Pretty pathetic that you don't have the balls to step up and admit that YOU are one of the leaders of the movement that makes those claims about Jews. Your use of the phrase 'all those people', as if you aren't leader of the pack, is pretty sickening, and gives an indication of your strength of character. Re: Jewish criminality/control, this is apparently a euphemism for Jewish success in the business/banking world. Yes, Jews are successful. Yes, they control major media and banking operations. Yes, there are a vanishingly small number of them compared to other peoples. Yes, there are an almost comically disproportionate number of Nobel prize winners, musical geniuses, scientific pioneers and other exemplary talents among them. Is this what you mean by their criminality? Or do you mean the part about them drinking the blood of Christian children during their religious ceremonies? What a joke. No wonder the Jews are winning, with adversaries like this.
Points like Arab opposition to the very existence of Israel being completely understandable in '48, '67 and '73. Points like, with passing generations, the reality of Israel sinking in and being accepted by Arabs. Who but hysterical Jews -- and those they've managed to dupe -- could possibly fail to see why Arabs were (are) opposed to Israel? Say in the early 1900s Arabs began to settle in Granada, Spain. Small trickle at first. Spaniards didn't want them there, but that powers that were held that they must be allowed to come. In time, the trickle becomes a flood and in fifty years, Arabs form a third of Granada province. By then, Spaniards are well and truly fed up with the Arabs, but world opinion has swung the Arabs' way; afterall, it is said, Arabs had lived in Granada for well over 700 years. Spaniards will have none of it and the province runs rife with low-level interethnic violence. Citing the impossibility of co-existence, international bodies decide to recognize a Muslim state of Granada. Bla bla bla, you can fill in the rest. If this had happened, which European wouldn't be completley understanding of a Spanish drive to recapture Granada only two decades after it was so unjustly seized, after Spaniards were so unjustly driven from their homes? If it had been some Saudi or Iranian superpower funneling funds and arms to the Granada Arabs and infusing the entire world with ceaseless propaganda about the 'moral necessity' of a Granada Arab state, about the virtues of the Granada Arabs while the Granada Arabs continued to oppress the Spaniards and plan to seize more of their territory, wouldn't Europeans sustain a grudge against that Saudi or Iranian backer? It's the same thing with the Arabs regarding Palestine. It's truly that simple. Why would anyone expect them to take seriously Jewish propaganda about the 'moral necessity' of a Jewish state, about Jewish 'claims' to the land (which, I'll make a wild assertion before checking the facts, they were probably in sovereign control of for less time than Arabs controlled Granada)? Why do we see the conflict solely through Jewish eyes and blindly support the Jewish state? Why do we act as though our interests are at stake, as though Jewish enemies are our enemies? Arabs are as baffled as I am until they realize the pervasiveness of Jewish progaganda and influence in the west. ddoo has tried his damndest to give non-Jews a reason to take the Israeli side, but anyone willing to seriously think about why they feel so strongly pro-Israel ought to be able to realize such support is not based on any kind of serious logic, only feelings -- feelings inculcated by Jewish propaganda. Yes, yes, doo, a cheap propaganda trick. Lol. Oh what baloney. The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the 'new historians' that it was forced. What about my point, though, that even if it was voluntary, why shouldn't they be allowed back to the place of their births? I mean, besides the fact that that would probably spell doom for the overriding Jewish character of Israel. I mean, on democratic, humanitarian, grounds, why shouldn't they be allowed back? Let's hear it Er, no. I said they could take up the issue with Egypt, Iraq etc. You know, to claim their 'right of return' to Bagdad or whatever.
Kissinger prefers the stay the way it is policy. And you know just continue to nibble a little more here, there. Oh there's a nice water hole. Wait until they do a little something now take, take, take. Don't worry the press is almost totally with us. Hey look at Lebanon or should we give it a new name, well no hurry. Little by little, need any choppers or anything? We will teach those savages about suffering.
So in other words you together with your muslim friends don't believe in Israel's right to exist but you have the nerve to criticize Israel for not being nice enough to the arabs who want to wipe it off the map, for not working hard enough to make peace with the Palestinians who DON'T want peace and want to drive the jews into the sea instead, and for ignoring your pretty baseless and absurd idea that somehow if Israel withdrew from the occupied territories peace and prosperity would dawn in the Middle East. Why don't you try something more logical and coherent...like the expulsion of the Chinese from Australia or busing issues in the US. I am sure those issues would be more up your valley.
ddo, it's a question of time. I can't really say exactly when a new nation has been aroud for "long enough" that it starts to become immoral to question its "right" to exist. But time is clearly the key ingrediant. Now, for me, Israel has been a fact for long enough that were it to make more reasonable accomodations with the Arabs it dispossessed I would think its existence legitimate, though perhaps in a form somewhat different. Some Arabs also feel this way. I highly doubt they are a majority, though I don't really have any hard data at hand. But, clearly, many more Arabs feel this way than they did 40 years ago. Jews make great use of the wars as propaganda pieces portraying the Arabs as viscious crazies, as though being viscious crazies is the only reason they attacked in 48, 67 and 73 (although it was really Israel who attacked in 67). In reality, it was because the legitimacy of Israel was not even close to being established in Arab minds at the time. This is apparent to anyone willing to look honestly at the issue. What is also clear is that though withdrawal from the occupied territories may not be a sufficient condition for peace, it is clearly necessary. Peace does not stand any chance while the territories are not only occupied, but are being actively settled. And thus we reach the dirty secret that (some/many/those in power) Israelis are intent on keeping the territories. Those territories have been a mainstay of zionist designs from the very beginning. Anyone seriously interested in the issue has, at a minimum, read the all the quotes of Israeli leaders that express this. Furthermore, there are those who plan the "transfer" of more Palestinians, either out of the territories, or out of today's Israel proper. Naturally, such activities only delay the acceptance-over-time effect. And to reiterate, from non-Jewish eyes, the zionist project is immoral and there are no apparent principles that would compel us to support it; certainly not to the extent that we do. Naturally, I don't expect ddoo to concede this point, since there is no advantage at all in it.
How about the 3000+ US soldiers who died in Iraq serving their Jewish-Neocon masters? They where fighting a war which the Zionists themselfs could not fight, thefore they decided to manipulate the United Stated into attacking Iraq. One might say, well, Iraq was a war wanted by the Neocons, and this was not the responsibilty of the state of Israel. The answer to that would be: Iraq is not the first war fought for Zionism - it was just another war fought for it. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" First neocon report calling for Iraq invasion. Delivered to Israel, 1996. http://zfacts.com/p/139.html Since World War I Zionists have been trying to get Europe and the US in particular to fight wars for them. This started by the blackmail by Zionists of president Wilson, attemping to get him to attack Germany in World War I, because allied victory would allow the establishment of Israel. Which the Jews wanted. World War II was another war fought for the Jews. If the US did not provoke the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, this war could have been prevented. In any case, if we dealt with the Soviet-Union, rather than Germany, we would have had a much more peaceful century. AIPAC is one way the Zionists control US politics, and I don't think many people here are unaware of this. The banking system is another way. There are currently only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya. A trend we are recently seeing is that countries without a controlled bank have been destroyed. Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq and Somalia are examples of this. The Rothschilds, whether you believe in any conspiracy or not, are Zionists, who have devoted much of their capital to the state of Israel. I doubt strongly that they have allowed their banking empire to fall in the hands of non Jews.