Jewish Settler Violence - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

picaro · #46 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic1

Considering the Guiles of the Jewish people one would think they would recognize "antisemitism" used as a shield for many actions has become archaic for those purposes.

Blather that all you want, antisemitism is a legitimate word and perfectly describes you and your fellow travellers, and it isn't going away, no matter how much you whine and snivel about it.

Wisdom_Seeker · #47 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by picaro

And of course Jews were never from that area of the ME, and haven't lived there for thousands of years ... they all came from Europe ... right?

You are absolutely right.... not only from Europe,... Russia, America, North Africa. These are the main countries.

Heres a fact that gona shock you:

In N.America there are more Jews than in Israel

N.America = 6.5 Million (46% of Jewish population around the world)
Israel = 4.95 Million (37% of Jewish population)

You know what is the next biggest city in terms of Jewish population after Tel Aviv? New York.

World Jewish Population | Latest Statistics

You know also what made me laugh... biggest Jewish population in Asia is where? Iran at 11,500. Thats just soooo ironic. Beautifully ironic LOL

Anyway the point is,...Israel didnt exist prior to 1948... the Arabs ruled that part of the world and Jews who lived there, lived peacefully under Arab rule....for centuries.

Jews immigrated to Israel from the countries/parts of the world I mentioned above. This is a fact you cannot ignore because even Jews admit that. Most of the Jews in Israel if you watch the news, speak fluent American accent and will tell you their parents or grandparents are still living in America.

WS.

chassisman · #48 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by joyb

Zionist violence is worse than the kkk and attacks are much more frequent, the zionist aphartied is also much worse than the segregation scheme they had in the deep south of america in previous times, that's what the main comparison is. Not to mention that whites in america never conducted a mass expulsion of blacks.

The main difference between Israel and say, Sudan is that Israel is considered in American politics "A Democracy" or "The only Democracy in the ME" and therefore it gets a "special relationship" which includes being the biggest recipient of foreign aid, including direct foreign aid with no oversight or control to where the money is going, unlike the other recipients of foreign aid, it also gets trade benefits.. therefore the violence committed by them is actually American violence, paid for by American taxpayer money, including American tax deductible donations that go directly to these settlers, even the more violent communities.

No other accused human rights abuser-Myanmar, Sudan, or any number of african countries is getting all this assistance and in fact they have sanctions on them.

yah-da-da-yah-da-da-da..........

KKK style my ass. Hey , good news though! Hillary

is straightening everything out as we speak (I mean type) You can expect peace to break out any day now........mark your calendar..............

picaro · #49 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

You know also what made me laugh... biggest Jewish population in Asia is where? Iran at 11,500.

Yes, and their population was over 100,000 before the Mullahs took over, and let's not forget the 900,000 to a million Jews expelled from the other Arab countries at the defeat of the Arab League's attempted genocide. So much for your hilarious claims of 'Islamic tolerance'.

Wisdom_Seeker · #50 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by picaro

Yes, and their population was over 100,000 before the Mullahs took over, and let's not forget the 900,000 to a million Jews expelled from the other Arab countries at the defeat of the Arab League's attempted genocide. So much for your hilarious claims of 'Islamic tolerance'.

Any proof to back up what you're saying above?

The reason why many Jews left North African countries is because Israel was formed and they immigrated there, they are immigrants. Otherwise, they lived in those countries for centuries peacefully with Arabs. Small populations of Jews still exist there.

The same happened before 1948 under palestinian rule....jews there lived peacefully with palestinians. Read about Jews against zionism. They are against the formation of Israel and believe this is against their religion and God intended for them to be scatered around earth.

I wonder why from all my post you only quote the above sentence. Can I understand by this, you have nothing to say about those facts I mentioned?

WS.

picaro · #51 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisdom_Seeker

Any proof to back up what you're saying above?

Actually no, I don't; you really nailed me on that outright lie!

It was more like 150,000 or so:

Israel welcomes largest group of Iran olim since Islamic Revolution - Haaretz - Israel News

Quote:

A spike in anti-Jewish sentiment occurred after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and continued until 1953 due to the weakening of the central government and strengthening of the clergy in the course of political struggles between the Shah and Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Eliz Sanasarian estimates that in 1948–1953, about one-third of Iranian Jews, most of them poor, emigrated to Israel.[22] David Littman puts the total figure of emigrants to Israel in 1948-1978 at 70,000.[20]

The reign of shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi after the deposition of Mossadegh in 1953, was the most prosperous era for the Jews of Iran. In 1970s, only 10 percent of Iranian Jews were classified as impoverished; 80 percent were middle class and 10 percent wealthy. Although Jews accounted for only a small percentage of Iran's population, in 1979 two of the 18 members of the Iranian Academy of Sciences, 80 of the 4,000 university lecturers, and 600 of the 10,000 physicians in Iran were Jews.[22]

Prior to the Islamic Revolution in 1979, there were 80,000 Jews in Iran, concentrated in Teheran (60,000), Shiraz (8,000), Kermanshah (4,000), Isfahan (3,000), the cities of Khuzistan, as well as Kashan, Tabriz, and Hamedan.

During the Islamic Revolution, many of the Iranian Jews, especially wealthy Jewish leaders in Tehran and many Jewish villages surrounding Esfahan and Kerman, left the country. In late 1979s, the people whom left was estimated at 50,000–90,000.

Prior to the independence of Israel in 1948, Urmia was home to 700 Aramaic-speaking Jewish families. As of 2006, only two sisters remain.

History of the Jews in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learning Communities at UTSA

Religious Freedom in Iran

Quote:

The reason why many Jews left North African countries is because Israel was formed and they immigrated there, they are immigrants. Otherwise, they lived in those countries for centuries peacefully with Arabs. Small populations of Jews still exist there.

Quote:

Why was the story of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries suppressed? How did it become a forgotten exodus?

Semha Alwaya, an attorney from San Francisco and former Jewish refugee from Iraq, wrote in March 2005 in the San Francisco Chronicle that the world is ignoring her story simply because of the "inconvenience for those who seek to blame Israel for all the problems in the Middle East."1 As she notes, since 1949 the United Nations has passed more than a hundred resolutions on Palestinian refugees and not a single one on Jewish refugees from Arab countries. The UN makes a clear divide between the "right of return" of millions of refugees even into Israel proper (the pre-1967 borders) and the rights of these Jewish refugees.

Although they exceed the numbers of the Palestinian refugees, the Jews who fled are a forgotten case. Whereas the former are at the very heart of the peace process with a huge UN bureaucratic machinery dedicated to keeping them in the camps, the nine hundred thousand Jews who were forced out of Arab countries have not been refugees for many years. Most of them, about 650,000, went to Israel because it was the only country that would admit them. Most of them resided in tents that after several years were replaced by wooden cabins, and stayed in what were actually refugee camps for up to twelve years. They never received any aid or even attention from the UN Relief And Works Agency (UNRWA), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, or any other international agency. Although their plight was raised almost every year at the UN by Israeli representatives, there was never any other reference to their case at the world body.2

Only at the end of October 2003 was a bipartisan resolution (H. Con. Res. 311) submitted to the U.S. Congress that recognized the "Dual Middle East Refugee Problem." It speaks of the forgotten exodus of nine hundred thousand Jews from Arab countries who "were forced to flee and in some cases brutally expelled amid coordinated violence and anti-Semitic incitement that amounted to ethnic cleansing." Referring to the "population exchange" that took place in the Middle East, the resolution deplores the "cynical perpetuation of the Arab refugee crisis" and criticizes the "immense machinery of UNRWA" that only "increases violence through terror." The resolution called on UNRWA to set up a program for resettling the Palestinian refugees.3

Typically, the issue of the Jewish refugees was not on the agenda of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for a final settlement at Camp David in July 2000. The subject emerged only after the parties failed to reach an agreement on the issue of the Palestinian refugees. Only then did the Israelis raise the question of justice for the Jews from Arab countries.

In addition to the international constraints, there have been domestic political reasons for successive Israeli governments' suppression of the subject. Many Israelis regarded the immigration and later integration of the Middle Eastern Jews into Israeli society as an important element in the Zionist ethos of the ingathering of exiles, and there was a reluctance to describe it in terms of a forced expulsion or, at best, an involuntary emigration. The Zionist leadership of the newborn state chose the romanticized code-name Magic Carpet to describe the immigration from Yemen, and the biblical title Operation Ezra and Nehemiah - they were Jewish leaders who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon to build the Second Temple - for the exodus of the Iraqi Jews.

Before Camp David in July 2000, the conventional wisdom among both Israelis and international observers was that the issue of the Palestinian refugees should be left to the end of the peace process. It was believed that once the parties reached agreements on recognition, security, borders, water, normalization, and so on, the difficult refugee question would dissipate by itself. Indeed, it was never negotiated seriously since the abortive meetings of the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission in the early 1950s, which discussed a compromise on the refugees' return that the Arabs rejected.
From the very beginning, the Arabs treated the refugee issue as an instrument to achieve, through UN diplomacy, what they had failed to attain in the battles of 1948-1949 and the subsequent armistice agreements. The much-quoted General Assembly Resolution 194, which is adduced as legitimizing the Palestinian "right of return," was originally rejected by the Arab states and contains nothing that makes this "right" a principle of international law.4 The wording of 194 already compromised the basis of negotiation by establishing the Palestinian Central Council (PCC) with the aim of facilitating "indirect contacts between the sides," so as to overcome the Arab refusal to recognize Israel.

Subsequently, the General Assembly refused for many years to use the word peace in regard to settlements between the parties in the Middle East. This deletion from the UN vocabulary sharply contradicted the UN Charter and was a major failing for an organization that had mediated the armistice agreements after Israel's Independence War, for which its chief negotiator Dr. Ralph Bunche received the Nobel Peace Prize.

The conspiracy to exploit the human tragedy of the refugees against Israel was consolidated when the Arabs refused to accept the concept of resettlement, which appeared in 194 as an alternative solution. This approach was manifested in the establishment of UNWRA in December 1949 as the only agency of its kind to deal with a regional refugee problem.

On 14 December 1950, the UN again reiterated the principles of "repatriation or resettlement and compensation," and even voiced a concern that "the repatriation, resettlement, economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation have not been effected." The Arabs, however, rejected the conciliation efforts of the PCC and succeeded to convince the General Assembly to separate the refugee issue from the other contested matters of the dispute. This marked a turning point in the UN's attitude toward the refugee question; subsequently it took on a clear political dimension as needing to be solved in the framework of the "right of return" to an entity known as Palestine.5

The UN never discussed the plight of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries even though it had all the necessary information on their expulsion and even "ethnic cleansing" resulting in their resettlement mostly in Israel. From that point the refugee issue became an independent question, with no relationship to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole and the hostile acts that had created the problem in the first place. Hence, the Arabs consistently rejected ideas such as the UN Security Council's 1949 proposals for an economic survey aimed at settling the refugees in different parts of the Middle East. Similarly, in June 1959 the Arabs reacted with fury when UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld presented multi year plan for the refugees' rehabilitation.

The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries - Avi Beker

This is one reason why informed and truly objective people have no sympathy whatsoever for the cretins sniveling about Jewish 'settlers' on the West Bank, among others, like the fact that Jews have always lived there, and the fact that among the terrorist supporters and Islamo- Nazi fanbois, nobody has any moral outrage for the illegal Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian citizens that moved in after the ethnic cleansings of Jews, christians, Druze, and other minorities by the Arab League's illegal invasions in 1947-48, and in the cases of Hebron and other massacres before that invasion.

It is just catch up for centuries of Muslim repression and the forced immigration of Jews and other ethnic and religious groups who were banned from owning land until the Ottoman land reforms in 1865-1873 that finally allowed for their return. Israel owes Arabs or anybody else nothing, not even a passing concern for their plights. Israel chooses to do so, but has no moral or legal obligations to; they do so because they are not medieval, genocidal animals. Of course, this self-obligation has gained them nothing but more death and terrorism, so I personally think they are being fools for doing so, and unilaterally giving up 'land for peace' with vermin who have never honored a single peace agreement and never will is the very height of folly, but it's their choice, and their problem. Anyone with any moral sensibilities at all will of course help them in their endeavors to settle where ever they want in their own country, and not fall for the silly memes put out by genocidal cretins.

Quote:

I wonder why from all my post you only quote the above sentence. Can I understand by this, you have nothing to say about those facts I mentioned?

No need to wonder; most of your posts are merely moronic propaganda memes and assorted idiocy. Unlike you, most posters here don't get their news and opinion from Al Jareeza, not even the highly sanitized and censored English version of it. It's not even decent propaganda, it's like the editors are all third graders with learning disabilities.

skeptic1 · #52 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by picaro

Blather that all you want, antisemitism is a legitimate word and perfectly describes you and your fellow travellers, and it isn't going away, no matter how much you whine and snivel about it.

Of course antisemitism is a legitimate word and in fact exists. It is its use to cover unscrupulous acts that I address. I am not anti Jewish I am anti Israeli because they cost American lives and IMO are totally unscrupulous. I am also not a Fellow Traveler. e.g. Web definitions for fellow traveler
a communist sympathizer (but not a member of the Communist Party). I do share my good fortune when so moved but as a far right person financially I would without a second thiought separate you from all your possessions. Am I then a better more likable person in your eyes ?

skeptic1 · #53 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by picaro

Abridged:

This is one reason why informed and truly objective people have no sympathy whatsoever for the cretins sniveling about Jewish 'settlers' on the West Bank, among others, like the fact that Jews have always lived there, and the fact that among the terrorist supporters and Islamo- Nazi fanbois, nobody has any moral outrage for the illegal Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian citizens that moved in after the ethnic cleansings of Jews, christians, Druze, and other minorities by the Arab League's illegal invasions in 1947-48, and in the cases of Hebron and other massacres before that invasion.

It is just catch up for centuries of Muslim repression and the forced immigration of Jews and other ethnic and religious groups who were banned from owning land until the Ottoman land reforms in 1865-1873 that finally allowed for their return. Israel owes Arabs or anybody else nothing, not even a passing concern for their plights. Israel chooses to do so, but has no moral or legal obligations to; they do so because they are not medieval, genocidal animals. Of course, this self-obligation has gained them nothing but more death and terrorism, so I personally think they are being fools for doing so, and unilaterally giving up 'land for peace' with vermin who have never honored a single peace agreement and never will is the very height of folly, but it's their choice, and their problem. Anyone with any moral sensibilities at all will of course help them in their endeavors to settle where ever they want in their own country, and not fall for the silly memes put out by genocidal cretins.

No need to wonder; most of your posts are merely moronic propaganda memes and assorted idiocy. Unlike you, most posters here don't get their news and opinion from Al Jareeza, not even the highly sanitized and censored English version of it. It's not even decent propaganda, it's like the editors are all third graders with learning disabilities.

While the above is your reply to Wisdom Seeker I cant help myself from answering because of the flagrant insinuations it contains in respect to W.S.s posts. They appear to be the typical method of representations from one of your persuasion to discredit anyone who may not agree with your viewpoint and of course it confirm my own evluation of your credibility and conclusions.

Wisdom_Seeker · #54 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Picaro,

I dont have the time to quote everything... but in your second quote,... you've started your counter argument about Jews after 1948. I have been talking about Jews before 1948.... of course after the creation fo Israel.. anti jewish sentiment started to grow.... and not just in Iran.. .but every where. This is why I said there are many Jews who are against the creation of Israel because they believe it is against their religion. They were living happily with palestinians and across North Africa.

Your other sources are very biased and come onnn... Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs? Dont you think its their job to sell the "Israel is the victim" story?? Give me a break!

I have proof that Jews lived peacefully side by side.... so my point is,.. they could have continued doing just that and excelled in small communites... as they do currently in the US for example. But once you let Zionism take over, ...thats why sht starts happening.

I am not anti semitic because I am Semitic myself..... am not anti Jewish because I like good Jews... fair Jews... Jews with a good moral standing.... Jews who can recognise injustice and I will recognise that they need a home too,... just not on the wrong side of the fence.

Something for you to read:

True Torah Jews Against Zionism
Jews Not Zionists
Neturei Karta - Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism

You can argue anti - Israel Jews can be a little extreme or be called extremists... but I believe they have to be in order to counter the opposite side which is extreme.... there has to be a balance in order to push back the Zionist side.

And to finally address your last point in your post.

No I dont just follow everything Al Jazeera says.... I have a mind to analyse and challenge whatever I read or hear. So I seek different sources, and I have previously quoted articles and news texts from BBC, CNN, New York Post, Reuters, Haaretz,..etc... I touch the sources that you do,... but you dont touch the ones I do.... for example am certain you dont read Al Jazeera website or watch their english channel... but you can bet I watch CNN and read Haaretz. Thats where we stand different.

WS.

picaro · #55 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic1

While the above is your reply to Wisdom Seeker I cant help myself from answering because of the flagrant insinuations it contains in respect to W.S.s posts. They appear to be the typical method of representations from one of your persuasion to discredit anyone who may not agree with your viewpoint and of course it confirm my own evluation of your credibility and conclusions.

I don't give a rat's ass what you think about me or anything else, much less your 'evluations'; I address issues that are of interest and to counter idiot propagandists for the benefit of lurkers and others who might not be aware of just how dishonest and racist posters like yourself and 'Wisdom Seeker' are.

Just because I might occasionally cite the gibberish that turns up in some of your posts and I respond to them doesn't in any way imply I give a shit what you and him/her/it/mutant think personally, or take you seriously.

Wisdom_Seeker · #56 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by picaro

I don't give a rat's ass what you think about me or anything else, much less your 'evluations'; I address issues that are of interest and to counter idiot propagandists for the benefit of lurkers and others who might not be aware of just how dishonest and racist posters like yourself and 'Wisdom Seeker' are.

Just because I might occasionally cite the gibberish that turns up in some of your posts and I respond to them doesn't in any way imply I give a shit what you and him/her/it/mutant think personally, or take you seriously.

This was uncalled for. Where did you see me show racism against Jews? I am backing up everythin I say using facts and respected resources. Whereas, when you counter argue, you get all heated up and start name calling the opposite side "racist" or "propagandist"... this is weak and it shows that when you dont have a strong argument ,... you resort to childish name calling supported with anger and emotion that seem to always cloud your judgement.

WS.

jschmidt · #57 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

I have some personal knowledge to add to this topic. A family member of my ex-wife is Hyam Sharrett. He's a former cabinet minister and the son of the first Prime Minister. While visiting Israel (specifically his mountaintop settlement village, where he didn't actually live but maintained a trailer for getaways from Tel Aviv) we sat and overlooked the occupied territories and Palestinian villages below and had a long conversation about the problems. This was during the first Intifada.

He described a continuing impediment to peace -- that settlers freqently got drunk and would drive through Palestinian villages shooting them up. He said the police were loathe to intervene and that the problem was endemic. It was his chosen example for why he thought there would never be peace. He lamented the situation but described himself as a realist.

These are two peoples who generally hate each other without question and who (mostly) would be just fine with the genocide of the other. There are no good guys in the story. Anyone who picks a side -- either one -- is a fool.

skeptic1 · #58 (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by picaro

I don't give a rat's ass what you think about me or anything else, much less your 'evluations'; I address issues that are of interest and to counter idiot propagandists for the benefit of lurkers and others who might not be aware of just how dishonest and racist posters like yourself and 'Wisdom Seeker' are.

Just because I might occasionally cite the gibberish that turns up in some of your posts and I respond to them doesn't in any way imply I give a shit what you and him/her/it/mutant think personally, or take you seriously.

I admire your individuality of spirit picaro. You have the makings of a diplomat (sans portfolio).

You might want to look into the folowing area of information;

HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY DISORDER

The authors in the above book explain the narcissistic personality and disorder:

Excerpt: Usually they are considered self-centered, vain, and excessively concerned about the approval of others, who see them as overly reactive, shallow, and insincere.

P.S. I always read your posts and find you quite sincere !

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode