Exidus of Jews from France reaches record levels.

[chequita guevara]

Ok, the left in the US doesn't protest the actions of other countries, except for a very small group.

And while there may be more Palesintinians than every, they are being pushed of of ever more land. Hence, ethnic cleansing.

And yes, we did protest US support to Iraq in the 80s. It was used for horrible purposes.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

And while there may be more Palesintinians than every, they are being pushed of of ever more land. Hence, ethnic cleansing.

Do you mean the bulldozing of terrroists homes?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ozz


Prime proof. Non- support for the existance of Israel is not anti-semitism. You would make it so? Would you brand a Apache who didn't support the existance of the USA anti-Christian?

The destruction of Israel would mean the deaths of a third of the Jewish population - how would that not be anti-semitic?

Fortunatly, Israel has proved to be capable of defending itself from such attacks.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan


Do you mean the bulldozing of terrroists homes?

What about all those terrorist olive trees?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Edan
The destruction of Israel would mean the deaths of a third of the Jewish population - how would that not be anti-semitic?

So, that still has nothing to do with anti-semitic, you
could kill them all and not be anti-semitic, It's why you
kill them, not how many.

Look up the meaning in the dictionary.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
The new Nazi's are the European left. They join the old Nazi's who never left. Is there anyone left in Europe that is not racist?

When you would know anything about European history you would acknowledge that it was mainly the left, Liberals and Socialists, that has consistently defended Jewish citizens. Ever heard about Zola and Dreyfus?

Simultaneously, during the Dreyfus case, this is what Herzl wrote:
"In Paris, as I have said, I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognised the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism."
(source: Marvin Lowenthal (ed.), The Diaries of Theodor Herzl)

Another Zionist, the American Ben Frommer, wrote in 1935:
"The fact is undeniable that the Jews collectively are unhealthy and neurotic. Those professional Jews who, wounded to the quick, indignantly deny this truth are the greatest enemies of their race, for they thereby lead them to search for false solutions, or at most palliatives."
(source: Ben Frommer, 'The Significance of a Jewish State', Jewish Call (Shanghai, May 1935), p.10)

And what do you say about this verbatim quote of Emil Ludwig, also a world-famous Zionist:
"Hitler will be forgotten in few years, but he will have a beautiful monument in Palestine. You know', and here the biographer-historian seemed to assume the role of a patriarchal Jew -'the coming of the Nazis was rather a welcome thing. So many of our German Jews were hovering between two coasts; so many of them were riding the treacherous current between the Scylla of assimilation and the Charybdis of a nodding acquaintance with Jewish things. Thousands who seemed to be completely lost to Judaism were brought back to the fold by Hitler, and for that I am personally very grateful to him."
(source: Meyer Steinglass, 'Emil Ludwig before the Judge', American Jewish Times, (April 1936), p. 35)

I could go on for hours, but I will confine myself to point out it was rabbi Stephen Wise, American Zionism's most prestigious figure, who in 1943(!) testified against the rescue Bill in Congress.

The policy of Zionism has been most consistent:

• NEVER combat anti-Semitism; instead exaggerate anti-Semitic violence
• OPPOSE assimilation of Jews
• OPPOSE migration of Jews to all countries but Palestine

Please don't bother to respond; henceforth I will ignore your posts!

[Edan]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


When you would know anything about European history you would acknowledge that it was mainly the left, Liberals and Socialists, that has consistently defended Jewish citizens. Ever heard about Zola and Dreyfus?

Right. Because Russia was a great protector of it's Jewish citzens.


[Snip revisionist propoganda]

I could go on for hours, but I will confine myself to point out it was rabbi Stephen Wise, American Zionism's most prestigious figure, who in 1943(!) testified against the rescue Bill in Congress.

Do you meanthis Rabbi Wise?

Rabbi Wise did not read the details but simply said: "Mr. President, we also beg to submit details and proofs of the horrible facts. We appeal to you, as head of our government, to do all in your power to bring this to the attention of the world and to do all in your power to make an effort to stop it."

The same Stephen Wise who, in 1933 organized a rally in Madison Square Garden, "protested Nazi persecution of the Jews" which "raised the consciousness of Americans" (_A History of the Holocaust_)

But no doubt, that was "exaggerated anti-Semitic violence."

NEVER combat anti-Semitism; instead exaggerate anti-Semitic violence

You mean the same Zionists who tried to work at saving Rumanian and French Jews despite State department obstructionists?

Do you mean the same Jews who succeeded in rescuing 50,000 jews from Yemen by airlifting them, as well as many more from other neighboring Arab countries? Saved hundreds of thousands from behind the Iron Curtain? Saved tens of thousands from Ethiopia?

[*]OPPOSE assimilation of Jews

LOL! Some of the most ardent zionists were some of the least observant of Jews.

Spare me your revisionist crap. It deserves to be flushed down the toilet.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ozz


So, that still has nothing to do with anti-semitic, you
could kill them all and not be anti-semitic, It's why you
kill them, not how many.

I could argue that you're wrong in your semantic distinction, but I won't bother. Even assuming you were correct, your hypothesis would result in the dead of more than a third of the Jewish population and relegate the rest to a permanent future of persecution and antisemitism that they have already spent 2000 years living through - even if you're only anti-Israeli and not anti-semitic, your aims appear to be pretty much the same - and at the point, I really don't care about any syntactic difference.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Edan
Spare me your revisionist crap. It deserves to be flushed down the toilet.

I agree with you that T.Herzl, B.Frommer, and E.Ludwig all were evil men. That they were non-observant is irrelevant since they defined a Jew by race, not by religion.

And without providing evidence -like I did by quoting them verbatim- your juvenile name-calling will convince no one.

For your information: the Dreyfus case and Zola were a French, not a Russian affair. Perhaps you should consult an atlas before posting!

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Edan
I really don't care about any syntactic difference.

You mean my mind is made up, and i'm just here to
practice anti-gentilism.

Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
Date: 1882
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

When you accuse someone of something, it is only just and reasonable you know what the words you use mean.

Otherwise your even worse than they are.

[Edan]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


I agree with you that T.Herzl, B.Frommer, and E.Ludwig all were evil men. That they were non-observant is irrelevant since they defined a Jew by race, not by religion.

No, they defined Jews as a nation. And given that antisemites like the Nazis rarely cared whether one was religious and observant or not, or assimilated or not, they had good reason to - since their point in zionism was to be able to defeat anti-semitism - and the way to do that is to protect those that are targeted by it. And considering that there are many non-observant jews who consider themselves Jews, that seems to be valid. The Jewish people, those that considered themselves to be Jewish, always considered themselves to be a nation.

And without providing evidence -like I did by quoting them verbatim- your juvenile name-calling will convince no one.

evidence Right.. that was evidence

I cited two sources. Including a link to one primary source. But, of course, that wasn't evidence to you.

As for evidence of some of the people Israel rescued, you could take a look at Heritage - Civilizations and the Jews, or a Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East.

For your information: the Dreyfus case and Zola were a French, not a Russian affair. Perhaps you should consult an atlas before posting!

I was refering to the persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union. Or do you think there was none?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ozz


You mean my mind is made up, and i'm just here to
practice anti-gentilism.

No, I mean that if two groups (ie, radical anti-semites, and anti-Israelis) have the same aims, even if they are two different groups (and I still maintain that anti-Israelis - those who want the dstruction of Israel and those of the Jews who live there - are a subset of anti-semites), and that same aim is evil, I don't see any reason to care about the difference in how they label themselves.

At least one can be an anti-semite (ie, "Jews have long noses", "Jews are greedy", "Jews are crafty, so I want one to be my lawyer"), without wanting the deaths of millions of Jews.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Edan
evidence Right.. that was evidence

Are you suggesting that Herzl's own diary, and a Zionist newspaper like American Jewish Times, are no reliable sources because we cannot trust the words of a Zionist?

I cited two sources. Including a link to one primary source.

Since when is the internet a primary source?

Obviously you have still not learned how to make a source reference. Though it is probably a waste of time I will show you how one should do it:
source: Harry A. Miskimin, 'The Economy of Early Renaissance Europe 1300-1460' (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1969), pp. 25-32

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Edan
I don't see any reason to care about the difference in how they label themselves.

At least one can be an anti-semite (ie, "Jews have long noses", "Jews are greedy", "Jews are crafty, so I want one to be my lawyer"), without wanting the deaths of millions of Jews.

it not how they label themselves, It about how YOU label them. And they in turn label you. Reason ends,
and blind hatred begins.

The Anti-Semites are out to kill Jews and can't be
reasoned with because they are not logical. Others
may have logical reasons for hating israeli, yet wouldn't
harm a Jew living in America, cause they are not anti-semitic. The greivences they have, just or not, can be
settled.

[Edan]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


Are you suggesting that Herzl's own diary, and a Zionist newspaper like American Jewish Times, are no reliable sources because we cannot trust the words of a Zionist?

Cause pbs.org and the books I have on my desk aren't as reliable as where your "sources" came from?

All of your "sources" came from here, here and here. On a site full of revisionist and antisemitic garbage.

And the most telling thing is that you didn't even bother to change your method of source references, you simply highlighted, copied and pasted - resulting in refernces that are identical, down to the spaces, commas and parenthesis.