I expect you need to be on Facebook to go to this link:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Gaza-Youth-Breaks-Out-GYBO/118914244840679
The Guardian published their manifesto yesterday. It may be superfluous but I nonetheless think it should be repeated as widely as possible:
GAZA YOUTH’S MANIFESTO FOR CHANGE: “We, the youth in Gaza, are so fed up with Israel, Hamas, the occupation, the violations of human rights and the indifference of the international community! We want to scream…” – read more below!
Contact us: [email protected]
Pls consider supporting us by taking one or more of the following actions:
1) Promoting our manifesto by sharing it on your profile on Facebook
2) Sending an email to your friends asking them to like our page FB
3) Translating the manifesto to your language and sending it to us (we have it in Arabic, Hebrew, French, Portuguese, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Greek, Chinese, Russian, Icelandic, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish)
4) Sending the manifesto to journalists in your country
5) Making organizations in your countries that are concerned with the Palestinian issue and/or youth rights know about our existence
6) Posting links about violation of youth’s rights in Gaza on our wall
7) Suggesting us ideas for reaching out to a greater number of people
???|__
1) Ghettoisation. Patriarchy. Crime.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/we-must-stand-up-against-the-insidious-culture-of-silence-1.1078458
Constant calls for shariah law and all of the associated cultural manifestations as they apply now in the real world (and not in some fairytale utopia) are ghettoising the Muslim community in the UK. We absolutely cannot let the BNP et al making the running with this type of thing. We need to tackle it head-on.
2) Why don’t I hear many supporters of Sharia law condemning the vicious murder earlier this week of the Governor of Punjab?
http://www.dawn.com/2011/01/05/salman-taseer%E2%80%99s-funeral-to-be-held-today.html
People have been arguing and fighting over the meaning of religious texts since the year dot. There is no single, universally-accepted meaning for any religious text, anywhere in the world. So reliance on such texts is just as susceptible to human flaws as any other text.
What you get is Salem, Massachusetts.
Sorry, Arsalan, as you know, I don’t agree with you on this specific matter.
DISTRACTIONISTS AT WORK!
Typically we are miles away from the original topic:ROTHSCHILD ZIONISM:
http://www.davidicke.com/articles/political-manipulation-mainmenu-72/42734-they-dare-not-speak-its-name-rothschild-zionism
Gazan Youth really don’t stand a chance against this lot and nor do we come to that.
Glenn I think I might have explained it wrongly then.
Shriayah is a very wide term. I was stating what i thought it meant in the context in which you mentioned it.
It means the rules in Islam.
Sometimes Shariyah is use to mean Islamic rules, as practiced by the individual.
I didnt think that was the context you meant it in.
Some aspects of the Quran relate to the individual, like our prayers and our dress code.
Other parts relate to society, such as punishments for crimes.
This is the aspect that i thought your question was refering to.
So I took Sharia out and replaced it with Khilafah(the islamic state), because that is what i believed you meant by Shariya law.
When it comes to the Khilafah, some rules and rights are fixed. They are called the Hudud. These are stated in the Quran and in the Sunnah clearly.
Others are not fixed, they are called taziya, with these to ruler has descretion.
How the Islamic state is ruled is derived from The Quran and How the Prophet Mohummed ruled, when he ruled the state in Madina. This is used as the bases from where we derive how we will rule a modern state and solve modern problems.
Because he used state funds to feed the poor, It means an Islamic state today must feed the poor.
I would say the samething about having an NHS because there is a hadith where he allowed some sick people to use state owned camels to get medication.
arsalan: Thank you for the clarifications. I thought I half understood this subject a few years ago, but it looks like I’d better read up some more again – I was a bit surprised that Shariya law was apparently about negative (limiting action) rights, such as that provided by the US constitution, so clearly I’d entirely misunderstood you.
There is a great deal which is absolutely good in a lot of religion, the problem seems to be the practitioners who like to ignore any inconvenient but entirely clear edicts (particularly, to do no harm to others). The things that one should do – help the poor, sick and distressed, practice democratic socialism in short – should not require religious edicts IMHO. Agreed that the NHS in principle satisfies the requirements of many religions, and democratic socialism too. There are many societal pillars on which we would be in total agreement, albeit from rather different directions of principle.
Perhaps wise and enlightened leaders in the past decided that a religious framework ought to be put around many of these practices, so that those who are too ignorant or mean spirited would nevertheless feel compunction to behave appropriately in society. I fear that such laudable aims are lost when a religion becomes rotten and corrupt, a means to grab power, and rule through fear or cruelty. With the possible exception of Buddhism, this seems to have happened with all the major religions, which is why I am so entirely opposed to a religious basis for government (even if every citizen was an adherent to that religion).
(Moderated: duplicated from another thread.)
Back to Gaza.This moving but totally unsentimental video is on Gilad Atzmon’s site. It is an account of a family’s experience during the Cast Lead onslaught, including the death of their eldest boy whose corpse was used as target practice whilst the injured parents sheltered nearby with their other children. They are now living in a tent as their house was flattened. Their love for each other and their amazing stoicism shines out. As usual, they do not seem to be bitter.
a~
JThe film maker is Jen Marlowe. She says – Just months after the Israeli assault that killed 1,390 Palestinians, I visited Gaza. Among dozens of painful stories I heard, one family stood out. I spent several days with Kamal and Wafaa Awajah, playing with their children, sleeping in the tent they were living in, and filming their story.
Wafaa described the execution of their son, Ibrahim. As she spoke, her children played on the rubble of their destroyed home. Kamal talked about struggling to help his kids heal from trauma.
What compelled me to tell the Awajah family’s story? I was moved not only by their tragedy but by the love for their children in Wafaa and Kamal’s every word.
Palestinians in Gaza are depicted either as violent terrorists or as helpless victims. The Awajah family challenges both portrayals. Through one family’s story, the larger tragedy of Gaza is exposed, and the courage and resilience of its people shines through.’
http://vimeo.com/18384109
a~~
Some excellent comments there too.
Glenn
That was what I meant by I think I explained it wrongly.
I didn’t mean it was a bunch of Negatives, like the US constitution.
I think I’m not getting enough sleep and I am angry about a lot of personal stuff so I am not able to explain things as clearly as I used to.
What I was trying to say was an Islamic state is not a Muslim state.
An Islamic state is a state where the rules are derived from the parts of Islam concerned with ruling a state.
It doesn’t really matter whether the people inside it are Muslim or not.
I think coming in to a modern context, another example would be splif and rastas.
Should they be allowed to, in an Islamic state?
I would say yes.
Why?
Because in an Islamic state Alcohol was generally banned with a dispensation granted to Non-Muslims especially when concerned with drinking wine in representing the blood of christ.
So even though splif would generally be banned because people use it for the same reason they use Alcohol. Rastas should be allowed to use splif in rasta temples.
But anyway, these days people use Islamic state to mean a whole bunch of different things. Including seculer states with large Muslim populations.
I have been using it only to mean the state ruled by the Prophet in Madina, the first four rulers to follow him and to some extent the Khalifs who ruled between that time and 1924 when the last ottoman Khalif was removed and Turkey was declared a seculer republic.
I have also used it to mean a future state, that would rule according to the Example of the Prophet and derive its rules from the Quran and Sunnah(actions and statements of the Prophet).
It isn’t about clergy. In Islam a clergy doesn’t really exist in the way it exists in other religions. the Ulima are used in the same way we use books.
They are just a source of knowledge, they have no power to add or remove rules from the religion as happens in other religions.
They are used like how we would use google search to find the quote we are looking for in the Quran and the many compilations of the Sunnah.
They have no authority or power to legislate. They can not make what God made lawful unlawful and they can not make what God made unlawful lawful.
The Quran actually attacks the people who follow priests and rabbis when they do this by stating the people who follow them in this worship them.
An example of this happening in christianty would be Pork being made lawful and Polygamy being made unlawful by clergymen. Or the many the many foods Rabbis have made unlawful whish have not been made unlawful in the Torah. Or Usury being made lawful by both Jewish and Christian clergy when this vile concept has been banned by every religion and every philosephy.
So I agree Clergy should not have absolute power, they shouldn’t really have any power, their rule is only that of a search engine, a google search of holy texts.
http://kalakawa.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/ghuttan/
More on what is a highly significant political event and not just for South Asia.
“Much is being said of the illiteracy that pervades our society and allows for people to be radicalized. This is absolute rot. Another great lie. Look at the Facebook warriors that have set up pages in support of the murderer Mumtaz Hussain Qadri. These people are doctors, lawyers, engineers, businessmen, students. A group of 200 lawyers of the Islamabad bar have offered their services free of cost to the assassin and showered him with flowers when he arrived for his arraignment.
All these people would have been considered moderate in the great myth of the ‘silent moderate majority’ that we have perpetuated for so long.”
Absolutely. See also my posts over on the ‘Prince Charles’s Window’ blog-post.
ZAPPED IN NO TIME!
My link to Doreen Bell-Dotan, the Israeli with the theory re-Israel being a Nazi experiment, has been deleted from this thread where it clearly BELONGS and left on the Laws of Physics thread where I posted it in error.
On a thread re-Gaza Youth where Israel is clearly the oppressor a link to an article by an Israeli who feels oppressed by the same state is clearly relevant.
Posted on a thread primarily about the student street demonstration before Xmas the Dotan piece could justifiably have been excised on grounds of irrelevance.
A tad overzealous Ubersturmfuhrer?
Here’s the video version.
Maybe you’ll find an excuse to delete this. I mean Doreen Bell-Dotan is clearly a “self-hating” Jew isn’t she?
And she’s definitely a “conspiraloon”-um……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHh8LpdUnk&feature=related
I believe Nazi Germany was a Zionist experiment.
It was a dry run for what Israel is doing in Palestine.
Not just Palestinians, Israel has exterminated its fair share of Jews. Like the children exterminated by the radiation experimant.
Israel certainly did perform experiments on on Mizrahi children and there was (maybe still is, I don’t know) widespread discrimination by Ashkenazi Jews against Mizrahi Jews. The Far Right, racist attitudes of some of the recent Russian immigrants to Israel towards the Palestinians is an example of the manner in which such political ideas can, and do, travel. Israel now seems to be turning into an overtly racist state. Of course, one might argue that it was founded on such premises in the first place. But even those civil societal structures that were in place are now being eroded. The marriage laws are akin to those of apartheid South Africa. Jewish supremacism is in the ascendant.
One might argue that both Nazism and Zionism emerged from the same European nationalist/imperialist paradigm; they did; and that both drew on constructed mythological narratives to justify their provenance and longevity – in essence, to justify their land-claims, exceptionalism and supremacy. However, to say that “Nazi Germany was a Zionist experiment” seems to be an example of an attempt to mould history to fit your own hypothesis about the world into a single, all-embracing and simple, unidirectional narrative. History doesn’t work that way.
Both Zionism and Nazism were/are historical – and European – phenomena, which one can critique and struggle against, etc. One had an impact on the other (Nazism, on Zionism). But they are not part of a singular, predetermined plot. To view them as such – to lump all of one’s ‘enemies’ into a single basket in this way – while always a temptation, actually detracts from a lucid understanding of the processes which have led to the current historical juncture. And no political solution can be found to Palestine/Israel situation without a clear understanding of historical – not mythical – processes which led to it.
I’m not so sure the idea that Nazi Germany might have been a “Zionist experiment” is some epistemologically flawed conspiracy theory at all.
Discounting the idea totally underestimates the power and reach of Zionist bankers in London and NY who financed Hitler from the earliest days.
The suggestion that Hitler merge his small party with the German Zionists was made as early as 1923 by the Rothschild agent, Trebitsch-Lincoln, aka. Moses Pinkeles, who had been a British Liberal MP, before he joined the ranks of the Rothschild-financed “permanent revolution” gang!
Once Hitler achieved power in 1933 why was the only other legal party the German Zionists?
Why was there such extensive collusion between the Nazis and the Zionists during the 1930s including the Havara Transfer Agreement?
Eichmann met Zionists in both Palestine and Berlin. A coin was struck to celebrate the Nazi-Zionist collaboration. Eichmann himself was a full Jew and Zionist!
The Germans knew from WW1 that they could not afford to alienate the Zionists and thereby any influence they sought in the Middle East to counter Britain’s geo-political strategy.
These are all inconvenient FACTS the disinformationists would like air-brushed from history.
It’s not working!
@Steelback – your post was moderated because it was a duplicate, not because of its content. It is a breach of netiquette to ‘cross-post’ i.e. post the same thing to several threads/groups at the same time – since it can duplicate conversations. You’ll see that your Bell-Dotan link is still alive on the other thread.
Please try not to dominate every thread with NWO and hidden-agenda material. The structure of capitalism, the monarchy, the propaganda model, the nature of the MSM, civil unrest, austerity policy, the public sector and lots of other topics are relevant too. ‘Engage’ should be the watch-word, perhaps?
I think people living in Israel like Doreen Bell-Dotan have noticed how the state as run by its Ministries of Absorption, Religious Affairs, Education and Social Work have a totalitarian agenda much like the Nazis did.
More recently the world’s eyes have been on the Israeli invasions of its neighbours in Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2009. Yes, we all saw the pictures and thought this is the Nazis all over again!
Study the relevant history and you will discover that this is no coincidence in the inescapable parallels between what Nazis looked like then and what the Israelis look like now.
A symbiotic relationship existed between the two. The Zionists could not win their argument against the mass of assimilated and Orthodox Jews across Europe without another bout of orchestrated anti-semitism, leading to mass deportations and forced migration across the continent.
The Nazis would have disappeared around 1932 as a political force in Germany had it not been for donations from Zionist bankers like Warburg.
All this brings us back to where we started-with the phenomenon of Rothschild Zionism. It may not been mentioned in official history books but undoubtedly it is the source of the two evils of which we speak.
Bell-Dotan is surely not the only Israeli who believes Israel was created and is still being run today by alien outsiders today. Barry Chamish who is close to the settler movement wil tell you exactly the same thing!
There is shared perception that these powerful outsiders do not have the best interests of Jewish people at heart.
Jon
It seems more the case that Freeborn and Steelback et al believe in keeping the thread on topic.
This is not the same as trying to dominate threads with an “NWO/Hidden Agenda” emphasis.
While you are quite happy for the debunkers to scream “conspiracy theory” at anyone who challenges official accounts of WW2 and how Israel was created you seem less willing to allow discussion of the mass of counter-evidence.
Shouting “conspiracy theory” is an intellectually feckless position in that it allows official mythologies to pass unchallenged. It also absolves those who make such pronouncements from having to do any research of their own.
“Conspiracy theory” seems to be the favoured smear device of those who want to hide inconvenient facts from the public or those who simply do not want to know or find it too challenging to discover any other “facts” than the official ones.
Any thoughts?
I agree that pejorative terms can be used to drown out discussion, and ‘conspiracy theory’ is certainly one of those.
My last point still stands though: I think you could widen your subjects of interest, and that not every post need include your pet topics. For example, on the next post, there is a discussion about the gunman in Arizona, and whether right-wing Christian fundamentalists have created a video-game culture of militarism that is coming back to bite them on the backside. I don’t think such a discussion need reference NWO material at all – as Suhayl says, such an approach can lead to the idea that one political theory convincingly explains all nefarious activity from every quarter, when in fact the world is likely to be much more complicated.
In my experience these threads usually peter out when the debunkers have run out of evidence to support their fallacious arguments.
Even when the debunkers are given the floor to themselves and have the opportunity to show their knowledge and support their case with evidence they prefer to stay in their fall-back position that states that all the counter-evidence to the official position is “conspiracy theory”!
Unfailingly the indecently threadbare case for the official position has been ripped to threads by this time.
Left to their own devices on threads that are of little interest to the people they like to call “conspiracy theorists” the debunkers allow the thread to degenerate into mindless oblivion.
At this point of nadir along comes the moderator, spambots and the host’s initiation of a new topic to bail them out.
It all works a little bit like that “bodyguard of lies” we call the MSM in fact!
I think we’ve reached that point about now.
Here comes the Terminator…….
Jon
I’m pretty sure the phrases, “NWO” and “Hidden Agenda” have only been used by you.
So who’s obsessed? You seem to want to portray anyone who questions official history as “NWO-obsessed”.
This is a classic truth-suppression technique.
Another technique of truth suppression is to marginalize sceptics as less “reasonable” than the official line and its defenders.
Then we have the classic technique of insisting that the sceptics are not really interested in the truth but have a partisan political agenda to push. This is quite untrue since most people who are sceptical re-official truths have discovered enough outrageous BIG LIES and untruths during their research to have ditched any previous left/right political allegiance and buried any subscription to the idea that the left/right paradigm has any relevance whatever along with it.
Are we supposed to assume that the thoroughly “reasonable” adherents to the official government-sponsored history of WW2 and the establishment of the state of Israel could not possibly have their own political agenda?
Your final familiar sleight of hand from the debunkers’ rhetorical armoury is the one that insists that the crimes are impossibly complex or in your words “too complicated” and that the truth is finally unknowable.
Now isn’t that just a little too convenient for the official line history and its adherents? Shall we all give up and go home now? We’ll never know the truth so let’s all stop digging shall we?
See the 17 Techniques of Truth Suppression here:
http://www.dcdave.com/article3/991228.html
You’re employing techniques, 5, 6 and 10.
It’s not working!
Sahail
When i said Israel wasn’t a Nazi conspiracy, but rather Nazism was a Zionist experiment.
It was a reply to the video that was pasted.
The video hinted that Nazis had come in to Israel, and they are making it racist.
This is wrong, and what you said about the new Russians is also wrong.
Zionism was racism, the moment someone thought up the idea.
It’s racism isn’t through a corruption of good, but by the implementation of evil.
Genocide of Palestinians, was part and parcel of the plan, because you can not have a Jewish nation, unless the other who are already there are exterminated.
It wasn’t these newly arrived Russians who brought racism with them from their home country, it was already there. And the Palestinians were already being beaten, tortured and killed before the Russians arrived.
Palestinians actually tell me that the Russians are not as bad as the Jews when it comes to torture and beatings.
blaming the Russians, as non-Jewish bringers of racism, is just an extension of Israels racist logic.
People often say Israel is copying the Nazis. What I meant by my earlier comment was:
Zionism came before Nazism. It was the Germans who copied Zionism.
If you read the Myth of 20th century man, the Bible of Nazism. It can be seen that it is a clear plagerisations of Zionism.
Suhail you mentioned that both Zionism, and Nazism both take from earlier European racism.
even though European racism predates ideological Zionism. I believe most if not all forms of European Racism take their inspiration from the mindset that created Zionism.
A mindset of the chosen, and the cursed. Of exclusiveness being dependent on ancestry. Of brotherhood being dependent on blood and kinship instead of shared ideas and beliefs. Of the curse of Ham, and its inheritance. Of Amalak, the need to exterminate them.
The Zionists did support the creation of Nazism. I am not just talking about Bankers here and donations that were made in secret. I am talking about open aims and objectives. Nazism was needed for Zionism to form Israel. Exterminating the Palestinians, the people who were there before would have just resulted in a land without people. Zionism had to create Nazism to move Jews in to Palestine.
Without it, Israel would have been a nation without many Jews,. No amount of killing Palestinians would have raised the number of Jews there.
The Nazis, wanted the Jews out of Europe, which was exactly what the Zionists wanted.
The Zionists did create Nazism, was it a dry run, or a step that needed to be carried out?
Well I think a bit off both.
But no one can deny, Zionism. And by Zionism i don’t mean some bankers in America, i mean the ideology and the organisation had a part in its creation. A big part.
@tungsten et al,
Seems like you’re not interested in discussion, chaps.
1. If you are persistently abusive, moderation is met with your indignation, and you allege that you are being censored.
2. If your material – whatever it is called – is questioned, you call the questioner a ‘stooge’ or a ‘debunker’.
3. You imply that everyone who disagrees with you is deliberately covering up the truth.
4. You suggest that any terms used by other people to refer to your material collectively are deliberately pejorative, even if you can’t show that this is the case.
5. You won’t enter discussion, nor provide interesting background information about yourselves, nor find anyone else’s topics of interest, nor admit that you might be wrong about something.
6. If someone makes an effort to engage with your topics, you often don’t respond – in particular my analysis on Kevin MacDonald.
7. You think that where people don’t engage with your posts, it is evidence that you have won the argument.
So, it seems that you’ve got it sewn up. You regard your arguments as flawless and perfect, and anyone who says otherwise must be a ‘shill’ for, well, whoever you think is in charge. Not a great basis for discussion, surely?
Jon
Funny how you’re now waxing indignant-I’m afraid that’s another favoured disinformation technique!
Changing the subject is another one.
There is no record of the behaviour you attribute to me on this thread whatever.
I have given no occasion at all for you to moderate any abusive comments from me.
As far as I remember in your “analysis” of Kevin Macdonald’s ideas you actually only referred to his increasingly public political stance. You seemed rather reticent re-discussing his theory that Jewish ethno-supremacism helped provoke Nazism which, rather than his putative political career, was actually the point relevant to this thread.
Your intervention on this thread has been to support the contention of Suhayl that the truth is too complicated for any of us to finally know. This makes it easy to explain why you seem to hold anyone who strongly disagrees with this
position in contempt but it doesn’t entirely support the idea that your moderation is neutral and value-free does it?
Arsalan, thanks.
“Israel now seems to be turning into an overtly racist state. Of course, one might argue that it was founded on such premises in the first place.” Me, at 9:07am.
I actually hadn’t noticed (or watched) the video, sorry. I agree that the agenda of successive Israeli Govts/ the Zionist movement all along has been to conquer the entirety of Mandated Palestine and make it Israel.
I think what you might be suggesting, essentially, is that this idea of ‘the chosen people’ to whom a consistent exceptionalism can be applied, comes from the stories of the Hebrews and moved into European theology/culture/politics from the Bible. I’ve heard this argument before – and from Jewish people, actually. It is indeed valid to criticise this idea of the ‘chosen people’, chosen by blood. I bow to your knowledge on this which will be far greater than mine. I’m not sure I’d call that ‘Zionism’, though. Was Zionism not really a recent, late C19th development? I mean apart from Early Modern esoteric cults, etc.
Zionist agents certainly tried to scare/persuade Jews to leave various places to go to Israel, with very limited success until the early 1940s. But Hitler, Himmler et al didn’t send the Jews to Palestine, which he could have done if he’d wanted. They gassed/shot most of them. The ones who got out did so by default, no? And the Zionists took advantage of the situation.
I mean, are you suggesting that the Zionists actually set up the Holocaust and the murder of six million of their own people? I mean you must know people who were in the camps, Arsalan and people who lost people, etc. If the Zionists had that enormous amount of power in the 1920s/1930s/early 1940s, why did they not simply move those people, on the ends of Nazi gun-barrels, to Palestine? Instead of which, over the decades, they ended up with an increasingly ‘Asiatic’ state of Arab Jews whom they despised, it seems.
tungsten. Hello. How are you?
My contention is not that the truth is too complex to follow, but simply that it is complex. It is entirely possible to follow historical truth, albeit that such truth is always contested. It is not unknowable and I never suggested that it was. But I do not shout at you or insult you for suggesting that I said these things. I simply point out that I did not say them.
For example, right now, Arsalan and I are having a little discussion; we are not calling each other names or suggesting that the other is operating at the behest of some overarching power structure in the process. We are simply having a discussion. I know that in the past both Arsalan and I have attempted to engage with you and that you did not engage in any consistent manner.
And that, I think, was Jon’s central point.
@tungsten – not indignant, no. Frustrated, maybe – you are quite capable of reasonable dialogue, but you avoid it entirely. If you were to change this, I think frequenters here would converse with you.
If you’d like to engage, tell us something about yourself. Where are you posting from, for example? Where are you from originally?
Jon/Suhayl
Reviewing posts from Freeborn, Steelback, Apostate and myself on this thread I find the charges you make of lack of engagement and incivility wholly unfounded.
Moreover the contribution to the thread made by us is consistently on-topic and historically grounded.
Freeborn drew attention initially to the way “anti-semitism” works as Zionism’s
constant alibi and supplied a supporting link.
Apostate drew attention to the need to be wary of the provenance of the Gaza Youth document. Noting how it evidently came to us at the behest of corporate and elite Foundation sources.
Steelback posted an Arundhati Roy video drawing attention to the Churchill “Dog in the Manger” speech quoted therein. The genocidal impulse common to both British and Zionist imperialism came out strongly in the said speech. It was also suggested that the disproportionate representation of Zionism among a string of British leaders going back to Cromwell can be explained by the disproportionate influence Cabalist Jews and bankers have enjoyed since Cromwell.
Apostate posted a link re-the Zionist deception to inveigle Iraq into accepting a large Palestinian migration by pretending they were against it. It was suggested that similar perfidy characterized Israeli dealings with its Arab neighbours today.
Steelback posted a link to the 1948 site which has some superb detail on the concept of Transfer in Israeli geopolitical thought. Some suggestions were made re-the vast numbers of Jewish refugees in Europe and Russia who were in a position to migrate to the US,Israel and elsewhere post-WW2.
I posted a link to details re-the Let Gaza Live demo last Sunday.
Without continuing this already exhaustive list it seems quite clear that all the comments and links seek to understand the history of Zionism and WW2 which both help explain how Gaza youth come to be where they are today.
More recently Steelback posted on the views of an Israeli citizen who had come to see Israel as one vast Nazi experiment.
Steelback and Freeborn have supplied swathes of evidence of Nazi-Zionist collusion and the concept of Rothschild Zionism.
NONE OF ANY OF THIS has elicited the slightest real “engagement” from anyone!
I shouldn’t think for one minute this worries the writers involved who I venture to believe thoroughly enjoyed doing the research!
Just what have you two guys done on this thread except counter the evidence supplied in abundance with accusations that the material comes from people who are obsessed with the NWO and Hidden Agenda or overly pre-occupied with there being some overarching plan behind Zionism and WW2.
On the last count I for one plead guilty. It should be abundantly obvious to anyone who has done a smidgeon of research that you can’t create a state for which there is very little support among your own people or steal the land from the indigenous population without having a long-standing “overarching” plan.
Zionism had a long-standing overarching plan to break up the Ottoman empire to so it could steal Palestine, and to break up the Tsarist Russian Orthodox empire in order to populate Palestine with Russian Jews.
Now you have countered by saying it’s more complicated and history doesn’t work like this.
Perhaps you’re right but you haven’t presented one shred of evidence to support your “cock-up” theory of history. Your views remain therefore entirely impressionistic without evidence to support them.
Now the field is yours……..
We’re waiting…………
We’ve come to these impasses on numerous occasions previously. As I recall last time they were given free rein to make the argument all we got was the anal rape fantasy involving ChebaCow and Apostate.
Alternatively we’ll get the well “you’ve obviously got personality defects” routine.
They will assert ad infinitum that there is no overarching plan etc. or it’s all too complicated etc. and say that those who say there is and it’s not are obsessive etc. but try getting them to try and prove it.
Hell will freeze over first, I think.
Scissors…………
It strikes me that anyone who had done an MA in African-American Literature would understand that our apprhension of history can only consist of multiple narratives, that there is no single, unifying theory of history that explains absolutely everything significant that has ever happened and that such unified narratives are actually manifestations of hegemonic power. The ‘black’ and other subaltern narratives are often constructed, or develop, in opposition to the dominant narrative(s) of power.
I cannot understand how anyone can read Toni Morrison, Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright, Maya Angelou, Harriet Jacobs, James Baldwin, Amiri Baraka, Chester Himes, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston and all the other wonderful artists and still fail to comprehend most this basic truth of all.
Suhayl Saadi
What Zionist Nazi relations were like in Nazism’s beinning doesn’t have to be what it was at its end.
Zionism viewed the creation of the Zionist state as its only function.
Lives of the Jews in other places were not an issue.
The best people to answer what role Zionists played in the Holocoasts might be the people targeted in the holocoast:
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/holocaust.htm
To be clear on this, Zionists view the lives of Jews who will not go to their zionist states or support it as worthless.
So to a Zionist a million jewish lives in Europe is worth less then one Zionist owned cow in Palestine.
This is what the zionist have to say on the issue:
Greenbaum: “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”.
What more do you need?
Zionist have loyalty to a state and an idiology, to the money they steal and the power they gain/
They do not have a loyalty to Judaism or Non-Zionist-Jews.
Thanks, Arsalan, that’s very illuminating, esp. the link.
suhayl
You were given carte blanche last night to defend your theory that fortuitousness and “multiple narratives” are the real driving force of history.
You seem to believe that argument by assertion is the same as engaging with the evidence.
As tungsten said last night any review of this thread shows that we have presented and supported the argument that the establishment of Israel was a product of Rothschild Zionism and the disproportionate influence this network enjoys through its control of money and its international power-bases in London and NY.
What evidence have you supplied to support your contention that this is false? Where is your evidence that it was NOT Rothschild Zionism that financed the earliest settlements in Palestine and has controlled migration into the territory ever since.
What evidence do you have that your “multiple narrative” theory has more explanatory power than the Rothschild Zionism theory?
These are basic questions and, notwithstanding your former smears against me of racism and the need for us all to be banned from the comment board, I put them to you with due civility.