[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
lixy wrote:
it usually involves playing the race card, calling him/her an anti-Semite (which is a total farce given that it’s Zionism that’s criticize), Hitler comparisons. I suppose that we can’t exclude dying under mysterious circumstances.
It’s funny b/c the Nazi Party worked closely with Zionist networks to emigrate Jews to Palestine.
If anything the closest people to “Nazis” are Zionists.
Had there been no WW2, Germany probably would have exported all of Europe’s Jews to Palestine…
Which is not exactly enjoyable to ponder, seeing as it would mean our Allied invasion inadvertently led to the Holocaust.
…Oops. :([/quote]
I think that’s a bit much. But the most extremist Jewish terrorists in Palestine in the Stern gang did actually meet with the Nazis to get aid against the British, and were outright admirers of Mussolini.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
lixy wrote:
it usually involves playing the race card, calling him/her an anti-Semite (which is a total farce given that it’s Zionism that’s criticize), Hitler comparisons. I suppose that we can’t exclude dying under mysterious circumstances.
It’s funny b/c the Nazi Party worked closely with Zionist networks to emigrate Jews to Palestine.
If anything the closest people to “Nazis” are Zionists.
Had there been no WW2, Germany probably would have exported all of Europe’s Jews to Palestine…
Which is not exactly enjoyable to ponder, seeing as it would mean our Allied invasion inadvertently led to the Holocaust.
…Oops.
I think that’s a bit much. But the most extremist Jewish terrorists in Palestine in the Stern gang did actually meet with the Nazis to get aid against the British, and were outright admirers of Mussolini.[/quote]
References, please, for any of this? Legitimate ones will do, not internet crap if you please.
From dysLixy, I expect nothing but crap and propaganda and lies, and get it. But from you, we expect more.
Must be a conspiracy. There is no other options. They are probably trying to find new baby killing machines to go to work on the Palestinians with. They are tired of having to do it themselves. I mean they must be really busy with controlling the media and all.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
I agree with what you are saying here. With that said, I do find it interesting that in the thread about British immigration issues, you were not able to understand that the exact same thing (although the word racist is used rather than anti-semite) happens to those who criticize the levels of foreign immigration. [/quote]
I said it a hundred times already: Britain belongs to its citizens. If they want to build a wall around their rock and not let anyone in, I’ll support that. If they want to continue down the Orwellian path and deport every single person that’s there illegally, they have every right to do so. It’s talk about “English pride” that I deem racist, just as I consider the bastards (figuratively!) in my country talking about “Arab pride” to be racist talk.
Do we understand each other?
There’s also a huge problem in your analogy. The Palestinians had the Aliyah imposed on them by imperial powers. The Brits, chose to increase the immigration to their country. And it had nothing to do with either race of religion. They let in people, some were black, some were white and some were yellow. Not the case about Israel which, by definition, is a Jewish state.
I asked Joe to explain what is making him so angry. I asked whether he believed that his country was not a democracy. I asked if the will of the people was not respected. If not, I asked him to provide solutions or tell us what we can do to help. All I got in return was childish drivel. The guy obviously had no intention to debate anything.
Clear?
Zionists exert a disproportionate influence on Washington. I seriously doubt you can make the case about Indians or Filipinos doing the same in Britain.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
lixy wrote:
it usually involves playing the race card, calling him/her an anti-Semite (which is a total farce given that it’s Zionism that’s criticize), Hitler comparisons. I suppose that we can’t exclude dying under mysterious circumstances.
It’s funny b/c the Nazi Party worked closely with Zionist networks to emigrate Jews to Palestine.
If anything the closest people to “Nazis” are Zionists.
Had there been no WW2, Germany probably would have exported all of Europe’s Jews to Palestine…
Which is not exactly enjoyable to ponder, seeing as it would mean our Allied invasion inadvertently led to the Holocaust.
…Oops.
I think that’s a bit much. But the most extremist Jewish terrorists in Palestine in the Stern gang did actually meet with the Nazis to get aid against the British, and were outright admirers of Mussolini.
References, please, for any of this? Legitimate ones will do, not internet crap if you please.
From dysLixy, I expect nothing but crap and propaganda and lies, and get it. But from you, we expect more.
[/quote]
Gives you the basics. I know a PhD candidate in history who has done work on this, he has put up with some pretty strong reactions onn the couple of occasions he’s spoken on it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
I agree with what you are saying here. With that said, I do find it interesting that in the thread about British immigration issues, you were not able to understand that the exact same thing (although the word racist is used rather than anti-semite) happens to those who criticize the levels of foreign immigration.
I said it a hundred times already: Britain belongs to its citizens. If they want to build a wall around their rock and not let anyone in, I’ll support that. If they want to continue down the Orwellian path and deport every single person that’s there illegally, they have every right to do so. It’s talk about “English pride” that I deem racist, just as I consider the bastards (figuratively!) in my country talking about “Arab pride” to be racist talk.
There’s also a huge problem in your analogy. The Palestinians had the Aliyah imposed on them by imperial powers. The Brits, chose to increase the immigration to their country. And it had nothing to do with either race of religion. They let in people, some were black, some were white and some were yellow. Not the case about Israel which, by definition, is a Jewish state.
[/quote]
This is all true, but I was not referring to the situation in the middle east. Perhaps I did not explain my analogy clearly enough.
In the immigration thread, Joe said that huge numbers of people in Britain are not happy with the current immigration situation but aren’t willing to do anything about it for fear of being labeled a racist. You responded by saying that Britain is a democracy, inferring that if the majority have a problem with the current situation, they can easily change it.
I found it strange that in this thread, you then said something along the lines of - nobody in America can do anything about the one sided Israel-US relationship, because if they criticize Israel, the race card will get played.
In the other thread you made it sound as though it would be no big deal for someone in Britain to be labeled a racist for taking an anti immigration stance. In this thread on the other hand you made it sound as though the threat of being labeled an anti semite renders Americans completely unable to criticize Israel.
I am not denying any of this, but most of it is irrelevant to the specific point that I was making.
[quote]
Zionists exert a disproportionate influence on Washington. I seriously doubt you can make the case about Indians or Filipinos doing the same in Britain.[/quote]
This is correct. The fact remains though that if you publicly criticize immigration too harshly in Britain, or publicly criticize Israel to harshly in the US, in both cases you would get absolutely raped by the media and labelled a racist.
I think that the two situations are fairly comparable, yet you seem to act as if one is no big deal, whereas the other is a huge travesty of justice.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
This is all true, but I was not referring to the situation in the middle east. Perhaps I did not explain my analogy clearly enough.
In the immigration thread, Joe said that huge numbers of people in Britain are not happy with the current immigration situation but aren’t willing to do anything about it for fear of being labeled a racist. You responded by saying that Britain is a democracy, inferring that if the majority have a problem with the current situation, they can easily change it. [/quote]
I asked Joe a question about whether he thinks Britain is a democracy or not. I did not imply (I imply, you infer!) anything.
Yes, I did. But the MAIN reason nobody can do anything about it in the US is AIPAC and other Zionist lobbies. Which is a far cry from saying that insults or labels will stop people from demanding change. I assume my post didn’t make that clear.
Ok, I’ll quote the first sentence of my post.
“I am saying that Zionists have way too much power for anyone to challenge the status quo successfully.”
Then I talk about the Hitler card.
Zionists exert a disproportionate influence on Washington. I seriously doubt you can make the case about Indians or Filipinos doing the same in Britain.
[quote]This is correct. The fact remains though that if you publicly criticize immigration too harshly in Britain, or publicly criticize Israel to harshly in the US, in both cases you would get absolutely raped by the media and labelled a racist.
I think that the two situations are fairly comparable, yet you seem to act as if one is no big deal, whereas the other is a huge travesty of justice. [/quote]
I disagree. The two situations are hardly comparable IMHO.
The problems with Immigration are, by definition, close to home. They touch everyone in society. I’ve seen what sub-Saharian immigration cost my country. I’ve seen the chaos drunken Spaniards cause in Sweden. I’ve seen the problems with the post-2003 Iraqi refugees in the town I live in.
So don’t come telling me that Americans know what Israel is costing them. I bet you a lifetime supply of creatine that most Americans would be at least an order of magnitude away from the real figure. Shit, the crushing majority of them can’t even locate it on a map. It’s a case of a lobby furthering the interests of a foreign state. Joe’s theory is, well…he wouldn’t even elaborate.
I don’t think labels have ever stopped any determined person. They might discourage the weak, but that’s about it. Obviously, an American politician can’t base his campaign on Israel. Nobody would give a shit. People are concerned with what is affecting them.
I’ve been called a terrorist, terrorist-sympathizer, anti-Semite, Zionist-sympathizer, anti-Zionist, religious nutjob, Godless secular, anti-American, Imperialist, communist, capitalist, etc. Will it ever stop me from militating for I deem right? Not a chance!
And for the record, I never called Joe a racist. I said that his discourse was racist. Nuance.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
lixy wrote:
i
If anything the closest people to “Nazis” are Zionists.
Had there been no WW2, Germany probably would have exported all of Europe’s Jews to Palestine…
Which is not exactly enjoyable to ponder, seeing as it would mean our Allied invasion inadvertently led to the Holocaust.
…Oops.
I think that’s a bit much. But the most extremist Jewish terrorists in Palestine in the Stern gang did actually meet with the Nazis to get aid against the British, and were outright admirers of Mussolini.
References, please, for any of this? Legitimate ones will do, not internet crap if you please.
From dysLixy, I expect nothing but crap and propaganda and lies, and get it. But from you, we expect more.
Gives you the basics. I know a PhD candidate in history who has done work on this, he has put up with some pretty strong reactions onn the couple of occasions he’s spoken on it.[/quote]
Thanks, GK. Now then:
First, you will notice that the language is different than you thought and the context was missing. In order to ransom Jews through Vichy France in 1941, the Stern thugs offered to pester the British–something in which they were already engaged. Because Stern hated the British, and had already “declared war” on them following Chamberlain’s 1939 White Paper on Palestine, this would not have comitted them to anything, and did not pledge them to actually aid Nazis. In context, this was one more effort to ransom lives form murderers. Other efforts to ransom the innocent condemned were also afoot, for example in Roumania. And the events cited all occurred before 1942 and the planned mass exterminations of Eastern Europe.
Second, Stern and his thugs very nearly started a civil war over this and other such anti-British tactics. He was very much a fanatic, and a marginal one at that, until he was killed by the British. Curiously, Tom Segev does not even refer to this particular incident in his encyclopedic revisonist history, One Palestine, Complete . (But see pages 450 to 470 for other events in this period.)
I offer this to suggest that the simplest assertions bear examination, especially when the subject is The Squirrel Cage that is the Middle East.
Last, the contention that likens Zionism to Nazism is propaganda and crap. It is facile, false, prejudicial, and calculated as a lie to fool the ignorant. In short, DysLixya.
Why is it that Jews alone, among all the peoples of the earth, are to be denied a legitimate national identity? Why purposely confuse the national movement with changing policies of various governments, if not for the purpose of fomenting directed hatred? Who has forced the awful circumstances alone on the Palestinians, and who has uniquely denied them their national aspiration? For those who assert that it is Israel only, I suggest that they examine the sad historical record, and reconsider their prejudices.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
lixy wrote:
i
If anything the closest people to “Nazis” are Zionists.
Had there been no WW2, Germany probably would have exported all of Europe’s Jews to Palestine…
Which is not exactly enjoyable to ponder, seeing as it would mean our Allied invasion inadvertently led to the Holocaust.
…Oops.
I think that’s a bit much. But the most extremist Jewish terrorists in Palestine in the Stern gang did actually meet with the Nazis to get aid against the British, and were outright admirers of Mussolini.
References, please, for any of this? Legitimate ones will do, not internet crap if you please.
From dysLixy, I expect nothing but crap and propaganda and lies, and get it. But from you, we expect more.
Gives you the basics. I know a PhD candidate in history who has done work on this, he has put up with some pretty strong reactions onn the couple of occasions he’s spoken on it.
Thanks, GK. Now then:
First, you will notice that the language is different than you thought and the context was missing. In order to ransom Jews through Vichy France in 1941, the Stern thugs offered to pester the British–something in which they were already engaged. Because Stern hated the British, and had already “declared war” on them following Chamberlain’s 1939 White Paper on Palestine, this would not have comitted them to anything, and did not pledge them to actually aid Nazis. In context, this was one more effort to ransom lives form murderers. Other efforts to ransom the innocent condemned were also afoot, for example in Roumania. And the events cited all occurred before 1942 and the planned mass exterminations of Eastern Europe.
Second, Stern and his thugs very nearly started a civil war over this and other such anti-British tactics. He was very much a fanatic, and a marginal one at that, until he was killed by the British. Curiously, Tom Segev does not even refer to this particular incident in his encyclopedic revisonist history, One Palestine, Complete . (But see pages 450 to 470 for other events in this period.)
I offer this to suggest that the simplest assertions bear examination, especially when the subject is The Squirrel Cage that is the Middle East.
Last, the contention that likens Zionism to Nazism is propaganda and crap. It is facile, false, prejudicial, and calculated as a lie to fool the ignorant. In short, DysLixya.
Why is it that Jews alone, among all the peoples of the earth, are to be denied a legitimate national identity? Why purposely confuse the national movement with changing policies of various governments, if not for the purpose of fomenting directed hatred? Who has forced the awful circumstances alone on the Palestinians, and who has uniquely denied them their national aspiration? For those who assert that it is Israel only, I suggest that they examine the sad historical record, and reconsider their prejudices.
[/quote]
OK, first off, I think you’re conflating my statements and Lixy’s. I never said Zionism was Nazism. I said “the most extremist Jewish terrorists in Palestine” sought aid from the Nazis, and, as the link notes, were prepared for a modus vivendi with them.
Stern was a marginal fanatic, although some very mainstream Israeli political figures (Begin, for one), were not far off from him. But it’s at least worth noting that Israel still has a medal in Stern’s honor.
As I said, I don’t liken Zionism to Nazism. Nor do I consider the occupation of the Palestinian Territories to be equivalent to the Holocaust or any BS like that. Do I consider myself an anti-Zionist though, despite much that is admirable about the state of Israel? Probably.
And as for the “Jews alone, among all the peoples of the earth”, being “denied a legitimate national identity”? Tell that to the Kurds, the Basques, the Chechens, the Baluchis, the Roma, the Karens, the Druze, the Northern Italians…it’s not a short list. Does everyone get their own state, like the farce/tragedy in Kosovo? I don’t think that makes a lot of sense, particularly not when it’s other people’s land.
As I said, I don’t liken Zionism to Nazism. Nor do I consider the occupation of the Palestinian Territories to be equivalent to the Holocaust or any BS like that.
[/quote]
This I understood. My comments were directed otherwise.
This I do not understand. Perhaps Zionism has been mis-characterized, purposefully, and it is the associated violence and fanatacism, unfairly equated with the national movement, which is the object of disapproval?
[quote]
And as for the “Jews alone, among all the peoples of the earth”, being “denied a legitimate national identity”? Tell that to the Kurds, the Basques, the Chechens, the Baluchis, the Roma, the Karens, the Druze, the Northern Italians…it’s not a short list. Does everyone get their own state, like the farce/tragedy in Kosovo? I don’t think that makes a lot of sense, particularly not when it’s other people’s land.[/quote]
Understood.
New nation states have landed on the map since 1947. How many of them, even 60 years later, are still denied legitimacy, the right to secure borders, the right to determine their own destiny.
(Not India and Pakistan. Not Cyprus–but who can figure out that one, too? Do the neighbors of the Seychelles, or Algeria, or Kenya, deny their right to exist at all, within any borders?)
Two nations come to mind, denied recognition and legitimacy since 1947: Israel, by its Arab and Muslim neighbors, and Palestine, by its Arab and Muslim “brothers.” Both are held in captivity by the same intransigent agents.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
lixy wrote:
i
If anything the closest people to “Nazis” are Zionists.
Had there been no WW2, Germany probably would have exported all of Europe’s Jews to Palestine…
Which is not exactly enjoyable to ponder, seeing as it would mean our Allied invasion inadvertently led to the Holocaust.
…Oops.
I think that’s a bit much. But the most extremist Jewish terrorists in Palestine in the Stern gang did actually meet with the Nazis to get aid against the British, and were outright admirers of Mussolini.
References, please, for any of this? Legitimate ones will do, not internet crap if you please.
From dysLixy, I expect nothing but crap and propaganda and lies, and get it. But from you, we expect more.
Gives you the basics. I know a PhD candidate in history who has done work on this, he has put up with some pretty strong reactions onn the couple of occasions he’s spoken on it.
Thanks, GK. Now then:
First, you will notice that the language is different than you thought and the context was missing. In order to ransom Jews through Vichy France in 1941, the Stern thugs offered to pester the British–something in which they were already engaged. Because Stern hated the British, and had already “declared war” on them following Chamberlain’s 1939 White Paper on Palestine, this would not have comitted them to anything, and did not pledge them to actually aid Nazis. In context, this was one more effort to ransom lives form murderers. Other efforts to ransom the innocent condemned were also afoot, for example in Roumania. And the events cited all occurred before 1942 and the planned mass exterminations of Eastern Europe.
Second, Stern and his thugs very nearly started a civil war over this and other such anti-British tactics. He was very much a fanatic, and a marginal one at that, until he was killed by the British. Curiously, Tom Segev does not even refer to this particular incident in his encyclopedic revisonist history, One Palestine, Complete . (But see pages 450 to 470 for other events in this period.)
I offer this to suggest that the simplest assertions bear examination, especially when the subject is The Squirrel Cage that is the Middle East.
Last, the contention that likens Zionism to Nazism is propaganda and crap. It is facile, false, prejudicial, and calculated as a lie to fool the ignorant. In short, DysLixya.
Why is it that Jews alone, among all the peoples of the earth, are to be denied a legitimate national identity? Why purposely confuse the national movement with changing policies of various governments, if not for the purpose of fomenting directed hatred? Who has forced the awful circumstances alone on the Palestinians, and who has uniquely denied them their national aspiration? For those who assert that it is Israel only, I suggest that they examine the sad historical record, and reconsider their prejudices.
OK, first off, I think you’re conflating my statements and Lixy’s. I never said Zionism was Nazism. I said “the most extremist Jewish terrorists in Palestine” sought aid from the Nazis, and, as the link notes, were prepared for a modus vivendi with them.
Stern was a marginal fanatic, although some very mainstream Israeli political figures (Begin, for one), were not far off from him. But it’s at least worth noting that Israel still has a medal in Stern’s honor.
As I said, I don’t liken Zionism to Nazism. Nor do I consider the occupation of the Palestinian Territories to be equivalent to the Holocaust or any BS like that. Do I consider myself an anti-Zionist though, despite much that is admirable about the state of Israel? Probably.
And as for the “Jews alone, among all the peoples of the earth”, being “denied a legitimate national identity”? Tell that to the Kurds, the Basques, the Chechens, the Baluchis, the Roma, the Karens, the Druze, the Northern Italians…it’s not a short list. Does everyone get their own state, like the farce/tragedy in Kosovo? I don’t think that makes a lot of sense, particularly not when it’s other people’s land.[/quote]
The Northern Italians do have a legitimate national identity.
What about the Southies, the Confeds, they’ve been occupied by an unreasonable and genocidal Northern neighbor for almost 150 years.
These national identity, soveriegnity things, are sticky subjects.
I mean New York, and New Yorkers, due to their close proximity and micro-culture, have more a shared identity, than some others who seek nations. But you don’t see them tripping over it.
I think many times people make the soveriegnity issue, the primary issue for why their group is unsuccessful or not as successful as they’d like to be.
Feeling they have been repressed or held back by a hegemonic power for so long.
I’ll tell you one thing though, Basque Country, has a far more credible case for sovereignity than most of the more recognized movements of the world these days. But noone seems to care about them, like they do about tibet.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
This is all true, but I was not referring to the situation in the middle east. Perhaps I did not explain my analogy clearly enough.
In the immigration thread, Joe said that huge numbers of people in Britain are not happy with the current immigration situation but aren’t willing to do anything about it for fear of being labeled a racist. You responded by saying that Britain is a democracy, inferring that if the majority have a problem with the current situation, they can easily change it.
I asked Joe a question about whether he thinks Britain is a democracy or not. I did not imply (I imply, you infer!) anything.
I found it strange that in this thread, you then said something along the lines of - nobody in America can do anything about the one sided Israel-US relationship, because if they criticize Israel, the race card will get played.
Yes, I did. But the MAIN reason nobody can do anything about it in the US is AIPAC and other Zionist lobbies. Which is a far cry from saying that insults or labels will stop people from demanding change. I assume my post didn’t make that clear.
In the other thread you made it sound as though it would be no big deal for someone in Britain to be labeled a racist for taking an anti immigration stance. In this thread on the other hand you made it sound as though the threat of being labeled an anti semite renders Americans completely unable to criticize Israel.
Ok, I’ll quote the first sentence of my post.
“I am saying that Zionists have way too much power for anyone to challenge the status quo successfully.”
Then I talk about the Hitler card.
Zionists exert a disproportionate influence on Washington. I seriously doubt you can make the case about Indians or Filipinos doing the same in Britain.
This is correct. The fact remains though that if you publicly criticize immigration too harshly in Britain, or publicly criticize Israel to harshly in the US, in both cases you would get absolutely raped by the media and labelled a racist.
I think that the two situations are fairly comparable, yet you seem to act as if one is no big deal, whereas the other is a huge travesty of justice.
I disagree. The two situations are hardly comparable IMHO.
The problems with Immigration are, by definition, close to home. They touch everyone in society. I’ve seen what sub-Saharian immigration cost my country. I’ve seen the chaos drunken Spaniards cause in Sweden. I’ve seen the problems with the post-2003 Iraqi refugees in the town I live in.
So don’t come telling me that Americans know what Israel is costing them. I bet you a lifetime supply of creatine that most Americans would be at least an order of magnitude away from the real figure. Shit, the crushing majority of them can’t even locate it on a map. It’s a case of a lobby furthering the interests of a foreign state. Joe’s theory is, well…he wouldn’t even elaborate.
I don’t think labels have ever stopped any determined person. They might discourage the weak, but that’s about it. Obviously, an American politician can’t base his campaign on Israel. Nobody would give a shit. People are concerned with what is affecting them.
I’ve been called a terrorist, terrorist-sympathizer, anti-Semite, Zionist-sympathizer, anti-Zionist, religious nutjob, Godless secular, anti-American, Imperialist, communist, capitalist, etc. Will it ever stop me from militating for I deem right? Not a chance!
And for the record, I never called Joe a racist. I said that his discourse was racist. Nuance.[/quote]
I was not referring to your comments on the “English pride” issue.
The only point I was making was that in both situations (British person taking anti immigration stance, or American taking anti Israel stance), there are a significant number of people who aren’t willing take a public stand due to the threat of being labeled racist.
I agree with almost everything you are saying, but most of it is not relevant to the specific point I was attempting to make.
