Anti-Semitism still in the West?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11138
Printed Date: 12-May-2024 at 14:14
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Anti-Semitism still in the West?
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Subject: Anti-Semitism still in the West?
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 14:30
| In Europe, there is a surprising trend of Anti-semitism showing, especially in France where they seem to tolerate no religions now. I am ashamed how such leaders in the world can be so negative on such an old topic |
Replies:
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 14:37
|
Unfortunately anti-semiteism will not fade away...People always look for scapegoats,and The Jews are the best handy-scapegoats for many. In the 19.century the leader leader of German SPD(BEBEL) defined anti-semitism very well I think as follws: ''Anti-Semitism is the socialism of dumbs''. ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 16:08
|
I agree, anti-semitism will never go away, but in fairness it is greatly reduced compared to say the 1930's where it was rife all over europe. What i don't understand however is the existence of inherently racist political groups for example the BNP in the UK, surely any government with its mind set on equality would work to outlaw such parties.
I think possibly one of the reasons why Jews are so often targeted is down to their success in business, it is a fact that the jewish tradition is most definitely apt in the business world. This has often been the cause of much jealousy. Another factor is perhaps the issue that Jews have constantly been on the move, right from the very begining of the Jewish tradition before they found Israel they wondered for years. As a result often ending up in hostile lands, such movement and constant emmigration has continued right into the modern day. Even Israel the Jewish homeland is unfortunately and depressingly hostile. ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 18:42
|
Here is the thread on Anti-Semitism in Europe, still existing strongly, amongst other reasons because Europeans seem to be unable to differentiate between the Jewish community and the State of Israel.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4941&KW=anti%2Dsemitism - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4941&KW= anti%2Dsemitism |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 19:11
|
Let's not mix anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. In fact, most anti-Zionists are anti-racist and most anti-Semitic (anti-Hebrew) are pro Israel (as that would help Jews to remain out of Europe for the most part). Another thing is rejection of religion: I agree with that. Civil life must happen without religion. Religion is just a private matter and should not affect science or social organization. And then we have the new anti-Semitism which is actually anti-Arabism or anti-Islamism and that is, of course, strongly participated by the Hebrew nation, both in Israel and outside it. I think it's not good that we keep using a confuse and tricky term as "anti-Semitism". Unless we are talking about a phobia specifically directed to Arabs and Jews alike, the term is wrongly used. Normally racist people anyhow are rather indiscriminate and dislike foreigners more or less equally. I think the term racism must be used preferably to anti-Semitism when meaning that: racism or xenophobia. I think also that anti-Zionism can't and shouldn't be mixed with the former: I believe that is a Zionist propaganda item: to mix racism and anti-Zionist attitudes. Yet, few people (if any) have both attitudes simultaneously. Being anti-Zionist can get you in conflict with some Jews, but not all. As we know, there's a sigificative group among ethnic Jews, both secular and religious, that abhor Israel and all what it means: basically making Neonazis out of Hebrews. Beaing anti-religious is less likely to get you in conflict with anyone, if any with Muslims or Christians, who have less discrete religious practices and may class more easliy with the common secular people. So let's not mix things: where is that anti-Semitism understood as anti-Hebrew ideology? Or are you mixing apples and oranges out of interest? ------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 19:16
| This is how I understand it Maju. Here in the North East of the US (where a lot of jews live) it is understood that anti-semitism is a term used as being against jews and racist against jews. And someone who is anti-semetic is someone who is racist towards jews. Looking at your perpesction on this issue, there is a more complicative way of defining anti-semitism. Call me a basic person, but anti-semitism is anti-jew in mine, and a lot of other peoples definition |
Posted By: Lord Ranulf
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2006 at 23:47
|
France was not alone:
ADL Survey in 12 European Countries Finds Anti-Semitic Attitudes Still Strongly Held New York, NY, June 7, 2005 Despite good faith efforts by government and the international community to counteract the anti-Semitism plaguing Europe, millions of Europeans continue to believe the classical anti-Semitic canards that have dogged Jews through the centuries, according to a new poll released by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today. A survey of 12 European countries revealed that a plurality of Europeans believe Jews are not loyal to their country and that they have too much power in business and finance. The opinion survey of 6,000 adults 500 in each of the 12 European countries found either minimal decline, no change or, in some cases, an increase in negative attitudes toward Jews from its 2004 findings. The survey, http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/european_attitudes_may_2005.pdf - Attitudes Toward Jews in Twelve European Countries , was released to coincide with the Conference on Anti-Semitism and on Other Forms of Intolerance sponsored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), in http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/osce_cordoba_1.htm - Cordoba , Spain June 8-9. The countries surveyed were: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and for the first time, Hungary and Poland. Respondents across the continent were asked a series of indicator questions representing the most pernicious notions of anti-Semitism and whether or not they thought the following four statements were "probably true" or "probably false." Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country. Respondents were also asked whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: Finally, respondents were asked: Findings Summary continues@ http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4726_13.htm - http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4726_13.htm ------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 00:22
I don't accept that definition: I prefer to say anti-Jewish when one is specifically against Hebrews. Arabs are also Semites and therefore they can't be anti-Semitic unless they adopt an auto-destructive attitude. Again it is very important to take apart racism from anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism is a very legitimate political attitude and in fact it is normally anti-racist, as it advocates a non-ethnic Palestinian unified state as alternative. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 00:49
Actually these questions are tricky. We do know that many Jews have such strong ethnical loyalty that projects towards Israel. We also know that Jews are disproportionatley present in bussiness (at least when compared with any other minority) and that most of them tend to act partly according to ethnic lines of loyalty prmarily. That's no mistery and it's not anti-Semitism (or rather anti-Hebraism). And definitively, most Jews, talk too much about the Holocaust, ignoring the many non-Jews that were also massacred and (what makes it specially pathetic) they use it as argument to defend the aberration of Israel. I think that, considering their interest in remaining a separated community, Jews have generally been rather well integrated in Europe. I dont say that they didn't have problems or were persecuted but these were often worse for other minorities such as Muslims or Roma or Pagans. In fact their genetic relation to Christianity rather protected them. No equivalent community would have survived so many centuries without the special protaction that Christianity felt obligued for the ethnicity and native faith of Jesus. Would they have been Pagans or Isians or Mithraists... you know. I do think that there's an attitude of victimization by some Jewish circles/peoples and also by some non-Jewish. I don't think this is fully justified, despite the Holocaust and I can only understand it because of the brainwashing influence of Christianity, which is after all a Judaist sect. I still don't think that I am anti-Hebrew. That I don't like Sharon or Mϊjica-Herzog doesn't make me that. There are many Jews that I like too, starting with Karl Marx. I am anti-Abrahamanic instead: I do think that the Abrahamanic religions that root in Judaism are an aberration and should be replaced by something more perfect, less Patriarchal and less greedy. We need a spirituality that is with Nature, not against it. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Lord Ranulf
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 09:32
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 13:26
|
Lord Ranulf,
A highley comendable response to Maju's post. I have to say i agree with you on nearly all your points. I myself as a minority religion almost anywhere in the world hugely appreciate the strength and conciseness of your argument. well done ------------- |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 13:38
|
I don't really like the term anti-Semitism either. I'd be very
surprised if the so-called 'anti-Semites' in my country are actually
against all Semetic peoples. This type of xenophobia seems especially
directed towards Jews. There's a pattern I've noticed in Bosnia and Herzegovina that I think might be having an impact elsewhere as well. There are two main branches of Judaism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are very distinct and very separate. The first is Sefardic Judaism, immigrants from Portugal and Spain who arrived here half a millenium ago. The second is Ashkenazi Judaism, German-speaking Jews who arrived during the Austro-Hungarian occupation. Now during the holocaust, virtually all Ashkenazi Jews were handed over to their deaths. Sefardic Jews survived in large numbers, usually by hiding a Muslims - servants, wives, daughters, in Muslim homes whose people knew very well the individuals were Jews. From this it's safe to say that in Bosnia people didn't care for Ashkenazi Jews but felt some affection for Sephards. The reason, I think, is simple: Sefards did not segregate themselves from the rest of society, nor were they segregated onto themselves by the society itself. They lived mixed among the people, intermarriage was common, they spoke the Bosnian language in addition to their native Ladino, and so on. The Ashkenazi, on the other hand, segregated themselves or were segregated by society, both most likely. They generally spoke only German and had very little interaction with anyone other the Austrian authorities. A lack of knowledge almost always generates fear and from that hatred can grow very easily in certain situations. I think the hatred for Jews is based in this, as it is for Gypsies and other segregated groups. The reason the hatred for Jews is especially strong is because they managed to achieve a normal standard of living. There were rich Jews, middle-class Jews, poor Jews. There were average, middle-class (majority) Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox residents who were looking up at these despised Jews farther on the financial ladder than they were... and this breeds all sorts of negative feelings. It was only a couple of years ago that two residences on Ferhadija (Sarajevo's most prestigious pedestrian street) were returned to pre-WWII Jewish owners - whereas homes for Jews in poorer neighborhoods like Vratnik and Kovaci were returned 60 years ago. The property of Ashkenazi Jews has never really been returned... that says to me the dynamic of the hatred was to bring the highest of the "rubbish" back down... What do you all think? ------------- |
Posted By: Lord Ranulf
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 13:50
|
Thankyou..as prejudice is often based on fear and an inability to deal in humanistic terms. ------------- |
Posted By: Lord Ranulf
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 13:58
|
------------- |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 14:20
Thank you.  It's just always seemed to me that in Bosnia, and possibly the rest of Europe... Well, first let me make it clear I know the holocaust was genocide and would never suggest it wasn't. But it seems to me the public support, the real... cheering on from the Bosnian public... was based more in eliticide, killing off the wealthy, the intellectuals, the influential, from among the Jewish population. The wider genocide itself seemed more... swept under the rug in public opinion. No one talked about, ignore the evil sort of response. You look at the survivors testimonies and when they rounded up the upper-class Jews, people were silent and stayed indoors and there was no dramatic protest. But when they came for the general Jewish population, people came to their doors and threw out coats and bread and fruit and whatever they could for them to take. There was some even went with them! I remember reading in some testimonies about how there would be Muslim mothers in their upstairs windows screaming for their daughters in the crowd who had married Jews, and there'd be Jewish women running to their christian/Muslim lovers houses for a kiss goodbye and they'd end up leaving together, etc. There was none of that for the earlier, first deportation. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 14:55
|
Mila,
I think this is a highely intellectual response to a very difficult to answer question. It is clear you have thought about it and looked at your surroundings for evidence. Well articulated. On the same note I am inclined to agree with you. However, in the area I am currently living Leeds(in the UK). There is a large Jewish population, however the population is confined to a single district Alwoodley, the majority of synagogues are in alwoodley as are any onther specifically jewish bulidings. They have in essence built their own secular society within the city. This has lead to almost all of their socialising schooling and i would imagine business being done within a tight knit selective community. I have many friends from the area who are Jewish however there is always a distinction between me (a non jewish friend) and their Jewish social groups. I unlike the rest of the UK am all for immigration, but i am also for intergration. What intrests me is to annalyse what has caused this particular Jewish community not to intergrate fully, i would also appreciate it if anyone else had other examples of similar circumstances. I believe it could easily be a combination of them forming and keeping their own society and society not wholly accepting them. I would love to work in a direction that ment there was no longer any social distinction between Jew and non-Jew, or in fact anyone, however this is wholly unrealistic. However i am made optimistic by the report you have given me off your findings in Bosnia and Hercegovina with regards to the Sefards. Perhaps the only remedy for the situation is time, and the growth of comfort with one anothers faith. ------------- |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 15:02
|
What?We love the Jews!(*brings Hitler*) ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Perseas
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 16:05
|
I believe some people confuse the growth of anti-Zionism with the growth of anti-Semitism. Many people are simply anti-Zionists. Being an anti-Zionist does not mean being an anti-Semite. However from the other hand, there are always some masking their anti-Semitism into the disguise of anti-Zionism. And some simply love to identify being a Jew with being a Zionist when the reality can be that even some Jews are in the same time anti-zionists. The distinction is not always clear to everybody. ------------- A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 17:59
|
I think we are all making too much of a fuss on this topic on whether we call people anti-Semites, or anti-Zionists or anti-Hebrew or anti-anything else. The emphasis is not on the way we use the english language but essentially the emphasis is on discussing any form of racism against the Jewish community. I understand the need for clarity but if we all understand what one another are talking about and understand the connotaions of the words being used than the specific meaning is really an irrelevance. Rathar than confusing are selves with technicality is it not more important that we focus on the issues that the Jewish community have suffered and still are suffering and the effect this has on society as a whole? ------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 18:10
Do you mean that there is people that specifically dislike Jews and not Africans, Hispanics, Arabs or Chinese... to put some examples. I'd say that racist people are generally indiscriminately racist.
"Anti-American" is a US-coined phrase and it's not a form of racism, rather it means someone that is against US-policies. We don't use the term "anti-American"... unless there's a Gringo who introduces it.
Do you mean that you cannot compare Jews with other minorities? Why?
I never use the USA as reference (Europe instead). Still, even in the USA, there are Jewish neighbourhoods, while you don't find German or Scottish neighbourhoods. Even the founder of Zionism thoght for some time that converting to Christianity would solve the issue of discrimination against Hebrews. Yet that wasn't anymore relevant in our time, when we define identity/ethnicity by other sometimes less flexible patterns.
Again you see only a local epysode. The fact that Jews had arrived to the 19th century as a separate ethnicity and religion, while Pagans instead were persecuted fiercely. If Jews would have ben worshippers of Shiva there would have been no Jew in Europe in the 19th century. Though they may have sychretized with Christianity, as the Roma did (they still call the cross "trident"!) This doesn't mean that there were no persecutions but that, among religious minorities they had a special favorable status - else there would just be no Jews in either Christian or Muslim areas at all.
I don't say there wasn't a genocide. Just that I think that when this is waved in the context of Palestine - it just makes no sense.
What I mean is that Christianity and Islam are Judaist proselitist sects and therefore they have a privileged position for their parent religion: Judaism. You may be tolerant now that you have been driven off the center of social reality but two centuries ago, you were not so tolerant. This is not Jews' fault: it's Christians' and Muslims' fault actually.
That's why I reject the very concept of anti-Semitism: it's just a catchall term to insult those people that have critic thought. -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 19:01
I agree with that statment. Using all of these terms just makes things a little more confusing. Although I have been enlightened with these new terms that Maju has brought up, I still believe that we should focus on the single meaning that can be related to the term "anti-semitism" |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 19:25
For me it isn't really a big suprise. Just every time I see how Israelies are making Palestinians life worse and worse, I just can't love them - and so the most of European think. |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2006 at 19:34
| True that Israelies are making life harder for Palestinians. Making all these security checkpoints for palestinaians and creating huge travelling problems for them? But it is complicated with all the crazy bombers out there. Everyone is looking out for themselves so it seems. |
Posted By: Lord Ranulf
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 10:12
|
Do you mean that there is people that specifically dislike Jews and not Africans, Hispanics, Arabs or Chinese... to put some examples. I'd say that racist people are generally indiscriminately racist. ..absolutely. and to illustrate it all you have to do is resaerch it. the fact is that there's no such terms. In my vernacular language either: they are all refered as "racism". Sometimes a phraseis used, i.e. "prejudice against Gypsies" but there's no "anti-Gypsism" or any equivalent. ...again you escape or ignore the obvious.... for the very use of the prefix 'anti' means a prejudical response or reaction....or dis-like. It does not matter who the originator of the term was.... it's use and effect remains unchallenged...and is not simply a identifier of disagreement with a nation states foreign policies or affairs...ask the French about americans. Do you mean that you cannot compare Jews with other minorities? Why? ...certainly you can....but YOU cannot use the word WE effectively because in the context of the statement it infers I agree with YOUR position. I never use the USA as reference (Europe instead). Still, even in the USA, there are Jewish neighbourhoods, while you don't find German or Scottish neighbourhoods. ...my point exactly.... thru obsfucation and generalization you attempt localise and minimalize the position while strengthening your debate point...and old technique and one that might fool the weak or inexperienced of mind or life...I am neither..... As for example there are German and Czek neighboor hoods and Italians and Asians etc. etc....in Europe and America. This from a national perspective does not make them 'less' American....French...Spanish...Polish etc. When I said that they tried to remain as separate community, I'm not saying any nonsense. Else, they would have probably converted to the mainstream religion - as others (including many Jews) did. ...ridiculous statement and assumption as their was either no need....desire or requirement to convert to anything unless one is forced to make a literal life vs. death choice or when one's culture is being eradicated by genocidal maniacs. if you refer to Theodore Herzl and the publication of 'The Jewish state' or Der Judenstaat...this might be an interpretation but a slim, specious and not very convincing one, as Herzl was well aware of the nearly 2000 year long persecution of the Jewish people by Christainity....and the intensity to which the same people WILL NOT compromise the isssue of their faith as a mechanism of survival....as the countless no doubt millions killed prior to 1939-1945....and the 6million killed... later.... testify to.
Again you see only a local epysode. Not a local or single episode but literally multiplicy and contiuance ad infinte ...the records are clear.........crusades were ostensibly.... for example... launched against Islam.... with the end result that Jews and Arabs were murdered and raped and suffered enslavement or property loss indiscriminately. The fact that Jews had arrived to the 19th century as a separate ethnicity and religion, while Pagans instead were persecuted fiercely. ....This is equally true but not material imo to the issue or topic at hand other then thru comparitive analysis... as most pagans would eventuly...at least in Europe......become Christains. If Jews would have ben worshippers of Shiva there would have been no Jew in Europe in the 19th century. ...That should neither be suprising nor an attempt to obsfucate the issue at hand .....anti-semitism in Europe..... the preponderance of peoples living in europe were neither Hinduistic nor Buddahistic in religious persuasion or Taoist for that matter...and while I am at it... nor were there a great mass of confucinists. Jews were Jews. An attempt on your part to rewrite history into what 'may have beens' is no defense to what was.
Though they may have sychretized with Christianity, as the Roma did (they still call the cross "trident"!) ...prejudical hyperbole and not worthy of comment This doesn't mean that there were no persecutions but that, among religious minorities they had a special favorable status - else there would just be no Jews in either Christian or Muslim areas at all. ....for once in your entire presentation and defense we can agree in part but not in toto....as both religions you state.... accepted in their own... the prescence and importance of Judaism and in both cases incorporated it into their own..... in parts and places...with Islam actually...intialy being the more tolerant of the two.....unfortunately you continue to underscore and nearly irrevelentise the fact that centuries of persecutions /genocides occured...and as 'we' (native Texans) say around here..."that dog don't hunt and sh*t still smells like sh*t even when you cover it with perfume" ....then either you are either a pro-extremist Arab supporter which is synomous with anti-semite....blatantly in psyco denial.... or haven't completed a thorough enough analysis of the historical context behind the current ongoing issues in the region. What I mean is that Christianity and Islam are Judaist proselitist sects and therefore they have a privileged position for their parent religion: Judaism. ...that is neither what you intialy wrote nor do I believe you really intend to write now....no...I believe your intial comment revealed your true thoughts. This second issue comment.... is an obsfucation.... imo ....to avoid accepting responsibility for the callowness of the initial remark. You may be tolerant now that you have been driven off the center of social reality but two centuries ago, you were not so tolerant. ...ridiculous and illogical statement.... as YOU can neither know what I would have done 2 minutes ago let alone 2 thousand years....ie.speculation and distortion....obsfucation. As member of a group (non-Christians, non-Muslims and non-Jews) that has been severely persecuted for at least 1400 years, I think that Jews have been relatively privileged: they have only been persecuted now and then - not all the time as it happened to us. ...ridiculous and a patent lie.....you are either morally incapable of accepting the obvious truth or you suffer from some form of mental illness/or idealogue fanaticism andI suggest you seek treatment for. I don't deny the historical persecution of pagans it's you who minimalize the historuical persecution of the Jews. .....In this you are essentialy correct but not necessiarily from soley a religious functioning basis alone...but as a result...imo...of naescent nationalism which emerged in its historical context ...time and geo-physical regions on the planet. That's why I reject the very concept of anti-Semitism: it's just a catchall term to insult those people that have critic thought. ...IMO in your case.... it's not critic thought...its expression of anti-semitism that has been historicaly exhibited by millions who share your viewpoint. Why is it that you can only use the therm Jew or Hebrew in black and white: you either must be 100% pro-Israel and pro-Abraham and pro-JewsihLobby or 100% anti-Semitic. That's obviously not that way. ....ridiculous...i use the terms interchangeably and this neither demonstrates,confirms or denys, any particular position of either religious or political, or national support.........for Jews as an ethnic group...Israel as a nation state, or Arabs and Syria in the same context.... My final comment and advice to you is pray to your pagan dietys for self-awareness...an enlightened and not prejudical spirt and for guidence in accepting a more tolerant viewpoint. ------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 13:21
|
So you're saying, Ranulf, that because a Jew coined the term anti-Semitism and a US citizen coined the term anti-Americanism. The rest of the world are guilty of those "sins"? No way. I say that some USAmericans and Jews like to cry and have coined such terms to say: poor of me! Yet, I'd rather discuss anti-Arabism in the case of Israel and anti-Indianism anti-Blackism and anti-Mexicanism in the case of the USA. Sadly, I don't own the CNN/CBS/BBC/Hollywood and can't flush those terms and the propaganda attached to them into the common speech. ... The fact that there are Yaveh-worshippers (aka Jews) and not Jupiter-worshippers (aka Romans) means that Christians treated much better Jews than Romans. This is pretty obvious and I don't know why you offuscate in denying it. The fact that Romans were native and Jews inmigrants didn't make any difference: Chistians still discriminated against Romans (and not - or much less - against Jews). The fact that Jews have reached the 20th century in Europe as a non-assimilated group is just a reflex of the relative tolerance and protection that this group enjoyed, when compared with other less fortunate ethnic and religious minorities. I don't deny the persecution of Jews, what I mean is to relativize it. If pesecution would have been truly intense (like in certain "Crusade" or in the Nazi "Final Solution") there would be no recognizable Jews nowadays. All would have been assimilated or killed, as happened with other less fortunate minorities. This is what happened in Spain and Portugal, for instance, where there are virtually no Jews (nor Muslims) nowadays: they either were assimilated, deported or killed. There are other examples, naturally. Most of the time and in most places, nevertheless, Jews enjoyed a relatively safe and favorable position. You seem a Zionist and Imperialist with an agenda, trying to make everybody feel guilty... because Chamberlain and Roosevelt tolerated and favored Hitler. Well, sorry. I wouldn't have tolerated any of those fascists for a single second. That way I would not just save 6 million Jews, but I would also have saved many millions or other Europeans and would have kept Palestine in the hands of Palestinians - no matter their faith. Israel is racist. Death to Israel! -------------
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 13:28
|
Maju
Israel is racist. Death to Israel! oh dear! I think someone had gotten a little carried away with themselves. ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 18:33
Unfortunaly there seems nobody on this forum to defend Israel and its people against nasty fascistoid verbal attacks like this. Could you imagine the outcry when somebody advocated the destruction of Turkey, Greece or any other country with a lobby here. Fortunately however, the anti-jewish ramblings on an internet forums contain hardly the same degree of threat as those of Presidents of Middle-Eastern countries who demand exactly the same but might have the means to realise it. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Dark Lord
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 18:56
|
The nonsense epithet "Aunt-Eye-See-Mite" is a catachresis - used to
slander anyone who dares criticize Yahweh's precious chosen
masterpieces. Dr. Revilo
Oliver aptly explains this, videlicet: "In English, the term 'anti-Semitism' must mean opposition to or antagonism toward Semites, the race now most fully represented by the Arabs and the Arabic-speaking Semites in the Near and Middle East. The Kikes have contrived to make the average reader understand the word in a sense that it cannot have, if language is not to become mere babble. If the word is used correctly, it becomes obvious that the Yids, a hybrid race that contains some Semitic blood, are now the most violently and viciously anti-Semitic people in the world, since they are now engaged in an effort to liquidate the Palestinians and eventually all the Semitic nations." Dark Lord. |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 19:16
For the meaning of the term "Kike" see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kike - Wikipedia For using and obviously approving quotes that contain this term see: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11208&PN=1&TPN=1 - Warning and Ban announcement ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Mullah Ganstar
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 19:54
|
You right. Israel has the right to exist. arabians took all middle east. Persia will one day help you. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 22:46
|
I am not sure if you can speak for the whole of Persin guy, but really everyone down there are looking for their own backs. Israel is setting up all these security measures and they are working. Even though they create hardships for the palestinians, even though it is unsettling for communities, it is still a better option than having suicide bombers coming at you almost every second. These "barriers" the Isrealies set up have reduced the number of suicide bombers greatly.
And Maju, can I assume that you are relating yourself to the palestinians concerning your own people in the Iberian peninsula? If so, then I understand you argument, and I know you want to reach out to them. But it is much more complicated down in Israel. We are talking about human lives at stake. |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 23:40
|
I defend Israel on this forum all the time and lately it seems that I am one of the only ones. @Ponce de Leon - Actually, Mullah Ganstar is correct, I think Iran/Persia may someday be an ally of Israel (if Iran experiences a regime change which is an eventual possibility I think, perhaps Zoroastrianism will return to Persia/Iran as well). He is also right when he states that Israel has a right to exist. It is good to see another member show support for Israel. |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 23:54
|
I imagine a lot of the people who support Israel in such a way, AK47,
would do so if it was a completely uninhabited nature preserve. It has
more to do with being anti-Islam, or anti-Arab, or anti-anything than
being pro-Israeli. There is no way that any person could logically support either Israeli or Palestinian policies without supporting both - and to support them both, in my mind, is to support... well, whatever horrible words you can think of. Israeli and Palestinian policies both are among many black marks in human history. In many ways they practically deserve each other. Everything Israel does serves to further the Palestinian cause and everything the Palestinians do helps Israeli policies. It's an endless cycle of darkness and hatred and for anyone to commit themselves to either side of it is, I think, lunacy. I could never support a state founded on a faith shared by what was, in 1948, a minority of that territory's residents (and remains today barely 70 per cent). I could never support land confiscations, curfews, collective punishment, institutionalized racism, "Jews only" businesses and apartments, a public acceptance of hatred against identifyable groups, and I could go on and on and on. Likewise I could never support terrorist attacks, targetting civilians as opposed to the military, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on. Palestinian Muslims and Christians alike should have lives worth living, as should Israelies have lives that are safe and secure - but, the way things stand now, I could never say either side deserves it. ------------- |
Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 00:07
| Mila, the reason Israel has these policies you speak of is because of the policies of its arab neighbors (wanting to destroy Israel, though they are constantly defeated each time they try) and the palestinians (suicide bombers blowing up themselves and innocent Isreali civilians). Israel must do what it must do to survive, therefore, there is nothing wrong with its policies that assist in this goal. |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 00:15
|
Then by choosing a side you've cornered yourself. If the Arab reaction
to the establishment of Israel is a justification for Israel's
policies, then the process that established Israel - to the detriment
of those already living on the territory - is justification for the
Arab reaction. If you're willing to support anyone's crimes, you must support them all. Anything less is racism, prejudice, etc. ------------- |
Posted By: Mullah Ganstar
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 00:37
|
You wrong. arabs took over the whole middle east. Palestinians can live in Jordan, in Liban, in Iraq or in Syria... Why they don't emigrate in those countries: afterall They are arab. so what is the problem? Look at this empire, that's so huge.
-------------
|
Posted By: Mullah Ganstar
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 00:39
hope USA invades Iran as soon as possible.... -------------
|
Posted By: Prince of Persia 2
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 03:20
| U are a trator. |
Posted By: ramin
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 03:36
Also I wanted to give an alternative point of view. Russians and USSR, Germans and Nazis, Iranians and Mullahs, Afghans and Taliban, Cambodians and Khmers, Jews and Israel DO NOT always stand side by side. When somebody is criticizing a country, he is not neccessarily lowering its people. How is it possible to criticize and call names for ideologies like Nazism, Communism, etc etc, but not to use the same phrases for Zionism? I was just wondering, why is that the case of Israel so sensitive that even debating over it leads to an dead-end. One morething, let's look at a bigger picture. Let's not just read the words and draw conclusions, words have interprations and that's what was important specifically in this case. ------------- "I won't laugh if a philosophy halves the moon" 
|
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 03:50
|
this topic is closed
sorry , only a joke.another example for half-chocked ,infantile blabber at this forum. sorry to use this terms. but who of you all has visited a concentration camp, has seen a train ,where people were caged like cattle. who of you lost parts of your family ,cause they had the wong belief? if there are some ,why you don't all shout out to stop this painful discussion. every kind of prosecution , oprresion and extermination started with a rumour, a whisper, enviousness that someone used for his aims and makes a sureness out of a rumour. if have to use these words ,cause to many of us try to stop these madness. i will compete against all kinds of racism , intollerance wheter it comes from the muslims,jews or catholics or bach-flower supporters. every single individum on this planet has he right to exist , beside it doesn't accept this base of human cohabitation. so - no death to israel (and its neighbors) -and no death to maju ,lets try to show both the right way of peacefull coexistance. ------------- 
http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: ramin
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 04:04
|
this painful discussion will give us a wider angle to view our situation and have better PERSONAL conclusion, the least. I don't think we should just lock the window to the thousands of years of oppression and killing just because they are too painful. we have face them, and read them, not ban them! If today you can go to concentration camps, see the pictures, imagining those events is because we have to SEE what happened and why it happened, instead of forgeting it and not talking about it. now should we all stop talking because of the fear for another possible oppression? ------------- "I won't laugh if a philosophy halves the moon"
|
Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 04:42
lol, suicide bombers are a result of Isreali policies. 40 years of military occupation, land theft, settlement construction, taxation without representation, ethnic cleansing(until they realized they could make money off of them), and an obiminable refugee camp- life. Prior to the first Intifada, there was no violence on the part of the palestinians. From 1967-1987, 20 years of occupation and no militaristic resistance- not even throwing stones. Just peacful demonstrations, boycutting, and maybe occasional fist fights with soldiers. Yet occupation persisted, checkpoints existed as well, and no world condemnation of Israel.
The israeli-palestinian issue is probably one of the simplest conflicts to comprehend. What's so complicated about taking away someone elses land, and the other side fighting back?
A cycle indeed, one which "isrealis" started.
Policies of arab neighbors?! hmmm lets see, Egypt signed a treaty in 1979, Jordan in 1996, the only one left is Syria, which stated that it'd agree to permament peace if israel return the Golan heights, which Israel refuses to do. As for other neighboring Arab countries, the Arab League agreed to officially recognize Israel by All arab nations if it returns to 1967 borders, which again, Isarel refuses to do. Not to mention many arab nations probably even trade with israel in secret. Because of neighboring arab nations? I THINK NOT!
Again, maybe you should look at the chronological list of events, and figure out exactly who's policies are at fault. As for "innocent isreali civilians," if they don't want to get blown up, maybe they should go back to russia or the USA, or wherever they came from.
I suppose you're one of those that think all the arabs of today are from arabia. interesting logic you got there.  Anyways, if you love Israelis so much, why don't you take them in the US? Im sure there's more than enough land in the midwest or perhaps CA to accommodate 4 million Jews? Thats absurd. Why should the palestinians give up their land for those that have been persecuted by the west? Why didn't the US accept those immigrants? The creation of israel did nothing but harm palestinians, and Jews as well, considering there were no Anti-Jewish sentiments in the middle east prior to the flooding of nationlist-faschist immigrants to palestine. Israel is nothing but a foul infestation which will be wiped off the map 
|
Posted By: Lord Ranulf
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 09:33
|
....that is neither germaine nor appropriate. ..you could at least do the courtsey of spelling the name correctly.
...redundacy and rhetoric do not become your defense but merely highlights the illogical and emotionalism of a bigoted viewpoint. ...the attempt to relativise any act of GENOCIDE is to maintain a position of support for it....hence imo YOU support genocide.
...this is so funny.......i have to breathe before I respond.........ah back now.... and I am neither of the two nouns u would ascribe to me.....but what I am .......is a figther against genocidal bigots.....no matter the politics or religion of those persecuted in question. ...fascism in its most corrupted sense is exactily what you are espousing. Israel is racist. Death to Israel! The bigoted and prejudical nature of your position against those of the jewish faith ...... individualy, internationaly, nationaly and in the state of Israel need no assistence from me to be any clearly stated.
------------- |
Posted By: Mullah Ganstar
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 10:02
|
WTF are you talking about. You baby, with your playstation game's username. Israel is the unic allied of Iranians against the arabian occupation in Middle east . You don t know about what u are talking about. Jews respect Iran and khnow who we are. after the arabian invasion they saved our traditional music and instrument. go play playstation with little child and stop posting. you morron. -------------
|
Posted By: Mullah Ganstar
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 10:30
|
Hey reading ur post one thing is for sure: you think and writte such as a Goat. You super dumb ass -------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 10:41
Couldn't agree more. |
Posted By: Iranian41ife
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 11:11
|
mullah ganstar, israel is no ones friend. not even the friend of the USA. they spy on the USA, steal US weapons designes, pass on US technology to other countries etc... israel is not a trust worthy country. israel is doing to the palestinians today what hitler and the apartheid government in South Africa did to their own people. israel will never be anyones friends, and frankly, iran doesnt need israel as an ally, no today, and not in the future. the fact is that israel is the aggressor and has always been the aggressor, and until israel wants peace, there will be war. its israel's choice, either give the palestinians equality, or keep fighting. ------------- "If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War |