If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Oh right, oversight on my part. But if it was construed as a generalised term for palestinians... But anyway, even if every single terrorist stopped bombing Israel forever it would still take further concessions on both sides to bring about a solution.
eta: why do the terrorists have to be palestinians? There are loads (as I'm sure you're aware) from all over the middle east who dislike Israel, and there's always the possibility that die-hard Israelis zionists could be trying to stir up trouble - although im just saying its a possibility because im fully aware of the backlash i could get on this boards if i seriously suggested it.
He says he didn't, and he may well not have meant to.
It did read that way though.Which isn't surprising because he specifically said that he was paraphrasing Golda Meir - and she was completely unambiguous in what she said:
as quoted by Linda Chavez of the Jewish World review,
Somehow, he seems surprised that someone could possibly imagine that he meant something racist by paraphrasing a racist statement.
:eek2:
I may have it wrong. Maybe I have misunderstood what Golda Meir said. If that is the case, I'd like to be shown how.
Don't drag it further than what he wrote. He wrote palestinian terrorists, and therefore refered to palestinian terrorists.
Or are you going to twist it into meaning palestinians, hedghogs and caterpillars now, with your logic and distortions?
Dont get so offended, I was merely toying with the idea. It was the fact mainly that it's how it read to me, and apparently to ftp. Maybe a better use of language would be:
"When all the terrorists on both sides, whether from palestine or muslim countries or whether die-hard zionists from Israel or other places who dont see the Palestinians as worthy of their own people, when they both love their children more than they hate the other / pursue whatever objective, then there is a chance of peace."
It would be like me saying when the Israeli warmongers give up then there can be peace - but obviously you can see that it is not just those Israeli warmongers or otherwise.
Kinda like disillusioned attempted to do with Clandestine's post (erm "soundbytes") ?
I thought the original quote was that 'Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us'.
I don't think it's a racist statement. Then against the Arabs. Or now against Palestinian terrorists. I made an earlier post about the quote anyway. Go back and read it if it bothers you that much ftp.
tell me how saying all arabs hate Jews more than they love their children is not racist
The quote is over 30 years old. Look at it in the context, consider the history and Israel’s position.
Arab Israeli War, Six Day War, War of Attrition and Yom Kippur War were all recent/current affairs.
The hatred Arabs felt towards Israel was intense, even compared to feelings today. Given the behaviour of Arab states at this time, Israel's position as an isolated lonely democracy surrounded literally by enemies who sought to destroy it I don't think the quote is racist in its context.
But of course turlough didn't consider that. :rolleyes:
Whatever I don't really see the point in arguing about a quote from Golda Meir that's a few decades old.
My paraphrasing of that quote was directed towards Palestinian terrorists anyway.
ok so every single Arab 30 years ago hated the Jews...every last one of them?
"isolated lonely democracy surrounded literally by enemies" oh sorry...this totally justifies your statement and makes it sooooo not racist...who is and always has been Israels main friend and provider of weapons and technology...is it also a lonely isolated democracy
you don't see the point in arguing statements from 30 years ago...you are all to willing to look at the past to put forward an argument...actually it was you who used the paraphrase in the first place...or is there no point discussng that as it's in the past.
Umm I've said that Golda Meir's quote isn't racist in the context it was said in. Nowhere have I said that it was true for every single Arab 30 years ago. (And I actually doubt that she believed that). As I haven't said that I'm puzzled that you seem to think I have. Are you feeling okay?
America has not always supported Israel. Jimmy Carter in fact was quite hostile towards Israel.
I wouldn't even call it an argument. As far as Palestinian terrorists are concerned I think it's probably true. For reasons I explained in a post earlier to you.
No what bothers me is your using/paraphrasing a statement about Arabs/Palestinians not loving their children and even defending it, and then attempting to jump through hoops to suggest that Clandestine is anti-semitic when his post categorically makes it explicit that it is the ideology that he is commenting on.
:chin:
I purposely used a pro-Israel source for the Golda Meir quote btw.
Would you consider this a racist statement, Disillusioned?
Paul Eisen
Ashkenazis and the Yiddish they brought with them are not remotely semitic, neither are vast majority of Sephardics (whose socio-linguistic origins are Spanish). Only the religion to which these descendants of the Khazars adhere to is semitic, not the people nor their culture.
Thus since its inception, every act of degradation, forced relocation and bloodshed perpetrated against the indigenous inhabitants (ie. the arab population) is he real anti-semitism to which the international community has hypocritically turned a blind eye.
Redefining even the definition of "anti-semitism" is simply another facet of the historic revisionist PR which zionism has used to villify critical debate of its atrocities and attack those who dare to legitimately criticise the wrongs of Israeli policy as one should with the wrongs of any state aparatus.
But then, with its origins steeped in the terroristic activities of the Irgun, Stern Gang and Haganah, its no wonder that successive Israeli governments have made every effort to hypocritically whitewash Israel whilst calling those they have victimised the "terrorists". The will to power and the lies used to justify it remains as evil whether its Nazis victimising defenceless Jews or Israelis victimising disenfranchised and poorly armed (by comparison certainly) Palestinians.
That is what those who apply consistency of "principle" cannot fail to comprehend, unlike our young indoctrinated Zionist shills here.
According to Judaism converts are regarded as Jewish as born-Jews, once they have completed their conversion. I think I have mentioned that to you before. And I assume you already know it with your degree in theology.
Does it make them semitic people though?
I didnt question their Jewishness, I questioned their claim to being semites, which they are not (even thought the religion itself is).
You also conveniently avoid addressing the anti-semitism of Israel itself in what it perpetrates against the true indigenous semites of the land.
I didn't say it did.
I would assume that the two of you in general knew that it has over the times come to refer to Jews, despite of it not being the proper term. Find it weird that you concentrate so much on what to me seems a bagatel really.
Not really. Cause at the end of the day they adopted Judaism, and suffered for Judaism, and came to follow the same traditions as other Jews of the world.
ok....but are they semites?
few quotes for the people who don't know what anti-semitism means...
Read it.
Simply because the revisionistic definition has become commonly associated, due to the holocaust, with hatred only toward Jews (and further as a blanket excuse to disparage criticism of any and all actions, ideological positions, or policies adopted or otherwise enacted by Jews and/or the state of Israel (respectively) toward others) does not negate the fact that it IS an antonym for "semitic". Neither does it negate the true semitic nature of the arabic peoples and languages of the region and the non-semitic European, Kahazari-rooted socio-linguistic origins of the founders and majority population of modern Israel.
Let us also recall that Herzl and his fellow originators of Zionist ideology in the late 1800's were not men of abiding religious observance, but very much secular militant revolutionaries enamoured with Trotskyite notions of socio-political re-engineering.
The very mentality that has presently come to the fore in the form of PNAC hijacking of the US political system with its natural links to Likudnik aspirations for the destabilisations of all arab states in the furtherance of purely US/Israeli interests.
For these powermongers, the Jewish religion (as well as Christian fundamentalism) serves as nothing more than a easily claimed shield against too widespread a public examination into their patently criminal abuse of power.
The most extended definition I have heard is that to be anti-American is anti-semitic because America is the best friend of Israel, and therefore if you are against America, you are against Israel and therefore jews.
:eek2:
There are constant attempts to make anti-semitism mean something it doesn't - and, if it is constantly being redefined, then the terminology is open to investigation.
You yourself have helped to show that jewishness and semitism are not necessarily related - and that the accusations will fly, even where there is no basis for them in the terminology that is being questionned.
Its all part of the constant attempt to control the debate and obscure the reality.
Totally missing the point.
Like, totally.
Seriously, why does it bug you so much whether anti-semitism or toenail is used as a term describing jew-hatred.
But ....... its primarily used as a toll to control debate, and to undermine critics of the state of Israel, rather than to describe jew-hatred.
Hating an ideology has NOTHING to do with hating jews - and yet look at disillusioned's jiggery-pokery on the subject, backed up by your good self, of course.
Wtf? I seriously don't get where you're heading at.
You said that your usual internet-nick is Madge Noon, seems as if you have labelled yourself the best.
Is this the questio you got your pants wet over?
If so, should I assume that you believe there to be no other group (except fromPLO and Hamas) who would represent a threat?
All members of those groups will abide by their leadership...
No, I didn't wet my pants over any question. But this isn't the one you completely distorted and then ran off crying from.