Who killed Jesus Christ?
zalek
the Bible describing Jesus’s trial:
Matthew 27:24 :
“When Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but that instead a riot
was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd
and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. You take care of it
yourselves!” In reply all the people said, “Let his blood be on us and
on our children!”
Yes – it was a Roman judge who sentenced Jesus Christ, and Roman
soldiers crucified Him, but who were the people that said: “Let his
blood be on us and on our children!” ?
I just finished reading a book written in Hebrew by Israeli historian
Shlomo Sand “When and how the Jewish people were invented”. In this
well documented scholarly book, Shlomo Sand proves that the majority
of today’s Jews are descendents of various ethnics groups who
converted to Judaism – from the Chazars (people of Turkish origin),
the Berbers tribes (the indigenous people of North Africa), the Himyar
tribes (people from southern part of Arabian Peninsula) to Greeks,
Romans and Slavs.
So who are the true descendants of people of Israel from Jesus’s time?
Here is the big surprise – the true descendants of the people who said
“Let his blood be on us and on our children!” are today’s
PALESTINIANS. They are descendants of biblical Jews and who converted
to Islam in about 700 AD during the Muslim occupation of Palestine!
The true “Jesus killers” were forefathers of PALESTINIANS! So if you
want to see people whose ancestors said “Let his blood be on us and on
our children”, go to Gaza or to the Western Bank!
Zalek
TheZ
What else did Jesus say in these fictional text that were attributed to him?
I'm sure Constantine was right up on it 1000 years later.
Good old Mom was done proud by her pagan son.
"zalek" <zalek...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7e2f8c7-3252-44f6...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Justin Case
of mankind. It's irrelevant to blame someone and has absolutely no bearing
on the course of human events..
"zalek" <zalek...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7e2f8c7-3252-44f6...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
üDougtÇ
news:c7e2f8c7-3252-44f6...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
the Bible describing Jesus’s trial:
Matthew 27:24 :
“When Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but that instead a riot
was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd
and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. You take care of it
yourselves!” In reply all the people said, “Let his blood be on us and
on our children!”
Yes – it was a Roman judge who sentenced Jesus Christ, and Roman
soldiers crucified Him, but who were the people that said: “Let his
blood be on us and on our children!” ?
********************
So, it was everybody except the Jews who actually killed him, but
the Jews are responsible? ALL THE JEWS IN ISRAEL? Not ONE
was against it?
The Cynic
"zalek" <zalek...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7e2f8c7-3252-44f6...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
(All blood sucked)
Jesus Christ the Holy Cunt Fucker
flesh just like
all other babies , black or white ,.
there was nothing holy or predestined about the life of Jesus
Christ , who
went to India to learn about religion as a teenager
On Jul 1, 10:46 am, "Justin Case" <Thinh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> The crucifixion of Christ was prophesized and had to occur for the salvation
> of mankind. It's irrelevant to blame someone and has absolutely no bearing
> on the course of human events..
>
> "zalek" <zalekbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Justin Case
believes the Christian version then one believes Jesus was supernatural. If
one does not believe in such then Jesus was simply another person or
possibly simply fictitious.
"Jesus Christ the Holy Cunt Fucker" <vea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a43f16db-a511-4e8f...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Justin Case
"Emil Tiades" <emilt...@marathon.org> wrote in message
news:g4fjqg$ilc$2...@aioe.org...
>
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:06:47 -0400, "Justin Case"
> <Thin...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>It is, as everything else, relevant to your personal belief. If one
>>believes the Christian version then one believes Jesus was supernatural.
>
>
>
> I wish there was a supernatural being that zaps clueless top posters
Well, at least we now know the intellectual depths of your personal beliefs.
Justin Case
>
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:50:06 -0400, "Justin Case"
> <Thin...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Emil Tiades" <emilt...@marathon.org> wrote in message
>>news:g4fjqg$ilc$2...@aioe.org...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:06:47 -0400, "Justin Case"
>>> <Thin...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is, as everything else, relevant to your personal belief. If one
>>>>believes the Christian version then one believes Jesus was supernatural.
>>>
>>> <remaining top post flushed unread>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wish there was a supernatural being that zaps clueless top posters
>>
>>Well, at least we now know the intellectual depths of your personal
>>beliefs.
>>
>>
I don't know anyone who believes in such. God is neither invisible nor in
the sky. You ought to read a little concerning string theory and you might
understand that what you see and experience is not all there is.
Justin Case
>
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:52:32 -0400, "Justin Case"
> <Thin...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know anyone who believes in such. God is neither invisible
>
I can't provide a photo but neither can I provide a photo of love. And
neither can I provide photos of the 6th or 7th dimensions. It would be a
very different world if everyone believed that what they now know is the
acme of knowledge. No, I can't show you a photo of God but I can tell you
how to experience Him for yourself.
Tell it like it is.
> The crucifixion of Christ was prophesized and had to occur for the salvation
> of mankind. It's irrelevant to blame someone and has absolutely no bearing
> on the course of human events..
>
Zalek
I doubt Shlomo Sand came to such a conclusion. It
seems unlikely the ancient Religious Jews at the time of Christ would
become pagans and then "convert " to Mohammedism as YOU suggest.
Mohamet respected "believers". That is, people who had religious
faith. He hated lawless men, criminals and brigands. That is what his
book the Koran says. He didn't convert religious people to Islam. He
converted only the children of Abraham who were practicing paganism:
The offspring of Jacob's brother Esau. The native population of the
Middle East. Whom people like YOU have driven to madness in modern
times with you're bullshit of ethnic-cleansing the region then
refusing to compensate them for what you robbed them of. Their ancient
heritage in the Middle East. The jewish "holocaust" brought on by the
Russian holocaust doesn't justify fucking an innocent and ancient
people. Since you people "returned " to the Holy Land no one in that
region is innocent.
The forced removal demands compensation. Or there will never be peace
in the Holy Land. Human nature being what it is, history unfolds as it
should. But there are demands of justice which cannot be ignored
forever.
It's all part of the game plan written for the
Israeli Prime Minister in 1996. Stephen Hadley can tell you more about
it. "Securing the Realm" for Israel.Believing true Americans aren't
going to figure it out. Or dare put an end to senseless war in the
ancient and theocratic Middle East.
I've yet to hear of one jew who wants peace in the Middle East.
TheZ
Stop being a foolish moron and grow up.
"Tell it like it is." <DanielAlbe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6354b66-2ec1-4529...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Helge
"TheZ" <Th...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZdVbk.14183$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
> You mean those echoes offering peace are coming from the Arabs?
It does not matter where they are coming from. Israel does not want peace.
> Stop being a foolish moron and grow up.
Stop being a Jew liar.
expla...@yahoo.com
Dear Muslims,
Beware of imams and mullahs who are preaching LIES in masjids and
posting LIES on their Islamic websites to deceive you- sincere
Muslims- and the ignoramus from knowing the truth of the True Allah of
Jesus and detracting the truth to imply THAT THE all JEWS KILLED
JESUS.
Who Killed Jesus?
The answer is the High priest and his subordinates were responsible.
The rest of the Israelites were not as many had been converted to
Christians.
To verify the sayings of imams and mullahs, go to websites:
1] www.answering-christianity.org
2] www.faithfreedom.org
expla...@yahoo.com
1]Dear Israelis,
Biblically speaking, Jeremiah 3:18 prophesied that the [split]house of
Judah would walk with the [split] house of Israel to form the nation
of Israel.
The house of Judah consisted of 2 tribes namely Judah and Benjamin to
form kingdom of Judah ; and the house of Israel the rest of the 12
tribes forming the kingdom of Israel[not the Nation of Israel].
Prophecies of Jeremiah -Chapter 3 & 6 spoke of God gathering the Jews
back to Zion to form to the state of Israel:
THE creatiom of STATE OF ISRAEL WAS PROPHESIED BY MANY PROPHETS except
Mohammed-the lying prophet- of God after ww2 He gathered the Jews from
Europe to form the state of Israel.
Consequently, even the billions of Muslims going against Israel,
Israel survives all attacks because GOD shield Israel. AS SUCH,
ISRAEL HAS A DEFENCE THAT NO MUSLIM WILL BE ABLE TO BREAK THROUGH.
2] How Jews are defined:
Because of the sins of the Israelites[=Jews] disobeying God in
refusing to acknowlge the New Covenant[revealed in Jeremiah 31:3`-34],
which was instituted by the shedding of the blood of a lamb named
Jesus-the Son of God- who was sent by God[HaShem] to teach the
Israelites the New Covenant[Matthew 26:28] renewing the Old for
redemption of souls just like the shedding of a sacrificial lamb of
the passover that redeemed PHYSICALLY the Jews in the Exodus, the Jews
were punished in WW2.
3]Jeremiah Chapter 3 & 6 prophesied the punishment and gathering of
the Jews back FROM GERMANY[Jer 6:21-23 to Zion. The Jews were punished
[Jer 6:29-30] FOR FAILING TO OBEY THE NEW COVENANT[Jer 31:31-34]
GREATLY to the extent that only ONE TAKEN FROM A CITY AND 2 FROM A
FAMILY by God[Jer 3:14] from THE LAND OF THE NORTH[Europe]-Jer 3:18]
to the land[Zion]-Jer 3:14]-which God had given to the Israelites [Jer
3:18]- to form the Nation of Israel after WW2. Germany was used by God
to punish the Jews[Jer 6:21-24].
4]Descendants of Jacob[Israel] are NOW Israelites:
The Jews from the fallen kingdom of Judah were called Jews as they
were scattered around. The word "Jews" denote[D] the people of the
kingdom of Jedah.
The Israelites[=Samaritans] from the falled kngdom of Israel were also
called Jews ERRONEOUSLY as they were scattered around.
Hence Jews from the kingdom of Judah and Samaritans from the kingdom
of Israel were wrongly called as Jews by others.
God bless Israel
AMEN IN CHRIST JESUS
expla...@yahoo.com
expla...@yahoo.com
> "zalek" <zalekbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Dear Muslims,
TheZ
history is perverted in order that one ideology can only survive by
falsifying another's.
So the New Testament was written to absolve an ideology of having killed its
own God at the expense of the Israelites.
<expla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:79ae7458-3853-4efe...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
jojo
Shlomo Zand's book is pure crap. For over 10 years all, and I mean
ALL, genetic research conducted on Jews has proved that all the Jewish
communities but the Ethiopian one were genetically connected and had
the same ancestors.
Regarding Jesus - if the guy ever existed, which I am not really sure
but I don't really care anyway, he was a Jew in a Jewish country.
Maybe the Roman did kill him, maybe not. This was an internal jewish
matter, and the court had all right to put him to death according to
law.
YhauWa
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Liar and all of your site are shit, ..... Tfeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
B. H. Cramer
> Interesting concept, history is written by the victors,
Or, if written by yids, it is "created" zuckermanwanker.
Like your Holocaust(tm) bullshit.
B. H. Cramer
"jojo" <joj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4378fec-1e02-46dd...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
You're totally wrong.
Your argument is based on two works by jews, who committed academic fraud,
who had to go back as far as the apes to get a DNA match with the Ashkenazi
and the real jews.
a-little-sanity
B. H. Cramer <Iya...@alltimes.yep> wrote:
[...]
Are you a Nazi, B.H.? You sure sound like one:
"When I was very much younger, a band I was in played the
Horst Wessel lied at the Concordia club in Mt. Isa" --Posted
by "Ben Cramer", Message-ID: <e8nsmm$me9$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>
("Horst Wessel Lied" was the anthem of the Nazi Party).
"Had Hitler won the war, the world would be a much better
place." --Posted by "Ben Cramer", Source: Message-ID
<ILudnfQdX6UCtfva...@giganews.com>.
Tell it like it is.
echoes offering peace are coming from the Arabs?
Stop being a foolish moron and grow up.
Real Americans, (defined as those citizens of the United States who do
not promote their ethnic background above their country), are the
people who can clean up the mess in the Middle East and bring peace to
the Holy Land once again. Since it is AMERICAN TAX-PAYER MONEY being
spent that has created our deficit Congress to bring ethnic hatred
and war to the region. hate-mongering at its finest: http://www.aipac.org
> I've yet to hear of one jew who wants peace in the Middle East.- Hide quoted text -
Justin Case
"Helge" <hel...@theoffice.net> wrote in message
news:g4pndp$jk2$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "TheZ" <Th...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ZdVbk.14183$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>> You mean those echoes offering peace are coming from the Arabs?
>
> It does not matter where they are coming from. Israel does not want peace.
Well, I'll tell you what. If all concerned parties cease attacking Israel,
I'd bet you a dollar to a doughnut that peace would prevail. Of course,
that would also require those living within Israel abide by Israeli law.
Justin Case
> Interesting concept, history is written by the victors, or in this case
> history is perverted in order that one ideology can only survive by
> falsifying another's.
> So the New Testament was written to absolve an ideology of having killed
> its own God at the expense of the Israelites.
Jesus had to die so what is the problem with those who killed Him? As bad
as it sounds, the crucifixtion and death of Jesus was prophysized and
required for the redemption of mankind. Now, was the death of Jesus a bad
thing or good thing?
>
> <expla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:79ae7458-3853-4efe...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 1, 10:05 am, zalek <zalekbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyone who read the Bible was shocked by the following phrases from
>> the Bible describing Jesus's trial:
>> Matthew 27:24 :
>> "When Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but that instead a riot
>> was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd
>> and said, "I am innocent of this man's blood. You take care of it
>> yourselves!" In reply all the people said, "Let his blood be on us and
>> on our children!"
>>
>> Yes - it was a Roman judge who sentenced Jesus Christ, and Roman
>> soldiers crucified Him, but who were the people that said: "Let his
>> blood be on us and on our children!" ?
>>
>> I just finished reading a book written in Hebrew by Israeli historian
>> Shlomo Sand "When and how the Jewish people were invented". In this
>> well documented scholarly book, Shlomo Sand proves that the majority
>> of today's Jews are descendents of various ethnics groups who
>> converted to Judaism - from the Chazars (people of Turkish origin),
>> the Berbers tribes (the indigenous people of North Africa), the Himyar
>> tribes (people from southern part of Arabian Peninsula) to Greeks,
>> Romans and Slavs.
>> So who are the true descendants of people of Israel from Jesus's time?
>> Here is the big surprise - the true descendants of the people who said
Gary Renzetti
> "Helge" <hel...@theoffice.net> wrote in message
> news:g4pndp$jk2$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> "TheZ" <Th...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZdVbk.14183$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>>> You mean those echoes offering peace are coming from the Arabs?
>> It does not matter where they are coming from. Israel does not want peace.
>
> Well, I'll tell you what. If all concerned parties cease attacking Israel,
> I'd bet you a dollar to a doughnut that peace would prevail. Of course,
> that would also require those living within Israel abide by Israeli law.
releasing all the hostages they hold without charge, closing the
so-called "settlements", compensating the Palestinians, ending the land
grabs, and tearing down the Apartheid wall.
What's the likelihood of this happening anytime soon, do ya think?
torresD
Why does it matter?
You're going to have a homicide investigation.
B. H. Cramer
"Justin Case" <Thin...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Oczck.13434$xZ.1...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Helge" <hel...@theoffice.net> wrote in message
> news:g4pndp$jk2$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "TheZ" <Th...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZdVbk.14183$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>>> You mean those echoes offering peace are coming from the Arabs?
>>
>> It does not matter where they are coming from. Israel does not want
>> peace.
>
> Well, I'll tell you what. If all concerned parties cease attacking
> Israel, I'd bet you a dollar to a doughnut that peace would prevail.
Ersatz israel instigates all the attacks, you silly person.
Justin Case
"Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
news:a9574$4872cbb2$d8fe9c9a$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
> Justin Case wrote:
>> "Helge" <hel...@theoffice.net> wrote in message
>> news:g4pndp$jk2$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> "TheZ" <Th...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ZdVbk.14183$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>>>> You mean those echoes offering peace are coming from the Arabs?
>>> It does not matter where they are coming from. Israel does not want
>>> peace.
>>
>> Well, I'll tell you what. If all concerned parties cease attacking
>> Israel, I'd bet you a dollar to a doughnut that peace would prevail. Of
>> course, that would also require those living within Israel abide by
>> Israeli law.
> It would also the ziothugs stopping the extra-judicial murders, releasing
> all the hostages they hold without charge, closing the so-called
> "settlements", compensating the Palestinians, ending the land grabs, and
> tearing down the Apartheid wall.
> What's the likelihood of this happening anytime soon, do ya think?
Yes, it would be appropriate for Israeli to release anyone in prison who has
not committed a crime nor is a terrorist if the Palestinians would agree to
live in peace. As far as extra-judicial murders, I think that decision sits
squarely on the Palestinians. The simple answer is to stop killing
civilians. Israel holds no hostages.
Closing settlements is a reasonable demand if those settlements are located
on land other than Israel (that doesn't include the Goland Heights or Gaza
as these areas were forfeited after an unprovocted attack on Israel by
foreign powers). Compensating Palestinians is a complex question. Of
course, those Palestinains who fled the country at the onset of the 1948
should get nothing and consideration needs to be given to those hundreds of
thousands of Jews who were forced from their homes in Arab countries during
the same time period.
Tearing down the anti terrorist wall would also be a good thing since Arabs
would no longer be a threat to innocent women and children. As far as the
"Apartheid Wall" well, I have no idea of what you are referring to.
Justin Case
"B. H. Cramer" <Iya...@alltimes.yep> wrote in message
news:HfWdnTc77tviz-7V...@giganews.com...
You mean by their sheer existence? Five wars were started by sorroudung
Arab states you witless person.
>
>
B. H. Cramer
>
> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
> news:a9574$4872cbb2$d8fe9c9a$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> Justin Case wrote:
>>> "Helge" <hel...@theoffice.net> wrote in message
>>> news:g4pndp$jk2$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> "TheZ" <Th...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ZdVbk.14183$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>>>>> You mean those echoes offering peace are coming from the Arabs?
>>>> It does not matter where they are coming from. Israel does not want
>>>> peace.
>>>
>>> Well, I'll tell you what. If all concerned parties cease attacking
>>> Israel, I'd bet you a dollar to a doughnut that peace would prevail. Of
>>> course, that would also require those living within Israel abide by
>>> Israeli law.
>> It would also the ziothugs stopping the extra-judicial murders, releasing
>> all the hostages they hold without charge, closing the so-called
>> "settlements", compensating the Palestinians, ending the land grabs, and
>> tearing down the Apartheid wall.
>> What's the likelihood of this happening anytime soon, do ya think?
>
> Yes, it would be appropriate for Israeli to release anyone in prison who
> has not committed a crime nor is a terrorist if the Palestinians would
> agree to live in peace.
The hebes wouldn't have a clue which of their prisoners have committed
crimes. Very, very few of them have ever been placed on trial.
Israel needs to calm itself down and begin acting like human beings before
peace can be achieved. It is they who initiate all the atrocities.
In any case - Ersatz israel cannot afford peace. With peace will come a
drying up of their cash donations from Uncle Samstein, and they will turn
inward, upon themselves, and tear each others throats out. The various sects
of judaism hate each other with a passion.
Gary Renzetti
sentence, you're a hostage. Spare me the kaka about "administrative
detention", it is merely spin.
>
> Closing settlements is a reasonable demand if those settlements are located
> on land other than Israel (that doesn't include the Goland Heights or Gaza
> as these areas were forfeited after an unprovocted attack on Israel by
> foreign powers).
1967 was not an "unprovocted"(sic) attack. It was an Isr-eli® first
strike. The Egyptian Air Force didn't 'attack' anyone; it was destroyed
on the ground. And International Law expressly forbids colonizing
territories seized in war.
Compensating Palestinians is a complex question. Of
> course, those Palestinains who fled the country at the onset of the 1948
> should get nothing and consideration needs to be given to those hundreds of
> thousands of Jews who were forced from their homes in Arab countries during
> the same time period.
Bullshit. THe Jews were kicked out of the Arab states as a direct result
of the zionists terrorizing the Palestinian Arabs.
>
> Tearing down the anti terrorist wall would also be a good thing since Arabs
> would no longer be a threat to innocent women and children. As far as the
> "Apartheid Wall" well, I have no idea of what you are referring to.
Yes you do. That obscenity the zionists built on their Eastern
outskirts. If the thing were in fact a security measure, it would have
been constructed on the izzie side of the cease-fire line. It is no such
thing. It is a defacto border marker, and is built entirely on the
Palestinian side of the Green Line. Terror is all the checkpoints and
the Jew-only roads in the West Bank and that zionist scum in Hebron that
daily brutalizes their Arab nothing while the izzie military satnds by
and grins about it.
Gary Renzetti
rather badly for the ziothugs, didn't it?
Too bad, so sad.
>
>
Zev
> Justin Case wrote:
>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>> news:a9574$4872cbb2$d8fe9c9a$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>> Justin Case wrote:
>>>> "Helge" <hel...@theoffice.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:g4pndp$jk2$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> "TheZ" <Th...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ZdVbk.14183$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
> 1967 was not an "unprovocted"(sic) attack. It was an Isr-eli® first
> strike. The Egyptian Air Force didn't 'attack' anyone; it was destroyed on
> the ground. And International Law expressly forbids colonizing territories
> seized in war.
In 1967, Israel was threatened by several Arab states,
and decided that it had no choice but to strike first.
Recently released documents from the Soviet Union
show the extent of Russian involvement
in encouraging menacing moves by Arab armies.
In the aftermath of the ensuing war,
Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights
were occupied by Israeli forces.
May 22, 1967:
Egypt’s President Nasser announced:
"The Israeli flag shall not go through the Gulf of Aqaba....".
Our sovereignty over the entrance to the Gulf cannot be disputed".
Newspapers all over the world reported it this way:
Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (Gulf of Aqaba ) to Israeli
shipping,
thereby cutting off Israel’s only supply route with Asia
and stopping the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran.
By international law, this was an act of war.
Coupled with the previous demand by Nasser
of the withdrawal of the 3,400 man UN Emergency Force (UNEF),
the saber rattling of Egypt and other Arab countries,
and the menacing maneuvers of Arab armies
all along Israel's various borders,
made war inevitable.
A week before the attack by the Israeli air force
Egyptian air force found themselves in their cockpits,
waiting for the order for a surprise attack on Israel.
Nasser suddenly received a message from the US
saying that if Egypt attacked, the US would do nothing
to prevent Israel from fighting back with whatever it had.
Nasser assumed that the secret was out
and that the Israelis were waiting for them,
and called off the attack.
It was just another proof to Israel
that waiting was too dangerous.
>> Tearing down the anti terrorist wall would also be a good thing since
>> Arabs would no longer be a threat to innocent women and children. As far
>> as the "Apartheid Wall" well, I have no idea of what you are referring
>> to.
> Yes you do. That obscenity the zionists built on their Eastern outskirts.
> If the thing were in fact a security measure, it would have been
> constructed on the izzie side of the cease-fire line. It is no such thing.
> It is a defacto border marker, and is built entirely on the Palestinian
> side of the Green Line.
You're just upset because the wall
makes PA terror attacks more difficult.
z
> 1967 was not an "unprovocted"(sic) attack. It was an Isr-eli® first
> strike. The Egyptian Air Force didn't 'attack' anyone; it was destroyed
> on the ground. And International Law expressly forbids colonizing
> territories seized in war.
>
but all the egyptian territories were returned, when they signed a
peace treaty. except gaza, which they don't want back. the west bank
was captured from jordan, who attacked israel first despite israel's
public declarations of no hostility towards them.
Gary Renzetti
not its existence per se. If the ziothugs want a wall on their border,
they can build whatever they want *inside* littleshittystan. In its
prsent location, the thing is blatant land theft. And terror attacks by
the filthy zionist "settlers" continue daily.
Gary Renzetti
Justin Case
"B. H. Cramer" <Iya...@alltimes.yep> wrote in message
And how many grease monkeys have been put on trial?
>
> Israel needs to calm itself down and begin acting like human beings before
> peace can be achieved. It is they who initiate all the atrocities.
And it is the grease monkeys who have initiated every war.
Justin Case
So, those dirt balls in Gauntanamo are hostages? Those woh spent years in
POW camps in WWi, WWII, Korea and Vietnaam were hostages?
>
>>
>> Closing settlements is a reasonable demand if those settlements are
>> located on land other than Israel (that doesn't include the Goland
>> Heights or Gaza as these areas were forfeited after an unprovocted attack
>> on Israel by foreign powers).
> 1967 was not an "unprovocted"(sic) attack. It was an Isr-eli® first
> strike. The Egyptian Air Force didn't 'attack' anyone; it was destroyed on
> the ground. And International Law expressly forbids colonizing territories
> seized in war.
Yes, it is true that Israel did strike first but if you understood why then
you would also understand they were soon to be attacked. You are not wrong
if you know someone is going to punch you in the face and you strike first.
The grease monkeys were positioning for a strike. It's a good thing the
Isrealis could hear the grease monkeys grunting.
>
> Compensating Palestinians is a complex question. Of
>> course, those Palestinains who fled the country at the onset of the 1948
>> should get nothing and consideration needs to be given to those hundreds
>> of thousands of Jews who were forced from their homes in Arab countries
>> during the same time period.
> Bullshit. THe Jews were kicked out of the Arab states as a direct result
> of the zionists terrorizing the Palestinian Arabs.
And most of the the Palestinians left on their own accord. So, I guess it'
moot.
>>
>> Tearing down the anti terrorist wall would also be a good thing since
>> Arabs would no longer be a threat to innocent women and children. As far
>> as the "Apartheid Wall" well, I have no idea of what you are referring
>> to.
> Yes you do. That obscenity the zionists built on their Eastern outskirts.
> If the thing were in fact a security measure, it would have been
> constructed on the izzie side of the cease-fire line. It is no such thing.
> It is a defacto border marker, and is built entirely on the Palestinian
> side of the Green Line. Terror is all the checkpoints and the Jew-only
> roads in the West Bank and that zionist scum in Hebron that daily
> brutalizes their Arab nothing while the izzie military satnds by and grins
> about it.
You have a problem with Israelis determining who is allowing to come into
their country? I believe the grease monkeys in most Arab countries do the
same to Jews regardless of their country of origin.
Yes, the wall is a bad symbol but there would not be a need for the wall if
the grease monkeys ceased killing women and children.
Justin Case
"Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:227d5ea0-d8fe-48ce...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Do you really believe that facts will sway this person?
Justin Case
Well, you'll have to forgive the "ziothugs" since they've learned the grease
monkeys can't be trusted. Somehow you overlook the fact that grease monkeys
have killed Olympic participants, embassy personnel, wheel chair bound
people on ocean liners, airline passengers and thousands of other incidents
involving innocents and even non Israelis. (I'm sure you have no problem
referring to Palestinians as grease monkeys since you prefer to use similar
derogatory comments). Grease monkeys have yet to keep a single point to
which they have agreed to, not one.
Justin Case
The "rapes" of Lebanon were caused because of the continuous attacks by
grease monkeys in Lebanon.
>>
Gary Renzetti
although there are certainly some of those too.
Those woh spent years in
> POW camps in WWi, WWII, Korea and Vietnaam were hostages?
No. They were POWs.
>>> Closing settlements is a reasonable demand if those settlements are
>>> located on land other than Israel (that doesn't include the Goland
>>> Heights or Gaza as these areas were forfeited after an unprovocted attack
>>> on Israel by foreign powers).
>> 1967 was not an "unprovocted"(sic) attack. It was an Isr-eli® first
>> strike. The Egyptian Air Force didn't 'attack' anyone; it was destroyed on
>> the ground. And International Law expressly forbids colonizing territories
>> seized in war.
>
> Yes, it is true that Israel did strike first but if you understood why then
> you would also understand they were soon to be attacked. You are not wrong
> if you know someone is going to punch you in the face and you strike first.
> The grease monkeys were positioning for a strike. It's a good thing the
> Isrealis could hear the grease monkeys grunting.
>
>> Compensating Palestinians is a complex question. Of
>>> course, those Palestinains who fled the country at the onset of the 1948
>>> should get nothing and consideration needs to be given to those hundreds
>>> of thousands of Jews who were forced from their homes in Arab countries
>>> during the same time period.
>> Bullshit. THe Jews were kicked out of the Arab states as a direct result
>> of the zionists terrorizing the Palestinian Arabs.
>
> And most of the the Palestinians left on their own accord. So, I guess it'
> moot.
Not exactly. The Palestinians left because of terrorism by such scum as
the Stern Gang and the Irgun Zvi Leumi.
>>> Tearing down the anti terrorist wall would also be a good thing since
>>> Arabs would no longer be a threat to innocent women and children. As far
>>> as the "Apartheid Wall" well, I have no idea of what you are referring
>>> to.
>> Yes you do. That obscenity the zionists built on their Eastern outskirts.
>> If the thing were in fact a security measure, it would have been
>> constructed on the izzie side of the cease-fire line. It is no such thing.
>> It is a defacto border marker, and is built entirely on the Palestinian
>> side of the Green Line. Terror is all the checkpoints and the Jew-only
>> roads in the West Bank and that zionist scum in Hebron that daily
>> brutalizes their Arab nothing while the izzie military satnds by and grins
>> about it.
>
> You have a problem with Israelis determining who is allowing to come into
> their country?
No. I'd argue about the "their country" lie, but the fact is that
they're there and they aren't leaving just yet.I stated I thought quite
clearly that my objection is not to the Apartheid wall, but to the
*location* of the Apartheid wall. Do you have a reading comprehension
problem?
I believe the grease monkeys in most Arab countries do the
> same to Jews regardless of their country of origin.
Fuck you and your sheenie ass for the "grease monkey" crap. Just who the
fuck do you think you are? Better than someone else? You sure as
hemorrhoids aren't proving it with the crap you post here.
>
> Yes, the wall is a bad symbol but there would not be a need for the wall if
> the grease monkeys ceased killing women and children.
Or if the izzies fucked off back to their stetls in the slums of Europe.
And stop it with the racist shit, you shit.
Gary Renzetti
Gary Renzetti
from the Litani.
Shlomo
> > not committed a crime nor is a terrorist if the Palestinians would agree to
> > live in peace. As far as extra-judicial murders, I think that decision sits
> > squarely on the Palestinians. The simple answer is to stop killing
> > civilians. Israel holds no hostages.
>
> If someone throws you in the slam with no charge, no trial, and no
> sentence, you're a hostage. Spare me the kaka about "administrative
> detention", it is merely spin.
A person who engages in military actions while not wearing distinctive
clothing typically has the choice of hanging or shooting made for
him. The fact that such Pallies are in jail and not 6 feet under says
multitudes about the humanitarian Israeli policies.
> > Closing settlements is a reasonable demand if those settlements are located
> > on land other than Israel (that doesn't include the Goland Heights or Gaza
> > as these areas were forfeited after an unprovocted attack on Israel by
> > foreign powers).
>
> 1967 was not an "unprovocted"(sic) attack. It was an Isr-eli® first
> strike. The Egyptian Air Force didn't 'attack' anyone; it was destroyed
> on the ground. And International Law expressly forbids colonizing
> territories seized in war.
Hoboy, repeating the Arab lie again. I'm not even going to waste my
time refuting this; the FACTS speak clearly as to what happened,
including the Egyptian threats, military movements, blockade of Eilat
(an direct act of war, by the way), violation of Israeli airspace (a
direct act of war), and alliances with Jordan and Syria.
Then of course, there's the unprovoked Jordanian invasion of Israel on
June 5, 1967 ....
> > Compensating Palestinians is a complex question. Of course, those Palestinains who fled the country at the onset of the 1948
> > should get nothing and consideration needs to be given to those hundreds of
> > thousands of Jews who were forced from their homes in Arab countries during
> > the same time period.
>
> Bullshit. THe Jews were kicked out of the Arab states as a direct result
> of the zionists terrorizing the Palestinian Arabs.
It was the establishment of Israel that resulted in the Jewish
expulsion. And of course, as HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, the Arab refusal
to implement their part of Res 142, and instead engaging in a War of
Genocide against the Jews, is the root cause of the fictitious
Palestinian refugee problem.
The Jewish refugees have a stronger case for compensation than do the
Arabs. Unlike the Arabs who were displaced, the Jews didn't support
the invaders of their country (and the 1915 Armenians can tell you
what usually happens to people who do what the Arabs did).
> > Tearing down the anti terrorist wall would also be a good thing since Arabs
> > would no longer be a threat to innocent women and children. As far as the
> > "Apartheid Wall" well, I have no idea of what you are referring to.
>
> Yes you do. That obscenity the zionists built on their Eastern
> outskirts. If the thing were in fact a security measure, it would have
> been constructed on the izzie side of the cease-fire line. It is no such
> thing. It is a defacto border marker, and is built entirely on the
> Palestinian side of the Green Line. Terror is all the checkpoints and
> the Jew-only roads in the West Bank and that zionist scum in Hebron that
> daily brutalizes their Arab nothing while the izzie military satnds by
> and grins about it.
The Green Line is not the border; just read the 1949 Armistice
agreements with Transjordan, Syria, and Egypt. So any statement that
implies Israel treat it as the border is contrary to the agreements
signed by both Israel and the Arab nations. The only established
borders are with Egypt (by 1977? treaty), Jordan (by 1994 treaty), and
Lebanon (specified as such in the 1949 armistice).
So why are you putting requirements on Israel that don't exist? (And
don't even TRY to repeat the Arab lie that Res 242 requires a
withdrawal to the armistice lines.)
Justin Case
> No. They were POWs.
There were also thousands who were civilians. Besides, once again Israel
holds no hostages.
>
>>>> Closing settlements is a reasonable demand if those settlements are
>>>> located on land other than Israel (that doesn't include the Goland
>>>> Heights or Gaza as these areas were forfeited after an unprovocted
>>>> attack on Israel by foreign powers).
>>> 1967 was not an "unprovocted"(sic) attack. It was an Isr-eli® first
>>> strike. The Egyptian Air Force didn't 'attack' anyone; it was destroyed
>>> on the ground. And International Law expressly forbids colonizing
>>> territories seized in war.
>>
>> Yes, it is true that Israel did strike first but if you understood why
>> then you would also understand they were soon to be attacked. You are
>> not wrong if you know someone is going to punch you in the face and you
>> strike first. The grease monkeys were positioning for a strike. It's a
>> good thing the Isrealis could hear the grease monkeys grunting.
>>
>>> Compensating Palestinians is a complex question. Of
>>>> course, those Palestinains who fled the country at the onset of the
>>>> 1948 should get nothing and consideration needs to be given to those
>>>> hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced from their homes in Arab
>>>> countries during the same time period.
>>> Bullshit. THe Jews were kicked out of the Arab states as a direct result
>>> of the zionists terrorizing the Palestinian Arabs.
>>
>> And most of the the Palestinians left on their own accord. So, I guess
>> it' moot.
> Not exactly. The Palestinians left because of terrorism by such scum as
> the Stern Gang and the Irgun Zvi Leumi.
Not the ones who left at the onset of war. Also, the Jews expelled from
other Arab countries had their property confiscated and deported by
Islamofascists.
Those Palestinians should have stayed and protected the homeland against the
invasion. After all, if this is Palestine then that means the Jews living
there are also Palestinians. But then again, there is no such place as the
country of Palestine.
>
>>>> Tearing down the anti terrorist wall would also be a good thing since
>>>> Arabs would no longer be a threat to innocent women and children. As
>>>> far as the "Apartheid Wall" well, I have no idea of what you are
>>>> referring to.
>>> Yes you do. That obscenity the zionists built on their Eastern
>>> outskirts. If the thing were in fact a security measure, it would have
>>> been constructed on the izzie side of the cease-fire line. It is no such
>>> thing. It is a defacto border marker, and is built entirely on the
>>> Palestinian side of the Green Line. Terror is all the checkpoints and
>>> the Jew-only roads in the West Bank and that zionist scum in Hebron that
>>> daily brutalizes their Arab nothing while the izzie military satnds by
>>> and grins about it.
>>
>> You have a problem with Israelis determining who is allowing to come into
>> their country?
> No. I'd argue about the "their country" lie, but the fact is that they're
> there and they aren't leaving just yet.I stated I thought quite clearly
> that my objection is not to the Apartheid wall, but to the *location* of
> the Apartheid wall. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Isn't the wall located within Israel?
>
> I believe the grease monkeys in most Arab countries do the
>> same to Jews regardless of their country of origin.
> Fuck you and your sheenie ass for the "grease monkey" crap. Just who the
> fuck do you think you are? Better than someone else? You sure as
> hemorrhoids aren't proving it with the crap you post here.
I believe that was my question to you. You are the one with the foul mouth
and then you get upset when I throw it back at you? Better than someone
else? You sure have a large set of balls, don't you. You refer to Arabs as
Arabs and Palestinians as Palestinians but how do you descibe Israelis or
Jews?
>>
>> Yes, the wall is a bad symbol but there would not be a need for the wall
>> if the grease monkeys ceased killing women and children.
> Or if the izzies fucked off back to their stetls in the slums of Europe.
Well, when all people other than American Indians depart all the Americas
and Austrailia and other countries like Iraq return their country to the
Assyrians then that ain't about to happen. Matter of fact, if you're white
then by your standards you don't have much of anything for a homeland. You
want the Jews to leave their country but don't seem to have a problem with
other Arab countries not wanting anything to do with Arabs who have left
Israel.
Justin Case
Justin Case
You haven't a clue.
Zev
Can you tell me if the wall would have been built
if Arafat would have honored his signed agreement
to end all terrorist activities?
Can you tell me why you say the wall
"is built entirely on the Palestinian side of the Green Line"?
Can you tell me why the PA shouldn't be forced
to share the costs of the wall in this small way?
Can you tell me why you call the Green Line a "border"?
Can you tell me why building the wall on the Green Line
would not be a "defacto border marker"?
Zev
It never does.
Palestinians and their associates never seemed
to understand the forces at work in the ME
and the weakness of their own claims for sovereignty.
Arabs/Muslims in general have a belief system
which is incompatible with our concepts of "fair play".
Others believe that their "very lifeblood"
is buried in Arabian sand,
and that sacrificing Israel on an alter of American prosperity
will assure them a continuous flow of cheap oil.
Is it any wonder that they would solve the ME conflict
in a way which apparently demands
the least effort on their part?
Their apparent opinions on Jews and Israel
are based on nothing more than self-interest
but they don't see further than the next gas station.
Jesus Christ the Holy Cunt Fucker
the British would still be practising racial discriminations
against all other races in the British Empire .
remember , A. Hitler wanted to destroy the British and the
French empires .
without A. Hitler , the Euro people wouls still rule this
world as Whities .
On Jul 7, 7:06 pm, a-little-sanity, please <ratio...@nospam.com>
wrote:
> In article <AOSdnfyRme3lmO_VnZ2dnUVZ_jWdn...@giganews.com>,
> B. H. Cramer <Iyam...@alltimes.yep> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Are you a Nazi, B.H.? You sure sound like one:
>
> "When I was very much younger, a band I was in played the
> Horst Wessel lied at the Concordia club in Mt. Isa" --Posted
> by "Ben Cramer", Message-ID: <e8nsmm$me...@otis.netspace.net.au>
> ("Horst Wessel Lied" was the anthem of the Nazi Party).
>
> "Had Hitler won the war, the world would be a much better
> place." --Posted by "Ben Cramer", Source: Message-ID
> <ILudnfQdX6UCtfvanZ2dnUVZ_gSdn...@giganews.com>.
Jesus Christ the Holy Cunt Fucker
Jesus Christ came out from Mary' s cunt hole as a piece of
human flesh , there
was nothing predestined about Jesus Christ the cunt
fucker . .
On Jul 8, 8:20 am, "Justin Case" <Thinh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "TheZ" <T...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:BL4ck.15400$Ec....@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> > Interesting concept, history is written by the victors, or in this case
> > history is perverted in order that one ideology can only survive by
> > falsifying another's.
> > So the New Testament was written to absolve an ideology of having killed
> > its own God at the expense of the Israelites.
>
> Jesus had to die so what is the problem with those who killed Him? As bad
> as it sounds, the crucifixtion and death of Jesus was prophysized and
> required for the redemption of mankind. Now, was the death of Jesus a bad
> thing or good thing?
>
>
>
>
>
> > <explain_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:79ae7458-3853-4efe...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 1, 10:05 am, zalek <zalekbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Anyone who read the Bible was shocked by the following phrases from
> >> the Bible describing Jesus's trial:
> >> Matthew 27:24 :
> >> "When Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but that instead a riot
> >> was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd
> >> and said, "I am innocent of this man's blood. You take care of it
> >> yourselves!" In reply all the people said, "Let his blood be on us and
> >> on our children!"
>
> >> Yes - it was a Roman judge who sentenced Jesus Christ, and Roman
> >> soldiers crucified Him, but who were the people that said: "Let his
> >> blood be on us and on our children!" ?
>
> >> I just finished reading a book written in Hebrew by Israeli historian
> >> Shlomo Sand "When and how the Jewish people were invented". In this
> >> well documented scholarly book, Shlomo Sand proves that the majority
> >> of today's Jews are descendents of various ethnics groups who
> >> converted to Judaism - from the Chazars (people of Turkish origin),
> >> the Berbers tribes (the indigenous people of North Africa), the Himyar
> >> tribes (people from southern part of Arabian Peninsula) to Greeks,
> >> Romans and Slavs.
> >> So who are the true descendants of people of Israel from Jesus's time?
> >> Here is the big surprise - the true descendants of the people who said
> >> "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" are today's
> >> PALESTINIANS. They are descendants of biblical Jews and who converted
> >> to Islam in about 700 AD during the Muslim occupation of Palestine!
>
> >> The true "Jesus killers" were forefathers of PALESTINIANS! So if you
> >> want to see people whose ancestors said "Let his blood be on us and on
> >> our children", go to Gaza or to the Western Bank!
>
> >> Zalek
> > 1]Dear Israelis,
> > Biblically speaking, Jeremiah 3:18 prophesied that the [split]house of
> > Judah would walk with the [split] house of Israel to form the nation
> > of Israel.
> > The house of Judah consisted of 2 tribes namely Judah and Benjamin to
> > form kingdom of Judah ; and the house of Israel the rest of the 12
> > tribes forming the kingdom of Israel[not the Nation of Israel].
> > Prophecies of Jeremiah -Chapter 3 & 6 spoke of God gathering the Jews
> > back to Zion to form to the state of Israel:
> > THE creatiom of STATE OF ISRAEL WAS PROPHESIED BY MANY PROPHETS except
> > Mohammed-the lying prophet- of God after ww2 He gathered the Jews from
> > Europe to form the state of Israel.
> > Consequently, even the billions of Muslims going against Israel,
> > Israel survives all attacks because GOD shield Israel. AS SUCH,
> > ISRAEL HAS A DEFENCE THAT NO MUSLIM WILL BE ABLE TO BREAK THROUGH.
>
> > 2] How Jews are defined:
> > Because of the sins of the Israelites[=Jews] disobeying God in
> > refusing to acknowlge the New Covenant[revealed in Jeremiah 31:3`-34],
> > which was instituted by the shedding of the blood of a lamb named
> > Jesus-the Son of God- who was sent by God[HaShem] to teach the
> > Israelites the New Covenant[Matthew 26:28] renewing the Old for
> > redemption of souls just like the shedding of a sacrificial lamb of
> > the passover that redeemed PHYSICALLY the Jews in the Exodus, the Jews
> > were punished in WW2.
>
> > 3]Jeremiah Chapter 3 & 6 prophesied the punishment and gathering of
> > the Jews back FROM GERMANY[Jer 6:21-23 to Zion. The Jews were punished
> > [Jer 6:29-30] FOR FAILING TO OBEY THE NEW COVENANT[Jer 31:31-34]
> > GREATLY to the extent that only ONE TAKEN FROM A CITY AND 2 FROM A
> > FAMILY by God[Jer 3:14] from THE LAND OF THE NORTH[Europe]-Jer 3:18]
> > to the land[Zion]-Jer 3:14]-which God had given to the Israelites [Jer
> > 3:18]- to form the Nation of Israel after WW2. Germany was used by God
> > to punish the Jews[Jer 6:21-24].
>
> > 4]Descendants of Jacob[Israel] are NOW Israelites:
> > The Jews from the fallen kingdom of Judah were called Jews as they
> > were scattered around. The word "Jews" denote[D] the people of the
> > kingdom of Jedah.
> > The Israelites[=Samaritans] from the falled kngdom of Israel were also
> > called Jews ERRONEOUSLY as they were scattered around.
> > Hence Jews from the kingdom of Judah and Samaritans from the kingdom
> > of Israel were wrongly called as Jews by others.
> > God bless Israel
> > AMEN IN CHRIST JESUS- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Topaz
Tiptoeing around Our Problems
By Dr. William Pierce
"We've been talking about the very dangerous situation in the Middle
East recently, just because so much is happening there, and
undoubtedly we'll be talking about it much more in the future. For
that reason I want to make very clear what my motives and sympathies
are, lest I lead anyone astray and be thought a hypocrite for doing
so. First, regarding Palestine: although my sympathies definitely lie
with the Palestinians rather than with the Jews, it is not horror at
what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians that motivates me. What
motivates me is horror that my country is being used by the Jews in
their war against the Palestinians. If America were not involved at
all in the Middle East I still would sympathize with the Palestinians
and I would wish that they could be successful in driving the Jews
into the sea and annihilating the abomination that is Israel, but that
conflict between Jews and Palestinians would not be a major concern
for me. At least, my
concern there would be dwarfed by my concern for problems more
directly involving my own people in America and in Europe and in
southern Africa.
Even now, with money and weapons being supplied by America and used to
slaughter Palestinians, my concern is much less with monsters like
Ariel Sharon who are doing the slaughtering than it is with the filthy
creatures among my own people in America who are collaborating with
Jews here to keep the weapons and money flowing to Sharon -- and are
ready to do whatever else the Jews require of them here or abroad.
So when I tell you about Jews in occupied Palestine shooting
Palestinian children, and disapproval and anger are evident in my
voice, what I really am angry about is that the American people, my
people, are being used for this murderous activity. I am angry that
America's whole foreign policy has been perverted to serve Jewish
interests at the expense of American interests. I am angry that
America's political system has been perverted to ensure that we always
have so-called "leaders," whether Democrat or Republican, who are
dependent on the Jewish media or Jewish money or both for their
election and consequently will do the bidding of the Jews. I am angry
that our whole government is riddled with Jews -- Jews in our Defense
Department, Jews in our State
Department, Jews in our Immigration and Naturalization Service, Jews
in our Justice Department, Jews in the President's speech-writing
staff - who really set the policies of our government behind the
scenes, while the politicians are out front in the spotlight making
speeches and kissing babies - and doing as they're told by the Jews
behind the
scenes.
Did you know that it was a Jewish speechwriter, David Frum, who put
the phrase "axis of evil" in George Bush's mouth to justify America's
ongoing war against Israel's enemies? Did you know that a clique of
Jews in the Defense Department and among George Bush's foreign policy
advisers are the people actually running the so-called "war on terror"
in Afghanistan: a war that they intend to expand to Iraq and any other
Middle Eastern country that gets uppity, in order to make that part of
the world safe for Israel at American expense? Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld is a front man for his nominal subordinates, Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy Douglas Feith; and George Bush's official foreign
policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice, helps him meet his Black quota for
the Cabinet, but it is the Jew Richard Perle, chairman of Bush's
Defense Policy Board, who gives him his foreign policy directives.
As I've said on more than one occasion, George Bush is a feckless
nincompoop who couldn't come up with a defense policy or a foreign
policy on his own if he had to -- which is why he's President. The
real policymakers behind the scenes certainly don't want a man in the
White House who has ideas of his own, because those ideas might
conflict with theirs.
And it is nothing but empty sophistry to make a distinction between
Jews in Israel, such as Ariel Sharon and Simon Peres, and the Jews in
Mr. Bush's administration formulating his policies or the Jews
controlling our mass media. They all are Jews, and that's what really
matters.
There are many knowledgeable Americans besides me who think that it's
not a good thing to have Jews using America to advance Israel's
interests at the expense of America's interests. They know how the
system works: how the Jews exert their control through money and media
and a well-entrenched network of Jewish operatives, such as Wolfowitz
and Feith and Perle. And many of these knowledgeable Americans also
understand how Jewish subterfuge and deceit work: they understand that
the Jews throw up a lot of smoke to conceal their control and make it
appear that they have much less influence than they actually do.
Despite this degree of understanding that many knowledgeable Americans
have, there seem to be very few who are willing or able to draw the
necessary conclusions. What I keep seeing are comments about the need
to get the so-called "peace process" going again in the Middle East,
and how there are hardline supporters of Israel who are obstructing
the "peace process" because they think that it will give too much to
the Palestinians or will compromise Israel's security, or whatever.
These knowledgeable Americans seem to believe that if we could just
get around the Jewish hardliners somehow -- if we could just
neutralize Jews such as Wolfowitz and Feith and Perle; if Ariel Sharon
could be replaced by a "moderate" Jewish prime minister -- then the
"peace process" could proceed, America could gradually reduce its
involvement in helping the Jews keep the Palestinians repressed, and
eventually Israel no longer would be using America, and everything
would be rosy. And so these knowledgeable Americans expend all of
their wit and energy in these trivial pursuits.
Listen! Do you know what the most hopeful aspect of the conflict
between Jews and Palestinians is now? It is the ongoing radicalization
of the Muslim masses throughout the whole Middle East. The
collaborator governments in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia are
terrified of the reaction they see among their own people to what
Ariel Sharon is doing to the Palestinians. When Sharon's Jewish troops
shoot Palestinian children, Muslim mobs riot, and governments that now
collaborate with the United States quake. Ariel Sharon is the best
thing that has happened in the Middle East in the last 54 years.
The Palestinian tactic of suicide bombing is being denounced by every
politician and every media spokesman over here now. It's nothing but
terrorism, they all say. There's no justification at all for suicide
bombing, they tell us. Of course, whenever you hear that sort of
unanimity from the politicians and the media people you should be
suspicious. In fact, suicide bombing is the best tactic for the
Palestinians to use now, because it provokes the Jews to step up
reprisals. And the reprisals radicalize the masses in every country in
the Middle East. If just one of the collaborator governments falls,
the spines of all the rest will be stiffened, and the Bush government
will be far less likely to find collaborators for building its
so-called "coalition" to do the will of the Jews in the Middle East.
Suicide bombers now hardly put a dent in the population of five
million Jews in occupied Palestine, and Sharon's bloody reprisals
hardly put a dent in the overall Palestinian population. But if
conflict of this sort continues until just one collaborator government
is overthrown, that ultimately will be worth more than ten thousand
successful suicide
bombings in which only 20 or so Jews are killed each time. In the long
run there can be no real peace in the Middle East and no end to
America's shameful role there -- and no future for the Palestinian
people -- as long as there is an Israel. There seems to be a better
understanding of these things among knowledgeable Palestinians than
among knowledgeable Americans.
Shallow thinking and the pursuit of trivial goals is even worse among
knowledgeable Americans when it comes to domestic problems. They
really do not want to grasp these problems with both hands and deal
with them in a forthright way. Look, for example, at what uncontrolled
immigration has done and is doing to America. And what do
knowledgeable Americans propose to do about that? Very little, really.
They make much of the fact that several of the al-Qaeda hijackers who
carried out the September 11 attack were in the United States only
because of very lax immigration policies, and so that's a good reason
for tightening up the policies.
How about simply rounding up all illegal aliens immediately -- all 12
million of them -- and booting them and all of their offspring out of
the country without further ado?
Oh, no, no, no! We can't do that! Why not? Well, the media never would
stand for it. The media would be all over anyone who even proposed a
mass expulsion of illegal aliens. They would denounce any political
leader who tried to do that as a "racist" and a "neo-Nazi." And so
knowledgeable Americans, who understand the immigration disaster quite
well, continue tiptoeing around it, afraid to do or even say anything
really significant about it: terrified even to think about really
radical solutions that might actually end the problem. And it's the
same with the rest of our domestic problems. Lots of people understand
these problems and are worried about them, but they won't tackle them
in any
significant way. They let the Jews -- the Jewish media and Jewish
money and the entrenched Jewish network -- have their way, for all
practical purposes.
Why? Why are the Jews permitted to get away with all of their
destructive policies and activities without being challenged or
opposed in any significant way? Part of the reason is that the Jews
are very powerful, and therefore many people are afraid to cross them.
They're afraid of the sort of media reaction I just mentioned in
connection with immigration. Everyone understands that the Jews stick
together and will viciously attack anyone who opposes them. It's the
old story, so aptly expressed by the late-16th-century writer, Sir
John Harington. Harington wrote: "Treason doth never prosper: what's
the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Today the
Jewish power structure is
prospering, and none dare oppose it or even call it what it is. Well,
that's only part of the reason Jews are permitted to get away with so
much. There's more to it than that. There's a mystique the Jews have
built very carefully around themselves and nurtured diligently. It is
a mystique of piety and injured innocence. It is a mystique that says
to the Gentile world: "We are a gentle and inoffensive race, and
because of this everyone hates us. We're smart and we work hard and
achieve success, and because of this everyone hates us. We are a
highly moral and ethical race, and because of this everyone hates us.
We are a very talented race, with many gifted members, many geniuses,
and because of this everyone hates us. We are a very altruistic race,
a race of philanthropists who only want to make a better world for
everyone, and because of this everyone hates us."
Many simpletons among the lemmings simply accept these claims at face
value. Many knowledgeable people, however, who can see through these
claims to the real Jews hiding behind them, still hesitate to
challenge them. Part of the Jewish mystique is the so-called
"Holocaust." In its most simpleminded form the "Holocaust" story is
the claim that the
Germans hated the Jews for the reasons I just mentioned -- for their
gentleness and their success and their morality and their talent and
their altruism -- and because of this hatred roasted six million of
them during the Second World War in "gas ovens," to use one of the
Jews' favorite "Holocaust" phrases.
Actually, the "Holocaust" is a very powerful part of the Jewish
mystique. The Jews crafted the "Holocaust" story with great care and
great effort -- well, actually not with as much care as they might
have used: it's as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, but still it is
sufficient to make most people, even those who understand what Jews
are really like, hesitate to attack them. People don't want to be seen
as bullies. They don't want to be seen as so insensitive that they
would criticize the Jews, who already have suffered so much, poor
dears, at the hands of anti-Semites.
In several past broadcasts we've looked at a number of the lies and
exaggerations and distortions that make up the "Holocaust" story.
There are a number of good books available on the subject from the
sponsor of this broadcast, National Vanguard Books, including Norman
Finklestein's excellent book The Holocaust Industry, which I discussed
in an earlier broadcast. The point is that despite the lies, despite
the fact that many knowledgeable Americans are aware of the lies, the
"Holocaust" still serves its purpose for the Jews. People are afraid
of the image conjured up by the "Holocaust."
Perhaps it's that American life is too soft... Whatever the reason,
many otherwise knowledgeable and hardheaded Americans just can't
entertain the idea of rounding up the Jews and getting rid of them,
even when the situation is as urgent as it is in America today. And
really, in the long run that is the only way to solve the Jewish
problem.
The Germans understood that, back in the 1930s, and they had the
courage and the foresight to act on their understanding. Unlike
Americans today, they had an honest government concerned above all
with the survival, welfare, and progress of the German people, and
they began doing what was necessary, forcing the Jews to emigrate
wholesale from Germany beginning in 1933. And because of that the
Jewish propaganda machine has attacked the Germans so viciously, has
so blackened and demonized their image, that today even knowledgeable
people are afraid to be associated with that image. They are afraid to
say that the Germans were right, that the Germans were justified, and
that we need to do the same if we are to survive. So, as I said, the
"Holocaust" story, despite its
glaring discrepancies and lies, still serves as a shield for the Jews;
it still protects them from criticism.
Well, mostly. In parts of Europe not quite as poisoned by Jewish
propaganda as America is, the shield has slipped a bit. A large
British department store chain, Selfridges, has yielded to demands
from anti-Israel demonstrators and has removed from its shelves
products marked "Made in Israel." Last week the second largest
supermarket chain in Norway, Coop Norge -- which is to say, Norway
Coop, announced its decision to boycott all Israeli imports. That
decision was not the result of pressure from anti-Israel demonstrators
but was based on the feeling by Coop Norge management that it would be
immoral to continue supporting the Israeli economy by selling Israeli
imports under the
present circumstances. That is a step forward, though it is a long way
from what is needed.
The Jews, of course, immediately began waving their "Holocaust" story
around, and now, as the boycott movement catches hold in Scandinavia,
they are trying to portray themselves as injured innocents being
attacked once more by "anti-Semites." They are comparing the growing
Scandinavian boycott of Israeli products to the German boycott of
Jewish merchants in the late 1930s. Certainly, a boycott of Israeli
products is a good thing, and the fact that such a boycott is even
thinkable by big businessmen today is a sign that the Jewish mystique
-- and in particular the Jewish "Holocaust" story -- is becoming a bit
shopworn. It no longer has the hypnotic power that it once had -- at
least, in some parts of the world. And I suppose that we should be
happy about that. The unfortunate fact remains, however, that in
America the Jews still have their money and
their media and their entrenched network of bureaucrats, and even if
the "Holocaust" story has lost some of its charm in Europe, it still
keeps most knowledgeable Americans intimidated.
Knowledge isn't enough. Courage and boldness also are necessary.
Honesty and forthrightness are necessary also. Tiptoeing around the
critical issues of our time isn't enough. Tiny reforms in our
disastrous foreign policy and in our disastrous immigration policy and
in a dozen other disastrous policies aren't enough. We need to stop
apologizing to the people who are destroying us and go full bore at
destroying them instead.
Instead of being hypnotized by the "Holocaust" story we need to look
with clear eyes at why there was a need for action against the Jews in
Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. The Jews' claim today that the Germans
were suffering from collective insanity and had no reason for trying
to get the Jews off their backs is as phony as George Bush's claim
that
Osama bin Laden had no reason for attacking America on September 11.
Wherever Jews go they corrupt and destroy. That is their nature,
always and everywhere. Let us be thankful to the Palestinians who now
are making such terrible sacrifices to help the world see what the
Jews are like. And I suppose we also should be thankful to Ariel
Sharon for demonstrating so forthrightly to the world what Jews are
like.
Let us hope that the conflict between Jews and Palestinians
intensifies and lasts long enough to wake up many more of our people
around the world and fill them with disgust at America's continuing
support for the Jews. Let us hope that it lasts long enough to bring
about the overthrow of every collaborationist regime in the Muslim
world. Let us hope that it brings about an airtight oil embargo
against the United States and shuts off the lights in every shopping
mall and every sports stadium in America long enough for the lemmings
to become restless and begin asking questions. Let us hope that it
makes the efforts of every fool and every traitor who is striving for
a resumption of the so-called "peace process" so obviously futile that
these efforts no longer have the power to deceive anyone.
Ultimately, of course, we must not depend on the Palestinian suicide
bombers or on Ariel Sharon's murder squads to do for us what we should
be doing for ourselves. Ultimately we must stop tiptoeing and begin
marching boldly and forthrightly toward solving our own problems."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
Gary Renzetti
> Setting the record straight-
> On Jul 8, 9:56 pm, Gary Renzetti <lizg...@connection.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, it would be appropriate for Israeli to release anyone in prison who has
>>> not committed a crime nor is a terrorist if the Palestinians would agree to
>>> live in peace. As far as extra-judicial murders, I think that decision sits
>>> squarely on the Palestinians. The simple answer is to stop killing
>>> civilians. Israel holds no hostages.
>> If someone throws you in the slam with no charge, no trial, and no
>> sentence, you're a hostage. Spare me the kaka about "administrative
>> detention", it is merely spin.
>
> A person who engages in military actions while not wearing distinctive
> clothing typically has the choice of hanging or shooting made for
> him.
The fact that such Pallies are in jail and not 6 feet under says
> multitudes about the humanitarian Israeli policies.
people who are charged with nothing at all, and have never gone to trial.
>
>>> Closing settlements is a reasonable demand if those settlements are located
>>> on land other than Israel (that doesn't include the Goland Heights or Gaza
>>> as these areas were forfeited after an unprovocted attack on Israel by
>>> foreign powers).
>> 1967 was not an "unprovocted"(sic) attack. It was an Isr-eli® first
>> strike. The Egyptian Air Force didn't 'attack' anyone; it was destroyed
>> on the ground. And International Law expressly forbids colonizing
>> territories seized in war.
>
> Hoboy, repeating the Arab lie again. I'm not even going to waste my
> time refuting this; the FACTS speak clearly as to what happened,
> including the Egyptian threats, military movements, blockade of Eilat
> (an direct act of war, by the way), violation of Israeli airspace (a
> direct act of war), and alliances with Jordan and Syria.
A semi-true story. Granted the izzies were provoked, and war was coming.
And I'll concede that Nasser might have attacked the zionist entity if
he thought that he had a good shot at winning such a conflict. But what
the unprovoked zionist attack on Egypt in 1956?
>
> Then of course, there's the unprovoked Jordanian invasion of Israel on
> June 5, 1967 ....
Jordan? Hussein had no option. He was committed by treaty to come to the
aid of Egypt if she was attacked which she had been. He may have been
foolish, but he was an honorable fool.
>
>>> Compensating Palestinians is a complex question. Of course, those Palestinains who fled the country at the onset of the 1948
>>> should get nothing
and consideration needs to be given to those hundreds of
>>> thousands of Jews who were forced from their homes in Arab countries during
>>> the same time period.
>> Bullshit. THe Jews were kicked out of the Arab states as a direct result
>> of the zionists terrorizing the Palestinian Arabs.
>
> It was the establishment of Israel that resulted in the Jewish
> expulsion.
Indeed. It was established by numerous acts of terrorism against the
resident Arab population.
And of course, as HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, the Arab refusal
> to implement their part of Res 142,
Rightly so. UNGARs are non-binding. Some holier-than-thou types come
along and tell you that they're going to take a chunk of your turf and
give it to a bunch of D/Ps, I daresay that your reply would also be
"GFY" or other insult direct too.
and instead engaging in a War of
> Genocide against the Jews,
There was no Arab "War of Genocide®" against the Jews, they just wanted
them to fuck off.
is the root cause of the fictitious
> Palestinian refugee problem.
>
> The Jewish refugees have a stronger case for compensation than do the
> Arabs. Unlike the Arabs who were displaced, the Jews didn't support
> the invaders of their country
What country? Poland? Russia? Ukraine? The UK?, The USA?, Romania?
(and the 1915 Armenians can tell you
> what usually happens to people who do what the Arabs did).
I notice that to this day the Armenians who survived are still fighting
a low-level resistance to the Turks.
>
>>> Tearing down the anti terrorist wall would also be a good thing since Arabs
>>> would no longer be a threat to innocent women and children. As far as the
>>> "Apartheid Wall" well, I have no idea of what you are referring to.
>> Yes you do. That obscenity the zionists built on their Eastern
>> outskirts. If the thing were in fact a security measure, it would have
>> been constructed on the izzie side of the cease-fire line. It is no such
>> thing. It is a defacto border marker, and is built entirely on the
>> Palestinian side of the Green Line. Terror is all the checkpoints and
>> the Jew-only roads in the West Bank and that zionist scum in Hebron that
>> daily brutalizes their Arab nothing while the izzie military satnds by
>> and grins about it.
>
> The Green Line is not the border; just read the 1949 Armistice
> agreements with Transjordan, Syria, and Egypt. So any statement that
> implies Israel treat it as the border is contrary to the agreements
> signed by both Israel and the Arab nations. The only established
> borders are with Egypt (by 1977? treaty), Jordan (by 1994 treaty), and
> Lebanon (specified as such in the 1949 armistice).
Of course. If the izzies didn't leave their eastern border undefined
it'd be a lot more difficult to continuing stealing land in the WB. How
can this entity make claims to statehood without legally defined and
recognized borders?
>
> So why are you putting requirements on Israel that don't exist? (And
> don't even TRY to repeat the Arab lie that Res 242 requires a
> withdrawal to the armistice lines.)
I hadn't planned to, but who the fuck do you think you are to be
commanding me what and what not to post? Did someone appoint you *god*
while I was having a whiz?
Gary Renzetti
slams with this status, including children.
have fled "on thier own accord" until the cessation of hostilities.
Would you not do so too, to protect yourself and your family?
Also, the Jews expelled from
> other Arab countries had their property confiscated and deported by
> Islamofascists.
> Those Palestinians should have stayed and protected the homeland against the
> invasion. After all, if this is Palestine then that means the Jews living
> there are also Palestinians. But then again, there is no such place as the
> country of Palestine.
True. this is so because the crew in Tel Aviv refuse to let a
Palestinian state come into being.
>>>>> Tearing down the anti terrorist wall would also be a good thing since
>>>>> Arabs would no longer be a threat to innocent women and children. As
>>>>> far as the "Apartheid Wall" well, I have no idea of what you are
>>>>> referring to.
>>>> Yes you do. That obscenity the zionists built on their Eastern
>>>> outskirts. If the thing were in fact a security measure, it would have
>>>> been constructed on the izzie side of the cease-fire line. It is no such
>>>> thing. It is a defacto border marker, and is built entirely on the
>>>> Palestinian side of the Green Line. Terror is all the checkpoints and
>>>> the Jew-only roads in the West Bank and that zionist scum in Hebron that
>>>> daily brutalizes their Arab nothing while the izzie military satnds by
>>>> and grins about it.
>>> You have a problem with Israelis determining who is allowing to come into
>>> their country?
>> No. I'd argue about the "their country" lie, but the fact is that they're
>> there and they aren't leaving just yet.I stated I thought quite clearly
>> that my objection is not to the Apartheid wall, but to the *location* of
>> the Apartheid wall. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
>
> Isn't the wall located within Israel?
No. It most definitely is not. It is located in what the izzies call the
"occupied territory®". If this is in fact "isr-el®" then give *all* the
people living there the same rights and services as any other izzie
citizen. If it is not, then get the fuck out and stop abusing the locals.
>> I believe the grease monkeys in most Arab countries do the
>>> same to Jews regardless of their country of origin.
>> Fuck you and your sheenie ass for the "grease monkey" crap. Just who the
>> fuck do you think you are? Better than someone else? You sure as
>> hemorrhoids aren't proving it with the crap you post here.
>
> I believe that was my question to you. You are the one with the foul mouth
> and then you get upset when I throw it back at you? Better than someone
> else? You sure have a large set of balls, don't you. You refer to Arabs as
> Arabs and Palestinians as Palestinians but how do you descibe Israelis or
> Jews?
Jews? As Jews.
Izzies? As the scum they are.
>>> Yes, the wall is a bad symbol but there would not be a need for the wall
>>> if the grease monkeys ceased killing women and children.
>> Or if the izzies fucked off back to their stetls in the slums of Europe.
>
> Well, when all people other than American Indians depart all the Americas
> and Austrailia and other countries like Iraq return their country to the
> Assyrians then that ain't about to happen. Matter of fact, if you're white
> then by your standards you don't have much of anything for a homeland. You
> want the Jews to leave their country but don't seem to have a problem with
> other Arab countries not wanting anything to do with Arabs who have left
> Israel.
Arabs who have left the zionist state, I have no knowledge of.
But nearly all Arab countries have Palestinian residents. In some cases
they get full rights, but sadly in most they are treated at best as
unwelcome temporary guests.
I guess that you're trying to say that because there are lots of shitty
Arab governments, that somehow it's cool (kosher?) for the izzies to
abuse the Arabs in the "occupied territories®"?
Gary Renzetti
>
See? The Palestinians don't revere terrorists, but the izzies do, as
proven several times by their choice of "main man".
Thanks for admitting that.
>
Gary Renzetti
You're entitled to yours too.
>
Gary Renzetti
arrest in the rubble of his compound in Ramallah and was incapable of
enforcing his orders. He was incapable of "ending all terrorist
activities" when Sharon made the demand. It was as ridiculous as
ordering the Dalai Lama to order the Palestinians to stop shooting at
the izzies. Even if Arafat had honestly wanted to do so, he couldn't
have done this.
> Can you tell me why you say the wall
> "is built entirely on the Palestinian side of the Green Line"?
It isn't. My apology.
I should have said that it is built *largely* on the Palestinian side of
the Green line, and *never* on gthe izzie side.
> Can you tell me why the PA shouldn't be forced
> to share the costs of the wall in this small way?
Because it steals *lots* of their real estate. What you propose is akin
to the Iranians shooting B'hais because they won't renounce their faith
and then invoicing the victims families for the cost of the bullets.
Coming from yourself, this sort of reasoning is not really the shock
that you might have expected.
> Can you tell me why you call the Green Line a "border"?
Because anything east of it was never part of "isr-el®".
> Can you tell me why building the wall on the Green Line
> would not be a "defacto border marker"?
Why would I want to do that? If the zionist state is going to continue
to exist, the 1967 cease-fire line (the Green Line) should indeed be the
defacto border. For me to argue otherwise, I would have to disagree with
myself.
Gary Renzetti
> - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"-
Shlomo
> Shlomo wrote:
> > Setting the record straight-
> > A person who engages in military actions while not wearing distinctive
> > clothing typically has the choice of hanging or shooting made for
> > him.
>
> True.
> The fact that such Pallies are in jail and not 6 feet under says
> multitudes about the humanitarian Israeli policies.
>
> I'm not talking about "such 'Pallies' " Shlomo. I'm talking about the
> people who are charged with nothing at all, and have never gone to trial.
And if they were caught in "actions" of "resistance", they are not
protected by either civil law or the Geneva Conventions unless they
were wearing distinctive clothing identifying themselves as
combatants.
And again, please enlighten us how, between 1949 and 1967, the Arabs
took the appropriate actions to establish their own nation in that
part of Palestine under Arab control, while recognizing the right of
the Jewish Palestinians to their own nation in the area under their
control.
> > Hoboy, repeating the Arab lie again. I'm not even going to waste my
> > time refuting this; the FACTS speak clearly as to what happened,
> > including the Egyptian threats, military movements, blockade of Eilat
> > (an direct act of war, by the way), violation of Israeli airspace (a
> > direct act of war), and alliances with Jordan and Syria.
>
> A semi-true story. Granted the izzies were provoked, and war was coming.
> And I'll concede that Nasser might have attacked the zionist entity if
> he thought that he had a good shot at winning such a conflict. But what
> the unprovoked zionist attack on Egypt in 1956?
Excuse me Dago, but the nation is Israel, and the people who are its
citizens are Israelis. Please use proper terminology.
Regarding 1956, while the British and French interests were regaining
the Suez Canal that Nasser had stolen, Israel's interest was in
stopping terrorism that originated from the Gaza Strip. So the 1956
invasion was not unprovoked.
> > Then of course, there's the unprovoked Jordanian invasion of Israel on
> > June 5, 1967 ....
>
> Jordan? Hussein had no option. He was committed by treaty to come to the
> aid of Egypt if she was attacked which she had been. He may have been
> foolish, but he was an honorable fool.
We all have the right to say "no", and by failing to do so, the
Israeli response was totally appropriate. Don't you agree? (And
before you give any crap that Israel should've stopped at the Green
Line, would Jordan have stopped at, or withdrawn to, the Green Line?)
> > It was the establishment of Israel that resulted in the Jewish
> > expulsion.
>
> Indeed. It was established by numerous acts of terrorism against the
> resident Arab population.
The Zionist actions were in RESPONSE to Arab atrocities against the
Jews. You always seem to avoid that itty-bitty fact.
> And of course, as HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, the Arab refusal> to implement their part of Res 142,
>
> Rightly so. UNGARs are non-binding. Some holier-than-thou types come
> along and tell you that they're going to take a chunk of your turf and
> give it to a bunch of D/Ps, I daresay that your reply would also be
> "GFY" or other insult direct too.
That part of Palestine that the LEGAL GOVERNMENT gave to the Zionists
was limited to an area where the Jews were a supermajority, along with
a virtually uninhabited region. The Zionists were not given "Arab
Turf"; rather, they were given sovereignty only over that area where
they had built a nation.
Furthermore, the Zionist halutzim (pioneers) and the D/P's are
themselves indigenous to that land, unlike those who founded the
United States, Canada, and Australia. So unlike the USA, Canada, and
Australia, Israel was founded and built by an indigenous people.
> and instead engaging in a War of> Genocide against the Jews,
>
> There was no Arab "War of Genocide®" against the Jews, they just wanted
> them to fuck off.
The Zionists came as LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who LEGALLY PURCHASED land in
our ANCESTRAL HOMELAND. Why do you ignore these facts?
> is the root cause of the fictitious> Palestinian refugee problem.
>
> > The Jewish refugees have a stronger case for compensation than do the
> > Arabs. Unlike the Arabs who were displaced, the Jews didn't support
> > the invaders of their country
>
> What country? Poland? Russia? Ukraine? The UK?, The USA?, Romania?
The Palestinian Arabs supported the invaders of their country;
specifically, the Arab nation authorized by the UN. Many of the
250,000 Arabs who would end up in Israel also supported these outside
invaders of their nation.
> (and the 1915 Armenians can tell you> what usually happens to people who do what the Arabs did).
>
> I notice that to this day the Armenians who survived are still fighting
> a low-level resistance to the Turks.
And there will be an appropriate Turkish response to those from within
and without who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Ankara
government within borders established by international law.
> > The Green Line is not the border; just read the 1949 Armistice
> > agreements with Transjordan, Syria, and Egypt. So any statement that
> > implies Israel treat it as the border is contrary to the agreements
> > signed by both Israel and the Arab nations. The only established
> > borders are with Egypt (by 1977? treaty), Jordan (by 1994 treaty), and
> > Lebanon (specified as such in the 1949 armistice).
>
> Of course. If the izzies didn't leave their eastern border undefined
> it'd be a lot more difficult to continuing stealing land in the WB. How
> can this entity make claims to statehood without legally defined and
> recognized borders?
It takes TWO to define a border, and Transjordan chose not to define
its western border. Why?
> > So why are you putting requirements on Israel that don't exist? (And
> > don't even TRY to repeat the Arab lie that Res 242 requires a
> > withdrawal to the armistice lines.)
>
> I hadn't planned to, but who the fuck do you think you are to be
> commanding me what and what not to post? Did someone appoint you *god*
> while I was having a whiz?
If you wish to have an intelligent discussion, then it's necessary to
stick to facts. You seem to have a problem with reality, often
posting Arab lies,most prominently the myth that Israel started the
Six Day War and the myth that Res 242 requires an Israeli withdrawal
to the Armistice lines; I just want to make sure that you don't
pollute an intelligent discussion with such myths.
jojo
> "jojo" <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f4378fec-1e02-46dd...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >ALL, genetic research conducted on Jews has proved that all the Jewish
> >communities but the Ethiopian one were genetically connected and had
> >the same ancestors.
>
> You're totally wrong.
>
> Your argument is based on two works by jews, who committed academic fraud,
> who had to go back as far as the apes to get a DNA match with the Ashkenazi
> and the real jews.
Yes of course... It is very nice that they let you surf on the
internet. What mental institution is it ?
Zev
> Zev wrote:
>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>> news:dc43d$48755350$cf701d69$24...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>> Zev wrote:
>>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dd8a1$48741776$d8fe9e2e$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>> Justin Case wrote:
>>>>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a9574$4872cbb2$d8fe9c9a$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>>>> Justin Case wrote:
>> Can you tell me if the wall would have been built
>> if Arafat would have honored his signed agreement
>> to end all terrorist activities?
> Obviously not for certain, but probably. Arafat was under virtual house
> arrest in the rubble of his compound in Ramallah and was incapable of
> enforcing his orders. He was incapable of "ending all terrorist
> activities" when Sharon made the demand. It was as ridiculous as ordering
> the Dalai Lama to order the Palestinians to stop shooting at the izzies.
> Even if Arafat had honestly wanted to do so, he couldn't have done this.
BS.
He told them what to do and to ignore his public statements.
Documents captured from the Mukatta prove that
he was even paying them for their "services" to the PA.
He exploited peace talks for all they were worth,
then he practiced "diplomacy by other means".
He said it differently in Arabic.
The same thing is happening today in Gaza.
They arranged a cease fire, the fire doesn't stop.
Israel waits a few days,
hoping that the cease-fire orders
haven't yet reached the grass-roots, and soon will.
Public pressure builds up for the government to take action.
All semblance of a cease fire disappears.
The Oslo agreements were carefully staged
in order to test Palestinian intentions
as the plans went into operation.
It didn't work out because Arafat
never had any intention of keeping
his part of the agreements.
He said (in Arabic only, of course) we will accept
whatever Israel gives us now,
later we will *take* the rest.
Arafat agreed not to allow Goebbels-like anti-Semitic propaganda.
This is in the accords, but it didn't need to be.
It should have been self-evident,
to anyone who was planning to establish a peaceful country
which would take its place among the nations of the world.
Arafat agreed to "one rule - one force".
This is in the accords, but it didn't need to be.
It should have been self-evident,
to anyone who was planning establish the rule of law in his country.
These agreements were not kept.
The reason is self-evident,
to anyone who's objectivity and impartiality
don't change sides at the Green Line.
You make a deal with the 'leader',
someone else comes along and says,
"wait a minute, you didn't talk to me yet".
People who really want to make a bargain
don't work that way.
People who do are only interested
in creating for themselves an excuse not to.
BTW, Palestinian unfulfillment of the Oslo agreements
was not limited to violence.
There was not a single part of the agreement,
deemed by the Palestinians not to be or no longer in,
their interests, which they fulfilled.
After the 6 day war, Israeli policy was to help
the Palestinians better themselves in the hope
that they would cooperate economically
for the mutual profit of both peoples.
Moshe Dayan pushed this policy, he promised it would work.
It didn't, but until it collapsed in 1988 (with the first intifada)
their standard of living rose every year,
and Palestinians could be seen working all over Israel,
in menial and skilled labor.
Don't tell me why it failed,
it doesn't make a difference.
It was a decision they made.
As it became more and more dangerous to allow Palestinians
to travel freely in Israel, more and more
restrictions were placed on them.
Palestinian Nationhood was offered, 'free', in 1947.
It could have been achieved as part of the peace with Egypt,
after five years of autonomy.
It could have been achieved as a natural outcome of the Oslo
agreements.
It could have been achieved by accepting
Israeli PM Barak's offer in Camp David in 2000.
It *might* have been achieved between 1949-1967
by demanding it from Egypt and Jordan.
Today, we all know the outline of the eventual peace agreement,
unless you're thinking of turning the M.E. into molten glass.
What is the point of shooting Kassam rockets
from Beit Hanoun into Sderot and Ashkelon,
knowing the difficulty Israel has in retaliating in kind,
and then screaming "Look what they did to me",
when the inevitable retaliation comes,
no matter how hard they try to punish only the 'guilty'.
What is the point of teaching children to hate others,
instead of to love themselves?
>> Can you tell me why you say the wall
>> "is built entirely on the Palestinian side of the Green Line"?
> It isn't. My apology.
> I should have said that it is built *largely* on the Palestinian side of
> the Green line, and *never* on gthe izzie side.
Any statistics?
Documentation?
>> Can you tell me why the PA shouldn't be forced
>> to share the costs of the wall in this small way?
> Because it steals *lots* of their real estate. What you propose is akin to
> the Iranians shooting B'hais because they won't renounce their faith and
> then invoicing the victims families for the cost of the bullets.
> Coming from yourself, this sort of reasoning is not really the shock that
> you might have expected.
It may be that you don't know how reluctant
the Israeli government was to build the fence,
because it's so expensive.
Public opinion forced the decision.
What would have been better,
retaliating for every atrocity with long range artillery?
What does this have to do Iranian Bahais?
1) The fence is being built because the PA harbors terrorists.
2) The PA is not paying for it (obviously).
3) If the fence followed the Green Line exactly,
it would be a political fence,
representing Israeli acceptance of today's 'border'
and as such would be a victory for terrorism.
All in all PA complaints about the fence
sound to me like starting a war, losing it,
and then crying about it.
Do you remember?
The same thing happened after the June war of 1967.
And after the 'nakba' of 1947-48.
>> Can you tell me why you call the Green Line a "border"?
> Because anything east of it was never part of "isr-el®".
>
>> Can you tell me why building the wall on the Green Line
>> would not be a "defacto border marker"?
> Why would I want to do that? If the zionist state is going to continue to
> exist, the 1967 cease-fire line (the Green Line) should indeed be the
> defacto border. For me to argue otherwise, I would have to disagree with
> myself.
The eventual border is part of the bargaining
which is going on right now.
If both sides agree to a border somewhere else,
why would you disagree?
Zev
> Justin Case wrote:
>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>> news:15ccf$48757978$cf701d69$20...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>> Justin Case wrote:
>>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dd8a1$48741776$d8fe9e2e$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>> Justin Case wrote:
>>>>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a9574$4872cbb2$d8fe9c9a$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>>>> Justin Case wrote:
> If someone throws you in the slam with no charge, no trial, and no
> sentence, you're a hostage. And there certainly lots of people in izzie
> slams with this status, including children.
Any statistics?
Documentation?
>> Also, the Jews expelled from
>> other Arab countries had their property confiscated and deported by
>> Islamofascists.
>> Those Palestinians should have stayed and protected the homeland against
>> the invasion. After all, if this is Palestine then that means the Jews
>> living there are also Palestinians. But then again, there is no such
>> place as the country of Palestine.
> True. this is so because the crew in Tel Aviv refuse to let a Palestinian
> state come into being.
Palestinian Nationhood was offered, 'free', in 1947.
It could have been achieved as part of the peace with Egypt,
after five years of autonomy.
It could have been achieved as a natural outcome of the Oslo
agreements.
It could have been achieved by accepting
Israeli PM Barak's offer in Camp David in 2000.
It *might* have been achieved between 1949-1967
by demanding it from Egypt and Jordan.
So, why isn't there a Palestinian state?
>> Well, when all people other than American Indians depart all the Americas
>> and Austrailia and other countries like Iraq return their country to the
>> Assyrians then that ain't about to happen. Matter of fact, if you're
>> white then by your standards you don't have much of anything for a
>> homeland. You want the Jews to leave their country but don't seem to
>> have a problem with other Arab countries not wanting anything to do with
>> Arabs who have left Israel.
> Arabs who have left the zionist state, I have no knowledge of.
Because there are so few.
What would you conclude from that?
Zev
Maybe we can satify everyone if people like you
agree to use a signiture which says:
"The opinions expressed above are totally uninformed
and perhaps somewhat biased.
The author takes no responsibilty for damages
caused by easily influenced people believing
and acting on any of them".
Justin Case
If it were an attack to kill me and all my brethern, then no, I'd stay and
fight and expect my wife and cchildren to do the same.
>
> Also, the Jews expelled from
>> other Arab countries had their property confiscated and deported by
>> Islamofascists.
>> Those Palestinians should have stayed and protected the homeland against
>> the invasion. After all, if this is Palestine then that means the Jews
>> living there are also Palestinians. But then again, there is no such
>> place as the country of Palestine.
> True. this is so because the crew in Tel Aviv refuse to let a Palestinian
> state come into being.
Trans-Jordon?
>
>>>>>> Tearing down the anti terrorist wall would also be a good thing since
>>>>>> Arabs would no longer be a threat to innocent women and children. As
>>>>>> far as the "Apartheid Wall" well, I have no idea of what you are
>>>>>> referring to.
>>>>> Yes you do. That obscenity the zionists built on their Eastern
>>>>> outskirts. If the thing were in fact a security measure, it would have
>>>>> been constructed on the izzie side of the cease-fire line. It is no
>>>>> such thing. It is a defacto border marker, and is built entirely on
>>>>> the Palestinian side of the Green Line. Terror is all the checkpoints
>>>>> and the Jew-only roads in the West Bank and that zionist scum in
>>>>> Hebron that daily brutalizes their Arab nothing while the izzie
>>>>> military satnds by and grins about it.
>>>> You have a problem with Israelis determining who is allowing to come
>>>> into their country?
>>> No. I'd argue about the "their country" lie, but the fact is that
>>> they're there and they aren't leaving just yet.I stated I thought quite
>>> clearly that my objection is not to the Apartheid wall, but to the
>>> *location* of the Apartheid wall. Do you have a reading comprehension
>>> problem?
>>
>> Isn't the wall located within Israel?
> No. It most definitely is not. It is located in what the izzies call the
> "occupied territory®". If this is in fact "isr-el®" then give *all* the
> people living there the same rights and services as any other izzie
> citizen. If it is not, then get the fuck out and stop abusing the locals.
In 1949 Jordon annexed a large poriton of Sumeria and Judea which is
commonly referred to as the West Bank. Additionally, Jordon annexed East
Jeruselum, not allowing Jews to visit ththeir main holy site.
The West Bank is part of Israel until such time as a Israel/Palestine
partition can be approved.
Besides, it was the Arabs who rejected the UN partion of Israel/Palestine.
Originally, Trans-Jordon was part of the Palestine Mandate.
No, that is simply my response to your unfair claims. If it's good for the
goose than it's good for the gander.
The Palestinians have ligitimate gripes and it would be nice to have this
mess finally settled. The problem is that Arab countries surroundd Israel.
If the Arabs screw up then all they have to do is go home and attack another
day. Israel does not have that luxury as it's either win or pretty much be
eliminated (both the country and the people). This is further compounded by
Muslim claims of historic connection to jeruselum while prempting Jewish
claims.
Justin Case
The PLO is not nor never was a terrorist organizaiton? Arafat was not a
terrorist? Hamas is not a terrorist organizzation?
>>
Justin Case
Something had to be done with Arafat. Hell, the Palestinians should piss on
his grave as he stole much of the international monetary assistance provided
to them.
>
>> Can you tell me why you say the wall
>> "is built entirely on the Palestinian side of the Green Line"?
> It isn't. My apology.
> I should have said that it is built *largely* on the Palestinian side of
> the Green line, and *never* on gthe izzie side.
>
>> Can you tell me why the PA shouldn't be forced
>> to share the costs of the wall in this small way?
> Because it steals *lots* of their real estate. What you propose is akin to
> the Iranians shooting B'hais because they won't renounce their faith and
> then invoicing the victims families for the cost of the bullets.
> Coming from yourself, this sort of reasoning is not really the shock that
> you might have expected.
>
>> Can you tell me why you call the Green Line a "border"?
> Because anything east of it was never part of "isr-el®".
>
>> Can you tell me why building the wall on the Green Line
>> would not be a "defacto border marker"?
> Why would I want to do that? If the zionist state is going to continue to
> exist, the 1967 cease-fire line (the Green Line) should indeed be the
> defacto border. For me to argue otherwise, I would have to disagree with
> myself.
Why not the 1948 borders?
Stan
> > Can you tell me why building the wall on the Green Line
> > would not be a "defacto border marker"?
>
> Why would I want to do that? If the zionist state is going to continue
> to exist, the 1967 cease-fire line (the Green Line) should indeed be the
> defacto border. For me to argue otherwise, I would have to disagree with
> myself.
It's Israel, not "the zionist state" or "zionist entity".
As far as the Green Line being the defacto border, it should be noted
that the Arabs never even spoke about it being a border between Israel
and the Palestinian Arab state until they no longer controlled it (as
a result, incidentally, of a war that they unilaterally started).
Then, all of a sudden, it became the border (but even then, not
really, as the Arabs then deny it's the border by denying Israel the
right to control immigration across and citizenship within the
border).
Gary Renzetti
> On Jul 10, 8:51 pm, Gary Renzetti <lizg...@connection.com> wrote:
>> Shlomo wrote:
>>> Setting the record straight-
>
>>> A person who engages in military actions while not wearing distinctive
>>> clothing typically has the choice of hanging or shooting made for
>>> him.
>> True.
>> The fact that such Pallies are in jail and not 6 feet under says
>> multitudes about the humanitarian Israeli policies.
>>
>> I'm not talking about "such 'Pallies' " Shlomo. I'm talking about the
>> people who are charged with nothing at all, and have never gone to trial.
>
> And if they were caught in "actions" of "resistance", they are not
> protected by either civil law or the Geneva Conventions unless they
> were wearing distinctive clothing identifying themselves as
> combatants.
committing illegal acts (as defined by local laws) that the suspects
were *accused* of crimes, *tried* according to local statutes, and *if*
*found* *guilty* were then *sentenced* for their illegal actions. There
are *ten* *thousand* people in your beloved thuggocracy who are in the
slam but have yet to receive such niceties. i.e. They are hostages.
>
> And again, please enlighten us how, between 1949 and 1967, the Arabs
> took the appropriate actions to establish their own nation in that
> part of Palestine under Arab control, while recognizing the right of
> the Jewish Palestinians to their own nation in the area under their
> control.
partition of their land and wanted the invaders to go home. Post 1967,
they realized that they could not defeat the invaders militarily and
were willing to concede this unfortunate truth and settle something less.
>
>>> Hoboy, repeating the Arab lie again. I'm not even going to waste my
>>> time refuting this; the FACTS speak clearly as to what happened,
>>> including the Egyptian threats, military movements, blockade of Eilat
>>> (an direct act of war, by the way), violation of Israeli airspace (a
>>> direct act of war), and alliances with Jordan and Syria.
>> A semi-true story. Granted the izzies were provoked, and war was coming.
>> And I'll concede that Nasser might have attacked the zionist entity if
>> he thought that he had a good shot at winning such a conflict. But what
>> the unprovoked zionist attack on Egypt in 1956?
>
> Excuse me Dago, but the nation is Israel, and the people who are its
> citizens are Israelis. Please use proper terminology.
who kvetched about my addressing you as "schmoo"? Now you're using
racial slurs. Fine, so can I kike.)
Do we really have to descend to this level? Your call, asshole.
Call me "Rensphagetti", or "Renshitty"; I could care less; talk about
"dagos" or "wops" or "coons" and I will respond in kind.
I *am* using proper terminology. Your beloved entity is a rogue state of
dubious legality. To use a term your crew are fond of, it is a "disputed
territory". The place is a racist arrogant thuggocracy. What others
choose to call residents of your thuggocracy is not my business, but
what name I choose for the entity is my affair.
Suck it up.
>
> Regarding 1956, while the British and French interests were regaining
> the Suez Canal that Nasser had stolen,
Nationalized, actually. As it should have been at the end of WWII.
Israel's interest was in
> stopping terrorism that originated from the Gaza Strip.
Not "terrorism®" at all. *Resistance* to an invader. the Palestinian
Arabs in Gaza just wanted the homes that they had been stolen from them
and given to European invaders returned to them.
So the 1956
> invasion was not unprovoked.
Excreta.
>
>>> Then of course, there's the unprovoked Jordanian invasion of Israel on
>>> June 5, 1967 ....
>> Jordan? Hussein had no option. He was committed by treaty to come to the
>> aid of Egypt if she was attacked which she had been. He may have been
>> foolish, but he was an honorable fool.
>
> We all have the right to say "no", and by failing to do so, the
> Israeli response was totally appropriate.
Don't you agree?
No, I don't at all. King Hussein had committed his country to defend
Egypt if it was attacked, and the zionists *attacked* Egypt. Rightly or
wrongly, he was committed to do so, and honored his obligation.
(And
> before you give any crap that Israel should've stopped at the Green
> Line, would Jordan have stopped at, or withdrawn to, the Green Line?)
Why would I say that? You are inventing things, Stanley the schmoo.
>
>>> It was the establishment of Israel that resulted in the Jewish
>>> expulsion.
>> Indeed. It was established by numerous acts of terrorism against the
>> resident Arab population.
>
> The Zionist actions were in RESPONSE to Arab atrocities against the
> Jews. You always seem to avoid that itty-bitty fact.
>
>> And of course, as HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, the Arab refusal> to implement their part of Res 142,
>>
>> Rightly so. UNGARs are non-binding. Some holier-than-thou types come
>> along and tell you that they're going to take a chunk of your turf and
>> give it to a bunch of D/Ps, I daresay that your reply would also be
>> "GFY" or other insult direct too.
>
> That part of Palestine that the LEGAL GOVERNMENT gave to the Zionists
> was limited to an area where the Jews were a supermajority, along with
> a virtually uninhabited region. The Zionists were not given "Arab
> Turf"; rather, they were given sovereignty only over that area where
> they had built a nation.
This distortion of yours has already been addressed at considerable
length previously.
>
> Furthermore, the Zionist halutzim (pioneers) and the D/P's are
> themselves indigenous to that land, unlike those who founded the
> United States, Canada, and Australia.
Not so. The Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars from Asia, and they
are the dominant group in the zionist entity.
So unlike the USA, Canada, and
> Australia, Israel was founded and built by an indigenous people.
Again not so. The indigenous Jews (the Sephardim) lived in Palestine
since "forever" but certainly didn't "found" anything in modern times
and I am told are treated as second-class izzies today. (I must admit to
having no personal knowledge of this, never having been to the zionist
entity).
>
>> and instead engaging in a War of> Genocide against the Jews,
>>
>> There was no Arab "War of Genocide®" against the Jews, they just wanted
>> them to fuck off.
>
> The Zionists came as LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who LEGALLY PURCHASED land in
> our ANCESTRAL HOMELAND. Why do you ignore these facts?
As discussed previously, the pre-WWII Jewish immigrants purchased about
7% of Palestine prior to the formation of the zionist entity.
I refuse to engage in this conversation again. We have already done this.
>
>> is the root cause of the fictitious> Palestinian refugee problem.
>>
>>> The Jewish refugees have a stronger case for compensation than do the
>>> Arabs. Unlike the Arabs who were displaced, the Jews didn't support
>>> the invaders of their country
>> What country? Poland? Russia? Ukraine? The UK?, The USA?, Romania?
>
> The Palestinian Arabs supported the invaders of their country;
> specifically, the Arab nation authorized by the UN.
In a *non-binding* General Assembly Resolution. Were the Arabs who had
lived there for centuries to have no say in what was done with their
homeland?
Many of the
> 250,000 Arabs who would end up in Israel also supported these outside
> invaders of their nation.
And quite rightly too. Ersatz "isr-el®" was emphatically *not* "their
nation". Because they had the courage to not flee zionist terrorism,
does not by some alchemy make the zionist entity "their nation".
>
>> (and the 1915 Armenians can tell you> what usually happens to people who do what the Arabs did).
>>
>> I notice that to this day the Armenians who survived are still fighting
>> a low-level resistance to the Turks.
>
> And there will be an appropriate Turkish response to those from within
> and without who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Ankara
> government within borders established by international law.
For the record, I disagree with your sentence above on a couple of
grounds. But the discussion is for another forum and another time.
>
>>> The Green Line is not the border; just read the 1949 Armistice
>>> agreements with Transjordan, Syria, and Egypt. So any statement that
>>> implies Israel treat it as the border is contrary to the agreements
>>> signed by both Israel and the Arab nations. The only established
>>> borders are with Egypt (by 1977? treaty), Jordan (by 1994 treaty), and
>>> Lebanon (specified as such in the 1949 armistice).
>> Of course. If the izzies didn't leave their eastern border undefined
>> it'd be a lot more difficult to continuing stealing land in the WB. How
>> can this entity make claims to statehood without legally defined and
>> recognized borders?
>
> It takes TWO to define a border, and Transjordan chose not to define
> its western border. Why?
Several reasons, some of which favour your argument.
1.The Jordanians would have the Palestinians living elsewhere than Jordan.
2.They were not capable of defending the West Bank.
3.The were kicked out and they knew that they were going to have to
share governance of the place with the izzies.
4.It made more political sense to use the Palestinians as a "political
football" in the same way that the Egyptians did with the Gazans.
>
>>> So why are you putting requirements on Israel that don't exist? (And
>>> don't even TRY to repeat the Arab lie that Res 242 requires a
>>> withdrawal to the armistice lines.)
>> I hadn't planned to, but who the fuck do you think you are to be
>> commanding me what and what not to post? Did someone appoint you *god*
>> while I was having a whiz?
>
> If you wish to have an intelligent discussion, then it's necessary to
> stick to facts. You seem to have a problem with reality, often
> posting Arab lies,most prominently the myth that Israel started the
> Six Day War
But the izzies *did* start the 1967 war.
That's not to even to say that they shouldn't have done so, but a war is
started when someone actually starts shooting, and guess which side did
that? I'll give you a hint, it *wasn't* the Egyptians. I don't know how
old you are Schmoo, but I can remember seeing all the TV film clips of
Egyptian tanks being destroyed by the zionist air force. Guess what?
They were mostly on their transport trucks in the middle of Sinai, not
deployed on the ground or anywhere close to the border poised for any
invasion.
and the myth that Res 242 requires an Israeli withdrawal
> to the Armistice lines;
Again, you invent things that I had no intention of saying. I don't
believe in *non-binding* UNGARs and have said so on numerous occasions.
My contention which events seem to support is that the zionists have no
desire for peace. What they want is more real estate with as few Arabs
on their territorial gains as possible and any real peace agreement
would preclude their expansionist ambitions.
I just want to make sure that you don't
> pollute an intelligent discussion with such myths.
Schmoo, you don't do "intelligent discussions". You repeat zionist
propaganda forever in the hopes of browbeating your opponents into
submission.
>
Gary Renzetti
Shlomo
> Shlomo the Schmoo wrote:
> > Excuse me Dago, but the nation is Israel, and the people who are its
> > citizens are Israelis. Please use proper terminology.
>
> Hey, Sheenie! (That's for the Dago shit; are you not the sensitive soul
> who kvetched about my addressing you as "schmoo"? Now you're using
> racial slurs. Fine, so can I kike.)
> Do we really have to descend to this level? Your call, asshole.
> Call me "Rensphagetti", or "Renshitty"; I could care less; talk about
> "dagos" or "wops" or "coons" and I will respond in kind.
I don't care how liars who believe their own lies respond.
> I *am* using proper terminology. Your beloved entity is a rogue state of
> dubious legality. To use a term your crew are fond of, it is a "disputed
> territory". The place is a racist arrogant thuggocracy. What others
> choose to call residents of your thuggocracy is not my business, but
> what name I choose for the entity is my affair.
> Suck it up.
The government of Israel represents the will of a majority of its
citizens; 'nuff said.
> > Regarding 1956, while the British and French interests were regaining
> > the Suez Canal that Nasser had stolen,
>
> Nationalized, actually. As it should have been at the end of WWII.
Nationalized is a fancy word for stolen. Castro pulled the same crap
in Cuba when he stole property that was legally owned by private
owners and corporations.
> Israel's interest was in> stopping terrorism that originated from the Gaza Strip.
>
> Not "terrorism®" at all. *Resistance* to an invader. the Palestinian
> Arabs in Gaza just wanted the homes that they had been stolen from them
> and given to European invaders returned to them.
What Israel was given was land in which Jews were the supermajority of
the population, so nothing was stolen from the Arabs.
> So the 1956> invasion was not unprovoked.
> Excreta.
Truth.
> >>> Then of course, there's the unprovoked Jordanian invasion of Israel on
> >>> June 5, 1967 ....
> >> Jordan? Hussein had no option. He was committed by treaty to come to the
> >> aid of Egypt if she was attacked which she had been. He may have been
> >> foolish, but he was an honorable fool.
>
> > We all have the right to say "no", and by failing to do so, the
> > Israeli response was totally appropriate.
>
> Don't you agree?
> No, I don't at all. King Hussein had committed his country to defend
> Egypt if it was attacked, and the zionists *attacked* Egypt.
Correction- Israel LEGALLY RESPONDED to ACTS OF WAR waged against it
by Egypt. Please do not post Arab lies as facts.
> Rightly or
> wrongly, he was committed to do so, and honored his obligation.
> (And> before you give any crap that Israel should've stopped at the Green
> > Line, would Jordan have stopped at, or withdrawn to, the Green Line?)
>
> Why would I say that? You are inventing things, Stanley the schmoo.
I'm just trying to head off the typical Arab lies posted by Arab liars
and sympathizers who believe them.
> > That part of Palestine that the LEGAL GOVERNMENT gave to the Zionists
> > was limited to an area where the Jews were a supermajority, along with
> > a virtually uninhabited region. The Zionists were not given "Arab
> > Turf"; rather, they were given sovereignty only over that area where
> > they had built a nation.
>
> This distortion of yours has already been addressed at considerable
> length previously.
What you brush off as a "distortion" is in reality an accurate
description of what really happened.
> > Furthermore, the Zionist halutzim (pioneers) and the D/P's are
> > themselves indigenous to that land, unlike those who founded the
> > United States, Canada, and Australia.
>
> Not so. The Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars from Asia, and they
> are the dominant group in the zionist entity.
You are totally off base. Converts are a very small portion of our
overall population. Again, you've been reading too many Arab lies.
> So unlike the USA, Canada, and> Australia, Israel was founded and built by an indigenous people.
>
> Again not so. The indigenous Jews (the Sephardim) lived in Palestine
> since "forever" but certainly didn't "found" anything in modern times
> and I am told are treated as second-class izzies today. (I must admit to
> having no personal knowledge of this, never having been to the zionist
> entity).
Visit it some time. They tolerate Dagos.
> > The Zionists came as LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who LEGALLY PURCHASED land in
> > our ANCESTRAL HOMELAND. Why do you ignore these facts?
>
> As discussed previously, the pre-WWII Jewish immigrants purchased about
> 7% of Palestine prior to the formation of the zionist entity.
And I've refuted the insignificance of this number numerous times.
> I refuse to engage in this conversation again. We have already done this.
So don't; we can all tolerate the peace and quiet.
> > The Palestinian Arabs supported the invaders of their country;
> > specifically, the Arab nation authorized by the UN.
>
> In a *non-binding* General Assembly Resolution. Were the Arabs who had
> lived there for centuries to have no say in what was done with their
> homeland?
Despite the FACT that the bulk of the Syrian Arabs who lived in
Palestine were themselves recent immigrants, the LEGAL GOVERNMENT did
give them their own nation, giving the Jews only that portion where
they were a supermajority.
Furthermore, the Arabs were on the wrong side of the recently ended
WWII, and all things considered, they got off easy.
Finally, how many Arabs in the Middle East have a direct voice in
their government decisions? Arabs in the U.S., Europe, and Israel
have a larger voice in government decision than do other Arabs in the
Mideast.
> Many of the> 250,000 Arabs who would end up in Israel also supported these outside
> > invaders of their nation.
>
> And quite rightly too. Ersatz "isr-el®" was emphatically *not* "their
> nation". Because they had the courage to not flee zionist terrorism,
> does not by some alchemy make the zionist entity "their nation".
Let's try again. Their nation was invaded, and they supported the
invaders. That's TREASON.
> >> (and the 1915 Armenians can tell you> what usually happens to people who do what the Arabs did).
>
> >> I notice that to this day the Armenians who survived are still fighting
> >> a low-level resistance to the Turks.
>
> > And there will be an appropriate Turkish response to those from within
> > and without who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Ankara
> > government within borders established by international law.
>
> For the record, I disagree with your sentence above on a couple of
> grounds. But the discussion is for another forum and another time.
Of course you disagree, because the TRUTH totally destroys your
credibility.
> > It takes TWO to define a border, and Transjordan chose not to define
> > its western border. Why?
>
> Several reasons, some of which favour your argument.
> 1.The Jordanians would have the Palestinians living elsewhere than Jordan.
> 2.They were not capable of defending the West Bank.
> 3.The were kicked out and they knew that they were going to have to
> share governance of the place with the izzies.
> 4.It made more political sense to use the Palestinians as a "political
> football" in the same way that the Egyptians did with the Gazans.
Thank you for admitting that the Arabs are the root cause of their own
problems.
Gary Renzetti
> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
> news:530b9$4876b86e$d8fe9cf1$24...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> Zev wrote:
>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dc43d$48755350$cf701d69$24...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>> Zev wrote:
>>>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dd8a1$48741776$d8fe9e2e$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>>> Justin Case wrote:
>>>>>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:a9574$4872cbb2$d8fe9c9a$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>>>>> Justin Case wrote:
>
>>> Can you tell me if the wall would have been built
>>> if Arafat would have honored his signed agreement
>>> to end all terrorist activities?
>> Obviously not for certain, but probably. Arafat was under virtual house
>> arrest in the rubble of his compound in Ramallah and was incapable of
>> enforcing his orders. He was incapable of "ending all terrorist
>> activities" when Sharon made the demand. It was as ridiculous as ordering
>> the Dalai Lama to order the Palestinians to stop shooting at the izzies.
>> Even if Arafat had honestly wanted to do so, he couldn't have done this.
>
> Palestinian Nationhood was offered, 'free', in 1947.
"We want to take a chunk of your turf, and put a whole bunch of European
D/P's into it. But we are so magnanimous that we will actually let you
keep what remains of what used to be all your land. Naturally, you get
no say in this decision other than 'Like it or eat shit' ".
Such an offer, already. Oy Vey!
> It could have been achieved as part of the peace with Egypt,
> after five years of autonomy.
> It could have been achieved as a natural outcome of the Oslo
> agreements.
> It could have been achieved by accepting
> Israeli PM Barak's offer in Camp David in 2000.
Oh yeah! Jew-only roads, airspace and water in izzie hands, no military,
squatter camps remain, borders and airspace under zionist control.
> It *might* have been achieved between 1949-1967
> by demanding it from Egypt and Jordan.
Not a prayer. They didn't want the Palestinians, but they were quite
happy to use them to pressure the UN about the zionist entity. Their
actions were contemptible, but the
>
> Today, we all know the outline of the eventual peace agreement,
> unless you're thinking of turning the M.E. into molten glass.
> What is the point of shooting Kassam rockets
> from Beit Hanoun into Sderot and Ashkelon,
> knowing the difficulty Israel has in retaliating in kind,
I wish that they would indeed "retaliate in kind". They tend to
retaliate with artillery and kill vastly more innocents than all the
homemade Qassams combined.
> and then screaming "Look what they did to me",
> when the inevitable retaliation comes,
> no matter how hard they try to punish only the 'guilty'.
They don't try to "punish the guilty". Far from it. Do you honestly want
anyone to believe that anyone who launches a rocket over the border is
just going to wait in the launch area for the inevitable retaliation?
Would you?
>
> What is the point of teaching children to hate others,
> instead of to love themselves?
I take it you never saw those photos of izzie schoolgirls signing
artillery shells before Oldfart's abortive invasion of Lebanon? Sadly,
indoctrination of schoolkids is an evil aspect of any conflict.
>
>>> Can you tell me why you say the wall
>>> "is built entirely on the Palestinian side of the Green Line"?
>> It isn't. My apology.
>> I should have said that it is built *largely* on the Palestinian side of
>> the Green line, and *never* on gthe izzie side.
>
> Any statistics?
> Documentation?
Not necessary. Just punch up a map of the wall. You are capable of doing
this all by your lonesome. You *do* not how to produce a map on your
screen, I hope?
>
>>> Can you tell me why the PA shouldn't be forced
>>> to share the costs of the wall in this small way?
>> Because it steals *lots* of their real estate. What you propose is akin to
>> the Iranians shooting B'hais because they won't renounce their faith and
>> then invoicing the victims families for the cost of the bullets.
>> Coming from yourself, this sort of reasoning is not really the shock that
>> you might have expected.
>
> It may be that you don't know how reluctant
> the Israeli government was to build the fence,
That obscenity is *not* a "fence", but your use of this spin says
volumes about you. Fences are not constructed of twenty-foot-high
concrete, Apartheid Walls are.
> because it's so expensive.
> Public opinion forced the decision.
Sure it did. It also decided the location and the route of the
monstrosity, didn't it?
> What would have been better,
> retaliating for every atrocity with long range artillery?
Why would you even consider such an option? Why not just stop oppressing
the Palestinians, bring the "settlers" (read thugs) back inside
"isr-al®", close the checkpoints except at the border and make the
Jew-only roads available to the locals?
> What does this have to do Iranian Bahais?
It doesn't. I use it to show haw the izzies make their Palestinian
victims responsible for their state terrorism®.
>
> 1) The fence is being built because the PA harbors terrorists.
So does ersatz "isr-el®. Remember Meir Kahane or Baruch Goldstein?
> 2) The PA is not paying for it (obviously).
Actually, they are paying very dearly for it in stolen land.
> 3) If the fence followed the Green Line exactly,
> it would be a political fence,
> representing Israeli acceptance of today's 'border'
> and as such would be a victory for terrorism.
"Terrorism®"? Like the folks like Begin, Shamir and the now comatose
Fatso that all were elected PM of the zionist entity? They knew all
about "terrorism®", now didn't they?
>
> All in all PA complaints about the fence
"Fence"?
????
Do you also talk about a "Berlin fence", or the "Great Fence of China"?
Spare me the bullshit please!
The Apartheid Wall is more a "fence" than Yassir Arafat was a Zionist.
> sound to me like starting a war, losing it,
> and then crying about it.
>
> Do you remember?
> The same thing happened after the June war of 1967.
> And after the 'nakba' of 1947-48.
>
>>> Can you tell me why you call the Green Line a "border"?
>> Because anything east of it was never part of "isr-el®".
>>
>>> Can you tell me why building the wall on the Green Line
>>> would not be a "defacto border marker"?
>> Why would I want to do that? If the zionist state is going to continue to
>> exist, the 1967 cease-fire line (the Green Line) should indeed be the
>> defacto border. For me to argue otherwise, I would have to disagree with
>> myself.
>
> The eventual border is part of the bargaining
> which is going on right now.
> If both sides agree to a border somewhere else,
> why would you disagree?
If *both* sides concur of course not, not that my opinion on the topic
means anything. They don't exactly consult me when they decide these things.
Perhaps they should, recommend that they do so, will you please?
Gary Renzetti
> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
> news:2131f$4876b3c8$d8fe9cf1$32...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> Justin Case wrote:
>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c73cd$48757a69$cf701d69$20...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>> Justin Case wrote:
>>>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:266bc$4874183f$d8fe9e2e$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>>> Justin Case wrote:
>
>>>>> The "rapes" of Lebanon were caused because of the continuous attacks by
>>>>> grease monkeys in Lebanon.
>>>>>
>>>> Horsefuckingshit. They were caused because the izzie thugs wanted water
>>>> from the Litani.
>>> You haven't a clue.
>> Well, we both live in societies where we can express our opinions freely.
>> You're entitled to yours too.
>
> Maybe we can satify everyone if people like you
> agree to use a signiture which says:
> "The opinions expressed above are totally uninformed
> and perhaps somewhat biased.
> The author takes no responsibilty for damages
> caused by easily influenced people believing
> and acting on any of them".
Sure. As long as you subscribe to the same.
Our expressed opinions obviously count for sfa in the global game.
Are you willing to put the same disclaimer after your posts?
Gary Renzetti
Why do I have problems with your sincerity?
>> Also, the Jews expelled from
>>> other Arab countries had their property confiscated and deported by
>>> Islamofascists.
>>> Those Palestinians should have stayed and protected the homeland against
>>> the invasion. After all, if this is Palestine then that means the Jews
>>> living there are also Palestinians. But then again, there is no such
>>> place as the country of Palestine.
>> True. this is so because the crew in Tel Aviv refuse to let a Palestinian
>> state come into being.
>
> Trans-Jordon?
A Palestinian state possibly, but ruled by Bedouins. Doesn't count, and
doesn't provide for the Palestinians, and doesn't compensate the
Palarabs for the loss of their homes and lands.
Well if it is part of the zionist entity, then the roads should be for
everyone there as should be voting rights and freedom of movement. And
voting rights and citizenship should be available for all residents.
>
> Besides, it was the Arabs who rejected the UN partion of Israel/Palestine.
> Originally, Trans-Jordon was part of the Palestine Mandate.
Sure. The UN partition was a *non-binding* General Assembly Resolution.
They were quite right to say "GFY" to such a thing, especially when it
had *no* force in law.
It isn't. The (and they're numerous) shitty Arab governments that abuse
governments *do* *not* give the zionists who claim to be a "democracy®"
the rights to behave in a similar fashion.
>
> The Palestinians have ligitimate gripes and it would be nice to have this
> mess finally settled. The problem is that Arab countries surroundd Israel.
> If the Arabs screw up then all they have to do is go home and attack another
> day. Israel does not have that luxury as it's either win or pretty much be
> eliminated (both the country and the people). This is further compounded by
> Muslim claims of historic connection to jeruselum while prempting Jewish
> claims.
That part, I'm not going to argue. My personal opinion is that the Jews
have the only claim to Jerusalem as long as there id going to be a
Jewish state at all. Mind you, I don't think that there should be
religious states of any flavour.
Gary Renzetti
resisting an occupation by the only means available to them.
Arafat was not a
> terrorist?
Of course he was. So were begin and Shamir and Fatso.
Hamas is not a terrorist organizzation?
No. At least not according to the folks that freely elected them. They
are a fuckuva lot less corrupt than Fatah, and for sure are the
legitimate freely elected representatives of the Palestinian people.
Abbas is an Uncle Tom puppet and is never going to have any credibility
despite all the spin by the izzies and their Yankee lapdogs.
>
>
Gary Renzetti
The reality is that they aren't going to and I have no reason to piss
in the wind.
>
Gary Renzetti
The izzies keep saying this, but he sure as hemorrhoids wasn't living
like any pasha in that rubble in Ramallah, and he stayed there for
years. Somehow, I don't think that Arafat ws in it for the money,
despite the zionist spin to the contrary. He was free to leave, but
wouldn't have been allowed to return. If he wanted the money for
himself, why did he remain in Ramallah in squalor?
The popular ziolie is that Arafat was ripping off millions in
international aid funds. I suppose that if he was so wealthy like any of
us he'd have continued to live in squalor in the rubble of a bombed-out
compound *for* *years*, rather than retire to the Riviera with his
supposedly stolen millions?
>>> Can you tell me why you say the wall
>>> "is built entirely on the Palestinian side of the Green Line"?
>> It isn't. My apology.
>> I should have said that it is built *largely* on the Palestinian side of
>> the Green line, and *never* on gthe izzie side.
>>
>>> Can you tell me why the PA shouldn't be forced
>>> to share the costs of the wall in this small way?
>> Because it steals *lots* of their real estate. What you propose is akin to
>> the Iranians shooting B'hais because they won't renounce their faith and
>> then invoicing the victims families for the cost of the bullets.
>> Coming from yourself, this sort of reasoning is not really the shock that
>> you might have expected.
>>
>>> Can you tell me why you call the Green Line a "border"?
>> Because anything east of it was never part of "isr-el®".
>>
>>> Can you tell me why building the wall on the Green Line
>>> would not be a "defacto border marker"?
>> Why would I want to do that? If the zionist state is going to continue to
>> exist, the 1967 cease-fire line (the Green Line) should indeed be the
>> defacto border. For me to argue otherwise, I would have to disagree with
>> myself.
>
> Why not the 1948 borders?
Ideally yes. For practical reasons, 1967 is more realistic.
>
>
Gary Renzetti
> On Jul 10, 9:35 pm, Gary Renzetti <lizg...@connection.com> wrote:
>
>>> Can you tell me why building the wall on the Green Line
>>> would not be a "defacto border marker"?
>> Why would I want to do that? If the zionist state is going to continue
>> to exist, the 1967 cease-fire line (the Green Line) should indeed be the
>> defacto border. For me to argue otherwise, I would have to disagree with
>> myself.
>
> It's Israel, not "the zionist state" or "zionist entity".
outlaw bikers it isn't. Personally, I consider the "I" word that you
used above, an obscenity.
Shlomo
> Stan wrote:
> > It's Israel, not "the zionist state" or "zionist entity".
>
> *NOT* until they become a decent state and stop behaving like a gang of
> outlaw bikers it isn't. Personally, I consider the "I" word that you
> used above, an obscenity.
I consider your entire position in these discussions offensive,
because you totally ignore reality.
You deny our ancestral connection to the land.
You brush off the fact that the Zionist halutzim were legal
immigrants.
You ignore the legal purchase of land by the halutzim.
You do everything to avoid acknowledging that the area which the
Zionists were given sovereignty consisted of a supermajority Jewish
population, which means the will of the majority was in fact carried
out.
You repeat the Arab lie that Israel started the Six Day War.
You repeat the Arab nonsense that all they want is for Israel to
retreat to the Armistice lines, ignoring the fact that they won't
acknowledge Israel's right to control its borders when they do.
In short, your entire position is based on Arab lines; yet, you
continue to spew your garbage.
What is your problem?
Gary Renzetti
> On Jul 11, 9:10 pm, Gary the Dago <lizg...@connection.com> wrote:
>> Shlomo the Schmoo wrote:
>>> Excuse me Dago, but the nation is Israel, and the people who are its
>>> citizens are Israelis. Please use proper terminology.
>> Hey, Sheenie! (That's for the Dago shit; are you not the sensitive soul
>> who kvetched about my addressing you as "schmoo"? Now you're using
>> racial slurs. Fine, so can I kike.)
>> Do we really have to descend to this level? Your call, asshole.
>> Call me "Rensphagetti", or "Renshitty"; I could care less; talk about
>> "dagos" or "wops" or "coons" and I will respond in kind.
>
> I don't care how liars
who believe their own lies respond.
You wouldn't. Like an unfortunate percentage of your breed (mercifully
not the majority), you seem to be a creature of no honour, pride or shame.
>
>> I *am* using proper terminology. Your beloved entity is a rogue state of
>> dubious legality. To use a term your crew are fond of, it is a "disputed
>> territory". The place is a racist arrogant thuggocracy. What others
>> choose to call residents of your thuggocracy is not my business, but
>> what name I choose for the entity is my affair.
>> Suck it up.
>
> The government of Israel represents the will of a majority of its
> citizens; 'nuff said.
And perhaps if they allowed their captive population to express *their*
will and become citizens instead of captives the outcomes of these votes
would be somewhat different. 'nuff said.
>
>>> Regarding 1956, while the British and French interests were regaining
>>> the Suez Canal that Nasser had stolen,
>> Nationalized, actually. As it should have been at the end of WWII.
>
> Nationalized is a fancy word for stolen.
Not necessarily. Nationalized can also be a word for righting historical
wrongs.
Castro pulled the same crap
> in Cuba when he stole property that was legally owned by private
> owners and corporations.
And I'm no Communist or fan of Fidel. Saying that, he righted some
serious exploitation of Cubans and their resources. Do you honestly
think that any future Cuban government would return to the status quo
that existed under Fulgencio Battista?
>
>> Israel's interest was in> stopping terrorism that originated from the Gaza Strip.
>>
>> Not "terrorism®" at all. *Resistance* to an invader. the Palestinian
>> Arabs in Gaza just wanted the homes that they had been stolen from them
>> and given to European invaders returned to them.
>
> What Israel was given was land in which Jews were the supermajority of
> the population, so nothing was stolen from the Arabs.
Tell that crap to the Palestinian refugees that to this day hold deeds
and keys to properties that they can't return to and never received
shekel *one* in return for.
Hardly. It was a spin and a distortion of history. Can you say
"revisionism"?
>
>>> Furthermore, the Zionist halutzim (pioneers) and the D/P's are
>>> themselves indigenous to that land, unlike those who founded the
>>> United States, Canada, and Australia.
>> Not so. The Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars from Asia, and they
>> are the dominant group in the zionist entity.
>
> You are totally off base. Converts are a very small portion of our
> overall population. Again, you've been reading too many Arab lies.
>
>> So unlike the USA, Canada, and> Australia, Israel was founded and built by an indigenous people.
>>
>> Again not so. The indigenous Jews (the Sephardim) lived in Palestine
>> since "forever" but certainly didn't "found" anything in modern times
>> and I am told are treated as second-class izzies today. (I must admit to
>> having no personal knowledge of this, never having been to the zionist
>> entity).
>
> Visit it some time. They tolerate Dagos.
That's mighty generous of the "kikes".
>
>>> The Zionists came as LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who LEGALLY PURCHASED land in
>>> our ANCESTRAL HOMELAND. Why do you ignore these facts?
>> As discussed previously, the pre-WWII Jewish immigrants purchased about
>> 7% of Palestine prior to the formation of the zionist entity.
>
> And I've refuted the insignificance of this number numerous times.
>
>> I refuse to engage in this conversation again. We have already done this.
>
> So don't; we can all tolerate the peace and quiet.
It's yourself who's whipping this dead horse, not me.
>
>
>>> The Palestinian Arabs supported the invaders of their country;
>>> specifically, the Arab nation authorized by the UN.
>> In a *non-binding* General Assembly Resolution. Were the Arabs who had
>> lived there for centuries to have no say in what was done with their
>> homeland?
>
> Despite the FACT that the bulk of the Syrian Arabs who lived in
> Palestine were themselves recent immigrants, the LEGAL GOVERNMENT did
> give them their own nation, giving the Jews only that portion where
> they were a supermajority.
>
> Furthermore, the Arabs were on the wrong side of the recently ended
> WWII, and all things considered, they got off easy.
I will let you guess what the reply about the remains of European Jewry
might be, should it be posted.
>
> Finally, how many Arabs in the Middle East have a direct voice in
> their government decisions? Arabs in the U.S., Europe, and Israel
> have a larger voice in government decision than do other Arabs in the
> Mideast.
So? What does the paragraph above have to do with the current dialogue?
>
>> Many of the> 250,000 Arabs who would end up in Israel also supported these outside
>>> invaders of their nation.
>> And quite rightly too. Ersatz "isr-el®" was emphatically *not* "their
>> nation". Because they had the courage to not flee zionist terrorism,
>> does not by some alchemy make the zionist entity "their nation".
>
> Let's try again. Their nation was invaded, and they supported the
> invaders. That's TREASON.
No. Their nation was invaded true enough, by zionist nazis, and they
tried to just get on with their lives. That WAS A BIG MISTAKE.
>
>>>> (and the 1915 Armenians can tell you> what usually happens to people who do what the Arabs did).
>>>> I notice that to this day the Armenians who survived are still fighting
>>>> a low-level resistance to the Turks.
>>> And there will be an appropriate Turkish response to those from within
>>> and without who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Ankara
>>> government within borders established by international law.
>> For the record, I disagree with your sentence above on a couple of
>> grounds. But the discussion is for another forum and another time.
>
> Of course you disagree, because the TRUTH totally destroys your
> credibility.
I have yet to see you post a helluva lot of "TRUTH", and am not holding
my breath waiting for you to do so.
>
>>> It takes TWO to define a border, and Transjordan chose not to define
>>> its western border. Why?
>> Several reasons, some of which favour your argument.
>> 1.The Jordanians would have the Palestinians living elsewhere than Jordan.
>> 2.They were not capable of defending the West Bank.
>> 3.The were kicked out and they knew that they were going to have to
>> share governance of the place with the izzies.
>> 4.It made more political sense to use the Palestinians as a "political
>> football" in the same way that the Egyptians did with the Gazans.
>
> Thank you for admitting that the Arabs are the root cause of their own
> problems.
I didn't. but unlike your lying self, I don't think that "myside' are
saints. The Arab governments did many wrong stupid things. You try to
pretend that your wonderful entity is somehow saintly and that every
atrocity it commits is marvelous and justified.
It is by this overstating of the izzie side of things that you destroy
your credibility. My thanks for doing this.
>
Shlomo
carefully avoiding some fact while twisting others around, wrote:
> Shlomo wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 9:10 pm, Gary the Dago <lizg...@connection.com> wrote:
> > I don't care how liars
>
> Who's told any lies beside your shameful self?
Everything you post is a rehash of the lies that Arab liars who
believe their own lies tell.
> who believe their own lies respond.
> You wouldn't. Like an unfortunate percentage of your breed (mercifully
> not the majority), you seem to be a creature of no honour, pride or shame.
It's pathetic that you classify telling the truth as such.
Fortunately for all of us, it totally destroys your credibility.
> > The government of Israel represents the will of a majority of its
> > citizens; 'nuff said.
>
> And perhaps if they allowed their captive population to express *their*
> will and become citizens instead of captives the outcomes of these votes
> would be somewhat different. 'nuff said.
But of course the reality is that those Arabs who live in an area that
became part of Israel in late June, 1967 have declined to accept
Israeli citizenship. Why do you ignore that?
As far as the rest of the land taken by Israel in RESPONSE to a war
waged against it, it's been offered to the Arabs for their own nation,
and they TURNED IT DOWN!
Amazing how the Arabs have been offered everything you say should be
offered to them, and then turn it down!
> > Nationalized is a fancy word for stolen.
>
> Not necessarily. Nationalized can also be a word for righting historical
> wrongs.
It wasn't Egyptian money that built the Suez Canal, so Nasser in fact
did steal it from the LEGAL owner.
> And I'm no Communist or fan of Fidel. Saying that, he righted some
> serious exploitation of Cubans and their resources. Do you honestly
> think that any future Cuban government would return to the status quo
> that existed under Fulgencio Battista?
Seizing the resort, farming, and oil assets that were LEGALLY OWNED by
individuals who LEGALLY PURCHASED them is THEFT.
> > What Israel was given was land in which Jews were the supermajority of
> > the population, so nothing was stolen from the Arabs.
>
> Tell that crap to the Palestinian refugees that to this day hold deeds
> and keys to properties that they can't return to and never received
> shekel *one* in return for.
If their side hadn't started the War of Genocide against the Jews, the
natural consequence that you describe never would've occurred.
And don't forget that when a return was offered during the 1949
Armistice talks, the Arabs TURNED IT DOWN!
So again, stop blaming Israel for problems the Arabs created for
themselves.
> >>> That part of Palestine that the LEGAL GOVERNMENT gave to the Zionists
> >>> was limited to an area where the Jews were a supermajority, along with
> >>> a virtually uninhabited region. The Zionists were not given "Arab
> >>> Turf"; rather, they were given sovereignty only over that area where
> >>> they had built a nation.
> >> This distortion of yours has already been addressed at considerable
> >> length previously.
>
> > What you brush off as a "distortion" is in reality an accurate
> > description of what really happened.
>
> Hardly. It was a spin and a distortion of history. Can you say
> "revisionism"?
The only person in this discussion trying to revise reality is you,
Gary.
> >> So unlike the USA, Canada, and> Australia, Israel was founded and built by an indigenous people.
>
> >> Again not so. The indigenous Jews (the Sephardim) lived in Palestine
> >> since "forever" but certainly didn't "found" anything in modern times
> >> and I am told are treated as second-class izzies today. (I must admit to
> >> having no personal knowledge of this, never having been to the zionist
> >> entity).
>
> > Visit it some time. They tolerate Dagos.
>
> That's mighty generous of the "kikes".
It's more freedom and generosity than Arabs extend to Jews.
> >> I refuse to engage in this conversation again. We have already done this.
>
> > So don't; we can all tolerate the peace and quiet.
>
> It's yourself who's whipping this dead horse, not me.
By repeating Arab lies, you are inviting correction.
> > Despite the FACT that the bulk of the Syrian Arabs who lived in
> > Palestine were themselves recent immigrants, the LEGAL GOVERNMENT did
> > give them their own nation, giving the Jews only that portion where
> > they were a supermajority.
>
> > Furthermore, the Arabs were on the wrong side of the recently ended
> > WWII, and all things considered, they got off easy.
>
> I will let you guess what the reply about the remains of European Jewry
> might be, should it be posted.
And your point is ....?
> > Finally, how many Arabs in the Middle East have a direct voice in
> > their government decisions? Arabs in the U.S., Europe, and Israel
> > have a larger voice in government decision than do other Arabs in the
> > Mideast.
>
> So? What does the paragraph above have to do with the current dialogue?
You claim the Syrians who lived in what became Palestine weren't asked
for a buy-in to the idea of splitting the Palestine Mandate into 2
nations. I simply point out that it's the way things are done.
The biggest problem, of course, is that the Syrians who lived in the
Palestine Mandate refused to recognize the rights of the other ethnic
group, who had a stronger claim incidentally, based on ancestry, than
they did. Yet the Syrians of Palestine were given their own nation
and TURNED IT DOWN!
> > Let's try again. Their nation was invaded, and they supported the
> > invaders. That's TREASON.
>
> No. Their nation was invaded true enough, by zionist nazis, and they
> tried to just get on with their lives. That WAS A BIG MISTAKE.
The Zionists were LEGAL RESIDENTS who established a nation in ONLY
that part of the Palestine Mandate in which they were a supermajority,
Dago. Furthermore, that action was authorized by the LEGAL GOVERNMENT
of the Palestine Mandate.
> > Of course you disagree, because the TRUTH totally destroys your
> > credibility.
>
> I have yet to see you post a helluva lot of "TRUTH", and am not holding
> my breath waiting for you to do so.
Keep denying reality, Gary.
> >>> It takes TWO to define a border, and Transjordan chose not to define
> >>> its western border. Why?
> >> Several reasons, some of which favour your argument.
> >> 1.The Jordanians would have the Palestinians living elsewhere than Jordan.
> >> 2.They were not capable of defending the West Bank.
> >> 3.The were kicked out and they knew that they were going to have to
> >> share governance of the place with the izzies.
> >> 4.It made more political sense to use the Palestinians as a "political
> >> football" in the same way that the Egyptians did with the Gazans.
>
> > Thank you for admitting that the Arabs are the root cause of their own
> > problems.
>
> I didn't. but unlike your lying self, I don't think that "myside' are
> saints. The Arab governments did many wrong stupid things. You try to
> pretend that your wonderful entity is somehow saintly and that every
> atrocity it commits is marvelous and justified.
> It is by this overstating of the izzie side of things that you destroy
> your credibility. My thanks for doing this.
Israel is RESPONDING to Arab atrocities committed against it.
Furthermore, Israel has offered the Syrian Arabs of Palestine their
own nation, something incidentally that their own brother Arabs never
did, and in fact stole from them in 1948, and the Syrian Arabs of
Palestine TURN IT DOWN.
I'm sure you can dig up the Arab crap as to why Arafart turned down an
offer of his own nation during the Camp David 2000 talks, but what you
will not be able to produce is any counteroffer that didn't require
Israel to accept its own destruction.
In 1947, the LEGAL GOVERNMENT of the Palestine Mandate authorized the
creation of TWO nations in the Palestine Mandate. The Arabs have
STILL failed to build theirs, and instead continue to try to destory
the Jewish Nation.
These are the FACTS.
Zev
You can't be that naive.
Where do you think Suha Arafat's money came from?
Zev
You made a point about your right
to express your opinion.
I simply suggested you reveal to your readers
the fact that your opinions are totally uninformed.
If you insist on using inflammatory language
you might also add a disclaimer about responsibilty
for damages caused by easily influenced people
believing and acting on any of them.
Why should I use such a signature in my posts?
Zev
> Shlomo wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 9:10 pm, Gary the Dago <lizg...@connection.com> wrote:
>>> Shlomo the Schmoo wrote:
>> The government of Israel represents the will of a majority of its
>> citizens; 'nuff said.
> And perhaps if they allowed their captive population to express *their*
> will and become citizens instead of captives the outcomes of these votes
> would be somewhat different. 'nuff said.
In the 1992 elections in Israel,
a majority of Jews voted for parties
which were to the right of Mr. Rabin's party.
Rabin's majority, through which he became Prime Minister,
depended on the support of Arab members of Knesset.
In which Arab/Muslim country are Jews first class citizens,
and could conceivably have the same
political influence as Arabs have in Israel?
>>>> Regarding 1956, while the British and French interests were regaining
>>>> the Suez Canal that Nasser had stolen,
>>> Nationalized, actually. As it should have been at the end of WWII.
>>
>> Nationalized is a fancy word for stolen.
> Not necessarily. Nationalized can also be a word for righting historical
> wrongs.
>
> Castro pulled the same crap
>> in Cuba when he stole property that was legally owned by private
>> owners and corporations.
> And I'm no Communist or fan of Fidel. Saying that, he righted some serious
> exploitation of Cubans and their resources. Do you honestly think that any
> future Cuban government would return to the status quo that existed under
> Fulgencio Battista?
Do you think that any Palestinian government
would return to the status quo that existed
a century ago?
Why do you ask such questions?
>>> Israel's interest was in> stopping terrorism that originated from the
>>> Gaza Strip.
>>>
>>> Not "terrorism®" at all. *Resistance* to an invader. the Palestinian
>>> Arabs in Gaza just wanted the homes that they had been stolen from them
>>> and given to European invaders returned to them.
>>
>> What Israel was given was land in which Jews were the supermajority of
>> the population, so nothing was stolen from the Arabs.
> Tell that crap to the Palestinian refugees that to this day hold deeds and
> keys to properties that they can't return to and never received shekel
> *one* in return for.
If the Arabs had not carried out across the board attacks
throughout the Yishuv between 1947 and 1948, perhaps the nature of
the subsequent Jewish victory would have been different.
As it was, the ceaseless attacks against all
isolated Jewish settlements only gave Zionist commanders
every reason to see neighboring Arab villages
as threatening and to act accordingly.
The Jewish communities of Hebron, Jerusalem, Shchem/Nablus and Gaza
were centuries old when they were destroyed.
Are their former residents refugees?
Do they have the same rights as the Palestinians?
Could it be that the ill treatment they received,
coupled with threats of "idbach al yahud",
influenced Jewish thinking later on?
Every war for 'Lebenstraum' tends to be vicious
because the stakes are so high.
Given the train of atrocities leading up to
the Israeli 'War of Independance',
Arab slogans of 'idbach al yahud',
war aims of 'driving the Jews into the sea',
did it make sense to depend on Jewish inhibitions
to prevent them from doing
everything in their power to win?
Did it make sense for Arab leaders
to choose so risky a course after
the UN had handed them so much,
on a silver platter?
Zev
> Shlomo the Schmoo wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 8:51 pm, Gary Renzetti <lizg...@connection.com> wrote:
>>> Shlomo wrote:
>>> The fact that such Pallies are in jail and not 6 feet under says
>>> multitudes about the humanitarian Israeli policies.
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about "such 'Pallies' " Shlomo. I'm talking about the
>>> people who are charged with nothing at all, and have never gone to
>>> trial.
>>
>> And if they were caught in "actions" of "resistance", they are not
>> protected by either civil law or the Geneva Conventions unless they
>> were wearing distinctive clothing identifying themselves as
>> combatants.
> I always thought that in democracies if someone were suspected of
> committing illegal acts (as defined by local laws) that the suspects were
> *accused* of crimes, *tried* according to local statutes, and *if* *found*
> *guilty* were then *sentenced* for their illegal actions. There are *ten*
> *thousand* people in your beloved thuggocracy who are in the slam but have
> yet to receive such niceties. i.e. They are hostages.
POW's are not normally tried.
But you've been harping on this for too long.
Do you have statistics, lists, names?
>> Furthermore, the Zionist halutzim (pioneers) and the D/P's are
>> themselves indigenous to that land, unlike those who founded the
>> United States, Canada, and Australia.
> Not so. The Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars from Asia, and they are
> the dominant group in the zionist entity.
Genetically, Ashkenazim are 7/8 Jewish, on average.
But it's a moot point.
Even according to the most extreme interpretation of
"The land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel",
if there is just one Jew out there
who is a 100% "Child of Israel",
the land of Israel belongs to him.
The rest of us will take it up with him,
that's not your concern.
Zev
It's 80% of Palestine.
Please don't blame Israel for its Bedouin rulers.
Zev
> Zev wrote:
>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>> news:530b9$4876b86e$d8fe9cf1$24...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>> Zev wrote:
>>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dc43d$48755350$cf701d69$24...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>> Zev wrote:
>>>>>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:dd8a1$48741776$d8fe9e2e$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> Palestinian Nationhood was offered, 'free', in 1947.
> Wasn't that generous?
> "We want to take a chunk of your turf, and put a whole bunch of European
> D/P's into it. But we are so magnanimous that we will actually let you
> keep what remains of what used to be all your land. Naturally, you get no
> say in this decision other than 'Like it or eat shit' ".
> Such an offer, already. Oy Vey!
Why did you say:
"True. this is so because the crew in Tel Aviv refuse to let a
Palestinian
state come into being"?
Why is it illegal or immoral for a Jew
to buy land in Palestine and call it his own?
Why do you ignore the fact that prominent Arabs
supported the Zionist plan in the 1920's?
Why do you ingore the fact that many Arab workers
were happy to share in the prosperity
which Jewish immigrants were bringing,
even to the extent of 'immigrating' themselves,
from other parts of Palestine, to Mandate Palestine?
Even today, peaceable Palestinians live on their own homeland,
speak their own language, and practice their own religion.
Arabs try to enter and live in Israel because
of the higher standard of living available to them.
Arabs don't leave Israel for the 'freedom' of Arab countries.
This is true, don't deny it.
You surely know that during the Mandate,
Jews couldn't expel Arabs, even if they wanted to.
Initiating the Lebensraum war immediately after
was a cruel mistake,
a miscalculation of catastrophic proportions.
Since then Arabs/Muslims have been wringing their hands,
blaming others for their own recklessness,
pretending that they have done no wrong to Jews.
One cultural flaw I do not have is that of
accepting blame for the sins of others.
Suppose Archie Bunker doesn't like the inflow
of South Americans and Chinese
into his Queens neighborhood.
He has good reason.
He's unfamiliar with the language, culture, and religion.
He complains, but the decisions are not made in Queens.
He gets together with his friends,
who declare themselves "Queensians".
They obtain weapons and try to use force
to prevent a change in their neighborhood.
Perhaps a better example would be
Muslims moving into Marseille.
I use this example only because
most Americans know who "Archie Bunker" is.
(The inspiration for Archie Bunker was Alf Garnett,
the character from the BBC sitcom "Til Death Us Do Part",
on which "All in the Family" was based).
My question is:
Do these people have more or less rights
than British Mandate Palestinians?
>> It could have been achieved as part of the peace with Egypt,
>> after five years of autonomy.
>> It could have been achieved as a natural outcome of the Oslo
>> agreements.
>> It could have been achieved by accepting
>> Israeli PM Barak's offer in Camp David in 2000.
> Oh yeah! Jew-only roads, airspace and water in izzie hands, no military,
> squatter camps remain, borders and airspace under zionist control.
Barak's offer was for 90% of the West Bank
with Israeli land
(presumably in the Um il Fahum area, near Jenin)
substituting for the last 10%.
The exact details were never made public.
It was more than the Israeli public wanted to give,
less than what the Palestinians wanted to get.
It was a decent start, but Arafat rejected it out of hand.
He never even made a counter offer.
"Schoolgirls signing artillery shells"?
If this is all you have, you're only proving my point.
Compare to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETrjbPWxyS8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bra53uzgPDk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbUrLlyXlH0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsKRNB-yKvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odvRlLZrlJ4
>>>> Can you tell me why you say the wall
>>>> "is built entirely on the Palestinian side of the Green Line"?
>>> It isn't. My apology.
>>> I should have said that it is built *largely* on the Palestinian side of
>>> the Green line, and *never* on gthe izzie side.
>>
>> Any statistics?
>> Documentation?
> Not necessary. Just punch up a map of the wall. You are capable of doing
> this all by your lonesome. You *do* not how to produce a map on your
> screen, I hope?
OK, got the map.
Where's the fence?
>>>> Can you tell me why the PA shouldn't be forced
>>>> to share the costs of the wall in this small way?
>>> Because it steals *lots* of their real estate. What you propose is akin
>>> to
>>> the Iranians shooting B'hais because they won't renounce their faith and
>>> then invoicing the victims families for the cost of the bullets.
>>> Coming from yourself, this sort of reasoning is not really the shock
>>> that
>>> you might have expected.
>>
>> It may be that you don't know how reluctant
>> the Israeli government was to build the fence,
> That obscenity is *not* a "fence", but your use of this spin says volumes
> about you. Fences are not constructed of twenty-foot-high concrete,
> Apartheid Walls are.
For most of its length, it's a fence.
Concrete embankments all along the line are too expensive
but in some places fences are just not good enough.
They're worthless against snipers for instance.
If you haven't seen pictures of the "fence" part,
it's probably because fences don't make
much of a 'picture', if you know what I mean.
Why don't you visit the "Zionist entity" and see for yourself?
It would help you avoid writing BS like you just did,
and having people like me saying
"Your posts say a lot about you too" ;-)
>> because it's so expensive.
>> Public opinion forced the decision.
> Sure it did. It also decided the location and the route of the
> monstrosity, didn't it?
Public opinion might have had it meandering throughout the WB.
>> What would have been better,
>> retaliating for every atrocity with long range artillery?
> Why would you even consider such an option? Why not just stop oppressing
> the Palestinians, bring the "settlers" (read thugs) back inside "isr-al®",
> close the checkpoints except at the border and make the Jew-only roads
> available to the locals?
Been there.
Doesn't work.
Sorry.
Gary Renzetti
motivated him, why did he stay in Ramallah and not join his wife and kid?
Gary Renzetti
express, even though it happens to be full of shit.
> If you insist on using inflammatory language
> you might also add a disclaimer about responsibilty
> for damages caused by easily influenced people
> believing and acting on any of them.
I don't. I merely attempt in my small way to counter the Hasbara lies
that are continually posted to these groups.
>
> Why should I use such a signature in my posts?
Well, because you post bullshit, and you cravenly hide behind a nym for
two good reasons.
If you dislike my posts, may I suggest that you don't read them.
Gary Renzetti
that they'd inflict the Turks on themselves again.
> Why do you ask such questions?
It was a rhetorical question, as I'm sure you're aware. Stanley the
Schmoo threw in the bit about Castro in an attempt to obfuscate. I
merely threw it back at him. Suggest you ask the Schmoo why he threw in
something about Cuba.
>
>>>> Israel's interest was in> stopping terrorism that originated from the
>>>> Gaza Strip.
>>>>
>>>> Not "terrorism®" at all. *Resistance* to an invader. the Palestinian
>>>> Arabs in Gaza just wanted the homes that they had been stolen from them
>>>> and given to European invaders returned to them.
>>> What Israel was given was land in which Jews were the supermajority of
>>> the population, so nothing was stolen from the Arabs.
>> Tell that crap to the Palestinian refugees that to this day hold deeds and
>> keys to properties that they can't return to and never received shekel
>> *one* in return for.
>
> If the Arabs had not carried out across the board attacks
> throughout the Yishuv
"Yishuv"?
Translation please. I don't speak gibberish.
between 1947 and 1948, perhaps the nature of
> the subsequent Jewish victory would have been different.
That was neighboring Arab *countries*, *not* the poor bastards who had
lived in their homes for centuries and were terrorized out by the
zionist scum. Those people had attacked nobody, they were the innocent
victims of murdering zionist thugs.
> As it was, the ceaseless attacks against all
> isolated Jewish settlements only gave Zionist commanders
> every reason to see neighboring Arab villages
> as threatening and to act accordingly.
Ok show me the deed. I just know that you have a marvellous real estate
deal for anyone who buys into your sentence above!
>
> The Jewish communities of Hebron, Jerusalem, Shchem/Nablus and Gaza
> were centuries old when they were destroyed.
Sadly, that is true.
> Are their former residents refugees?
Well, if it was within my power, I'd certainly make the current Jewish
community in Hebron refugees in very short order.
> Do they have the same rights as the Palestinians?
Do they? I haven't heard of any "Palestinian only" roads in the WB, have
you? Otoh, "Jew-only" roads in the WB are a slightly different matter.
Do Jews and Palestinians get treated equally at the endless roadblocks?
So, I'd suspect that they just might have a couple of extra rights that
the Palestinians seem to lack.
> Could it be that the ill treatment they received,
> coupled with threats of "idbach al yahud",
> influenced Jewish thinking later on?
Or could it be that the ill-treatment they received from the Nazis
became a "how to behave when *you* have the gun" lesson for these WWII
refugees? Or perhaps they are just murderous scum by nature, similar to
the creatures that inhabit ex-Yugoslavia?
>
> Every war for 'Lebenstraum' tends to be vicious
> because the stakes are so high.
Sure. If you want to steal someone's home, chances are that they'll
probably object. Murder is a quick way of stifling these objections.
> Given the train of atrocities leading up to
> the Israeli 'War of Independance',
> Arab slogans of 'idbach al yahud',
> war aims of 'driving the Jews into the sea',
> did it make sense to depend on Jewish inhibitions
> to prevent them from doing
> everything in their power to win?
Well certainly appealing to a zionist's "better nature" would be a waste
of time, since these are a people without scruples, morals, or any
standard of ethical behavior.
>
> Did it make sense for Arab leaders
> to choose so risky a course after
> the UN had handed them so much,
> on a silver platter?
LMAO!
"You've got this, but were taking away a chunk of it and giving it to
European Jews so that they won't immigrate to *our* lands, but you can
keep what's left".
Such an offer, already!
Gary Renzetti
> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
> news:64e09$48780389$cf701ffa$41...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> Shlomo the Schmoo wrote:
>>> On Jul 10, 8:51 pm, Gary Renzetti <lizg...@connection.com> wrote:
>>>> Shlomo wrote:
>
>>>> The fact that such Pallies are in jail and not 6 feet under says
>>>> multitudes about the humanitarian Israeli policies.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not talking about "such 'Pallies' " Shlomo. I'm talking about the
>>>> people who are charged with nothing at all, and have never gone to
>>>> trial.
>>> And if they were caught in "actions" of "resistance", they are not
>>> protected by either civil law or the Geneva Conventions unless they
>>> were wearing distinctive clothing identifying themselves as
>>> combatants.
>> I always thought that in democracies if someone were suspected of
>> committing illegal acts (as defined by local laws) that the suspects were
>> *accused* of crimes, *tried* according to local statutes, and *if* *found*
>> *guilty* were then *sentenced* for their illegal actions. There are *ten*
>> *thousand* people in your beloved thuggocracy who are in the slam but have
>> yet to receive such niceties. i.e. They are hostages.
>
> POW's are not normally tried.
> But you've been harping on this for too long.
> Do you have statistics, lists, names?
fried at Treblinka?
>
>>> Furthermore, the Zionist halutzim (pioneers) and the D/P's are
>>> themselves indigenous to that land, unlike those who founded the
>>> United States, Canada, and Australia.
>> Not so. The Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars from Asia, and they are
>> the dominant group in the zionist entity.
>
> Genetically, Ashkenazim are 7/8 Jewish, on average.
> But it's a moot point.
> Even according to the most extreme interpretation of
> "The land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel",
> if there is just one Jew out there
> who is a 100% "Child of Israel",
> the land of Israel belongs to him.
> The rest of us will take it up with him,
> that's not your concern.
Who exactly said "The land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel"
anyway?
Gary Renzetti
the zionist entity is a Palestinian state ruled by Jews.