Betrayed by Europe

[L233]

Of course the Ottomans were "tolerant," they were in charge of an empire in which most of whose subjects were non-Muslims. When Europeans developed empires in Africa and Asia, they were "tolerant" as well, just as the Israelis are "tolerant" of Islam in the West Bank and America is also quite "tolerant" in Iraq. "Tolerant" is not a great claim to rest one's hat on - especially for an imperialist.

How about staying in the historical context? Comparing Israel anno 2004 with the Ottoman Empire 500 years ago is ludicrous. Compare them to the European powers at that time (hint: they just finished slaughtering every Aztec alive) or even of past times. Their direct predecessors, the Byzantines, basically persecuted every religious group that did not fit their definition of Christan orthodoxy.

It's also good to see that the Ankara regime is getting some value for the billions it spends every year in propaganda efforts. Notice how they left out that all these people became "minorites" through imperialistic conquest - a critical difference from the European cases.

Yes, the difference was that the Europeans wiped them out. We effectively depopulated the American continent. And when we were kind enough leave most of the conquere peoples alive, like in Africa and Asia, we subjected them to heavy proselytization. Of course, that was much later.

And this is the second thread in which you discard any information that does not comply with your hysteric view on the Turks as "propaganda" paid for by Ankara. It's getting old.

 

[akira888]

Yes, the difference was that the Europeans wiped them out. We effectively depopulated the American continent.

Likewise Asia Minor was depopulated of its indigenous peoples from 1071-1923. There are virtually no Greeks, Assyrians or Armenians left in Anatolia. That is a fact which is nigh irrefutable; Ankara's own census confirms this fact. I am not including Kurds or Laz since they live in the Northern Levant rather than Asia Minor.

 

[Heathen]

they just finished slaughtering every Aztec alive

Pretty much the plague really. Cold comfort to the Aztecs but not the fault of the europeans.

 

[kyleb]

there is a huge religious significance here you are missing.

i am still curious about this, would you please explain?

 

[Legion]

double post

 

[Legion]

it would be if all i knew about the subject was those from those websites, but that is not the case.

Nonsense. You could simply refer to other websites with yet again another unknown body of supporters. Infact you could claim, as you are, to have a wider body of representative webpages and simply type "zionism nazism" in google and turn up dozens of webpages recycling the same crap and suggest your feelings a shared by some valid sample.

i was simply pointing out examples, would you like more?

I can put "zionism nazism" in my own google search bar thank you. Funny, i just seem to get the same groups of people spouting the same trash over and over again.

don't you think the Tanak would be a better reference?

Does religious interpretation mean anything to you?

i linked to the page to show Muslims do not see see Jewish and Zionist as inseperable idiologies, nothing more.

You linked to webpages that show something i never implied, and infact you apologized for assuming above.

Within your webpages was mentioned Zionism = Nazism.

spit it out then?

I already did. The matter has to do with reclaiming Israel before God has ordained such to happen (in the eyes of the orthodox). Right from the get go they vehemetly opposed Zionism. This is far more a religious issue then it is a political one for them.

If find it ironic that muslims would imply these jewish people are representative of the jewish whole in Israel. the irony here is within orthodox circles of Islam there is taught the progression of Imams who were to come from an unbroken line descending from Muhammad. This is about as much bullshit as the catholic church teaching they were founded by peter. On top of this Islam is founded on the beliefs and teachings of Judaism. If these goofs want to cite the orthodox jews as a representative sample of judaism why don't we cite orthodox islam, along with other muslim groups who recognize their teachings provide that the lands belong to God's chosen who are the Jews? What a great way that would be to inflame muslim sentiments. Instead they attempted revisionist history and suggested the children of Ishmael were actually the chosen of God. What utter and completely unfounded bs.


The webpage providing the pictures is deliberately trying to obfuscate:

Would you believe in Jews who say "Zionism is Nazism"? Who burn the Israeli flag? Who say that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians?

Look at this rhetoric your first webpage spews.

Of course they are against isreal and zionism. We are looking at pictures of orthodox jews!

Who say Palestine belongs to the made up minority group of arabs who name themselves after a hitorical region in which thousands of jews and christians existed?! What tom foolery! Sure they say this, that is until God ordains the lands to be taken from these muslims!

that is just one argument though.

.

One that is at the heart of their objection to zionism. With this matter to provide us context the other arguments simply fall right into place as projections form their dogma.

 

[Legion]

well Legion, i know you didn't take me up on my offer for more examples of Jewish people who have shown opposition to Zionism but there is one quote in particular, from a man i have great respect for, that i feel compelled to share here:

Oh what a cheap shot Kyleb. Citing Einstein in order to garner an emotion and appear as though you argument is sound as this man said something you consider to agree with the antizionist movement.

 

[kyleb]

Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resist the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain- especially from the development of a narrow nationalism with in our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state.

-Albert Einstein

there is the qoute again, i posted it so people can draw their own conclusions.

 

[Legion]

double post.

 

[Legion]

Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resist the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain- especially from the development of a narrow nationalism with in our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state.

-Albert Einstein

there is the qoute again, i posted it so people can draw their own conclusions.

Yes Albert's words are the deciding factor on jewish nationalism

You are doing just as i stated you would. You are trying to garner emotion rather than reason.

Btw does Einstein say anything that is against having a jewish state? No, he appears to be mentioning his fears concernings a possible scenerio while reflecting on the history of jewish opposition to bigotry.

 

[kyleb]

i never claimed it was the deciding factor, i presented it as one man's viewpoint as that is what it is. i find it humorous that you would call it an atempt to ganer emotion though, especaly when it is a factual quote comeing from a man renowned for his ablity to reason. as for if he says anything that is against having a Jewish state, i think this fits the bill:

I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state.

-Albert Einstein

 

[kyleb]

Infact you could claim, as you are, to have a wider body of representative webpages and simply type "zionism nazism" in google and turn up dozens of webpages recycling the same crap and suggest your feelings a shared by some valid sample.

i found the page a few days ago though a google image seach for anti-zionist. i wouldn't do a seach for the paring of terms you brought up as i don't consider it a valid argument.

Does religious interpretation mean anything to you?

sure it does, but it doesn't mean as much to me as what is being interpreted.

You linked to webpages that show something i never implied, and infact you apologized for assuming above.

so are you going to accept my apology or keep harping on about it?

I already did. The matter has to do with reclaiming Israel before God has ordained such to happen (in the eyes of the orthodox). Right from the get go they vehemetly opposed Zionism. This is far more a religious issue then it is a political one for them.

oh fair enough, i already stateing that i understood this point so i thought you were reffering to something else when you claimed "There is a huge religious significance here you are missing."

If find it ironic that muslims would imply these jewish people are representative of the jewish whole in Israel. the irony here is within orthodox circles of Islam there is taught the progression of Imams who were to come from an unbroken line descending from Muhammad. This is about as much bullshit as the catholic church teaching they were founded by peter. On top of this Islam is founded on the beliefs and teachings of Judaism. If these goofs want to cite the orthodox jews as a representative sample of judaism why don't we cite orthodox islam, along with other muslim groups who recognize their teachings provide that the lands belong to God's chosen who are the Jews? What a great way that would be to inflame muslim sentiments. Instead they attempted revisionist history and suggested the children of Ishmael were actually the chosen of God. What utter and completely unfounded bs.

that is obviously one way to look at things, but i don't even want to get into arguning all the opinions in that.

The webpage providing the pictures is deliberately trying to obfuscate:

Would you believe in Jews who say "Zionism is Nazism"? Who burn the Israeli flag? Who say that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians?

Look at this rhetoric your first webpage spews.

Of course they are against isreal and zionism. We are looking at pictures of orthodox jews!

umm, there was nothing obscure about any of that.

Who say Palestine belongs to the made up minority group of arabs who name themselves after a hitorical region in which thousands of jews and christians existed?! What tom foolery! Sure they say this, that is until God ordains the lands to be taken from these muslims!

i really don't folow you here.

One that is at the heart of their objection to zionism. With this matter to provide us context the other arguments simply fall right into place as projections form their dogma.

but Orthedox Jews are by no means the only ones who oppose Zionism.

 

[Legion]

How about staying in the historical context? Comparing Israel anno 2004 with the Ottoman Empire 500 years ago is ludicrous. Compare them to the European powers at that time (hint: they just finished slaughtering every Aztec alive) or even of past times. Their direct predecessors, the Byzantines, basically persecuted every religious group that did not fit their definition of Christan orthodoxy.

The Jews in israel are not trying to kill or persecute every palestinian alive. The very suggestion is ludicrous.

 

[Legion]

i never claimed it was the deciding factor, i presented it as one man's viewpoint as that is what it is. i find it humorous that you would call it an atempt to ganer emotion though, especaly when it is a factual quote comeing from a man renowned for his ablity to reason. as for if he says anything that is against having a Jewish state, i think this fits the bill:

Case in point:

presented it as one man's viewpoint as that is what it is

Correct, it is one man's view point and only significant amongst the rest as its a quote from Albert Einstein.

You stated it was one man's view point and then later regard it as a "factual quote"? What exactly does that imply? I see a viewpoint, an opinion, i do not see a statement of fact here outside of his statements wrt jewish opposition to oppression and what not.

Fits the bill for what? He isn't saying anything against a jewish state what so ever. He is stating his concerns as to the damages that may be caused to Judaism in light of future possible attacks against it do to a jewish state existing.

I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state.

-Albert Einstein

[/quote]

Good quote. This was attempted in the 40's unfortunately with the invasion of three muslim nations that dream was temporarily destroyed.

 

[kyleb]

factual implies the opposite of fictitious. obviously it is his opinion; i was simply reinforceing the fact that it is really his opinion and not something falsely atributed to him as we so often happening find on the net.

as for fitting the bill, if you can't see how the phrase "I should much rather see" is used as an argument against something, then i can't rightly expect you to be reasonable about anything. this is further reinforced by your argument that a "reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace" was given a valid atempt despite your acnolagement of the wars brought on by dissagrment to the terms Israel formed under.

 

[Legion]

i found the page a few days ago though a google image seach for anti-zionist. i wouldn't do a seach for the paring of terms you brought up as i don't consider it a valid argument.

Yet you provide webpages that suggest exactly this. My point still remains. Most of the arguments are recycled and come from a rather predictable opposition. I could certainly dig up and equal proportion of texts and webpages validating the zionist movement.

This hardly justifies or validates the orthodox jewish opposition to zionism (or for that matter your usage of it as though it were an opnion of a representative sample).

so are you going to accept my apology or keep harping on about it?

If you keep brining it up i will keep responding to it.

oh fair enough, i already stateing that i understood this point so i thought you were reffering to something else when you claimed "There is a huge religious significance here you are missing."

I need not be refering to anything else.

I do suggest you read the novel "The Chosen." It does a good job of presenting the issues from both sides of the argument from a jewish perspective.

that is obviously one way to look at things, but i don't even want to get into arguning all the opinions in that.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are using opinion to validate your argument against zionism when the majority of the arab opposition (you likewised mention in your quip concerning semetics) believe a handful of revisionist history in order to justify their religious to right to own this land.

umm, there was nothing obscure about any of that.

Bull! They are trying to present the image as representative of average jews opposed to zionism and israeli nationalism and for that matter an israeli state. When, infact these are members of a religious sect who have opposed zionism historically for religious reasons.

i really don't folow you here.

Your webpage had this to say about the orthodox jews

Who say that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians?

Palestinian is a term made up to provide a group of muslim arabs are sense of ethnic importance. Palestine was a region which was comprised of many religions and creeds. Jews were members of palestine as well. I was simply pointing out this usage of propaganda in your website.

but Orthedox Jews are by no means the only ones who oppose Zionism.

Point? Zionism has become a bastardized term. Zionism has become a word to classify and demonize jewish nationalism as well as link it to such hate movements as Nazism. Amongst the ranks of those who opposed to this "Zionism" are bigots of all colors and creeds.

I could find you texts and webpages supporting Israeli nationalism (the historic zionism) and certainly plenty of arguments infavor of it.

But what really would be the point? We would simply be arguing viewpoints as to the right of the jewish people to nationalism and to the country of israel which would be futile. Both already exists and arguing against such, especially from a religious standpoint open doors the opposition isn't prepared to have opened.

 

[Legion]

factual implies the opposite of fictitious. obviously it is his opinion; i was simply reinforceing the fact that it is really his opinion and not something falsely atributed to him as we so often happening find on the net.

What has been falsely attributed to him? How is this matter relevant to our conversation?

I saw nothing in his quotes that opposed an israeli state of zionism. I am sure a man of his stature would assume not touch the matter with a ten foot pole.

as for fitting the bill, if you can't see how the phrase "I should much rather see" is used as an argument against something, then i can't rightly expect you to be reasonable about anything.

You have not provided what context this statement was made in. What does mean "i should much rather see"? Rather see this then what? Who's position? Who's viewpoint of an israeli nation is he refering to? The fact remains that yes, a peaceful state was developed in the 40's which several waring arab nations attempted to destroy. It would appear to me his interests concerning peace with the arabs were a little short sighted seeing as how they were the once to aggress.

this is further reinforced by your argument that a "reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace" was given a valid atempt despite your acnolagement of the wars brought on by dissagrment to the terms Israel formed under.

No it isn't. Infact we are not show the context in which he made these statements or for that matter when they were made. To what viewpoint to they refer? Again, the fact remains, the arabs powers had no interests in peace. They saw the matter as a chance at a free land grab (rightfully so as the UN did nothing to stop this) and illegally occupied several areas.

The reasonable agreement was definately attempted. It was neighboring arab nations who really fucked the matter up.

 

[Legion]

Like the building of the wall? Everyone I know has no problem with a wall being built, but as long as it was inside the Green Line it was hard to criticize. But once it started encroaching on Palestinian territory, well, that's crossing the line both literally and figuratively. If Israel had built it inside the Green Line, you think the criticism would be anywhere near it is right now? Heck, no. As a private citizen, you don't not have a right to unilaterally build a fence on another's property even if your neighbor is a total scumbag so why should nations?

Many governments do allow for land to be confiscated as long as they are reinversed for their loses. I believe this is the Israeli legal practice.

This is so outrightly irresponsible, it's not even worthy of rebuttal.

I for one think he has a point. Antijewish sentiment is pretty heavily intertwined with israeli opposition. It may not be as left/muslim specific as he alledges but it is still there. It is obvious particullarly in the media who seem to have a hard time correctly representing events in israel.

No. It's also an ally of France, Germany and Britain in case you hadn't noticed.

I would like to know what one views as railing against Israel. I would like to see what both sides view as substantive and irrational arguments for and agaisnt israel.

1) Disband the JNF,
2) Dismantle settlements in the Occupied Territories, and
3) Return sovereignty of resources to the Palestinians in Palestinian territories.

Then the arabs need to abide by their end of the oslow occords.

Of course, the first two are designed to thwart the third. And any of these three is very unlikely (except #1, and which Likhud is actually in favour of). All wars are fought over things, not religon.

Of course because the israeli government wants to enslave the palestinians who bomb them... . I have one simple question...why?

As for #2, we also have to notice that Sharon claims to be dismantling. But, with one hand he dismantles, and with the other, props them up.

Sort of like how the palestinians claim to be dismanteling their propaganda mencing and terrorist groups?

 

[Willmeister]

Of course because the israeli government wants to enslave the palestinians who bomb them... . I have one simple question...why?

No doubt they wish to make Palestinian lives so miserable they'll just move away so they can have free-reign of aquifiers and land. This leads to the inevitable "why don't the other Arab nations just accept them" arguments which have been constantly asked for 50 years with no effect.

You realize that the average aquifier in Israel has dropped significantly since Israeli independence and some regions are finding salt water seeping in. This is why every successive Israeli government, left or right, clings so hard to the Occupied Territories. Desalination has been promised, but unlike Saudi Arabia, which is world king for desalination, Israel has no natural energy resources making desalination very cost-prohibitive, so, they grab the Golan and they grab as much of the territories as possible using settlements.

The water quality degradation phenomenon is the result two groups of processes: regular and incidental human activities in the catchment areas and changes in groundwater flow patterns due to over-exploitation. The first group includes agrotechnological activities such as fertilization, pesticides and the decomposition of plants. This group also includes sewage and solid waste disposal and leaks from chemical and fuel stockpiles and conveyance systems. The second group of processes resulting from over-exploitation includes inter alia seawater intrusion into coastal aquifers, intrusion of saline water from nearby stagnant geological formations and the buildup of salinity due to reduced outflux of salts to the sea. The rate of salt accumulation in the western basins has recently been estimated to be 1,000 tons per day (Tal, 2000).

http://meria.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/waterarticle5.html

Israel's solution? Move east.