Soccer Dad

Roger cohen is an absolute disgrace as is the NY Times in general. This is the same paper which during the thirties ignored what was happening to Jews in Europe. The best ally the jihadists have is the western media.

it must really bother some that there are jews who are content and happy to live in arab or persian lands, to which they are loyal.

sass is now trying to hide her identity by just using an s. Obviously you didn't actually read the post in which Jews from Iran once they are free to speak their minds after having left the country, don't think Iran is all that wonderful. It must really bother useful idiots like sass that islamic countries really are horrible intolerant places which hate Jews among others. It flies in the face of their narrative of the noble savage and the evil western colonialist which they believe includes the Jews of Israel regardless of the fact that Jews are the indigenous people of Israel.

now thats a joke
tell me arabs are treated in israel.
http://images.google.com.au/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&hl=en-GB&rlz=1T4GZAZ_en-GBAU278AU279&q=kill+all+arabs

now thats a joke
tell me arabs are treated in israel.
http://images.google.com.au/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&hl=en-GB&rlz=1T4GZAZ_en-GBAU278AU279&q=kill+all+arabs

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/start-world-war-2-13.jpg

http://www.yesh-din.org/site/images/LESVHome.jpg

laura plse compare pics and tell me the difference.

sass, tell me how Jews are treated in arab countries? Oh, that's right, there are barely any left since they were driven out decades ago. Also tell me how Christians and non-Arabs are treated in arab countries? The arab-muslims are the most hateful, intolerant people in the world today.

Arabs in fact are treated quite well in Israel. Far better than they have it in arab countries.

The arab-islamic official media is riddled with anti-Semitism. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Anti-Semitism+in+the+arab+media&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

sass you have a lot to learn, little girl. You are an ignorant little twit.

as usual you are misinformed. i am not a girl or even a female
'argumentum ad hominem'.
your argument reminds me of the robot in 'lost in space'- CRUSH KILL DESTROY, CRUSH KILL DESTROY

alot of these jews were driven out ,of arab countries which they were happy in,by the zionist of israel with bombs and intimidation. just was the case with iraq and egypt. ben grurion dubbed this state policy as 'cruel zionism'.
http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/the-jews-of-iraq/
this one is my favorite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYuWOi56Wq0&feature=related

Fine, whatever. To me, you come across as effeminate. Nevertheless I stand by my assertion that you are an ignorant twit.

The Jews were driven out of Arab countries by the hatred of the arab-muslim governments and people. As far as the vile left is concerned nothing is ever the fault of the arab-muslims even though they have a centuries long history of persecuting and waging jihad against Jews, Christians etc. long before the existence of modern Israel or America.

fine, whatever.
i'm just a effeminate ignorant twit

fine, whatever.
i'm just a effeminate ignorant twit

alot of these jews were driven out ,of arab countries which they were happy in,by the zionist of israel with bombs and intimidation. just was the case with iraq and egypt.

I did a post on what happened to one Iraqi Jew:

http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archives/2008/08/19/the_fate_of_an_iraqi_jew.html

Do you ever get information from books?

yes , my favorite book on israel is 'the gun and the olive branch'by david hirst .
have you ever done a post about 'cruel zionism '.
do you know the story of yehudah tajjar ,shalom salih and 15 other zionist agents which let off three bombs which successfully stampeded the iraqi jews to israel..
on the rare occasion in arab history when moslems or christians turned agaist the jews in there midst, it was not anti semitism, in its tradition europan sense, that drove them, but fanaticism bred of a not unjustified resentment. for , like other minorities ,the jews had a tendency to associate themselves with, indeed profit from ,what the majority regarded as an alien and oppressive rule.in recent times ,this meant that from jews from iraq to morrocco the local jewish communities found varying degrees of special favour with the french and british masters of the arab world.if arab jews must themselves take some of the blame for the prejudice which this behaviour generatd against them, they deserve much less blame for that other cause of arab hostility-zionism-which was ultimately to prove infinitely more disruptive of their lives.
zionist activities in iraq and other arab countries date from the beginning of the 1900s.they were barely noticed at first.there was actually a time ,early 1920s, when the iraqi government granted the local zionist society an official license.at first it was the british rather than the local jews which bore the brunt of of arab animosity.in 1928 there were riot when the british zionist leader sir alfred mond visited baghdad.the following year demostrations in the streets,a two minute silence in parliment, black edged newspapers and telegrams to london marked the 'iraqi disapproval of the pro zionist policy of england. it was not until the mid thirties,when the troubles of palestine were reverberating round the world,that arab jews began to excite suspion and resentment.these emotion,in iraq,came to a head in 1941 when, in a two day rampage, the mob killed some 180 jews. it was terrible.but it was the first pogrom in iraqs history.also it occurred at a time of political chaos-the short lived pro nazi revolt of rashid ali kailani was collaspsing with most members in flight as a british force had arrived at the city gates.

RARE occasions when muslims turned against Jews? Sass, always the apologist for hateful, murderous muslim fanatics throughout history. And even when you do admit that muslims slaughtered Jews, you blame it on the victims. You are sick and pathetic. As long as there is no price to be paid for terrorism and there are enough western liberal degenerates willing to make excuses for and apologize for mass murder perpetrated in the name of islam, it will continue unabated. The western left is as much our enemy as the jihadists.

I would recommend a book called "The Legacy of islamic Anti-Semitism" by Andrew Bostom. It's about how Jews have been persecuted by muslims throughout the history of islam, going back to its origins. For example, the koran refers to Jews as the sons of apes and pigs and mohamed slaughtered the Jewish tribe of beni al Quraish. The notion that islamic terrorism is merely the result of modern day grievances against Israel and America is pure bunk.

do you know the story of yehudah tajjar ,shalom salih and 15 other zionist agents which let off three bombs which successfully stampeded the iraqi jews to israel..

There is controversy over exactly who was responsible and the Jews had plenty of other reasons to leave.

i bet there is contraversy with the purblind orthodoxy.but the bombers were definately zionist as were the bombers in eygpt a little while later.

zionism had much less appeal to the oriental than it did to eoropean jews. in pre-state period only 10%of jewish immigrants came from 'africa and asia'. in their vast majority ,the oriental jews were actually arab jews, and the reason for their indifference was simply that, historically, they had not suffered anything like the persecution and discrimination of their brethren in european christendom. prejudice did exist, but their lives were on the whole comfortable,and their roots deep.they were nowhere more at home than in iraq,and a iraqi government official conceded,tongue in cheek,that their mesopotamian pedigree was much superior to that of the moslem majority: 'many of us considered the jews to be the origin inhabitants of this country.we believe,according to the koran, they are descendants of abraham and that goes back nearly 4000 years.compared to them, therefore,we muslims are interlopers because we have been here only 1500 years'. at one time, baghdad numbered more jews than arab residents. they were a prosperous educated community particularly well placed to benifit from the rapid development and modernization of the country. they controlled many national institutions, most banks and big shops. the poorest jew were better off than the average iraqi. under the constitution, the jews enjoyed equality with other citizens. they were represented in parliment,worked in the civil service,and from 1920-1925 a jew was minister of finance. with the rise of zionism and the racist treatment of arabs by the european zionist , it all started to go horribly wrong.

i bet there is contraversy with the purblind orthodoxy.but the bombers were definately zionist

See here:

http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2006/04/iraqi-muslims-threw-1951-synagogue.html

they had not suffered anything like the persecution and discrimination of their brethren in european christendom.

The progroms were less frequent than in Europe and did not reach the scale of the largest ones in Europe, but people killed in them were just as dead. Benny Morris writes about the discrimination:

"Some of the restrictions to which the dhimmi were subjected no doubt originated in real considerations of security. But they came to be codified in Islamic law, and were later invoked and implemented without reference to changing realities. Jews were forbidden to bear arms; were permitted to ride asses only, not camels or horses, and only sidesaddle rather than astride; and were obliged to wear distinctive garb. Other restrictions had nothing to do with security and everything to do with religious and economic discrimination, and Jewish poverty in most of the Ottoman lands in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries appears to have been, in some measure at least, the result of discriminatory practices."

(Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict 1881-1999, [Knopf 1999], pp. 10-11)

your link is propoganda thats shifts the blame to the muslims. it was the zionists which let off three bombs and the were correctly convicted of that crime.
if the muslim targeted jews why did the iraqi jew flourish in iraq, and were basicaly running the economy. it wasn't until the introduction of zionism that the iraqi jew was wrongly set upon.
chief rabbi of iraq ,sassoon khedduri, explained:
'the jews and the muslims in iraq just took it for granted that judaism is a religion and iraqi jews are iraqi. the palestine problem was remote and there was no question about the jews of iraq following the arab position...'
doesn't sound like the jews were victimised to the point that the muslims totally hated them in their presence.
if zionism ,as a historical phenomenon,was a reaction to anti semitism , it follows that, in certain circumstances, the zionist had a interest in provoking the very disease which ,ultimately, they hoped to cure. herzl himself was the first to note the usefulness of anti-semitism as an incentive to jewish migration-'anti semitism has grown and continues to grow-and so do i'.
when was the first progrom against jews in arab countries??? there was some prejudices but no where near the scale of europe and the jews of iraq thrived.
i think the zionists have played up anti semitism in the pre zionist period of arab countries to dehumanise the muslim and give justification to the racist violent policies of zionism.also immigration is a main factor. its the christians of europe the jew should be angry against, because arab antisetism [ the arabs are a semtic people too] against jews didn't come close to the violence of europe,not by a long shot.

your link is propoganda thats shifts the blame to the muslims

I linked to the Jewish Refugee site because he brings more than one source, but the main source he uses is Tom Segev. Do you know who that is?

it wasn't until the introduction of zionism that the iraqi jew was wrongly set upon

Benny Morris (same pages I quoted before) mentions a "massacre" in Baghdad in 1828.
I can find some other references to this event on the web, but nothing detailed. One of Norman Stillman's books probably has the details.

i'm sure there are more, but as i said most will be linked to economics or colonial favoritism. there was some religious fanatical violence,but few and far between. not like europe

do you know the song the iraqi jew sang once they were in israel:
what did you do ,bengurion?
you smuggled in all of us!
because of the past,we waived our citizenship
and came to israel
would that we had come riding on a donkey and we
hadn't arrived here yet !
woe,what a black hour it was!
to hell with the plane that brought us here !

they sound thrilled to be israeli citizens.
what i find sad is that israel is meant to be a safe haven for jews yet in reality its the most dangerous.

do you know the song the iraqi jew sang once they were in israel

Thanks for the Dhimmitude
The Jizya that we paid
Your spittle on my face
The beatings I received
Because I didn't know my place
How chastened I was

Thanks for the Almohades
We ran away from Spain
That is, if we weren't slain
We thought we had a golden age
Then it went down the drain
How golden it was

Thanks for the Massacres
Fez 1465
Eleven left alive
Granada in 1066
When most did not survive
How final it was

Thanks for "Convert or die"
In Yemen it was bad
Morrocco and Baghdad
Compulsion in relgion
Was really quite a fad
Transforming it was

was it iraqi jews who sang that song or was it jews from other arab countries

There is only so much you can blindly blame on Zionism.

The writings of the much lionized Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali (d. 1111) highlight how the institution of dhimmitude was simply a normative, and prominent feature of the Shari�a:

�the dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle.. .Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]�on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]� They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells�their houses may not be higher than the Muslim�s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle-work is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths�[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.

Historically, Muslim persecution of Jews far predates modern Zionism.

the history of the world is about some group being persecuted. christans,muslims,jews,hindu,etc have been pursecuting each other for ever. but the jews were an exception until zionism came along and turned a religion into nationalism.

The Jews were an exception? To what, exactly?
Just when do you date Zionism from?

chaim weizmann ,the revered elder statemans became the first president of state of israel. it was fitting,more than to anyone else,the jewish state owned it existence. yet if there could have been no israel without weizmann, assuredly there would not have been one without bengurion and terrorist such as begin, plan dalet and dier yassin and the countless other massacres which drove the arab population out ,either. 'in all humbleness' weizmann told a UN committee of inquiry in 1947, 'thou shall not kill has been ingrained in us since mount sinai.it was inconceivable ten years ago that jews should break this commandment.unfortunately, they are breaking it today,and nobody deplores it more than the vast majority of jews.i hang my head in shame when i have to speak of this fact before you'.
what i mean is the jews were a rightous people who practiced what they preached until the zionist movement turned a religion into nationalism and changed what it is to be jewish for the majority of jews.there are a minority who are against zionism and see it as the biggest danger to their religion. the illegal settlers of the occupied territories use violence everyday against the arab population.
i date the zionism movement since herzl. i know there are many jewish customs which have kept the dream of return alive for thousands of years ,but this was based on when god united man then the jews will return to israel.the jews according to the tulmuc can only return to israel by spiritual means. the zionist movement changed all that and made it so the jews can return through violence -gun zionism.

Let's take your opinions step-by-step:

chaim weizmann ,the revered elder statemans became the first president of state of israel. it was fitting,more than to anyone else,the jewish
state owned it existence.

What have you read that leads you to believe that Weizmann is more responsible than anyone else--including David Ben Gurion--for the re-establishment of the state of Israel? Is this an opinion that is based on any fact? What exactly are you basing this on?

yet if there could have been no israel without weizmann, assuredly there would not have been one without bengurion and terrorist such as begin, plan dalet and dier yassin and the countless other massacres which drove the arab population out, either.

You claim that Begin was a terrorist--in what way? Are you saying that what he did is equivalent to what is done today by Hamas?

Surviving members of LEHI make a distinction between themselves and Hamas here (last article on page)

The conclusion by the author of the article:

While aspects of LEHI's record continue to be debated by historians, the old Sternists' insistence that the perceived parallel between them and Hamas ignores the most critical and morally significant distinction between the two groups is compelling: Only Hamas uses indiscriminate terror against women, children and other innocents as a regular instrument of its war, and encourages its followers to commit acts of martyrdom in aid of its cause.

You make the absurd claim that Plan Dalet was a plan for a massacre--while even those who ascribe nefarious motives to Israel claim it was a plan for occupation, not occupation. Have you ever read the text of Plan Dalet?

Here, a site gives an excerpt:

Plan Daled was not a plan for expelling Arabs. It was a plan for defending Israel. The plan envisaged temporary removal of civilians in specific cases, for strategic reasons, rather than wholesale expulsion. Anyonw who wants to know the truth can read Plan Dalet and see that it is so. Plan Dalet stated:

"(a) The objective of this plan is to gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders. It also aims at gaining control of the areas of Jewish settlement and concentration which are located outside the borders [of the Hebrew state] against regular, semi-regular, and small forces operating from bases outside or inside the state....

Generally, the aim of this plan is not an operation of occupation outside the borders of the Hebrew state. However, concerning enemy bases lying directly close to the borders which may be used as springboards for infiltration into the territory of the state, these must be temporarily occupied and searched for hostiles according to the above guidelines, and they must then be incorporated into our defensive system until operations cease.

Bases located in enemy territory which are intended to be temporarily occupied and controlled will be listed among the operational targets for the various brigades."

What you blindly assert about Deir Yasin being a massacre is actually debated with 2 sides--a fact you conveniently ignore. More here.

You blindly assert that there have been 'countless' other massacres--again, as you have done over and over again, not bringing any support to vague and generalized accusations.

The same source above for Deir Yasin, quoting a debate on the issue, also quotes the following accusations against Arabs:

"I speak of the policy of massacre and mutilation of Jews in the riots of 1920, in the riots of 1921, in the riots of 1929, in the riots of 1936 to 1939, and in the recent 1947-1948 war in which the Arabs set out to massacre and mutilate the Jewish state at birth; a war, in the course of which a convoy of 77 Jewish doctors and nurses, in clearly marked ambulances en route to the Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, met with massacre and mutilation. I speak of the massacre and mutilation of the 35 ambushed in a convoy en route to the Etzion Bloc. I speak of the massacre and mutilation of all but four survivors of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion. I speak of the massacre and mutilation…"

'in all humbleness' weizmann told a UN committee of inquiry in 1947, 'thou shall not kill has been ingrained in us since mount sinai.it was inconceivable ten years ago that jews should break this commandment.unfortunately, they are breaking it today,and nobody deplores it more than the vast majority of jews.i hang my head in shame when i have to speak of this fact before you'.

I will not respond to a quote that you do not even bother to give a link to or source.

what i mean is the jews were a rightous people who practiced what they preached until the zionist movement turned a religion into nationalism
and changed what it is to be jewish for the majority of jews.there are a minority who are against zionism and see it as the biggest danger to their religion. the illegal settlers of the occupied territories use violence everyday against the arab population.

You claim that Judaism is a religion that has no connection to any concept of nationalism--a claim that is absurd on its face and ignores Jewish history and the consistent and unbroken tie of Jews to the land of Israel as exhibited in its prayers and Holidays.

Again, you offer opinions without support--claims about a religion that you know nothing about, and which are ridiculous to anyone who is knowledgeable about the topic.

Your claim that the settlements are illegal--and again, you make a claim without support. There are valid reasons to say that those same settlements are legal: see here and here and here and here and here.

You are entitled to your opinions, but your consistent refusal to provide documentation and sources leave your opinions exactly that opinions which carry no weight in a debate where facts are expected. No wonder you resort to ad hominem attacks.

i date the zionism movement since herzl. i know there are many jewish customs which have kept the dream of return alive for thousands of years ,but this was based on when god united man then the jews will return to israel.the jews according to the tulmuc can only return to israel by spiritual means. the zionist movement changed all that and
made it so the jews can return through violence -gun zionism.

What you refer to as customs are actually not customs at all but actual Jewish Law. And again, if the Talmud says what you claim it does, by all means quote the source instead of consistently mouthing the claims and rumors that can be found in any of a number disreputable online sites.

Bottom line, you offer nothing to support what amounts to wild opinions offered by others--also without proof--just as you have done from your very first post.

Daled Amos

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/rabbismain.htm

Pitiful--yet what we have come to expect from you: a source that quotes single sentences without source or context.

You know nothing about the Rabbis who are quoted.

Do you really think that all Rabbis take such a stand? Are you vaguely aware when these Rabbis lived? Are you aware of the opinion of Rabbi Joseph Dov Halevi Soloveitchik? Are you aware that Rabbi V. Soloveitchik lived in Israel? Are you aware of the opinion of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn regarding Israel or the various institutions he established in Israel?

You have no idea what you quoted.

When Herzl was in the Holy Land he was far removed from G-d. He OPENLY PROFANED THE TORAH BY ENTERING THE HOLY CITY ON THE SABBATH. HE WENT TO THE SITE OF THE SANCTUARY WHICH EVEN FROM A HUMAN POINT OF VIEW HE SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE, THUS OPENLY PROFANING THE SABBATH IN THE HOLY CITY, AND IN THE PLACE OF HIS TEMPLE, DOING EVIL IN THE SIGHT OF G-D. In order to influence our brethren in favor of the Zionist aspiration for an independent nation and government, they have no alternative but to lead the people astray from the path of of Torah and the commandments, or at least, to weaken their attachment as much as possible SO THAT NATIONALISM SHOULD PREVAIL OVER TORAH, BECAUSE IT IS KNOWN THAT THOSE ATTACHED TO THE TORAH ARE UNLIKELY TO CHANGE AND ACCEPT SOME OTHER FORM OF FAITH. It is surely clear that the Zionists not only are not approaching Judaism, but that they entirely destroy Jewish souls in intentionally TAKING AWAY FROM THEM EVEN THE HIDDEN AND MYSTICAL FEELING IN THEIR SOULS FOR THE TORAH AND THE COMMANDMENTS....

Sholem Ber Schneersohn

Come on, if you are going to quote--at least tell us you are quoting from a Neturei Karta website.

Do you have any idea who you are quoting?

Obviously not.

sorry, i should use credible INDEPENTENT organisations such as CAMERA.??????

Like I said: you just don't get it.
You have no idea that there is more than one kind of Zionism.
You have no idea who the source you are quoting (without naming, of course) is.
You have no knowledge at all of who the Rabbis who quoted from them are or when they lived.

You quote that Herzl was not religious--which of course is irrelevant. For you to make a point, you will have to quote Herzl saying outright that Jews should take over Palestine and massacre the Arabs.

It is obvious that all along you have merely been quoting sources with no concept of the background.

You are flailing badly now, and do not even realize it.

you are playing lawyers tricks.all my statements are easily checked for those who wish to. all my research are from credible independent sources,not wacko bias organisations such as CAMERA. you have stated AMESTY INTERNATIONAL is not credible but CAMERA is credible.that says it all . you even try to give credit to joan peters book 'from time immoral', a totally discredited book,utter rubbish, but still a best seller for the purblind orthodoxy. all your sources are zionist organisations spewing out utter crap.you claim that illegal settlements are legal just shows me how lost you are.maybe you should volunteer for work at wikipeadia.

Nonsense.
You make statements with no proof.
You quote websites without indicating you are doing so.

Simply put, you are neither making an independent point nor using any form of argumentation.

Every time I refute one of your points, you do not respond, but instead go onto the next one--doing nothing more than relying on someone else and blindly spewing whatever they have said.

Your laziness is obvious.

You have no concept of what Neturei Karta is, nor how extremist it is--all you do is repost their stuff.

You write about Herzl, but no nothing about him.

If you want to make your point--all you have to do is quote where Herzl writes about taking over Israel and killing the Arabs.

Go ahead. We'll wait.

In the meantime, to illustrate other examples of your blindly quoting sources without knowing what you are talking about.

CAMERA was fully correct in what they did--doing nothing more than what everyone does who contributes to Wikipedia--they have never hidden what they were doing, because they simply did nothing wrong.

From Time Immemorial--as I pointed out to you once before--wascriticized for incorrectly interpreting the data on Palestinian Arab immigration into Palestine and skewing the numbers. This is only a portion of the book--the rest of it has not been discredited. The fact you have is one more indication that you have not read the book but instead, once again, merely repeat what others say, and jumping to another point whenever you are challenged.

Also, again you blindly rant about my quoting zionist organizations, fully unaware that I have quoted individuals, some of whom are not even Jewish.

Your last line of defense is always to scream about Zionist conspiracies.

Perhaps you are merely frustrated because someone has addressed everything you have thrown out, and have been rebutted point by point.

The issues you raise are clearly not black and while. There are many important points to raise and discuss.

But you are not qualified to do that.

from time immemoraorial .'luduicous and wothless'concluded the eminent middle east historian albert hourani. 'preposterous'stated sir ian and david gilmour in the london review. davar likened it to israels past proganda exercises, and avishai margalit[head of the philosophy dept at the hebrew uni called it a 'web of deceit'.norman finklestein -'half a centurys zionist propoganda tracts'...'among the most spectacular frauds ever published on the arab-israeli conflict..'.
sounds credible to me.
you have not done a thing but state 'zionist propoganda' and racist comments.your blog site purpose is to justify the inexcusible. zionist feed of each others propoganda and regurgitated it so many times it become fact -the purblind orthodoxy. then they attack a 'bias' media in israels favour for reporting the truth, discredit any leader who doesn't toe the zionist line[CAMERA], dehumanising the arabs so they are not seen as victims but as the aggressor [problem] and of coarse to re-write history-yes conspiracies everywhere.
for you laura.. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/36-18453.aspx
i see where this is going , i refuse to play your lawyers games.i stand by my comments.

Pitiful.

You don't know what is being criticized. Both Pro-Israel advocates as well as critics have for years noted that there are issues with the portion of the book that deals with the statistics of Arab Palestinian immigration into Palestine.

There is nothing new in that--especially since I have already granted that point at least twice before.

These same people do not however dispute the other parts of the book, of which you are completely ignorant.

Your only argument--after jumping from claim to claim in the face each rebuttal, instead of actually arguing a point--is to blindly claim that all my sources are Zionist!

Pathetic.

Please feel free to reveal to me--and the world--what racist comments, or posts, I have written. Of course, that would require you to actually support a point, but perhaps you can manage supporting a claim you make on your own--without searching for a quote to back yourself up.

Regurgitating--which you claim I do--is all you do, with no original argumentation of your own.

It is also a lie. Your intellectual laziness, that prevents you from actually looking into the links and backing up your claims, is blatant at every turn.

You are reduced to attacking CAMERA, which backs up each and every point with sources, while you tout sources that do not.

You quote Neturei Karta, a widely discredited and minority group, posting condemnations of Zionism by rabbis--but you are unaware that these are 19th century rabbis or that others either live in Israel or whose descendants have created groups in Israel that support the country.

Please feel free to bring a proof that CAMERA dehumanizes Palestinian Arabs--yes, yes, I know how you hate relying on anything but handy quotes.

As if to prove my point about your complete ignorance about your source material, you link to--not a post on strategypage--but a comment, full of the kind of disgusting Anti-Semitic lies that you apparently harbor yourself.

You poof ignorant fool. Go read about the mistranslations and lies in that disgusting piece of garbage you have the gall to post here. Go read the rebuttals here.

With that last link you have verified as I never could that you are indeed one of the littlest fish in the sea of Middle East debate.

You have made the depths of your ignorance clear to anyone who reads this thread.

Best you leave before you find a way to embarrass yourself further.

Daled Amos

the reason i posted it was the same can be said of those who make racist comments about islam. your quite happy to support these comment but if someone does the same thing ,you cry foul. that website is as disgusting as some of the racist comments i read here.the vast majority of palestinians are not terrorist[as you referr to them] and islam is not about hate.but the way you do your posting will give the uninformed that impression.yes, it is digusting and i agree with it as i do with some of the comments i see here.
i happy to see there are comments which do recognise what zionism is about,and no they are not my friends.
WE DO SEE YOU IN ISRAEL and what zionism is really about. ZIONISM= RACISM..
the end.

"the reason i posted it was the same can be said of those who make racist comments about islam".
...............................................
Oh please. Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. One has every right to condemn a belief system. And indeed islam IS about hate. And why is it that you can falsely claim that Zionism is racism, and yet we cannot tell the truth that islam is hateful? You clearly do not recognize what islam is about. Try to actually read writings from the koran and hadiths.

If it is racism to criticize islam, then certainly it is anti-Semitic to criticize Zionism. You want to have it both ways. You want to call people racists for criticizing the ideology of islam, yet you don't like it when anti-Zionists are called out for the anti-Semites they are. Anyone who is anti-Zionist opposes self-determination for the Jewish people, which in effect makes them anti-Semites.

Please feel to point to anything racist in general or anything as disgusting as what you posted here. You claim that I support such comments about Islam: will you finally back up something with facts to back it up?

I doubt it--all along all you do is make wild accusations without backing it up. No doubt you will be consistent and fail to back this up to. All you have done is post other people's claims.

Now you make excuses for your own racism. If you had claimed it was merely an example when you posted the racist material, you may have been making a point. But you did not do that. No, only when what you post is clearly shown to be lies do you make excuses.

Come on: I challenge you to point to what I have posted here that remotely matches the anti-Semitic material you posted here.

As far as Islam is concerned, I have no doubt that you are as ignorant about it as about Zionism.

Have you read Sura 9:29?

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

it also states
:Children of Israel! call to mind the favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others. (Surah 2:47 repeated in 2:122)

Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.(Surah 5:21)

my research indicates the quran has stated many posivite and negative things about the jews.i think the real meaning is lost or wrongly interperated.
very confusing who to believe

Considering the history of Islam, its conquests that have reached up to Russia, I would say that the Muslims are not confused at all about what the Koran says about Jihad.

Andrew Bostom has a 1000 page book with primary sources from the Koran forward that indicates that throughout their history, Muslims have not been confused about what the Koran says about Jews either. If it is confusing whom to believe--Muslims will look at their most respected scholars, then and now, and their are generally fairly unanimous that Jews are dogs.

Just a look at Dhimmi law makes that very clear--not to mention how Christians and Zoroastrians are considered.

Besides, they hold that the later--more extremist portions of the Koran--overrule the early ones.