kuffki Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 You are referring to sources that can easily identified as pure one-sided propaganda and nothing more. Ok, so what sources are you referring to? PS. Both sites provided are from UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Zionism a leftist movement? Leftist - what is that? The 1975 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 determined "that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1 Yes early Zionism had very strong leftist leanings. What do you think kibbutzes are? They're small scale communistic communities. Duh. I would agree that certain political elements in modern Israel including a large part of modern Zionism have fascist tendencies. However, don't even imagine that the majority of Jews in the world support those fascist elements. But calling Zionism by definition racism is really rich when you consider the massive widespread racist anti-semitic propaganda pervasive all over the Muslim world.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022805199.html There are nearly no Jews in Arab lands - they were kicked out after Israel was established in 1948. Nowhere in the Middle East is peace with Israel popular. Nowhere in the Middle East is anti-Semitism considered aberrant or weird. It is inconceivable to me that Arab politicians will not attempt to harness both sentiments, combining nationalism with anti-Semitism - a combustible and unstable compound. History instructs about what follows. ... Israel's critics have a case. Yet they make no case when it comes to Arab anti-Semitism. The prominence of Qaradawi cannot be reassuring to Israelis. They know that words can be weapons and hate is a killer. Nonetheless, since the days of Husseini, a true Hitlerian figure, Arab nations have shamefully been granted an exception to the standards expected of the rest of the world, as if they were children. If I were an Israeli, I'd be worried. If I were an Arab, I'd be insulted. If I were a critic only of Israel, I'd be ashamed. Edited March 6, 2011 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKarim Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Zionism a leftist movement? Leftist - what is that? The 1975 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 determined "that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1 Yes early Zionism had very strong leftist leanings. What do you think kibbutzes are? They're small scale communistic communities. Duh. I would agree that certain political elements in modern Israel including a large part of modern Zionism have fascist tendencies. However, don't even imagine that the majority of Jews in the world support those fascist elements. But calling Zionism by definition racism is really rich when you consider the massive widespread racist anti-semitic propaganda pervasive all over the Muslim world.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022805199.html Early Zionism, Herzl Zionism - nothing more than a national movement. Born as response to antisemitism and if not mainly also as response to the assimilation of many jews into the "modern" bourgeois society at the end of the 19. century. Herzl wanted preserve Jewish identity of his people and offer an other solution than to become assimilate to that European world. I am not calling Zionism a form of racism and racial discrimination, that is from some UN resolution. But it seems that for some are these UN resolution only good if it are pro-Israel resolutions. and if not it is anti-semitic propaganda. What is the difference between communist leaning and fascist tendencies? For the lefty things some will mention only the good parts of it and for the fascist thing only the bad parts, right? But in the end is it the same shit. The national-socialist in Germany didn't had only killings and war in mind, they also had thoughts to modernize the society had welfare programs, medical care, better the living conditions of the working class and other socialist stuff. only for members of the 'right' race of course. The Washington post article. Well, people should learn to tell anti-zionism and anti-semitism apart. And furthermore, as the article mentioned Hitler in the first sentence, when it comes to this guy people should not focus only on the killing of the Jews but also look at all the socialist tendencies of that state to spot all the things that are wrong. There is also a massive widespread of racist anti-muslim propaganda in the western world. Often starts with being unable to tell antisemitism and antizionism apart. Can be found left or right side wise. same same. Typical western ignorance. prejudice leads to hate. You will also find Jews, modern, western liberals or very traditional and orthodox, who are opposed Zionism or critical of Israel. Or are these people quislings and propagandist from the Muslim world too? And again, because its mostly a conflict about territory and who is legitimated or entitled to claim pieces of land in that disputed territory its worth to look were they came from, these Zionist or the Kibbutznik and i think for their opponents, the Arab Palestinians it doesn't matter much if that Zionism is a leftist movement or some form of racism and racial discrimination. The Zionist wanted to avoid assimilation in Europe with their move to the middle east and of course not assimilate over there but create there their new state which was of course for their brother and sisters from the European Diaspora of the same religious beliefs (or race - depends how you want define what is a Jew). Look at France, they wanna recognize Palestine as state. That decision is neither some anti-semitic nor the 'all the Arabs'/ 'all the Muslims' thing. There are only some people here who wanna spin it to an anti-semitic issue (because everyone knows that is a pretty bad thing and would not dare to support it). Hate of the muslim world is their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Have a read of full facts here, including all the legal quotes and documents http://www.sixdaywar...uk/timeline.htm Also look at some maps and half of Palestine did not belong to Palestine but belonged to Egypt, Syria and Jordan But it didn't belong to Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Hate of the muslim world is their agenda. Nonsense. For someone who goes on and on about propaganda, you sure do present a lot of lies and half-truths as "facts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 But it didn't belong to Israel. Actually, they legally bought much of the land from the absentee landlords, but the Arabs tried to force them off it when they turned desert into useful land. THAT is why they fought back, declared independence and won decisively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coma Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) People only look for what they want to see on this subject. It pays for one to try to be a little objective from time to time. Every single time you have posted on this subject, it has been anti-Israel and usually excusing the Islamic terrorists. Maybe you should take your own advice that you give out so freely. Once again you are having a laugh with yourself and racking up posts. Show me any anti Israel post I have made. Had i posted them as you say I have I would have felt the raith of the moderator. Edited March 6, 2011 by coma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) Huh? There are lots of anti-Israeli posts on this very thread - including yours praising terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children . I think it is more likely that they are happy with Hamas as they have a spine and actually fight for every Palestinian's freedom. Edited March 7, 2011 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coma Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Huh? There are lots of anti-Israeli posts on here - including yours. Congradulations on just racking up another one. Epic fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuffki Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Huh? There are lots of anti-Israeli posts on here - including yours. Congradulations on just racking up another one. Epic fail. Coma, i am sorry but you are not making much sense with few words reply. May be try to elaborate little clearer what you trying to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuffki Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 @BKKARIM From your post earlier "Look at France, they wanna recognize Palestine as state. That decision is neither some anti-semitic nor the 'all the Arabs'/ 'all the Muslims' thing. There are only some people here who wanna spin it to an anti-semitic issue (because everyone knows that is a pretty bad thing and would not dare to support it). Hate of the muslim world is their agenda. " Could you please provide a link where France made the statement not Palestinian spokesman? Also can you please quote the post which has the agenda of muslim hate? You seem to write very long responses, yet when asked to provide proof or your sources you change the subject You state historic facts which are so far from truth and rather incorrect and once you are given the historic facts-apparently its only 1 sided. So please share your source of information and links to France making official statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Have a read of full facts here, including all the legal quotes and documents http://www.sixdaywar...uk/timeline.htm Also look at some maps and half of Palestine did not belong to Palestine but belonged to Egypt, Syria and Jordan But it didn't belong to Israel. And if you look back prior to Egypt, Syria, Jordan we had the British mandate, before that the Ottoman Turks, indeed show me a Palestinian flag pre-1948? The truth of the matter is that be it occupying Countries or absentee landlords the arab population in Palestine never had an independant state, it's simply the fact that Jews being seen as their oppressors is far less palatable to the arab world than any of the previous occupiers. Sure they can have a state provided their consitution explicitly recognises the right of their neighbor to exist. But as I wrote before, this is just easy politicing to further their own interests from the French. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Huh? There are lots of anti-Israeli posts on this very thread - including yours praising terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children . I think it is more likely that they are happy with Hamas as they have a spine and actually fight for every Palestinian's freedom. including yours praising terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children Pot/Kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Have a read of full facts here, including all the legal quotes and documents http://www.sixdaywar...uk/timeline.htm Also look at some maps and half of Palestine did not belong to Palestine but belonged to Egypt, Syria and Jordan But it didn't belong to Israel. And if you look back prior to Egypt, Syria, Jordan we had the British mandate, before that the Ottoman Turks, indeed show me a Palestinian flag pre-1948? The truth of the matter is that be it occupying Countries or absentee landlords the arab population in Palestine never had an independant state, it's simply the fact that Jews being seen as their oppressors is far less palatable to the arab world than any of the previous occupiers. Sure they can have a state provided their consitution explicitly recognises the right of their neighbor to exist. But as I wrote before, this is just easy politicing to further their own interests from the French. But it didn't belong to Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 But it didn't belong to Israel. Actually, they legally bought much of the land from the absentee landlords, but the Arabs tried to force them off it when they turned desert into useful land. THAT is why they fought back, declared independence and won decisively. Much of the land?? Is that the same as ALL the land? Don't be so vague, if they bought much of it, how did they get the rest. 'That is why they fought back, declared independence and won decisvely'. You sound very smug and pleased with yourself about it. Seems some TV members aren't willing to join the rest of the world in condemnation of what Israel has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuffki Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Well even accepting your hypothetical, land was won fair and square from original owners in a very unfair fight. So really in fact Palestine has no right even trying to claim it. Original owners do not ask for it. Palestine can always make an offer to buy it rather then demand it. Original owners do not have the right to give something away that they lost. As for terrorist claims - I think you need to polish up on the term. Israel never intentionally targeted civilians while Hammas targets ONLY civilians and moreover uses civilians as human shields when Israel responds to rocket attacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Don't be so vague, if they bought much of it, how did they get the rest. The UN gave it to them. Read a few history books before trying to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuffki Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Are you referring to Iran and very few other Arab states as the rest of the world???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 I think that he means Colonel Gaddafi. He raves on about Israel in between killing his own people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Are you referring to Iran and very few other Arab states as the rest of the world???? http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/isra-f26.shtml I don't think these are just a few Arab states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Don't be so vague, if they bought much of it, how did they get the rest. The UN gave it to them. Read a few history books before trying to debate. Perhaps you too should read about growing the growing Israeli settlements and the world opinion. You don't have to take my word for it, google it. I'm sure all the Israel apologists could soon be able to hold their meetings in a phone box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Well even accepting your hypothetical, land was won fair and square from original owners in a very unfair fight. So really in fact Palestine has no right even trying to claim it. Original owners do not ask for it. Palestine can always make an offer to buy it rather then demand it. Original owners do not have the right to give something away that they lost. As for terrorist claims - I think you need to polish up on the term. Israel never intentionally targeted civilians while Hammas targets ONLY civilians and moreover uses civilians as human shields when Israel responds to rocket attacks If the owners have no issue with Palestine taking the land then that is a matter for them. It is not for Israel to decide who the owners should give their land to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuffki Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Well even accepting your hypothetical, land was won fair and square from original owners in a very unfair fight. So really in fact Palestine has no right even trying to claim it. Original owners do not ask for it. Palestine can always make an offer to buy it rather then demand it. Original owners do not have the right to give something away that they lost. As for terrorist claims - I think you need to polish up on the term. Israel never intentionally targeted civilians while Hammas targets ONLY civilians and moreover uses civilians as human shields when Israel responds to rocket attacks If the owners have no issue with Palestine taking the land then that is a matter for them. It is not for Israel to decide who the owners should give their land to. Land DOES NOT belong to Palestine. Land was lost during the War which was started by the original owners of the land. It is up to Israel to decide in a nutshell, because it was Israel that was attacked and it was Israel who won the war. As for the latest settlements, yes perhaps that was wrong, but once again Israel is home to 1 000 000 arabs, people need to live somewhere.Not to mention Jerusalem WILL NEVER be the capital of Palestine and the sooner they accept it the better it will be for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The Land does not belong to Israel. Does the US have a right to own the land in Iraq and Afghanistan just because it won? (I use the term 'won' very loosely in this instance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuffki Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The Land does not belong to Israel. Does the US have a right to own the land in Iraq and Afghanistan just because it won? (I use the term 'won' very loosely in this instance). Iraq and Afghanistan did not attack US on US soil. Original owners have the right to claim or ask for the land back, certainly not the 3rd party. However original owners do not really want to have anything to do with Palestine. Jordan has had the pleasure and would rather give up the land then deal with them. You like it or do not like it, but it is as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) So the US can own Japan can it? Hey, as the Japanese bombed us in OZ we should put in a claim over Japan as well. We have every right to do so. I'm sure the world will be happy for us to do so. Simply put, the land does not belong to Israel and they have no right to decide who it should or shouldn't go to. In my view I can see what they are doing with settlements, they build more and more, then they will offer a percentage back and claim it is their goodwill to do so. Then they will say the opposition are not being genunine when it is rejected. Then the calls will come out that Palestine have rejected every offer etc etc. Palestine are hardly saints in the whole affair but some on this forum consider Israel to be above reproach in everything they do. (not directed at you Kuffki) Edited March 7, 2011 by Wallaby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuffki Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 So the US can own Japan can it? Hey, as the Japanese bombed us in OZ we should put in a claim over Japan as well. We have every right to do so. I'm sure the world will be happy for us to do so. Simply put, the land does not belong to Israel and they have no right to decide who it should or shouldn't go to. In my view I can see what they are doing with settlements, they build more and more, then they will offer a percentage back and claim it is their goodwill to do so. Then they will say the opposition are not being genunine when it is rejected. Then the calls will come out that Palestine have rejected every offer etc etc. Palestine are hardly saints in the whole affair but some on this forum consider Israel to be above reproach in everything they do. (not directed at you Kuffki) Japan did not land on Oz soil and Oz did not push Japan back to their soil. Again for the 3rd time, Japan attacked US, US fought back, US did not go to Japan, if US did and did take some land, it would of been US land and then Japan could argue to get the land back. Certainly say for example, China could not come in and claim that land. Settlements are in East Jerusalem which is mainly Arab populated area. Jerusalem will never be given to Palestine, so there is no hidden agenda. No one is saying Israel is a saint, however to claim historically incorrect facts does not help the issue. Again Palestine can ask and negotiate for the land, they certainly do not have any right or claim to DEMAND it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakboong Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 UN resolution 242 is the current international law regarding resolution and any hopes for some kind of peace. Israel has accepted it in general principle but the rejection in the late 60s by the then PLO remains many Arab's position and is an impediment that must be resolved. In defense of Israel, they have expressed a willingness to negotiate with each Arab nation within the spirit of the resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 So the US can own Japan can it? Hey, as the Japanese bombed us in OZ we should put in a claim over Japan as well. We have every right to do so. I'm sure the world will be happy for us to do so. Simply put, the land does not belong to Israel and they have no right to decide who it should or shouldn't go to. In my view I can see what they are doing with settlements, they build more and more, then they will offer a percentage back and claim it is their goodwill to do so. Then they will say the opposition are not being genunine when it is rejected. Then the calls will come out that Palestine have rejected every offer etc etc. Palestine are hardly saints in the whole affair but some on this forum consider Israel to be above reproach in everything they do. (not directed at you Kuffki) Japan did not land on Oz soil and Oz did not push Japan back to their soil. Again for the 3rd time, Japan attacked US, US fought back, US did not go to Japan, if US did and did take some land, it would of been US land and then Japan could argue to get the land back. Certainly say for example, China could not come in and claim that land. Settlements are in East Jerusalem which is mainly Arab populated area. Jerusalem will never be given to Palestine, so there is no hidden agenda. No one is saying Israel is a saint, however to claim historically incorrect facts does not help the issue. Again Palestine can ask and negotiate for the land, they certainly do not have any right or claim to DEMAND it. I expect Kuwait to lay claim over Iraq then. The land does not belong to Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuffki Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) So the US can own Japan can it? Hey, as the Japanese bombed us in OZ we should put in a claim over Japan as well. We have every right to do so. I'm sure the world will be happy for us to do so. Simply put, the land does not belong to Israel and they have no right to decide who it should or shouldn't go to. In my view I can see what they are doing with settlements, they build more and more, then they will offer a percentage back and claim it is their goodwill to do so. Then they will say the opposition are not being genunine when it is rejected. Then the calls will come out that Palestine have rejected every offer etc etc. Palestine are hardly saints in the whole affair but some on this forum consider Israel to be above reproach in everything they do. (not directed at you Kuffki) Japan did not land on Oz soil and Oz did not push Japan back to their soil. Again for the 3rd time, Japan attacked US, US fought back, US did not go to Japan, if US did and did take some land, it would of been US land and then Japan could argue to get the land back. Certainly say for example, China could not come in and claim that land. Settlements are in East Jerusalem which is mainly Arab populated area. Jerusalem will never be given to Palestine, so there is no hidden agenda. No one is saying Israel is a saint, however to claim historically incorrect facts does not help the issue. Again Palestine can ask and negotiate for the land, they certainly do not have any right or claim to DEMAND it. I expect Kuwait to lay claim over Iraq then. The land does not belong to Israel. HUH? Kuwait did not push Iraq back, USA did! Kuwait was occupied in the matter of hours and if it was not for USA, Kuwait would of been a suburb of Iraq. Common, if you want to continue the debate please get your FACTS right. PS. You also starting to sound like a broken record. I have explained it for you in more ways then one, still not register, others have explained it for you-still not register. Edited March 7, 2011 by kuffki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now