Shi'a ulama while the central Turkish chieftans who ruled the lands of Iran had no success in establishing any central authority like the Ottomans, Abbasids and Umayyads.

What Eli is talking about is the treatment of "people of the book" type policies of the Arabic dynasties of the Abbasids and Umayyads. Very different from the Iranian Qajars, Pahlavis and Safavids. Although jews and christians of the Abbasid, Umayyad and Ottoman empires were subject to higher taxes (see millet system), their day to day lives were mostly free from interference from the Caliphate. In other words, as long as they kept a steady flow of income for the Sultan, then they were not bothered.
3201, And that was...
Posted by dhalgren718, Wed Nov-05-03 04:14 AM
... fair and equitable treatment?

And I'm not saying whether you are Arab or not - because my man says his is Persian first, then Iranian - and says this is common parlance throughout the region.
3202, RE: And that was...
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Wed Nov-05-03 07:27 AM
Actually that is not quite true, but I can't get into it. I thought the same thing until recently when one of my TA's who is also Iranian but apparently the word Iran has been used in Farsi books dating back hundreds of years. Apparently "Persian" is actually a Euro term for us. By the way, my folks are from Kashan and Tehran, I am Iranian or Persian, if you prefer, in my ancestry. but whatever...

As far as the milet system, of course it wasn't fair an equitable. Please... stay with me for just one second. Nobody is talking about fair and equitable, I am talking about relative treatment in which Jews were allowed more freedom of religion under the Ottomans. In fact, while many Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire had strong ties with Russia and Europe, many Jewish communities chose alliance with the Ottomans.

I hate to bust your bubble on this one but "fair and equitable" has not existed for anyone, and will never exist until we do away with classes and class antagonisms. Nationalism which is racist whether it is Palestinian or Zionist, I hate to break it to the zionists, is not the answer to protecting your people.
3203, RE: Semi-BS
Posted by Eli_B, Tue Nov-04-03 09:40 PM
>Dont' give me this "they responded soundly to politics"
>line: Arabs are just as capable now and historically sa
>their 'virulently racist' neighbors.

Oh, no doubt, I won't deny that. However, the roots of it are based in politics, and if the poltical conflict is not solved, as it hasn't been, then it can transform into racism. But once the political problem is solved fairly and justly, and a modicum of mutual respect is restored between the 2 sides, then the antagonism can disappear. This isn't so easy with anti-Jews who feel their antagonism for Jews is a natural ethnic/religious/racial clash.
3204, I think that's an idalistic
Posted by dhalgren718, Wed Nov-05-03 05:07 PM
view, bee... Vendetta is vendetta, and that's what this conflict has broken down to.

And I disagree with your 'politics as basis for bigotry', but... whatever. If it helps, I appreciate your input.
3205, The problem
Posted by jackie chiles, Tue Nov-04-03 05:52 AM
is with Israel itself and the fact that its foundation is based upon forcibly removing people from land.

Israel was given a great deal of license to use force by the Allies after WWII and used the fact that arabs, having been subjects of European colonialism in that region, could not resist the large influx of European jews into the area.

There was an old Zionist slogan:

"A land without people for a people without a land"

That was used to garner support for a Jewish state.

This of course, was not true of Palestine, as there were 500,000 people living there when the State of Israel was formed.

Oops.

THE VERY INSTANT Palestinians were "encouraged" to leave lands that they had been living on (usually peacefully alongside the indigenous Jewish population) to make way for incoming settlers, Israeli jews lost any and all moral high ground that they may have had.

It is also telling that Uganda, the Congo and Cyprus were considered alongside Palestine as potential places for a Jewish homeland. The fact that these places all had indigenous populations bothered the Zionist forefathers not one bit. (see Liberia for a parallel amongst the descendents of slaves)

For certain, Jews needed to be safe, but the western powers used that burning need amongst Jews to create the trap known as Israel.

A trap?

Yes. None of the allied powers wanted to provide Jews with refuge in their own countries nor were they willing to provide security for indigenous European Jewish communities.

Europe wanted them out, and America certainly was anti-semitic enough to consider its existing population of Jews as "more than enough".

So they paved the way for them to go into the current deathtrap. Fueled by religious and nationalist zeal, a Jewish state in Palestine became the ONLY acceptable solution for Zionists.

Thinking that they would do to arabs what the United States did to Native Americans, Israeli leadership (distinct from the diverse views of its people) sees force as the answer to all of its security problems.

What they do not realize is that there is no answer. The arab world will not rest until Israel is either destroyed or no longer able to enforce its will on neighboring states.

What Israeli leadership is desperately trying to prevent from happening is in fact, inevitable.

Someone with interests inimical to those of Israel WILL obtain a weapon of mass destruction and WILL use it on a large population center. (Don't go long in any real estate in Tel Aviv.)

This could have all been prevented had the Allied powers:

1. Been commited to providing security for all European Jews within Europe itself. Remember, they controlled ALL of Western Europe. Of course they didn't like Jews either. The self-imposed exile proposed by the Zionists didn't sound too bad to them.

2. Found a piece of land that was actually unoccpied and formed a Jewish state there. There are several large US states that are underutilized with plenty of natural resources.

The current solution is unworkable and it is only a matter of time before someone commits an atrocity of unthinkable scope in Israel.

It's a damn shame.
3206, The only place they would have had to
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 05:59 AM
go, without indigenous peoples would have been the antarctic.....

At least the Jews have a link with Israel. The problem isnt Israel itself, it is the treatment of Palestinians within Israel. They should have access to the way of life the Israelis created in Israel....
3207, RE: The only place they would have had to
Posted by jackie chiles, Tue Nov-04-03 06:14 AM
>go, without indigenous peoples would have been the
>antarctic.....

Which is why the whole Zionism thing is a bad idea. The Allies after WWII had a responsibility to provide for security in the nations they occupied. Part of that plan should have included making sure ethnic minorities right's were protected for the forseeable future. We do have standing military facilities all over western Europe, so doing so wouldn't have been burdensome at all.

>
>At least the Jews have a link with Israel.

So do Christians. That still didn't give them a right to take land by force of arms.

The problem isnt
>Israel itself, it is the treatment of Palestinians within
>Israel. They should have access to the way of life the
>Israelis created in Israel....

Exactly.

Now that they've painted themselves into this corner, any peace agreement going forward will have to reflect this truth.
3208, RE: The only place they would have had to
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 06:22 AM
That still didn't give them a right to take land by force of arms.

The jews didnt. They bought the land. Then declared independance. As soon as they did this every surrounding country declared war. And Israel won.
3209, How do you buy land that people are already living on?
Posted by jackie chiles, Tue Nov-04-03 06:26 AM
Oh right, beacuse it was still under British control. That must mean it's ok.

From the UN

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine.
3210, You didnt see them suicide bombin the
Posted by insanejake, Tue Nov-04-03 06:58 AM
Brits though did you?

A lot of the pan-arab sentiment aout Israel has much more to do with anti-semitism than it does about sympathy for the Palestinians.

Palestinians have long been the Pariahs of the Arab world. When they were displaced, out of all those countries that declared war on Israel, only one (either Syria or Jordan I forget which) took over 1/3 of the refugees (because they already had a high percentage of palestinians in their country). And if they care so much about their muslim brothers in Israel, then how come they couldnt care less about the Kurds in Iraq?

Did you know that Palestinian children in Israel have higher rates of literacy and lower rates of infant mortality than Palestinian children in surrounding countries??

There is a lot of propoganda surrounding the whole issue. Im not saying the Palestinians arent treated badly in Israel, or that they shouldnt have land of their own.....
3211, RE: You didnt see them suicide bombin the
Posted by jackie chiles, Tue Nov-04-03 07:17 AM
>Brits though did you?

You must be kidding. There were bloody, bloody battles fought by arabs against occupation by foreign powers, namely the British and the French.

>
>A lot of the pan-arab sentiment aout Israel has much more to
>do with anti-semitism than it does about sympathy for the
>Palestinians.

Absolutely. Rich nations like Saudi Arabia and Yemen could do much more than they are to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians. Instead they use Palestinians as pawns in their own designs.

Nevertheless, this does not mitigate any of the injustices created by the very formation of Israel.

>Did you know that Palestinian children in Israel have higher
>rates of literacy and lower rates of infant mortality than
>Palestinian children in surrounding countries??

Again, this still does not deal with the violence perpetrated against Palestinians in the occupied territories.

To use a similar analogy, an African-American child living in the segregated South probably recieved a better education than a child in independent Liberia. That fact does not nullify the very real crimes of Jim Crow America.

>There is a lot of propoganda surrounding the whole issue. Im
>not saying the Palestinians arent treated badly in Israel,
>or that they shouldnt have land of their own.....

True.

We can talk until we are blue in the face, but the die is cast.

Someone sympathetic to the Palestinians WILL obtain a WMD and detonate it within Israel in our lifetimes. Believe that.

It is ironic that Israel was supposed to be a safe haven for Jewry in the world. It is likely that it will be one of its many cemetaries.
3212, Im talking about guerilla warfare
Posted by insanejake, Wed Nov-05-03 02:17 AM
"You must be kidding. There were bloody, bloody battles fought by arabs against occupation by foreign powers, namely the British and the French."

The surrounding countries already lost the bloody battles against Israel which they started. And before anyone mentions US funding, they won the 48 war without help from the US...
3213, Before Israel was founded
Posted by jackie chiles, Wed Nov-05-03 04:25 AM
the indigenous arab population fought wars against British and French Imperialism.

Israel won the war of '48 but that is beside the point.

The formation of Israel meant the forcible expulsion of Palestinians.

Once that went down, all bets were off.

Justification for Israel's actions in response to what other nations did is sophistry. They screwed the Pals and continue to screw them to this day.

Until that is addressed, expect a nuke detonation in Tel Aviv.
3214, RE: Before Israel was founded
Posted by insanejake, Wed Nov-05-03 05:08 AM
"Justification for Israel's actions in response to what other nations did is sophistry. They screwed the Pals and continue to screw them to this day."

"Until that is addressed, expect a nuke detonation in Tel Aviv."

Are you serious, you are prepared to make these two points in the same post?
3215, Look
Posted by jackie chiles, Wed Nov-05-03 06:20 AM
the history of Israel vs. Palestine is long and sordid with a lot of bloodshed on both sides.

Both sides are guilty of some pretty grim atrocities.

That being said, connect all the dots and you will come to a pretty dire conclusion.

Israel plans to use unlimited force to meet its goals and the Palestinians having no state and no real support from the arab world are going to be faced with:

1. accepting ignoble defeat

2. fighting to the last man.

It is pretty obvious that #2 is going to be the plan of action for the forseeable future.

That being said, it is a matter of time before extremists get a hold of a nuke or something equally as nasty.

Examples:

1. 50% of the former USSR's nukes are sitting around unsecured or guarded by soldiers who haven't been paid in months.

2. Since Bush made his little 'axis of evil' statement, there have been meetings between nuclear powers and various nations who fear the US (see Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for one example) scrambling to get their very own nuclear deterrents.

It's not difficult to forsee a nuke falling into the wrong hands
3216, RE: How do you buy land that people are already living
Posted by CantCBob, Wed Nov-05-03 08:49 AM
actually many of them did simply buy the land. to start raising more funds for their quickly collapsing empire, the Ottomans changed their land laws and now required people to provide proof of ownership of land with a deed which could then be taxed. before this the custom was basically along the lines of "if you and your family have been working the land for years then its yours". now with the new Ottoman laws arab peasants were faced with a crisis. they could try and come up with the money to purchase the deeds themselves and then also to pay the taxes, or they could have wealthy arabs purchase the land and pay the taxes for them. many of them chose this route. it allowed them to remain on the land they and their families had worked for hundreds of years, but they made the mistake of assuming that they still owned the land. they didn't realize that the deeds were not in their names and that the wealthy arabs now had the right to do whatever they pleased with it. that was all well and good until jewish immigration began to spike. with the influx in immigrants seeking to live in palestine, naturally land prices went up. so what happened next was a natural phenomenon as well. wealthy people like to make their money work for them, and they like to become more wealthy. now knowing that land prices were on the rise and that jews immigrating with the aid of zionist organizations had the money to pay high prices for land, the wealthy arab land owners were inclined to sell at high profits. good for everyone involved right? wealthy arab gets more wealthy through a real estate investment, and jew gets land he wants to live on for whatever reason be it touristic, curiosity, some biblical prophecy, bullshit religious idealism, whatever. but who gets fucked? the arab peasant who assumed he was being done a favor by the arab aristocracy who had helped them out(or so they thought) by paying their land tax and holding the deed to the land. so the arab peasants were living according to old customs of land laws and the arab aristocracy actually knew what the implications of the new ottoman law were. the jew coming in was simply purchasing land. so whose fault is it really? the jew who came upon a situation and just bought land not knowing the circumstances surrounding land law changes, the wealthy arab who made a few bucks(shekles?) on a land purchase that meant nothing to them until the Jewish immigration drove up land prices, or the peasant who was ignorant of the land law change and simply decided to rely on custom? I'd point the finger at the wealthy arabs personally, but then again I wouldn't. its not their fault for wanting to make more money, and they don't have some duty to protect other arabs just because they're arabs too. so I'd say no one is at fault, just the poor getting fucked like always. but palestinians being fucked over by the arab aristocracy was nothing new and continued to be a very big trend, even until today. but somehow the finger never gets pointed at the wealthy arabs for "abandoning their brethren" it always goes back to the "racist, zionist, jew intent on plotting the destruction of the arabs". go figure. I'm not saying there weren't bad bad zionists, but I just wanted to clarify that there were in fact perfectly legal land transfers made between arab and jew that were also beneficial to both arab and jew.


"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3217, RE: The only place they would have had to
Posted by Eli_B, Tue Nov-04-03 11:44 AM
>The jews didnt. They bought the land. Then declared
>independance. As soon as they did this every surrounding
>country declared war. And Israel won.

Dude, I went over this with you before. They bought all the land that amounted to 6% of Palestine! The Arabs still owned 94% of the land! The rest of the land was taken by force of arms, BEFORE the Arab invaded (see Deir Yassin, Ramleh, Al-Lydd, etc.) You need to do a little more research. Then they launched a pre-emptive strike in 1967 and took over the rest of Palestine.
3218, He's missing the point.
Posted by jackie chiles, Tue Nov-04-03 11:50 AM
The question is:

What right did a Polish/German/Russian/American Jew have to land in Palestine that was already being lived on?
3219, RE: The only place they would have had to
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Wed Nov-05-03 01:30 AM
Even the land that they bought, had they bought all the land, wouldn't even support the Zionist argument. This land, which was being lived on and worked by Palestinian Arab peasants, was owned by wealthy notables who lived in Syria at the time. These lands were bought from these Syrian notables by wealthy European zionists who took advantage of Great Depression era misery. The notables in Syria were desperate for income so they sold these lands so that they and their families could survive the Depression. Then once the land was bought under these suspect conditions, do you think that the peasants just packed up and left? No, they weren't even told that the lands that they were living on were sold to people that didn't want them there. Do you think the Zionists wanted to share the land with the peasants who have lived there for hundreds of years? No, because they would not be able to build a state of Jewish character with a Jewish majority unless they relieved the land of its Arab population. Try and guess what happened with these peasants.
3220, Either the Arabs owned all of it
Posted by insanejake, Wed Nov-05-03 02:19 AM
Or the Brits owned it and sold bits to the Jews. You cant have your cake and eat it...
3221, RE: Either the Arabs owned all of it
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Wed Nov-05-03 07:44 AM
>Or the Brits owned it and sold bits to the Jews. You cant
>have your cake and eat it...


I like how you completely avoided responding to my explaination. By the way, don't play dumb, I think you who claims to be a graduated University student should understand that British ownership, in mandate form, was different than Arabic ownership of areas of land. British didn't own Arab lands, the just had massive military bases there to protect RESOURCES that they owned. There were still land owning Arabs.
3222, all of that might have been relevant
Posted by CantCBob, Tue Nov-04-03 01:08 PM
if the idea of a jewish state in palestine just magically appeared on the world agenda after World War II. instead it actually started to happen before World War I. so basically all the shit you just typed was completely irrelevant and simply a watered down, slanted version of world history. much like a jacki chiles defense. do better. if you'd like, I can reccomend some good places to start cuz right now you're way off. the allied powers were supporting the idea of a jewish homeland(not necessarily a jewish state) as far back as the late 1800's. last time I checked that was almost a half century before WWII. but go ahead living in that dream world

"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3223, whatever man.
Posted by jackie chiles, Wed Nov-05-03 07:26 AM

The concept of a jewish homeland dates back before WWI, the 1890s in fact, but the movement took on international significance after WWI and finally gained traction after the atrocities of WWII.

This of course changes nothing.

Sources:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/frontpage3!OpenPage
3224, wow.
Posted by Expertise, Tue Nov-04-03 07:27 AM
What a huge surprise.

And what a surprise to see anti-Israel sentiment on this thread too.

I think I'll go invent the wheel or something...

"Then the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this and every country but his own"
Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado

Check out my .
3225, what a surprise
Posted by jackie chiles, Tue Nov-04-03 07:31 AM
expertise enters, contributes nothing, and then pats himself on the back.

Do Uncle Tom's get a day off?

just asking.
3226, ask yourself that question.
Posted by Expertise, Tue Nov-04-03 08:02 AM
After all, I'm not kissing white people's behinds. You are.

"Then the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this and every country but his own"
Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado

Check out my .
3227, Says the stalwart defender
Posted by jackie chiles, Tue Nov-04-03 08:06 AM
of the GOP, Bill O'Reily, the AEI and other institutions that cleary have the best interests of African-Americans at heart.

What a hoot.
3228, RE: Says the stalwart defender
Posted by Expertise, Tue Nov-04-03 08:33 AM
I never defend people. I defend the ideas and actions that are spotlighted. If I feel the GOP/O'Reilly/AEI/Israel (I don't even know who they are) are right on an issue, I'll say so. If they are wrong, I'll say so too.

But it's funny how leftists love to throw the "Uncle Tom" moniker around but never realize how it is the very white people they claim to despise that are behind the propaganda and controls of the socialist movements/agendas around the world, most of them have their mindsets centered on European thought, and Europeans are the ones who shore up the most opposition to U.S. policies, foreign or domestic.

It's like the Emperor telling someone to put on clothes, when he has none on himself.

"Then the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this and every country but his own"
Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado

Check out my .
3229, Oh the irony.
Posted by jackie chiles, Tue Nov-04-03 09:13 AM
>I never defend people. I defend the ideas and actions that
>are spotlighted.

And if those "ideas" and "actions" are foul? So be it eh?

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/16978.html

Defend that.

> If I feel the GOP/O'Reilly/AEI/Israel (I
>don't even know who they are) are right on an issue, I'll
>say so. If they are wrong, I'll say so too.

Riiight.

Everytime I see a thread that you've started, I know I can expect to see your written condemnation of right-wing actions.

LOL.

>But it's funny how leftists love to throw the "Uncle Tom"
>moniker around but never realize how it is the very white
>people they claim to despise

Who claimed to "despise" white people?

Leftists?

If you are going to make wack generalizations, at least try to make SOME sense.

> that are behind the propaganda
>and controls of the socialist movements/agendas around the
>world,

So European leftists own the ideas of social justice and cooperative societies? What color is the sky in your world?

No, of course not. They are behind "propaganda" which I am sure you will be happy to provide examples of, keeping in mind that the left "despises" whites, so they should reject out of hand any "propaganda" that is produced by whites.

(holds sides with laughter)

> most of them have their mindsets centered on European
>thought,

A false assertion. See above

>and Europeans are the ones who shore up the most
>opposition to U.S. policies, foreign or domestic.

What in the name of Clarence Thomas does this have to do with anything?

What does the fact that the American left and Europeans share their opposition to American imperialism prove?

Oh right, you must be talking about African-American leftists/progressives.

You are lucky I'm here to help you clarify your vague assertions.

Here is a clue:

1. The African-American left has looked outside itself for ideas and solutions to the problems facing blacks. The doctrinal bases in the struggles for emancipation and equality have come from unlikely and ironic sources such as the european socialist movement as well as the organizing documents of this nation, much of which written by slaveholders. That is nothing new.

2. The struggle for emancipation and equality has been multiracial for a very long time. In early times, White abolitionists, Calvinists, Shakers, Quakers and in later times, whites, blacks, jews all came together to contribute manpower, finances and yes, ideas to the struggle.

You act as though the black American left/progressive movement has been self-contained. Nothing is further from the truth.

You need to take a day off.

All of this Uncle Tomming has made you sloppier than usual.
3230, RE: Oh the irony.
Posted by Expertise, Tue Nov-04-03 10:16 AM
>And if those "ideas" and "actions" are foul? So be it eh?
>
>http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/16978.html
>
>Defend that.

I think I did. Had you read the posts you would have seen it.
>Everytime I see a thread that you've started, I know I can
>expect to see your written condemnation of right-wing
>actions.
>LOL.

Why should I condemn them if I agree with them?

As I said, it's the ideas that I support, not the people themselves.

As for the leftist hypocrisy, the sentiment is quite evident on this board against so-called Eurocentric behavior and Americanism, to the point that if you are white and espouse ideas opposite to socialist "radicalism", you are considered evil. The same is true of blacks who disagree with leftist proposals and agendas, only they are considered "Uncle Toms".

Of course, you should be able to read the mess on this board for yourself...but here's a few examples:

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/17128.html

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/17051.html

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/17088.html

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/16986.html

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/16890.html#18

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/17009.html#4

If I looked around longer I'm sure I would have found much more.

But look at the ones on television and print who lead this mess and whom these folks get their "information" from:

Amy Goodman, Democracy Now (what a misnomer): white.

Greg Palast, "independent" journalist (another misnomer): white.

Michael Moore, independent filmaker and author: white.

Noam Chomsky, linguist and one of the top anti-american scholars in the world: white.

The ones behind the scenes are white. The heads of the leftist organizations are white. The guys that are in charge and operating the government-subsidized stations and channels that broadcast these phonies are white.

And it was the same way with leftist organizations back in the day, as the NAACP was headed by white people and back by white European socialists.

Noone "owns" ideas. But someone can own and control the movements, the rallies, and the propaganda that comes as a result of it.

The fact is, many organizations speak disdain about Eurocentricism and white people, then go turn around and follow those same white people they claim to despise and want to stop. Maybe they are the ones who are the real Toms.

"Then the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this and every country but his own"
Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado

Check out my .
3231, double wow.
Posted by jackie chiles, Tue Nov-04-03 11:34 AM
>>And if those "ideas" and "actions" are foul? So be it eh?
>>
>>http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/16978.html
>>
>>Defend that.
>
>I think I did. Had you read the posts you would have seen
>it.

You did a piss poor job of defending Easterman's jew baiting. That is why I pointed it out. I hoped you would do a better job if given a second chance.

>>Everytime I see a thread that you've started, I know I can
>>expect to see your written condemnation of right-wing
>>actions.
>>LOL.
>
>Why should I condemn them if I agree with them?

That is what makes you an Uncle Tom. America's right wing has sold blacks out twice in America's history, yet you still run interference for them, all the while claiming to be some kind of libertarian.

>
>As I said, it's the ideas that I support, not the people
>themselves.
>
>As for the leftist hypocrisy, the sentiment is quite evident
>on this board against so-called Eurocentric behavior and
>Americanism,

You weren't clear in your statements. You stated that "the left" despised whites. Get your ad homs straight if you are going to have a debate.

>to the point that if you are white and espouse
>ideas opposite to socialist "radicalism", you are considered
>evil.

Socialist Radicalism? You sure do play fast and loose with the terms don't you?

>The same is true of blacks who disagree with leftist
>proposals and agendas, only they are considered "Uncle
>Toms".

Considering the fact that "the left" or what passes for it is the reason America has been as progressive as it has, I can understand the sentiment. The right represents the status quo, whatever that may be. From slavery, to Jim Crow, the right has defended the status quo tooth and nail. Combine that with the betrayal of blacks by the right at crucial moments in history and you might gain an understanding of the vitriol directed at blacks who are apologists for these people.

House nigger. Uncle Tom. Sellout.

Ugly Words but not inaccurate given the long, hard struggle of blacks for equality. At every turn, there were blacks who made appeals for gradualism and accomodations to the dicates of those in power.

>Of course, you should be able to read the mess on this board
>for yourself...but here's a few examples:

I'll address your "evidence" later.

Now we get to the crux of your arguments:

>But look at the ones on television and print who lead this
>mess and whom these folks get their "information" from:
>
>Amy Goodman, Democracy Now (what a misnomer): white.
>
>Greg Palast, "independent" journalist (another misnomer):
>white.
>
>Michael Moore, independent filmaker and author: white.
>
>Noam Chomsky, linguist and one of the top anti-american
>scholars in the world: white.

You sure are a warped soul. What a shame.

1. As I said before, the movement for equality and justice has been multiracial for a long time. You name three prominent liberal figures as evidence that blacks are being led around by the nose by "white pied pipers". Nevermind the fact that the strugle racial equality is not foremost area of work of any of the individuals whom you listed nor has it EVER been the exclusive domain of black thinkers. Go read a history book or two. Look up Tom Paine, John Brown and John Weseley for starters, and then get a clue.

2. There are plenty of black progressives and leftists that advocate the same ideas. Too many to list in fact. When choosing ideas, one doesn't oft look at the color of the person who produced it, only the quality of the idea and the agenda of those who would endorse it. You should know that.

>And it was the same way with leftist organizations back in
>the day, as the NAACP was headed by white people and back by
>white European socialists.

Headed? So Ida Wells and W.E.B Dubois were white? Somebody call Encyclopedia Africana! There's been a grievous mistake! There IS such a thing as a COALITION you know.

No, as I said earlier, the struggle for equality has been multiracial for a long time. That the NAACP was started by blacks AND whites reflects that. Learn to read son.

The fact that some of the people who have been opposed to white supremacy have been white proves nothing.

Oh and I DARE you to try to indict all socialists as some kind of evil cabal. You don't want to play that game with me sonny.

>Noone "owns" ideas. But someone can own and control the
>movements, the rallies, and the propaganda that comes as a
>result of it.

So who OWNED the civil rights movement?

The abolistionist movement?

The movement for American Independence?

>The fact is, many organizations speak disdain about
>Eurocentricism and white people, then go turn around and
>follow those same white people they claim to despise and
>want to stop.

Many?

Which organizations?

Names please, and don't forget to show that the organizations have a stated anti-white agenda which would preclude them recieving any help whatsoever from whites.

Follow this by showing how they follow "whites".

This oughta be a hoot.

>Maybe they are the ones who are the real
>Toms.

Awww, I think widdle expertise is projecting.

No. Toms are blacks who are servile to white supremacy. That blacks and whites have been able to come together to resist white supremacy does not mitigate the crimes of the Uncle Tom. It just make him look like an even bigger fool.
3232, RE: your links
Posted by jackie chiles, Tue Nov-04-03 11:48 AM
I read the first two and didn't find anything that would support your assertions.

I declined to read anymore.

So sorry, I don't think I will be doing the work for you.

Prove your own points. If you can.
3233, up
Posted by CantCBob, Wed Nov-05-03 04:24 PM
good post

"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

3234, RE: Truth hurts for Israel..EU Survey.
Posted by Pinko_Panther, Sat Nov-08-03 01:47 AM
!!!
3235, RE: Truth hurts for Israel..EU Survey.
Posted by qalyiente, Mon Nov-10-03 08:05 AM
hahaha! anti-semitism? arent the people israel is oppressing semetic? right, because the media and the west is just sooo pro arab muslims... you know im not one of those people who believe that jews own the media, but lets be honest, they are a lot more media friendly then arab muslims are... bah, im out.
3236, RE: Truth hurts for Israel..EU Survey.
Posted by ConcreteCharlie, Mon Nov-10-03 08:57 AM
if people take anything away from this post it should be that situations in israel and other arab-jew dynamics are not as simple as animosity between the two sides, are easy enough to assign blame or equate state with individual action across sides or within them, and that as Americans who still live in a relatively safe nation where one attack sends us into a murderious, invasive frenzy cannot possibly comprehend the oppression experienced by either side at any point in history. Certainly there are groups that have experience egregious social oppression but in terms of actual, personal danger, its not even close.

I definitely appreciate the opinions of both sides and neutral heads in this post, I have some reading to do on the matter for sure, some very good points and account all over.