Is it wrong to be anti-Semitic?

[citizenal]

does anyone out there know who the "ELITES" are-----there are a few people who post on this board who USE this term-----but they do not explain it or identify any of the "elites"

Irosie91:

The elites are the old line banking families who own the world's central banking systems; the leading family being the family that played the lead role in creation of the state of Israel; the Rothschild's. The central banking system has allowed these families to siphon off the wealth of nations and corrupt all the institutions of our society. The reason these people are so powerful and "elite" is that their vast wealth allows them to own and control governments. In truth these people are not elite, but instead are the worlds most sophisticated crime syndicate; an untouchable crime syndicate because they have made their crimes legal through legislative acts.

 

[citizenal]

If anyone wants to know more about how the Elites steal the wealth of nations, go to an read my article, "The Trap of Debt Economics" on 'Wakeup World.com". A link to this article follows:

The Trap of Debt Economics

 

[Shusha]

...in order to understand what they did to bring us to where we are today, it is necessary to discuss the people whose ideologies played a key role in bringing about these events.

Well, no, it isn't necessary to discuss the people. Discuss the ideologies.

When I do this, I am attacked because the hate I have for what has and is happening to is shifted to the people who harbor the ideologies involved...

You are attacked because you use broad descriptors like 'modern Jews' to lay blame instead of discussing problematic ideologies. Try discussing an ideology instead of a group of people.

Like this:

Jewish national self-determination is problematic because (fill in the blank).

 

[citizenal]

You are attacked because you use broad descriptors like 'modern Jews' to lay blame instead of discussing problematic ideologies. Try discussing an ideology instead of a group of people.

Like this:

Jewish national self-determination is problematic because (fill in the blank).

Okay, I give it a try!

Jewish national self-determination is problematic because (it brought about the death of 50 million people in two world wars, it brought about the perversion of Christianity so that Christianity supports war and oppression, it has contributed to the demise of the government bequeathed us by the Founders, it has brought about a perpetual war on terror, and it has brought about the demise of the rule of law among nations).

Let's see how that works.

 

[Shusha]

You are attacked because you use broad descriptors like 'modern Jews' to lay blame instead of discussing problematic ideologies. Try discussing an ideology instead of a group of people.

Like this:

Jewish national self-determination is problematic because (fill in the blank).

Okay, I give it a try!

Jewish national self-determination is problematic because (it brought about the death of 50 million people in two world wars, it brought about the perversion of Christianity so that Christianity supports war and oppression, it has contributed to the demise of the government bequeathed us by the Founders, it has brought about a perpetual war on terror, and it has brought about the demise of the rule of law among nations).

Let's see how that works.

Well, now you have to prove your case. There is a lot here to work with so let's just narrow it down somewhat and tackle one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how Jewish national self-determination is the CAUSE of the war on terror, let alone a perpetual one.

Do you claim there would be no terror if the Jewish people didn't want or seek national self-determination? Do you claim that the cause of terrorist attacks is Jewish national self-determination? Do you believe that national self-determination is a human right? Do you claim that the Jewish people should refrain from exercising their human rights in order to avoid terrorist response? Do you claim that ISIS and Boko Haram, and all attacks which are committed by them, are a direct result of Jewish national self-determination?

 

[irosie91]

You are attacked because you use broad descriptors like 'modern Jews' to lay blame instead of discussing problematic ideologies. Try discussing an ideology instead of a group of people.

Like this:

Jewish national self-determination is problematic because (fill in the blank).

Okay, I give it a try!

Jewish national self-determination is problematic because (it brought about the death of 50 million people in two world wars, it brought about the perversion of Christianity so that Christianity supports war and oppression, it has contributed to the demise of the government bequeathed us by the Founders, it has brought about a perpetual war on terror, and it has brought about the demise of the rule of law among nations).

Let's see how that works.

quetiapine might help----but only a little

 

[Agit8r]

Of course it is wrong to racist against semitic peoples.

 

[citizenal]

You are attacked because you use broad descriptors like 'modern Jews' to lay blame instead of discussing problematic ideologies. Try discussing an ideology instead of a group of people.

Like this:

Jewish national self-determination is problematic because (fill in the blank).

Okay, I give it a try!

Jewish national self-determination is problematic because (it brought about the death of 50 million people in two world wars, it brought about the perversion of Christianity so that Christianity supports war and oppression, it has contributed to the demise of the government bequeathed us by the Founders, it has brought about a perpetual war on terror, and it has brought about the demise of the rule of law among nations).

Let's see how that works.

quetiapine might help----but only a little

I prefer 714's, but can't find them anymore. Haven't seen any good hashish lately either. Damn, the war on drugs sure is a drag. The only people who can get good drugs these days are the people fighting the war and they won't share. Just goes to show 'ya' how unjust the world is.

 

[citizenal]

[/QUOTE] Well, now you have to prove your case. There is a lot here to work with so let's just narrow it down somewhat and tackle one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how Jewish national self-determination is the CAUSE of the war on terror, let alone a perpetual one.

Do you claim there would be no terror if the Jewish people didn't want or seek national self-determination? Do you claim that the cause of terrorist attacks is Jewish national self-determination? Do you believe that national self-determination is a human right? Do you claim that the Jewish people should refrain from exercising their human rights in order to avoid terrorist response? Do you claim that ISIS and Boko Haram, and all attacks which are committed by them, are a direct result of Jewish national self-determination?[/QUOTE]

I am glad you have asked me to prove my case. And you are right; we should take one thing at a time. And being right, why did you hit me with a multitude of questions after you told me this? Wouldn’t one question be more in keeping with your suggestion?

Okay, let’s cut through the bullshit! But to do this, I have to take charge because I am the one doing the proving. Toward this end, I hope all the other posters to this thread will refrain from disparagement and name calling and instead; confine there comments to the issues being discussed. How unique! A discussion board where something is actually being discussed! We are threading on historic ground here.

Before proceeding, there is one clarification which need to addressed and this is whether national self-determination is a human right. The answer to this question is yes and no! Clearly, if a group of people occupying a piece of real estate want to declare themselves a nation, they have every right to do so. However, whether they succeed in doing so is entirely another matter. For example, in our Civil War the South wanted to exercise their right of self-determination and the North said no because the North wanted to preserve the union and also thought a nation based on slavery was wrong. Who was right? If you were black and from the North the North was right and this became right because the North won the Civil War.

The point is that National Determination is only a right dependent upon the rights of the winners and losers in what is being determined. In the case of the state of Israel, the Jews have every right to have a nation of their own. However, the Palestinians would dispute this right because the nation we are talking about was created from land taken from them. Who is right? As an American, I subscribe to self-determination, but what I do not subscribe to is what we did to the Indians and what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians. As an American, I also do not subscribe to the creation religious states which by their nature are the very well-spring of tyranny. I respect Judaism as a religion, but I do not respect Judaism as a system of government because I do not respect any religion as a system of government. They are all exclusionary and evil by nature.

But this is not what I want to discuss. In order to proceed properly, we must begin at the beginning; the beginning of the State of Israel.

****************************************************

After being rescued from bondage in Egypt, their God promised to the Jews the land which is now called Israel. The occupied this promise land for a time, but sinned against God and as punishment, God banished the Jews from his ‘promised land’ and dispersed them throughout the other nations of the world until He (God) once again called them back together again as one people.

This is what I believe to be true. Are we in agreement? If not, where do we disagree and why?

(Please note that we should reach common ground here before proceeding and hopefully, all the other assholes who normally respond with disparagement will be able to control themselves and stick to discussing the issues and refrain from exchanges aimed at deciding who is the biggest asshole)

 

[Shusha]

r
I am glad you have asked me to prove my case. And you are right; we should take one thing at a time. And being right, why did you hit me with a multitude of questions after you told me this? Wouldn’t one question be more in keeping with your suggestion?

Okay, let’s cut through the bullshit! But to do this, I have to take charge because I am the one doing the proving. Toward this end, I hope all the other posters to this thread will refrain from disparagement and name calling and instead; confine there comments to the issues being discussed. How unique! A discussion board where something is actually being discussed! We are threading on historic ground here.

Before proceeding, there is one clarification which need to addressed and this is whether national self-determination is a human right. The answer to this question is yes and no! Clearly, if a group of people occupying a piece of real estate want to declare themselves a nation, they have every right to do so. However, whether they succeed in doing so is entirely another matter. For example, in our Civil War the South wanted to exercise their right of self-determination and the North said no because the North wanted to preserve the union and also thought a nation based on slavery was wrong. Who was right? If you were black and from the North the North was right and this became right because the North won the Civil War.

The point is that National Determination is only a right dependent upon the rights of the winners and losers in what is being determined. In the case of the state of Israel, the Jews have every right to have a nation of their own. However, the Palestinians would dispute this right because the nation we are talking about was created from land taken from them. Who is right? As an American, I subscribe to self-determination, but what I do not subscribe to is what we did to the Indians and what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians. As an American, I also do not subscribe to the creation religious states which by their nature are the very well-spring of tyranny. I respect Judaism as a religion, but I do not respect Judaism as a system of government because I do not respect any religion as a system of government. They are all exclusionary and evil by nature.

But this is not what I want to discuss. In order to proceed properly, we must begin at the beginning; the beginning of the State of Israel.

****************************************************

After being rescued from bondage in Egypt, their God promised to the Jews the land which is now called Israel. The occupied this promise land for a time, but sinned against God and as punishment, God banished the Jews from his ‘promised land’ and dispersed them throughout the other nations of the world until He (God) once again called them back together again as one people.

This is what I believe to be true. Are we in agreement? If not, where do we disagree and why?

(Please note that we should reach common ground here before proceeding and hopefully, all the other assholes who normally respond with disparagement will be able to control themselves and stick to discussing the issues and refrain from exchanges aimed at deciding who is the biggest asshole)

I believe that self-determination is an inherent human right for all cultural groups who desire it and that all groups should be accommodated in a fair and equitable manner.

I do not believe that religious doctrine should be the basis for for national self-determination of any cultural group.

 

[Boston1]

The word “anti” means opposed to. Therefore, generally speaking being anti-Semitic means a person who is opposed to Jews. However, as used today, being anti-Semitic is something far worse than just being opposed to Judaism. To be sure, today the implication of the word is that an anti-Semite is an irrational Jew hater, to such a degree, they believe the Holocaust was a justifiable way of dealing with Jews. Clearly, most anti-Semites do not believe Jews should be cleansed from the world and this being the case, one must ask, short of the obvious depravity of the idea just addressed, are there valid reasons for Christians or anyone for that matter, to be anti-Semitic?

Judaism, the religion, is far older than Christianity. Its early holy book is the Torah which in many passages heralded the coming of the Messiah. In keeping with this prophesy, Jesus Christ was born and many Jews rightfully accepted Christ as the Messiah. However, many did not because of His message of brotherhood and love among men, instead of religion where its followers were superior to everyone else. The Pharisees rejected Jesus because they sought a warrior Messiah, who would free them from Roman rule and set up hierarchal kingdom on earth where Jesus would be King and they would be his ministers. For these reasons, with the Pharisees taking the lead, Jesus was declared a heretic and the Jews petitioned Rome to put Him to death. This the Romans did even though they could find no fault with Jesus. Thus, early Jews became anti-Christ and bear direct responsibility for His murder.

Seventy years after the death of Jesus, the Pharisees having problems with reconciling prophesies of the Torah with the ministry of Jesus, decided that the Torah would no longer be their holiest book and they would write the book which ruled the religious life of Jews. This book they called the Talmud, established a new Jewish religion which raised anti-Christianity a level bordering on insanity. Not only was Jesus portrayed as a Shaman, liar, and practitioner of black magic, he was also condemned to be in hell boiling in a cauldron of excrement. In addition to these abominations, the Jews, still believing they were God’s chosen people, were allowed to lie to, cheat, and even murder Christians and other non-Jews. In other words, the Talmud not only made the Jews anti-Christian, it also made them anti-Humanity. And it is practicing these beliefs over the past 2,000 years, which has resulted in expulsion of the Jews from a plethora of the nations of the world.

Now we come to modern times and in light of their abominable history, Jewish leaders decided the Jews must have a nation of their own. For the purpose of gaining control of the oil in the Middle East, the Rothschild’s picked up the banner of Zionism and by engineering Americas entry into WWI on the wrong side, embroiling the world in WWII, resulting in the early and horrible death of over 50 million people, the Jews established the nation of Israel on top of the corpses of these unfortunate and innocent people. And now the Jews have engaged the United States in wars to enslave the nations of Islam. Toward this end, our government, the government bequeathed us by the Founding Fathers, has been destroyed. Even worse, Christianity has been rendered a Godless and hateful religion which condones theft, murder, and war crimes.

Let’s add it up!

Modern Jews (not Torah Jews) are anti-Christ, anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Muslim, anti-humanity, anti-truth, anti-justice, and anti-love. And if a Christian speaks out of against these things, they are hatefully label ed as being anti-Semitic. A Christian cannot hate anyone including Jews, but a Christian also has the obligation to speak out against evil in whatever form it takes. This being the case being called and anti-Semite, in light of what is happening in the world, is the greatest compliment one can bestow upon a Christian.

Nonsense.

 

[irosie91]

Well, now you have to prove your case. There is a lot here to work with so let's just narrow it down somewhat and tackle one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how Jewish national self-determination is the CAUSE of the war on terror, let alone a perpetual one.

Do you claim there would be no terror if the Jewish people didn't want or seek national self-determination? Do you claim that the cause of terrorist attacks is Jewish national self-determination? Do you believe that national self-determination is a human right? Do you claim that the Jewish people should refrain from exercising their human rights in order to avoid terrorist response? Do you claim that ISIS and Boko Haram, and all attacks which are committed by them, are a direct result of Jewish national self-determination?[/QUOTE]

I am glad you have asked me to prove my case. And you are right; we should take one thing at a time. And being right, why did you hit me with a multitude of questions after you told me this? Wouldn’t one question be more in keeping with your suggestion?

Okay, let’s cut through the bullshit! But to do this, I have to take charge because I am the one doing the proving. Toward this end, I hope all the other posters to this thread will refrain from disparagement and name calling and instead; confine there comments to the issues being discussed. How unique! A discussion board where something is actually being discussed! We are threading on historic ground here.

Before proceeding, there is one clarification which need to addressed and this is whether national self-determination is a human right. The answer to this question is yes and no! Clearly, if a group of people occupying a piece of real estate want to declare themselves a nation, they have every right to do so. However, whether they succeed in doing so is entirely another matter. For example, in our Civil War the South wanted to exercise their right of self-determination and the North said no because the North wanted to preserve the union and also thought a nation based on slavery was wrong. Who was right? If you were black and from the North the North was right and this became right because the North won the Civil War.

The point is that National Determination is only a right dependent upon the rights of the winners and losers in what is being determined. In the case of the state of Israel, the Jews have every right to have a nation of their own. However, the Palestinians would dispute this right because the nation we are talking about was created from land taken from them. Who is right? As an American, I subscribe to self-determination, but what I do not subscribe to is what we did to the Indians and what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians. As an American, I also do not subscribe to the creation religious states which by their nature are the very well-spring of tyranny. I respect Judaism as a religion, but I do not respect Judaism as a system of government because I do not respect any religion as a system of government. They are all exclusionary and evil by nature.

But this is not what I want to discuss. In order to proceed properly, we must begin at the beginning; the beginning of the State of Israel.

***************************************************

When is "the beginning of the state of Israel"? why "begin" there-----recorded
history is a LOT longer and there are lots and lots of nations that had a "beginning"

 

[citizenal]

r
I am glad you have asked me to prove my case. And you are right; we should take one thing at a time. And being right, why did you hit me with a multitude of questions after you told me this? Wouldn’t one question be more in keeping with your suggestion?

Okay, let’s cut through the bullshit! But to do this, I have to take charge because I am the one doing the proving. Toward this end, I hope all the other posters to this thread will refrain from disparagement and name calling and instead; confine there comments to the issues being discussed. How unique! A discussion board where something is actually being discussed! We are threading on historic ground here.

Before proceeding, there is one clarification which need to addressed and this is whether national self-determination is a human right. The answer to this question is yes and no! Clearly, if a group of people occupying a piece of real estate want to declare themselves a nation, they have every right to do so. However, whether they succeed in doing so is entirely another matter. For example, in our Civil War the South wanted to exercise their right of self-determination and the North said no because the North wanted to preserve the union and also thought a nation based on slavery was wrong. Who was right? If you were black and from the North the North was right and this became right because the North won the Civil War.

The point is that National Determination is only a right dependent upon the rights of the winners and losers in what is being determined. In the case of the state of Israel, the Jews have every right to have a nation of their own. However, the Palestinians would dispute this right because the nation we are talking about was created from land taken from them. Who is right? As an American, I subscribe to self-determination, but what I do not subscribe to is what we did to the Indians and what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians. As an American, I also do not subscribe to the creation religious states which by their nature are the very well-spring of tyranny. I respect Judaism as a religion, but I do not respect Judaism as a system of government because I do not respect any religion as a system of government. They are all exclusionary and evil by nature.

But this is not what I want to discuss. In order to proceed properly, we must begin at the beginning; the beginning of the State of Israel.

****************************************************

After being rescued from bondage in Egypt, their God promised to the Jews the land which is now called Israel. The occupied this promise land for a time, but sinned against God and as punishment, God banished the Jews from his ‘promised land’ and dispersed them throughout the other nations of the world until He (God) once again called them back together again as one people.

This is what I believe to be true. Are we in agreement? If not, where do we disagree and why?

(Please note that we should reach common ground here before proceeding and hopefully, all the other assholes who normally respond with disparagement will be able to control themselves and stick to discussing the issues and refrain from exchanges aimed at deciding who is the biggest asshole)

I believe that self-determination is an inherent human right for all cultural groups who desire it and that all groups should be accommodated in a fair and equitable manner.

I do not believe that religious doctrine should be the basis for for national self-determination of any cultural group.

As far as our discussion on self-determination goes, I think we are in agreement. With change, there are always winners and losers. Also, each particular situation has it own set of particulars and issues. Good or bad is in the eye of the beholder. However, religious doctrine as a basis of a government's constitution or civil law, the very essence of tyranny and is inherently evil.

The question I now have for you is why did you stop here? From my perspective the discussion on self-determination was a side issue and not and important one. The important issue I wanted your input on was whether or not the Jews have a religious claim to Palestine as they claim and so many non-Jews believe. From my perspective, this is an important aspect of this situation because it is used to justify Jews taking (stealing) Palestinian homes and land. Where do you stand on this issue?

Just to keep the ball rolling and because you asked, I will now address how Israel's exercising their of right of self-determination has led to a perpetual war on terror. First of all, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, the world, the Middle East was, for the most part, at peace with the world. There were no young Arab men and women walking into crowds of people and blowing themselves us with everybody else. Then along came Israel and most Arab nations and people were opposed to the establishment of the state of Israel for two reasons; they resented what they considered to be a foreign people seizing Arab lands and they were sympathetic to the Palestinian who bore the brunt of Israel's incursion into Palestine. As a result of this, the Arabs began gear up for war with Israel. Many skirmishes and minor battles occurred, and they led up to the Six Day War in 1967, where open warfare broke out between Israel and a coalition of Arab nations. Unbeknown at the time, the United States was a secret ally of Israel during the Six Day War and conspired with Israel to sink and American spy ship, the USS Liberty with all hands, as a false flag pretext for vaporizing Cairo with nuclear bombs. All of this was not lost upon the Arab peoples and the lesson they learned was that defeating and deposing Israel in a conventional war was impossible because of the proficiency of the Israel war machine but also because fighting and defeating Israel meant fighting and defeating their allies; the United States and a coalition of other Western nations. Unable to meet this challenge or unable to accept this status quo, the Arab people opted to launch individual small attacks against the Western World and Western interest, in the hope of somehow gaining advantage in an untenable situation. These attacks were dubbed terrorism by the western world and to stop them, the war on terror was launched.

The Crusades were fought over possession of the holy land and went on for approximately 600 years. If something goes on for 600 years, I think the world "perpetual" is a good way of describing the situation. By grabbing Palestine, a good case can be made that this wrongful action re-kindled the Crusades. This being true, a good case can be made that we can look forward to 600 more years of fighting with the Arab world; thus I feel justified in using the phrase "perpetual war on terror".

 

[citizenal]

When is "the beginning of the state of Israel"? why "begin" there-----recorded
history is a LOT longer and there are lots and lots of nations that had a "beginning"

Irosie91

"The beginning of the state of Israel" is 1947; the year it officially came into existence. The movement to establish the State of Israel, began around the turn of the previous century. To speak of any beginnings prior to 1900 is not realistic or worthy of attention.

 

[irosie91]

When is "the beginning of the state of Israel"? why "begin" there-----recorded
history is a LOT longer and there are lots and lots of nations that had a "beginning"

Irosie91

"The beginning of the state of Israel" is 1947; the year it officially came into existence. The movement to establish the State of Israel, began around the turn of the previous century. To speak of any beginnings prior to 1900 is not realistic or worthy of attention.

to speak of your "knowledge" of history is not realistic or worthy of attention.
Are you aware of the fact that the MAJOR CITY of MODERN Israel---TEL AVIV
HAPPENED in 1910? -------and that the very important city (important because I have charter member relatives in that city "rishon l'tzion" was founded in
1882? Hebron------which, historically was the first capital of Israel/Judea----
was RE PURCHASED in the early 1800s. By Mid 1800s there was a Jewish
University and lots of Jewish hospitals------and an actual jewish government in
the land then CALLED "PALESTINE"------and the only people called
"Palestinians" ---for ---almost the entire 2000 years before 1947----were
JEWS? --------to claim that "Israel" the state -----"stated" at the beginning
of the 20th century is IDIOTIC

 

[citizenal]

When is "the beginning of the state of Israel"? why "begin" there-----recorded
history is a LOT longer and there are lots and lots of nations that had a "beginning"

Irosie91

"The beginning of the state of Israel" is 1947; the year it officially came into existence. The movement to establish the State of Israel, began around the turn of the previous century. To speak of any beginnings prior to 1900 is not realistic or worthy of attention.

to speak of your "knowledge" of history is not realistic or worthy of attention.
Are you aware of the fact that the MAJOR CITY of MODERN Israel---TEL AVIV
HAPPENED in 1910? -------and that the very important city (important because I have charter member relatives in that city "rishon l'tzion" was founded in
1882? Hebron------which, historically was the first capital of Israel/Judea----
was RE PURCHASED in the early 1800s. By Mid 1800s there was a Jewish
University and lots of Jewish hospitals------and an actual jewish government in
the land then CALLED "PALESTINE"------and the only people called
"Palestinians" ---for ---almost the entire 2000 years before 1947----were
JEWS? --------to claim that "Israel" the state -----"stated" at the beginning
of the 20th century is IDIOTIC

I stand by my statements, which are true irrespective of what you have said. Can you back up your statements with proof and references.

I thought it was understood that we would refrain from disparagement in this discussion. Calling someone's statement idiotic is disparagement because it implies that the one making the statement is an idiot. Please govern yourself accordingly in the future.

 

[irosie91]

When is "the beginning of the state of Israel"? why "begin" there-----recorded
history is a LOT longer and there are lots and lots of nations that had a "beginning"

Irosie91

"The beginning of the state of Israel" is 1947; the year it officially came into existence. The movement to establish the State of Israel, began around the turn of the previous century. To speak of any beginnings prior to 1900 is not realistic or worthy of attention.

to speak of your "knowledge" of history is not realistic or worthy of attention.
Are you aware of the fact that the MAJOR CITY of MODERN Israel---TEL AVIV
HAPPENED in 1910? -------and that the very important city (important because I have charter member relatives in that city "rishon l'tzion" was founded in
1882? Hebron------which, historically was the first capital of Israel/Judea----
was RE PURCHASED in the early 1800s. By Mid 1800s there was a Jewish
University and lots of Jewish hospitals------and an actual jewish government in
the land then CALLED "PALESTINE"------and the only people called
"Palestinians" ---for ---almost the entire 2000 years before 1947----were
JEWS? --------to claim that "Israel" the state -----"stated" at the beginning
of the 20th century is IDIOTIC

I stand by my statements, which are true irrespective of what you have said. Can you back up your statements with proof and references.

I thought it was understood that we would refrain from disparagement in this discussion. Calling someone's statement idiotic is disparagement because it implies that the one making the statement is an idiot. Please govern yourself accordingly in the future.

I referred to your statement that the HISTORY OF ISRAEL "BEGINS" at the beginning of the 20th century because IT IS idiotic-------and I cited a few reasons.
My statements can be EASILY VERIFIED ON A SIMPLE COMPUTER SEARCH---
I will not humor you by hunting up links to commonly known FACTS. Another source for the "beginning of Israel"-----is old travel periodicals and even
medical journals. --------it is an INTERESTING HISTORY for anyone interested
in public health and tropical medicine--------probably of no interest to you.

 

[Shusha]

The important issue I wanted your input on was whether or not the Jews have a religious claim to Palestine as they claim and so many non-Jews believe. From my perspective, this is an important aspect of this situation because it is used to justify Jews taking (stealing) Palestinian homes and land. Where do you stand on this issue?

I thought I was clear. Any religion's theology should have no bearing on politics. Its immaterial and irrelevant to our discussion because national self-determination must not be based on any culture's religious myths. Those myths do not carry the weight of law and they should not. (That is my personal opinion, not everyone agrees with me).

My position on the rest is that since the Jewish people ALSO had a valid claim to national territory in their historical homeland after the break up of the Ottoman Empire -- there was no theft. The territory belonged to the Jewish people, by right of their sovereign claim to re-constitute their National Homeland, granted and formed through the legal instruments and procedures of the time. The rights of the Jewish people are no different than the rights of the Jordanians (Arab Palestinians), Syrians, Iraqis and Lebanese -- all of whom gained sovereignty through the same process.

 

[Shusha]

I will now address how Israel's exercising their of right of self-determination has led to a perpetual war on terror. First of all, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, the world, the Middle East was, for the most part, at peace with the world.

But here you are making the assumption that had the Jewish people not wanted national self-determination that it would have stayed that way. I find your argument lacking. Its a convenient scapegoat -- but what makes you think that the ME nations would not push back against the "western world" or would not have internal conflicts (Syria, Egypt, as examples) had it not been for the Jews?

There were no young Arab men and women walking into crowds of people and blowing themselves us with everybody else.

This is victim blaming. You are essentially saying, "Jews made Arab men and women act violently and poorly". Its like an abusive husband saying that he is really a calm, peaceful guy and he can't help it if his wife "made" him hit her because dinner was late and she should know better.

The Arab Muslim Palestinians choose violence. They don't have to make that choice. And one of the root causes of the conflict is the Arab Muslim Palestinian unwillingness to accept responsibility for their own behaviour.

 

[Syriusly]

.

I accurately accuse you. You continue to be a bigot who blames Jesus for your bigotry. Still waiting for you to provide a single congregation of any Synogogue in the United States that doesn't meet your definition of 'Modern Jew" and that is not 'anit-humanity'[/QUOTE]


Next, you challenge me to name a congregation that doesn't meet my definition of 'modern Jew'. How can you make this challenge when I have not provided you or any one else with my definition for 'modern Jews'. If you do not know what this definition is, how can you issue a challenge about what you do not know?[/QUOTE]

Well maybe it is time for you to tell us about your 'definition' of 'Modern Jew'- since by definition modern relates to the present- not the past.

Who are these 'modern Jews' that you condemn as being anti-humanity?

You say you cannot identify any synogogue because you don't know what people think- but is there any congregation- any rabbi- that teaches a form of Judaism that you do not condemn?