All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss 2

[Sixties Fan]

Tutu alleged, for example, that Israeli Jews “dominate over Palestinians.” A United Church of Christ meeting in Cleveland in 2015 cited the archbishop in support of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) resolution aimed at companies doing business in and products from what it mistakenly labeled “Palestinian territories” and “illegal” Israeli settlements. Tutu wrote:

“We grieve over Israel’s decades long oppression of Palestine [Sic.] and Palestinians: The illegal occupation…the separation wall…the network of checkpoints and settler bypass roads… [the] disruption of every aspect of daily life for Palestinians” (“UCC Action Seeking Peace Between Israel and Palestine,” Huffingtonpost.com, July 9, 2015).

In fact, Palestinian leadership has refused Israeli and U.S. offers of an independent West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem country, in exchange for peace with Israel as a Jewish state, four times since 2000. If Israeli Jews dominate Palestinian Arabs, as Tutu has it, the latter have chosen repeatedly not to end such a condition if the price is peace.

Also wrong on the law

Also contrary to Tutu, “the occupation” is not illegal but obligatory, the result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 Yom Kippur War. Israel’s legal presence in the West Bank continues pending a peace agreement according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim accord and related pacts.

Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), contrary to Tutu, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other newsmakers, are not only legal but also encouraged or anticipated under international law. The League of Nations (later United Nations) Palestine Mandate, Article 6; San Remo Treaty, 1920; Anglo-American Convention, 1924; and U.N. Charter, Chapter 12, Article 80 all support this status.

As for the archbishop’s “apartheid Israel” allegation, Rev. Kenneth Rasalabe Joseph Meshoe, a member of South Africa’s parliament and president of the African Christian Democratic Party, told Israel’s Channel 10 “there are many Christians that support Israel, but they don’t come out. … Those who know what real apartheid is, as I know, know there is nothing in Israel that looks like apartheid.”

(full article online)

Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Tarnish Desmond Tutu's Nobel Peace Prize

When Archbishop Desmond Tutu's in the news, his Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned. His anti-Zionism and antisemitism usually are not. Such omissions paint a

www.camera.org

Overview
Israel continued to impose institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians living under its rule in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). It displaced hundreds of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as a result of home demolitions and imposition of other coercive measures. Israeli forces continued to use excessive force during law enforcement activities in Israel and the OPT. Israeli forces killed 31 Palestinians, including nine children, in the OPT; many were unlawfully killed while posing no imminent threat to life. Israel maintained its illegal blockade on the Gaza Strip, subjecting its residents to collective punishment and deepening the humanitarian crisis there. It also continued to restrict freedom of movement of Palestinians in the OPT through checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli authorities arbitrarily detained in Israel thousands of Palestinians from the OPT, holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, were committed with impunity. The authorities used a range of measures to target human rights defenders, journalists and others who criticized Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights. Violence against women persisted, especially against Palestinian citizens of Israel. The authorities denied asylum-seekers access to a fair or prompt refugee status determination process. Conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned

Human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories

Stay up to date on the state of human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories with the latest research, campaigns and education material from Amnesty International.

www.amnesty.org

Sure, because Amnesty International is a very non biased organization towards Israel.

And always has been......non biased.......LOL

Here are your heroes:

Amnesty International: Failed Methodology, Corruption, and Anti-Israel Bias » ngomonitor

While Amnesty International may be considered the most prestigious international NGO, the organization is tainted by a number of scandals. In addition, systematic research shows that its publications contain systematic flaws, erroneous claims, and consistent bias against Israel.

www.ngo-monitor.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

Gil Troy talking about Jimmy carter
"In branding Israel with such an intemperate, counterproductive, dehumanizing label, the man who parades around as the world’s most charitable mediator has given a green light to Palestinian terrorism and extremism"

3 Posts in a row, not one response. More like "memorex"

Whining

And......another Memorex moment

More whining

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

Some are not. Most are?

You cannot answer my post. As usual.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

Gil Troy talking about Jimmy carter
"In branding Israel with such an intemperate, counterproductive, dehumanizing label, the man who parades around as the world’s most charitable mediator has given a green light to Palestinian terrorism and extremism"

3 Posts in a row, not one response. More like "memorex"

Whining

And......another Memorex moment

More whining

You are seeing yourself in the mirror. Stop projecting

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Tutu alleged, for example, that Israeli Jews “dominate over Palestinians.” A United Church of Christ meeting in Cleveland in 2015 cited the archbishop in support of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) resolution aimed at companies doing business in and products from what it mistakenly labeled “Palestinian territories” and “illegal” Israeli settlements. Tutu wrote:

“We grieve over Israel’s decades long oppression of Palestine [Sic.] and Palestinians: The illegal occupation…the separation wall…the network of checkpoints and settler bypass roads… [the] disruption of every aspect of daily life for Palestinians” (“UCC Action Seeking Peace Between Israel and Palestine,” Huffingtonpost.com, July 9, 2015).

In fact, Palestinian leadership has refused Israeli and U.S. offers of an independent West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem country, in exchange for peace with Israel as a Jewish state, four times since 2000. If Israeli Jews dominate Palestinian Arabs, as Tutu has it, the latter have chosen repeatedly not to end such a condition if the price is peace.

Also wrong on the law

Also contrary to Tutu, “the occupation” is not illegal but obligatory, the result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 Yom Kippur War. Israel’s legal presence in the West Bank continues pending a peace agreement according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim accord and related pacts.

Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), contrary to Tutu, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other newsmakers, are not only legal but also encouraged or anticipated under international law. The League of Nations (later United Nations) Palestine Mandate, Article 6; San Remo Treaty, 1920; Anglo-American Convention, 1924; and U.N. Charter, Chapter 12, Article 80 all support this status.

As for the archbishop’s “apartheid Israel” allegation, Rev. Kenneth Rasalabe Joseph Meshoe, a member of South Africa’s parliament and president of the African Christian Democratic Party, told Israel’s Channel 10 “there are many Christians that support Israel, but they don’t come out. … Those who know what real apartheid is, as I know, know there is nothing in Israel that looks like apartheid.”

(full article online)

Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Tarnish Desmond Tutu's Nobel Peace Prize

When Archbishop Desmond Tutu's in the news, his Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned. His anti-Zionism and antisemitism usually are not. Such omissions paint a

www.camera.org

Overview
Israel continued to impose institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians living under its rule in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). It displaced hundreds of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as a result of home demolitions and imposition of other coercive measures. Israeli forces continued to use excessive force during law enforcement activities in Israel and the OPT. Israeli forces killed 31 Palestinians, including nine children, in the OPT; many were unlawfully killed while posing no imminent threat to life. Israel maintained its illegal blockade on the Gaza Strip, subjecting its residents to collective punishment and deepening the humanitarian crisis there. It also continued to restrict freedom of movement of Palestinians in the OPT through checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli authorities arbitrarily detained in Israel thousands of Palestinians from the OPT, holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, were committed with impunity. The authorities used a range of measures to target human rights defenders, journalists and others who criticized Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights. Violence against women persisted, especially against Palestinian citizens of Israel. The authorities denied asylum-seekers access to a fair or prompt refugee status determination process. Conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned

Human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories

Stay up to date on the state of human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories with the latest research, campaigns and education material from Amnesty International.

www.amnesty.org

Sure, because Amnesty International is a very non biased organization towards Israel.

And always has been......non biased.......LOL

Here are your heroes:

Amnesty International: Failed Methodology, Corruption, and Anti-Israel Bias » ngomonitor

While Amnesty International may be considered the most prestigious international NGO, the organization is tainted by a number of scandals. In addition, systematic research shows that its publications contain systematic flaws, erroneous claims, and consistent bias against Israel.

www.ngo-monitor.org

Address
10 Yad Harutzim St.
Jerusalem 9342148
Israel

Contact » ngomonitor

For media inquiries: [email protected] For the Research Team: [email protected] To book an event or presentation: [email protected] For donations and all other inquiries: [email protected]

www.ngo-monitor.org

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Tutu alleged, for example, that Israeli Jews “dominate over Palestinians.” A United Church of Christ meeting in Cleveland in 2015 cited the archbishop in support of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) resolution aimed at companies doing business in and products from what it mistakenly labeled “Palestinian territories” and “illegal” Israeli settlements. Tutu wrote:

“We grieve over Israel’s decades long oppression of Palestine [Sic.] and Palestinians: The illegal occupation…the separation wall…the network of checkpoints and settler bypass roads… [the] disruption of every aspect of daily life for Palestinians” (“UCC Action Seeking Peace Between Israel and Palestine,” Huffingtonpost.com, July 9, 2015).

In fact, Palestinian leadership has refused Israeli and U.S. offers of an independent West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem country, in exchange for peace with Israel as a Jewish state, four times since 2000. If Israeli Jews dominate Palestinian Arabs, as Tutu has it, the latter have chosen repeatedly not to end such a condition if the price is peace.

Also wrong on the law

Also contrary to Tutu, “the occupation” is not illegal but obligatory, the result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 Yom Kippur War. Israel’s legal presence in the West Bank continues pending a peace agreement according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim accord and related pacts.

Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), contrary to Tutu, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other newsmakers, are not only legal but also encouraged or anticipated under international law. The League of Nations (later United Nations) Palestine Mandate, Article 6; San Remo Treaty, 1920; Anglo-American Convention, 1924; and U.N. Charter, Chapter 12, Article 80 all support this status.

As for the archbishop’s “apartheid Israel” allegation, Rev. Kenneth Rasalabe Joseph Meshoe, a member of South Africa’s parliament and president of the African Christian Democratic Party, told Israel’s Channel 10 “there are many Christians that support Israel, but they don’t come out. … Those who know what real apartheid is, as I know, know there is nothing in Israel that looks like apartheid.”

(full article online)

Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Tarnish Desmond Tutu's Nobel Peace Prize

When Archbishop Desmond Tutu's in the news, his Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned. His anti-Zionism and antisemitism usually are not. Such omissions paint a

www.camera.org

Overview
Israel continued to impose institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians living under its rule in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). It displaced hundreds of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as a result of home demolitions and imposition of other coercive measures. Israeli forces continued to use excessive force during law enforcement activities in Israel and the OPT. Israeli forces killed 31 Palestinians, including nine children, in the OPT; many were unlawfully killed while posing no imminent threat to life. Israel maintained its illegal blockade on the Gaza Strip, subjecting its residents to collective punishment and deepening the humanitarian crisis there. It also continued to restrict freedom of movement of Palestinians in the OPT through checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli authorities arbitrarily detained in Israel thousands of Palestinians from the OPT, holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, were committed with impunity. The authorities used a range of measures to target human rights defenders, journalists and others who criticized Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights. Violence against women persisted, especially against Palestinian citizens of Israel. The authorities denied asylum-seekers access to a fair or prompt refugee status determination process. Conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned

Human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories

Stay up to date on the state of human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories with the latest research, campaigns and education material from Amnesty International.

www.amnesty.org

Sure, because Amnesty International is a very non biased organization towards Israel.

And always has been......non biased.......LOL

Here are your heroes:

Amnesty International: Failed Methodology, Corruption, and Anti-Israel Bias » ngomonitor

While Amnesty International may be considered the most prestigious international NGO, the organization is tainted by a number of scandals. In addition, systematic research shows that its publications contain systematic flaws, erroneous claims, and consistent bias against Israel.

www.ngo-monitor.org

Address
10 Yad Harutzim St.
Jerusalem 9342148
Israel

That is really answering my post.

NOT

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

Gil Troy talking about Jimmy carter
"In branding Israel with such an intemperate, counterproductive, dehumanizing label, the man who parades around as the world’s most charitable mediator has given a green light to Palestinian terrorism and extremism"

3 Posts in a row, not one response. More like "memorex"

Whining

And......another Memorex moment

More whining

You are seeing yourself in the mirror. Stop projecting

You don't see yourself

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Tutu alleged, for example, that Israeli Jews “dominate over Palestinians.” A United Church of Christ meeting in Cleveland in 2015 cited the archbishop in support of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) resolution aimed at companies doing business in and products from what it mistakenly labeled “Palestinian territories” and “illegal” Israeli settlements. Tutu wrote:

“We grieve over Israel’s decades long oppression of Palestine [Sic.] and Palestinians: The illegal occupation…the separation wall…the network of checkpoints and settler bypass roads… [the] disruption of every aspect of daily life for Palestinians” (“UCC Action Seeking Peace Between Israel and Palestine,” Huffingtonpost.com, July 9, 2015).

In fact, Palestinian leadership has refused Israeli and U.S. offers of an independent West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem country, in exchange for peace with Israel as a Jewish state, four times since 2000. If Israeli Jews dominate Palestinian Arabs, as Tutu has it, the latter have chosen repeatedly not to end such a condition if the price is peace.

Also wrong on the law

Also contrary to Tutu, “the occupation” is not illegal but obligatory, the result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War and 1973 Yom Kippur War. Israel’s legal presence in the West Bank continues pending a peace agreement according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim accord and related pacts.

Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), contrary to Tutu, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other newsmakers, are not only legal but also encouraged or anticipated under international law. The League of Nations (later United Nations) Palestine Mandate, Article 6; San Remo Treaty, 1920; Anglo-American Convention, 1924; and U.N. Charter, Chapter 12, Article 80 all support this status.

As for the archbishop’s “apartheid Israel” allegation, Rev. Kenneth Rasalabe Joseph Meshoe, a member of South Africa’s parliament and president of the African Christian Democratic Party, told Israel’s Channel 10 “there are many Christians that support Israel, but they don’t come out. … Those who know what real apartheid is, as I know, know there is nothing in Israel that looks like apartheid.”

(full article online)

Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism Tarnish Desmond Tutu's Nobel Peace Prize

When Archbishop Desmond Tutu's in the news, his Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned. His anti-Zionism and antisemitism usually are not. Such omissions paint a

www.camera.org

Overview
Israel continued to impose institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians living under its rule in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). It displaced hundreds of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as a result of home demolitions and imposition of other coercive measures. Israeli forces continued to use excessive force during law enforcement activities in Israel and the OPT. Israeli forces killed 31 Palestinians, including nine children, in the OPT; many were unlawfully killed while posing no imminent threat to life. Israel maintained its illegal blockade on the Gaza Strip, subjecting its residents to collective punishment and deepening the humanitarian crisis there. It also continued to restrict freedom of movement of Palestinians in the OPT through checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli authorities arbitrarily detained in Israel thousands of Palestinians from the OPT, holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, were committed with impunity. The authorities used a range of measures to target human rights defenders, journalists and others who criticized Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights. Violence against women persisted, especially against Palestinian citizens of Israel. The authorities denied asylum-seekers access to a fair or prompt refugee status determination process. Conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned

Human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories

Stay up to date on the state of human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories with the latest research, campaigns and education material from Amnesty International.

www.amnesty.org

Sure, because Amnesty International is a very non biased organization towards Israel.

And always has been......non biased.......LOL

Here are your heroes:

Amnesty International: Failed Methodology, Corruption, and Anti-Israel Bias » ngomonitor

While Amnesty International may be considered the most prestigious international NGO, the organization is tainted by a number of scandals. In addition, systematic research shows that its publications contain systematic flaws, erroneous claims, and consistent bias against Israel.

www.ngo-monitor.org

Hamas must end brutal crackdown against protesters in Gaza

Hundreds of protesters have been subjected to beatings, arbitrary arrest and detentions, and torture and other forms of ill-treatment since 14 March, when Palestinians took to the streets across the Gaza Strip.

www.amnesty.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

Gil Troy talking about Jimmy carter
"In branding Israel with such an intemperate, counterproductive, dehumanizing label, the man who parades around as the world’s most charitable mediator has given a green light to Palestinian terrorism and extremism"

3 Posts in a row, not one response. More like "memorex"

Whining

And......another Memorex moment

More whining

You are seeing yourself in the mirror. Stop projecting

I am ur mirror

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

You are the same as a Holocaust denier

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

"I am not seeing..."

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

Some are not. Most are?

You cannot answer my post. As usual.

You are using the ten commandments for toilet paper

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

Some are not. Most are?

You cannot answer my post. As usual.

You are using the ten commandments for toilet paper

Memorex

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

With regard to Morris’s denial that what occurred fits the definition of “ethnic cleansing”, Blatman quotes the prosecutor in the trial of Radovan Karadzic, a Bosnian-Serb leader convicted for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia:

In ethnic cleansing . . . you act in such a way that in a given territory, the members of a given ethnic group are eliminated. . . . You have massacres. Everybody is not massacred, but you have massacres in order to scare those populations. . . . Naturally, the other people are driven away. They are afraid . . . and, of course, in the end these people simply want to leave. . . . They are driven away either on their own initiative or they are deported. . . . Some women are raped and, furthermore, often times what you have is the destruction of the monuments which marked the presence of a given population . . . for instance, Catholic churches or mosques are destroyed

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

Included among the Haganah’s “mistakes” was an attack on December 18, 1947, on the village of Khisas. Carried out with the approval of Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (an elite unit within the Jewish army), Zionist forces invaded the village and indiscriminately murdered seven men, a woman, and four children. Morris describes this as a “reprisal” for the murder of a Jewish cart driver earlier that day, even though, as he superfluously notes, “None of the dead appear to have been involved in the death of the cart driver.”[21]

Another of the Haganah’s “mistakes” occurred on the night of January 5, 1948, when Zionist forces entered the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Katamon and bombed the Semiramis Hotel, killing twenty-six civilians, including a government official from Spain. “The explosion triggered the start of a ‘panic exodus’ from the prosperous Arab neighborhood.” The British were furious, and Ben-Gurion subsequently removed the officer responsible from command.[22]