Netanyahu: Outraged by Expressions of Racism

[Argus]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 6:10 PM, kactus said:

I thought I stated the obvious to you by stating that Iran is not an arab country. 

But we're talking about the Arab world, not Iran. It certainly runs with the Arab world in its hatred of Jews and Israel. I'll give you that much.

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 6:10 PM, kactus said:

Describing a palestinian, jordanian, egyptian, saudi arabian or the entire arab world as a bunch of herds is blatantly a racist remark. Perhaps you should dedicate more time learning about those cultures rather than lunping them all as s bunch of herds!

Why? They are ethnically identical. You can't tell them apart. They even speak the same language. Do one of them have a culture which accepts Jews and Israel? I don't think so.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, marcus said:

Trump also speaks bluntly. You should strive to speak thoughtfully.

I do both.

15 hours ago, marcus said:

Is this really what you believe? That Palestinians are committing worse crimes than Israel?

A Palestinian Israeli has more human rights and more protection than a Palestinian in Gaza.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Hudson Jones said:

That was pretty good.

Here is a straight forward account of the history of that land. Which is very different than what the Zionist narrative tells us what happens

Here is how Palestine became colonized:

Thanks, when I want to hear what the Venezuelan and Cuban governments have to say about human rights in the world  I'll get back to you. I bet Telesur would have a different take on the repression of human rights in Cuba and Venezuela too.

[dialamah]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

Why? They are ethnically identical. You can't tell them apart.

That is just stupid. We are "ethnically identical" to Americans, Western and Eastern Europeans, Russians, Australians; you can't tell us apart by looking at us.  Nonetheless there is a lot of variety in culture, laws and government in these countries.

They even speak the same language.

There is a standard Egyptian that is used for written communication, in a similar way that English is used throughout the world for business.   English also has different dialects so the English spoken in the UK or Australia is not exactly the same as English spoken in Canada, although English speakers can generally understand each other, even if some effort is needed.  There are similar differences in dialects in Arab-speaking countries.  

Statements like "they are identical and you can't tell them apart" when speaking of millions of people from dozens of countries sound remarkably ignorant and racist.

 

 

[Argus]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

That is just stupid. We are "ethnically identical" to Americans, Western and Eastern Europeans, Russians, Australians; you can't tell us apart by looking at us.  Nonetheless there is a lot of variety in culture, laws and government in these countries.

I don't deny we're ethnically identical. My point was you can't tell them apart and you can't. As for the variety of cultures, you have to remember most of the countries there are new ones, created by the Europeans less than a century ago from 'Arabia'. I don't think there's been enough time for distinctive cultures to emerge between them.

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

Statements like "they are identical and you can't tell them apart" when speaking of millions of people from dozens of countries sound remarkably ignorant and racist.

Why? It's true. You can't tell them apart, and they do have identical views about Jews and Israel. 

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't deny we're ethnically identical. My point was you can't tell them apart and you can't. As for the variety of cultures, you have to remember most of the countries there are new ones, created by the Europeans less than a century ago from 'Arabia'. I don't think there's been enough time for distinctive cultures to emerge between them.

Why? It's true. You can't tell them apart, and they do have identical views about Jews and Israel. 

If an Arab speaking person said about Canada, the US and Europe that we were identical, they couldn't tell us apart, and we all hated Muslims, would that be true?   

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-08-15 at 8:48 PM, Argus said:

Btw, are you familiar with the studies of what countries in the world were most racist? The least racially tolerant countries in the world? India, Lebanon, Bahrain, Libya, Egypt, Phillipines, Kuwait, PALESTINE!

Israel didn't make the top 25. Fourteen were Muslim countries, while three others had a strong Muslim minority.

https://businesstech.co.za/news/lifestyle/116644/the-most-racist-countries-in-the-world/

Here's another one from a different source. In this one the most racist countries are Jordan, followed by India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Vietnam, Indonesia, and South Korea. Still no Israel, I'm afraid.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-worlds-racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.html

You mean the people who are most honest about their racism? These surveys may not be complete junk but they're not far off. For example, where are the Chinese, a notoriously racist group? I can't imagine that India and Pakistan would be so different either. Wealthier, better educated interviewees know what the right answers are and give them. Survey Canadians and you'll think racism has been all but abolished in this fair land. One of my South Asian relatives preferred South African whites to Canadians on this subject because they got the truth from them.

Edited August 23, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Wealthy people can afford to be more tolerant of racially diverse neighbours. For a start, their neighbours are a lot farther away and are unlikely to be competing directly with them for jobs and other resources.

Israeli Arabs can tell you that Israel proper has problems with discrimination. They experience problems renting apartments, for example. Given the history of the region, such tensions are hardly surprising. We are all naturally tribal. Conflict and poverty accentuate these tendencies. Anyway, as Canadians, we should probably look to ourselves first before casting aspersions on others in this matter.  

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-08-21 at 9:27 PM, Argus said:

But we're talking about the Arab world, not Iran. It certainly runs with the Arab world in its hatred of Jews and Israel. I'll give you that much.

Why? They are ethnically identical. You can't tell them apart. They even speak the same language. Do one of them have a culture which accepts Jews and Israel? I don't think so.

Not identical in appearance, even to me, and certainly not the same at the molecular level. If one took African, Arabian and Iraqi-Levantine Arab speakers as three groups, there would be differences between them in appearance. 

[hot enough]

On 8/21/2017 at 4:49 PM, Hudson Jones said:

That was pretty good.

Here is a straight forward account of the history of that land. Which is very different than what the Zionist narrative tells us what happens

Here is how Palestine became colonized:

 

That one was coming next. I think the one above is even better, if it is indeed the same one I intended. It all relates to the far right map, the one that describes how Israel has been actively stealing the West Bank right out from under the Palestinians. This is a plan of genocide.

[marcus]

On 8/21/2017 at 4:59 PM, Argus said:

I do both.

A Palestinian Israeli has more human rights and more protection than a Palestinian in Gaza.

 

I think you should learn more about what has actually happened there and what is happening now, before posting. 

This can be another learning experience for you. I would recommend you watch the video posted by Hudson Jones then make a decision. Research if necessary. Don't give excuses not to learn.

Here is another episode, talking about the refugee camps. Watch this and you will have a better understanding what's actually happening right now.
 

 

[DogOnPorch]

The refugee camps are a result of the Arab states trying...and failing to invade Israel in 1948...1967...1973...etc. No efforts by any Arab state involved in starting these wars has been made to settle these so-called refugees. Not a single one...preferring to keep the "Palestinians" in cages.

No Arab warmongering...no refugee camps. But alas...the Arabs just love war with Jews. Even losing all the time.

So when is the next Arab invasion attempt?

Edited August 26, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎23 at 11:34 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Wealthy people can afford to be more tolerant of racially diverse neighbours. For a start, their neighbours are a lot farther away and are unlikely to be competing directly with them for jobs and other resources.

Israeli Arabs can tell you that Israel proper has problems with discrimination. They experience problems renting apartments, for example. Given the history of the region, such tensions are hardly surprising. We are all naturally tribal. Conflict and poverty accentuate these tendencies. Anyway, as Canadians, we should probably look to ourselves first before casting aspersions on others in this matter.  

 

That was logical, reasoned,  and made sense. Stop it. What the hell do you think you are doing on this thread.

[Rue]

9 hours ago, marcus said:

I think you should learn more about what has actually happened there and what is happening now, before posting. 

This can be another learning experience for you. I would recommend you watch the video posted by Hudson Jones then make a decision. Research if necessary. Don't give excuses not to learn.

Here is another episode, talking about the refugee camps. Watch this and you will have a better understanding what's actually happening right now.
 

 

The tone of arrogance and presumption in the response of this "thread participant" should say it all. The listen to Hudson Hones shtick is also funny.

" This  genius  thinks a fart out of the left side of his cheek sounds different then from the right side."

Rue 911

[Rue]

You will now note the thread has nothing to do with what it claimed to discuss and everything to do with spreading recycled propaganda denying Israel should exist as a Jewish stat e repeating a script that has been used every week on this forum for over 10 years.

The script is repetitive and exactly the same. The people producing it for this forum don't change it. They are so lazy they just recycle it using new poster names.

The posters believe if you post a lie continuously it will be believed and win over new haters. If of course does not. It just attracts people like me debuking it over and over.

source:

http://www.thetower.org/article/the-mendacious-maps-of-palestinian-loss/

" The Mendacious Maps of Palestinian “Loss

Anti-Israel activists often use doctored maps to show Israel’s supposed malfeasance over the past century. Such claims are made by people who, in the best case, have no knowledge of the facts, and in the worst case, have no moral compass.

You can’t walk very far on an American or European university campus these days without encountering some version of the “Palestinian Land Loss” maps. This series of four—occasionally five—maps purports to show how rapacious Zionists have steadily encroached upon Palestinian land. Postcards of it can be purchased for distribution, and it has featured in paid advertisements on the sides of buses in Vancouver as well as train stations in New York. Anti-Israel bloggers Andrew Sullivan and Juan Cole have both posted versions of it, and it occasionally creeps into supposedly reputable media sources, like Al Jazeera English.

Indeed, it recently appeared as a “Chart of the Day” in the UK’s respected magazine New Statesman. Beneath it was a tiny line of text listing its sources as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and a CIA atlas from 1973. Given that the maps included information far more recent than 1973, the source struck me as slightly dubious. I contacted the staff writer who created the feature and asked him about it. He was very reluctant to admit that he had lifted it from anti-Israel propaganda sources, so he directed me to the 1973 CIA atlas. Unfortunately, nothing like the series appears in the CIA World Factbook and nothing like it could have appeared in an atlas published decades before several of the events it claims to portray. The writer then apologized for not being able to track down his sources any further and explained that he no longer works at New Statesman. He has moved on to The Guardian, and given that particular publication’s attitude toward Israel, he should have no trouble fitting in.

There is a reason why those who make use of these maps avoid examining their provenance or proving their accuracy: The maps are egregiously, almost childishly dishonest. But they have become so ubiquitous that it is worth taking the time to examine them, and what their dishonesty can teach us about the Palestinian cause and its supporters.

In whatever form they take, the “Land Loss” maps show very little variation. The standard version looks something like this:

Sometimes, a fifth map is added, this one dated 1920, showing the entirety of what was once British Mandatory Palestine in a single solid color, labeled “Palestinian.” This accomplishes the seemingly impossible and makes the series of maps even more dishonest than before.

Whether made up of four or five maps, the message of the series is clear: The Jews of Palestine have been assiduously gobbling up more and more “Palestinian land,” spreading like some sort of fungal infection that eventually devours its host.

There are some outright lies in these maps, to be sure. But the most egregious falsehoods transcend mere lies. They emerge from a more general and quite deliberate refusal to differentiate between private property and sovereign land, as well as a total erasure of any political context.

This final point is especially crucial. It goes to the question of whether the Palestinians actually “lost” this land and the context of that alleged “loss.” We could quite easily, for example, make a panel of maps showing German “land loss” in the first half of the 20th century. It would be geographically accurate but, without the political context, it would tell a completely misleading story amounting to a flat-out lie. And that is precisely what these maps are: A lie.

Taking each map in turn, it is easy to demonstrate that the first one is by far the most dishonest of the lot. As far as I have been able to determine, it is based on a map of Jewish National Fund (JNF) land purchases dating roughly from the 1920s. The JNF was founded to purchase land for Jewish residents and immigrants in then-Palestine, and was partly funded through charity boxes that were once found in almost every Jewish school and organization in the West. Ironically, this map often adorned those ubiquitous boxes.

These maps have become so ubiquitous that it is worth taking the time to examine them, and what their dishonesty can teach us about the Palestinians and their supporters.

The dishonesty of using an out-of-date map for pre-1948 Jewish land purchases is actually relatively minor. So is not omitting the political context: After 1939, Jews were forbidden from making any further land purchases by British authorities, a measure taken as a sop to Arab terrorism. Even the deceptive use of JNF land and only JNF land as a proxy for the entire Palestinian Jewish presence is but a trifle compared to the epic lie represented by this map: It deliberately conflates private property with political control.

They are not at all the same thing. The simple fact is that none of pre-1948 Palestine was under the political authority of Arabs or Jews. It was ruled by the British Mandatory government, established by the League of Nations for the express purpose of creating a “Jewish National Home.” It was also—contrary to the claims of innumerable pro-Palestinian activists—the first time a discrete political entity called “Palestine” existed in modern history. And this entity was established in order to fulfill a goal that was essentially Zionist in nature.

But this lie is compounded by another that is even more epic in scope: Labeling every single patch of land not owned by the JNF as Arab or Palestinian. This was quite simply not the case. We have incomplete data on land ownership in modern Palestine, and even less on Arab property than Jewish property, partly due to the very complicated nature of property law in Ottoman times. But anyone’s map of private property in Mandatory Palestine from this period would be mostly empty—half the country is, after all, desert. It would show small patches of private Jewish land—as this map does—alongside small patches of private Arab land, as this map shamelessly does not.

The next map is labeled 1947. This is inaccurate, as any other date would be, because the map does not represent the situation on the ground in 1947 or at any other time. Instead, it represents the partition plan adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 as UN Resolution 181. It called for two independent states to be formed after the end of the British Mandate, one Jewish and one Arab.

Needless to say, the resolution was never implemented. It was rejected by a Palestinian Arab leadership that just two years before had still been allied with Nazi Germany. The day after its passage, Arab rioting began against Jewish businesses, followed by deadly Arab attacks against Jewish civilians. Events quickly escalated into all-out war, with Arabs laying siege to major Jewish population centers—cutting off all supplies, including food and water. In some places, the siege worked, but for the most part, it was resisted successfully.

The maps emerge from a more general and quite deliberate refusal to differentiate between private property and sovereign land, as well as a total erasure of any political context.

At this point, with partition rejected by the Arabs and no help from the international community in sight, the Jews declared independence and formed what would become the Israel Defense Forces. The Arab states promptly launched a full-scale invasion, whose aims—depending on which Arab leader you choose to quote—ranged from expulsion to outright genocide. And the Arabs lost. At war’s end in 1949, the situation looked roughly like the third map in the series—the first of the lot that even comes close to describing the political reality on the ground.

I say “close” because it too is remarkably dishonest. It is only because one’s standards of dishonesty have been stretched so far by its predecessors that it almost seems true. But, alas, it is not. The map is dated 1967. What it shows are the so-called “armistice lines,” i.e., the borders where the Israeli and Arab armies stopped fighting in 1949. These lines held more or less until 1967. As far as Israel’s borders are concerned, then, the map accurately presents the situation over those 19 years.

But what lies on the other side of the line, in the territories that are today called the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, is again presented in radically dishonest fashion. These lands were not—not before, during, or after 1967—“Palestinian” in the sense of being controlled by a Palestinian Arab political entity. Both territories were occupied by invading Arab armies when the armistice was declared in 1949, the Gaza Strip by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan. The latter was soon annexed, while the former remained under Egyptian military administration. This status quo lasted until 1967, when both were captured by Israel.

In the 1967 Six Day War, which was marked by Arab rhetoric that was sometimes even more genocidal than 1948, Israel also took the Golan Heights from Syria and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, more than trebling the amount of land under its control. Israel has since withdrawn from more than 90 percent of the land it occupied—mostly in the Sinai withdrawal that led to peace with Egypt. Unsurprisingly, there are no heartfelt “Israeli Land Loss” maps representing this.

The first three maps, then, confuse ethnic and national categories (Jewish and Israeli, Arab and Palestinian), property and sovereignty, and the Palestinian national movement with Arab states that ruled over occupied territory for a generation. They are a masterpiece of shameless deception.

Shameless deception is the only thing that remains consistent in this series.

As we move to the fourth map, shameless deception is the only thing that remains consistent. This map, usually labeled either 2005 or “present,” purports to show the distribution of political control following the Oslo process and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The patches of Palestinian land in the West Bank are areas handed over to the Palestinian Authority in the 1990s, mostly under the 1995 Oslo II agreement. Expanding upon the autonomy put in place after previous agreements in the Oslo process since 1993, this agreement created a complex patchwork of administrative and security zones, splitting the West Bank into areas of exclusive Palestinian control, joint control, and Israeli control. It was meant as a five-year interim arrangement, after which a final status agreement would be negotiated.

Final status talks did indeed take place. But no agreement was reached. As in 1947, the principal reason was Palestinian rejectionism. This time, the Palestinian leadership rejected a state on over 90 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. They then broke their pledge not to return to the “armed struggle” and embarked on a campaign of suicide bombings and other terrorist atrocities that were not only morally indefensible but lost them the trappings of sovereignty they had gained over the previous decade.

After tamping down the worst of the violence, Israel decided to leave the areas of the Gaza Strip it had not evacuated a decade before. The withdrawal took place in 2005. Two years later, the Islamist group Hamas took over the Strip in a violent coup d’etat. Since then, there have been two Palestinian governments—the Hamas regime in Gaza and the Fatah-led regime in the West Bank.

Both of these regimes are marked with the same color on this fourth map, thus failing to acknowledge the split between the two regimes, though it is the first map in the series to correctly label areas under Palestinian Arab political control. Nonetheless, it does not distinguish between the sovereign territory of the State of Israel—or, in the case of East Jerusalem, territory that Israel claims as sovereign without international recognition—and territories in the West Bank that, according to agreements endorsed by both sides, are under Israeli control until a final status agreement.

Taken together, what we have is not four maps in a chronological series, but four different categories of territorial control presented with varying degrees of inaccuracy. Those categories are private property (“1946”), political control (“1967” and “2005”), and international partition plans (“1947”). They are presented in a fashion that is either tendentiously inaccurate (“2005”), essentially mendacious (“1947” and “1967”), or radically untrue (“1946”).

An honest approach would look very different. It would take each of these categories and depict how they developed over time. For example, basing ourselves on the most blatantly deceitful map, 1946, we might want to show the chronological development of private property distribution. But we’d first have to adjust the original series’ 1946 map by labeling only Arab property as Arab, rather than simply filling in the entire country with the desired color. It would be a lot of data to collect, and then we’d then have to repeat the effort for other years appropriate to the discussion: Perhaps 1950, after Israel and Jordan both instituted Absentee Property Laws; 1993, just before Palestinian self-rule began; or 2005, just after the disengagement from Gaza and the northern West Bank. The maps would have to be consistent as well, showing Arab property inside Israel as well as Jewish property in the West Bank and Gaza. I don’t know if anyone has bothered to collect all this data, and I’m not sure what it would show in any case. What argument would it advance? That Jews and Arabs should be forbidden to buy land from each other?

On the other hand, the categories of political control and international partition plans are quite easy to map out over time. Since the concern of those publicizing the maps above is Palestinian control of land, we can illustrate this with a more honest series of maps showing areas of political control, using the same years as the original—adding one for clarity.

As seen above, 1946 has exactly zero land under Palestinian Arab control—not autonomous, not sovereign, not anything—as it was all under British authority. We could go further back in time, to the Ottoman era, for example, and the map wouldn’t change in the slightest. 1947 sees no changes to the map, as Palestine was still under British control. Before the war in June 1967, control is divided between three states, and none of them is Palestinian. The 2005 map would be exactly as it is presented in the original series, showing the very first lands ever be ruled by Palestinian Arabs qua Palestinian Arabs. To clarify this a bit more, I have added a map from 1995, showing the withdrawals undertaken during the first two years of the Oslo process, just up to but not including the 1997 Hebron Protocol.

In fact, if we zoomed in a bit more, we would see how the peace process of the 1990s resulted in the first time a Palestinian Arab regime ruled over any piece of land. This occurred in 1994 with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and Jericho. That control steadily expanded over more and more land during the years leading up to the failed final status talks. Much of it was then lost during the second intifada, but eventually regained as violence died down, and the Gaza disengagement even expanded it slightly. All of these Palestinian land gains have taken place in the last 20 years and every square meter of it came not from Turkey or Britain or Jordan or Egypt, but from Israel alone; and nearly all of it through peace negotiations.

It is true that this is a smaller amount of land than that controlled by Israel—which is nonetheless an extremely small country by global standards. More importantly, however, it is small compared to what could have been ruled by a Palestinian state had the Palestinians not rejected partition and peace in 1947 and again in 2000. That is, had the Palestinians been motivated by the interests of their own people rather than the wish to destroy another people.

One could very easily create a theoretical series of maps that would begin in 1947 and show the distribution of political control, not as it existed, but as it could have existed. In contrast to the previous series charting political control over the years, this series would map out the international proposals to partition the country. It would begin with the Peel Commission’s 1937 partition plan, through the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) partition resolution, and end with the Clinton Parameters of 2000—which were very close to the rejected offers made by Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak earlier that same year at Camp David and Ehud Olmert eight years later. But these international efforts to partition the land would be incomplete without a word or two about each side’s reaction to the proposal.

Here too there is a continuing trend of losses for the Palestinian side. Not loss of land, but loss of potential. Each successive rejection left the Palestinians with less and less to bargain with. Surely, there is a lesson in this. But it seems that, if the Palestinians are ever to learn it, it will not be with the help of their Western supporters.

We could also make a set of maps that would present a story of Jewish “land loss.” It would begin with the first iteration of the British Mandate, before Transjordan was split off and Jewish land purchases and immigration banned. We are forever being reminded that the Palestinians have supposedly conceded 77 percent of their historic claims already, implicitly saying that all of Israel proper somehow belongs to them. But territorial maximalists on the Israeli side are not wrong when they use the same standards to claim that they have given up 73 percent of what was promised to them, including Transjordan. It is the business of pro-Palestinian activists to privilege one of these claims over the other; but in fact, both are equally wrong: The idea that the Israeli “concession” of Transjordan entitles Israel to 100 percent of the West Bank is as absurd as the Palestinians’ claim that their “concession” of Haifa entitles them to the same.

A series of actual Israeli withdrawals, however, could fill a rather long series of maps. It would include the 1957 withdrawal from Sinai, the Disengagement of Forces agreements in 1974 and 1975, the staged withdrawals stemming from the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty in 1979 and 1982, the withdrawal from most of Lebanon in 1985, the staged withdrawals undertaken according to the Oslo Accords from 1994 to 1997, the unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, and the complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. These maps, unlike those used by pro-Palestinian activists, have the benefit of being accurate, but I am not sure the case for “Israeli Land Loss” would convince anyone but the most partisan and ignorant of Israel’s supporters.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate the bankruptcy of the “Palestinian Land Loss” myth is to compare it to a similar situation elsewhere.

An equally absurd set of maps could be drawn up of the Indian subcontinent before and after the end of British rule. It could start with a 1946 map of the entire subcontinent, labeling any private property owned by Hindus as “Indian” and the rest as “Pakistani.” Hindus, after all, are 80 percent of India’s population today, just as Jews are 80 percent of Israel’s. It is absurd to consider anything not privately owned by Hindus under British rule as “Pakistani” when the state of Pakistan did not yet exist, but that is roughly the same as labeling anything not privately owned by Jews under the Mandate as “Palestinian.”

We could then put up a partition map from 1947, with West and East Pakistan next to a much larger India; as well as a post-partition map—perhaps from 1955—showing the land losses along the Radcliffe Line. Finally, we could draw a map from 1971 with East Pakistan shorn off into Bangladesh. A fervently dishonest person might call this series “Pakistani Land Loss,” but it would be such an obvious piece of fiction that no one could possibly take it seriously.

And no thinking person can take “Palestinian Land Loss” seriously. It is just as absurd and just as much a fiction. But it is also, in its own way, extremely destructive. Because these maps and the lies they propagate only encourage Palestinian rejectionism and violence; and as illustrated above, these have always left the Palestinians with less than they had before."

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Mendacious Maps of Palestinian “Loss” / Shany Mor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123

 

 

 

 

 

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎23 at 5:55 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Not identical in appearance, even to me, and certainly not the same at the molecular level. If one took African, Arabian and Iraqi-Levantine Arab speakers as three groups, there would be differences between them in appearance. 

Well I could produce photos and you probably  could not. Trust me. Jews and Arabs range from pale white with blue eyes and blonde hair and small noses to coal black with every [physical characteristic you can think of. You'd know that if you lived in the Middle East. But I do understand its a very subjective thing.

What you are talking about are secondary physical characteristics such as skin tone, lip size, nose shape, hair texture, freckles, hair colour, body type, ear size and structure and believe me there were so many movements of warriors and nomads across Africa and Asia that every genetic characteristic was mixed. Jews and Arabs are semites. Its not a race. It refers to common roots back to certain societies and languages. I think if I were to take you to Israel and stick you down in a crowd, the most likely people you might notice would be Felashie Jews but even then they may not be obvious only some. You would not know the difference between a Mulatto, African, Arab, Tsfardic Jew or an Ashkanazi Jew or certain Palestinians.

One reason for this is when Alexander swept through the Middle East his soldiers raped a lot of women and mixed so called white secondary physical characteristics into the blood pool.

The biological reality is there is no such thing as race. A person who is coal black traditional African looking may have more genetic material in common with some white Swedish looking person then another black person. The characteristics you talk of are in fact secondary and they are meaningless in terms of biology and genetics

What is interesting is you can trace back Ashkenazi (white)  Jews, Tsfardic (Arab) Jews and Felashie (Ethiopian) Jews as well as African, Indian and even Chinese Jews to the Middle East through blood testing. Doesn't make Jews a race but it can tell you where they geographically originated from.

I really myself having lived in Israel don't see much of a difference between Israelis and Arabs except whether they hate Israel for being Jewish or not. I define Jews and Arabs that same way because physically I don't see a differences in culture or religion or language even others do, but politics yes.

I don't think Argus is being racist, but is actually being the exact opposite saying, its bullshit calling Jews or Arabs races, this is about religious and political values.

That said hell Spanky I some days have no idea what the phack anyone is anymore in terms of ancestry and to tell you the truth I just want to know, will they get my order right at Tim Horton's. That sounded politically inappropriate but I mean it. I don't care if you are white or brown, if you phack my double double up, I get mad.

Now what is interesting is there is "Hudson Jones" will come on this forum talking about a "Zionist narrative" but in fact there is none. What he actually refers to is the anti Zionist narrative he or " Marcus " or whatever name is producing it at the moment wants you to read and that is the false narrative that Jews are not from the Middle East but colonialists. Its probably one of the most idiotic things ever said about any ethnic people but its done quite well depending on the world's ignorance of Jewish history.

In the anti Zionist narrative- a displaced refugee from Nazi Europe is a European colonialist, but the Arab League nations, all colonial states created by Britain and France and then propped by them. Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, were not colonial when they tried to prevent Jews escaping from the holocaust and European persecution. People fleeing colonial persecution according to this narrative are colonialists. 950,000 Tsfrsadic Jews forcefully expelled from the Arab world when it could not defeat a tiny group of Jews in Israel forcing 800,000 of them to Israel are falsely described as colonial invaders.

Arabs who flooded Palestinian because of British immigration policies displacing Palestinians are now simply called Palestinians, but if a Jew came to Palestine he automatically displaced Palestinians and is a colonial invader. In this anti Zionist narrative, there is the deliberate re-writing of history that Jews never originated in the Middle East prior to any Muslim or so called Arab (person of the Arabian peninsula who went on to become the Beduins of today). The Arabs of today are probably not true Arabs in the sense of having descended from the Beduins.

In this anti Zionist narrative, Muslims can have as many states as they desire, but no Jew can have any state. When you trace that belief back you will find it comes from how Sharia law is interpreted to define any non Muslim as a dhimmi, an inferior who can not be equal to a Muslim and therefore own land let alone govern themselves. The anti Zionist narrative will not acknowledge the Muslim religious beliefs inherent in denying any Jew the right to a state or even owning land. Muslims will discuss that amongst themselves openly but will never have the integrity to come on this forum and state their Muslim religious beliefs are what's behind their pissing on Israel campaign.

This comes down pure and simple to religious views creating discrimination by Muslims against Jews which is turned by Muslims into some anti colonial battle. Jews were persecuted by the very colonial empires Arabs teamed up with in an effort to wipe Jews out.

Its ironic you listen to someone like Hot Enough accusing Zionism of being a genocide plan. It is past moronic. Its repeated though over and over to try turn survivors of genocide into people committing it. It tries to have you focus away from the fact that Arabs in fact sided with Hitler and assisted the genocide of Jews.

It is even more moronic when one looks at the rate of Arab Israeli population growth in Israel and on the West Bank and in Gaza. If you look at the sheer population growth of Palestinians and Arab Israelis since 1949 the idiot comment Hot Enough spews about genocide of Palestinians is rendered the moronic accusation it is but its repeated weekly along with the Israe is racist, Israeis are colonialists horseshit.

Trust me though on this one thing. No one can look at an Arab or Israeli and immediately see any difference physically and a day in Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, you won't readily see any physical difference and trust me when you are born in the Middle East your religion or language is not necessarily the dividing factor, its your proximity to water believe it or not. More wars between Muslims then between Muslims and non Muslims and yes its often about their religious views, but a lot of time its over water as well.

If I put  Algerian, Morroccan Libyan Tunisian, Egyptian, Syrian Lebanese, Palestinian, Jordanian, Iranian, Indian, Latino, Irish, Italian, Greek,  women in a room I bet I could fool you every time. What makes them all gorgeous is the very fact they are mixed. With due respect neo Nazis tend to get very in-bred which explains the pointed heads.  As for Black Lives matter members, they  flare their nostrils and its got nothing to do with them being black.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Rue

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

The refugee camps are a result of the Arab states trying...and failing to invade Israel in 1948...1967...1973...etc. No efforts by any Arab state involved in starting these wars has been made to settle these so-called refugees. Not a single one...preferring to keep the "Palestinians" in cages.

No Arab warmongering...no refugee camps. But alas...the Arabs just love war with Jews. Even losing all the time.

So when is the next Arab invasion attempt?

During the next interregnum. It'll probably form the basis for a religious book our descendants will spend a couple of thousand years squabbling over as they head towards the following interregnum.

 

[kactus]

On 26/08/2017 at 7:23 PM, Rue said:

Well I could produce photos and you probably  could not. Trust me. Jews and Arabs range from pale white with blue eyes and blonde hair and small noses to coal black with every [physical characteristic you can think of. You'd know that if you lived in the Middle East. But I do understand its a very subjective thing.

What you are talking about are secondary physical characteristics such as skin tone, lip size, nose shape, hair texture, freckles, hair colour, body type, ear size and structure and believe me there were so many movements of warriors and nomads across Africa and Asia that every genetic characteristic was mixed. Jews and Arabs are semites. Its not a race. It refers to common roots back to certain societies and languages. I think if I were to take you to Israel and stick you down in a crowd, the most likely people you might notice would be Felashie Jews but even then they may not be obvious only some. You would not know the difference between a Mulatto, African, Arab, Tsfardic Jew or an Ashkanazi Jew or certain Palestinians.

One reason for this is when Alexander swept through the Middle East his soldiers raped a lot of women and mixed so called white secondary physical characteristics into the blood pool.

The biological reality is there is no such thing as race. A person who is coal black traditional African looking may have more genetic material in common with some white Swedish looking person then another black person. The characteristics you talk of are in fact secondary and they are meaningless in terms of biology and genetics

What is interesting is you can trace back Ashkenazi (white)  Jews, Tsfardic (Arab) Jews and Felashie (Ethiopian) Jews as well as African, Indian and even Chinese Jews to the Middle East through blood testing. Doesn't make Jews a race but it can tell you where they geographically originated from.

I really myself having lived in Israel don't see much of a difference between Israelis and Arabs except whether they hate Israel for being Jewish or not. I define Jews and Arabs that same way because physically I don't see a differences in culture or religion or language even others do, but politics yes.

I don't think Argus is being racist, but is actually being the exact opposite saying, its bullshit calling Jews or Arabs races, this is about religious and political values.

That said hell Spanky I some days have no idea what the phack anyone is anymore in terms of ancestry and to tell you the truth I just want to know, will they get my order right at Tim Horton's. That sounded politically inappropriate but I mean it. I don't care if you are white or brown, if you phack my double double up, I get mad.

Now what is interesting is there is "Hudson Jones" will come on this forum talking about a "Zionist narrative" but in fact there is none. What he actually refers to is the anti Zionist narrative he or " Marcus " or whatever name is producing it at the moment wants you to read and that is the false narrative that Jews are not from the Middle East but colonialists. Its probably one of the most idiotic things ever said about any ethnic people but its done quite well depending on the world's ignorance of Jewish history.

In the anti Zionist narrative- a displaced refugee from Nazi Europe is a European colonialist, but the Arab League nations, all colonial states created by Britain and France and then propped by them. Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, were not colonial when they tried to prevent Jews escaping from the holocaust and European persecution. People fleeing colonial persecution according to this narrative are colonialists. 950,000 Tsfrsadic Jews forcefully expelled from the Arab world when it could not defeat a tiny group of Jews in Israel forcing 800,000 of them to Israel are falsely described as colonial invaders.

Arabs who flooded Palestinian because of British immigration policies displacing Palestinians are now simply called Palestinians, but if a Jew came to Palestine he automatically displaced Palestinians and is a colonial invader. In this anti Zionist narrative, there is the deliberate re-writing of history that Jews never originated in the Middle East prior to any Muslim or so called Arab (person of the Arabian peninsula who went on to become the Beduins of today). The Arabs of today are probably not true Arabs in the sense of having descended from the Beduins.

In this anti Zionist narrative, Muslims can have as many states as they desire, but no Jew can have any state. When you trace that belief back you will find it comes from how Sharia law is interpreted to define any non Muslim as a dhimmi, an inferior who can not be equal to a Muslim and therefore own land let alone govern themselves. The anti Zionist narrative will not acknowledge the Muslim religious beliefs inherent in denying any Jew the right to a state or even owning land. Muslims will discuss that amongst themselves openly but will never have the integrity to come on this forum and state their Muslim religious beliefs are what's behind their pissing on Israel campaign.

This comes down pure and simple to religious views creating discrimination by Muslims against Jews which is turned by Muslims into some anti colonial battle. Jews were persecuted by the very colonial empires Arabs teamed up with in an effort to wipe Jews out.

Its ironic you listen to someone like Hot Enough accusing Zionism of being a genocide plan. It is past moronic. Its repeated though over and over to try turn survivors of genocide into people committing it. It tries to have you focus away from the fact that Arabs in fact sided with Hitler and assisted the genocide of Jews.

It is even more moronic when one looks at the rate of Arab Israeli population growth in Israel and on the West Bank and in Gaza. If you look at the sheer population growth of Palestinians and Arab Israelis since 1949 the idiot comment Hot Enough spews about genocide of Palestinians is rendered the moronic accusation it is but its repeated weekly along with the Israe is racist, Israeis are colonialists horseshit.

Trust me though on this one thing. No one can look at an Arab or Israeli and immediately see any difference physically and a day in Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, you won't readily see any physical difference and trust me when you are born in the Middle East your religion or language is not necessarily the dividing factor, its your proximity to water believe it or not. More wars between Muslims then between Muslims and non Muslims and yes its often about their religious views, but a lot of time its over water as well.

If I put  Algerian, Morroccan Libyan Tunisian, Egyptian, Syrian Lebanese, Palestinian, Jordanian, Iranian, Indian, Latino, Irish, Italian, Greek,  women in a room I bet I could fool you every time. What makes them all gorgeous is the very fact they are mixed. With due respect neo Nazis tend to get very in-bred which explains the pointed heads.  As for Black Lives matter members, they  flare their nostrils and its got nothing to do with them being black.

 

 

i find it hillarious your desperate attempt to justify what Argus has said about Arabs that they are like a bunch of herds you try to spin it by saying his commentary is not racist. Ffs man what the hell is wrong with you?? According to Argus all arabs look the same and they are like bunch of herds....Spanky has read that and replied appropriately. The only reason you are defending and trying to justify what Argus has said is because he is a staunch supporter of Israel and quite biased frankly which suits you well to defend his position no matter what he says...Now gon on knock yourself out and write me an essay....

[Rue]

22 hours ago, kactus said:

i find it hillarious your desperate attempt to justify what Argus has said about Arabs that they are like a bunch of herds you try to spin it by saying his commentary is not racist. Ffs man what the hell is wrong with you?? According to Argus all arabs look the same and they are like bunch of herds....

Let me be as clear as I can be you are dishonest in your response to me deliberately misrepresenting the words stated by someone on this forum, make false allegations of racism,

then try distort and change what I said to Spanky and then speak for him against what I said.

To start with Argus said ethnically its impossible to tell the difference between semites and that is true. That is not a racist comment and I explained why. To start with SEmites, we Jews and Arabs are not  a race and his using the word Ethnicity is therefore accurate. You are the bigot not Argus. The notion you look like a Jew must terrify you. Lol. Look at your bullshit response.

Argus is not the racist you are. I can place on this forum pictures of people from Algeria, Morrocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and Jordan and guarantee you would not know if they were Jews, Muslims. Christians, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, Kurds, Coptics, Asyrians, Berbers. Armenian Turkish so do me a favour save your rightreous crap.

The only thing pathetic is your trying to question me on a response to Sparky I was clear and precise about. If you also want to pretend their is no herd mentality in the Arab world when it comes to political ideology do me a favour, go spew that crap on someone who has never lived there.

The only thing you can't handle is Argus uses the exact framing you do of Jews but to all Middle Easterners equally and that just ticks you off and why go on tell them what your religion taught you about Jews and why someone dare not say you look like one.

You Sir are the bigot and a blatant one and my comment to Spanky was not even a disagreement. Argus never said we looked the same or think the same. He is dead on, none of us have distinct physical characteristics.

 

[kactus]

10 hours ago, Rue said:

Let me be as clear as I can be you are dishonest in your response to me deliberately misrepresenting the words stated by someone on this forum, make false allegations of racism,

then try distort and change what I said to Spanky and then speak for him against what I said.

To start with Argus said ethnically its impossible to tell the difference between semites and that is true. That is not a racist comment and I explained why. To start with SEmites, we Jews and Arabs are not  a race and his using the word Ethnicity is therefore accurate. You are the bigot not Argus. The notion you look like a Jew must terrify you. Lol. Look at your bullshit response.

Argus is not the racist you are. I can place on this forum pictures of people from Algeria, Morrocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and Jordan and guarantee you would not know if they were Jews, Muslims. Christians, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, Kurds, Coptics, Asyrians, Berbers. Armenian Turkish so do me a favour save your rightreous crap.

The only thing pathetic is your trying to question me on a response to Sparky I was clear and precise about. If you also want to pretend their is no herd mentality in the Arab world when it comes to political ideology do me a favour, go spew that crap on someone who has never lived there.

The only thing you can't handle is Argus uses the exact framing you do of Jews but to all Middle Easterners equally and that just ticks you off and why go on tell them what your religion taught you about Jews and why someone dare not say you look like one.

You Sir are the bigot and a blatant one and my comment to Spanky was not even a disagreement. Argus never said we looked the same or think the same. He is dead on, none of us have distinct physical characteristics.

 

No you sir have a habit to spin off words...knock yourself out old man! This time I am not gonna let you off the hook and let you get away with your lies and deceits. Surely Argus knows better than you what he has said as he has made his views about all arabs clear. So we don't need your interpretation to justify him....

 

What is pathetic is your desperate attempt by trying to justify Argus describing All arabs to a bunch of herds who look the same. It is clearly there on this forum which is why Spanky and myself questioned him. Infact Argus has responded to me saying that there is no difference between  arabs which is why Spanky has correctly replied to Argus...

So next time save your righteousness for the sheeps and don't expect the rest of us to buy into this crap. I know you don't like my views just like almost half the people on this forum, which is why you get your knickers in the twist and get a knee jerk to respond to me...

What Argus has said about all arabs looking the same and a bunch of herds is blatant racism. By you confirming that their culture dictates this behaviour shows your ignorance and bigotry. I don't give a damn if you have lived in Israel that doesn't suddenly make you an expert on the area. Especially someone who is known for his biased views on that region.  But you know rue what is interesting is that you come on this forum masking behind a chatacter that tries to portray himself as a moderate appeasing to everyone whereas in reality your views are biased and support racism against others. A sheep disguised as a wolf in a nutshell. That's what's pathetic sir!

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 8/26/2017 at 3:53 PM, Rue said:

Well I could produce photos and you probably  could not. Trust me. Jews and Arabs range from pale white with blue eyes and blonde hair and small noses to coal black with every [physical characteristic you can think of. You'd know that if you lived in the Middle East. But I do understand its a very subjective thing.

What you are talking about are secondary physical characteristics such as skin tone, lip size, nose shape, hair texture, freckles, hair colour, body type, ear size and structure and believe me there were so many movements of warriors and nomads across Africa and Asia that every genetic characteristic was mixed. Jews and Arabs are semites. Its not a race. It refers to common roots back to certain societies and languages. I think if I were to take you to Israel and stick you down in a crowd, the most likely people you might notice would be Felashie Jews but even then they may not be obvious only some. You would not know the difference between a Mulatto, African, Arab, Tsfardic Jew or an Ashkanazi Jew or certain Palestinians.

If I put  Algerian, Morroccan Libyan Tunisian, Egyptian, Syrian Lebanese, Palestinian, Jordanian, Iranian, Indian, Latino, Irish, Italian, Greek,  women in a room I bet I could fool you every time. What makes them all gorgeous is the very fact they are mixed. With due respect neo Nazis tend to get very in-bred which explains the pointed heads.  As for Black Lives matter members, they  flare their nostrils and its got nothing to do with them being black.

 

 

I'm sure you could fool me every time if you picked the exceptions and being half-blind at this stage I probably wouldn't be the best man to ask anyway. Leaving Israel out of the discussion, there are Iraqis who are whiter than I am (I worked with a Syrian who looked like that) but they are not the average Iraqi. So sure, there is massive overlap between these three groups of Arab speakers but they are not the same - the populations have significantly different means. In terms of producing photographs, the internet can do that.  

Race is a reality, just as families, clans and tribes are real. It's what we do about this that counts.

 

[Rue]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I'm sure you could fool me every time if you picked the exceptions and being half-blind at this stage I probably wouldn't be the best man to ask anyway. Leaving Israel out of the discussion, there are Iraqis who are whiter than I am (I worked with a Syrian who looked like that) but they are not the average Iraqi. So sure, there is massive overlap between these three groups of Arab speakers but they are not the same - the populations have significantly different means. In terms of producing photographs, the internet can do that.  

Race is a reality, just as families, clans and tribes are real. It's what we do about this that counts.

 

That is the only point Argus was saying and I supported. Each region of each Arab country, each village for hat matter differ within the Arab world to Arabs who would tell you there are huge differences but to a non Arab they could never get that. People in Canada have no idea that Syria for example has been engulfed in wars between its villages, between families in the same religious sects let alone people from other sects for THOUSANDS of years and its lead to in-breeding, i.e., people only marrying first cousins which in turn has caused congenital illnesses like Guillen-Barre syndrome. No one wants to talk about the practice of marrying first cousins across the Muslim world and its impact bio-genetically. Its not racism to say that.

Its not racism to say there is a  herd mentality. Please don't anyone tell me that the Muslim world did not and still does not demonstrate a herd m entality about Jews and Israel. Its a fact. The group psychosis that rejects Israel as a Jewish state and Jews as a collective equal to Muslims is a widespread and common fact even with moderate Muslims.

I am not racist if I say fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Muslims fundamentalist Christians, anyone who follows an ideology or religion to strictly becomes a sheep in aherd which was the point of Argus. The point is extremist breeds sheep who form in crowds supporting populist leaders spewing out hatred and using scapegoats. Interesting the same Kactus who screams about racism sees nothing wrong negatively stereotyping Americans, Israelis, Jews who support Israel, Trump suporters.

Am I a racist saying Trump's popularity is based on cultivating a herd mentality.

Of course it is and that does not make me a racist or Argus who has said the same thing.

The word racist and racism is thrown out on this board with Argus to try shut him up when he makes generalizations about Arabs absolutely no different than how Kactus or the other piss on Israel contributors make about Israelis and Jews and my favourite Eye makes about his mythical monster the "conservatives" or Taxme does with anyone with a sun tan or Jews or another poster does about anyone he disagrees with or Altai calling me a Kafir or GhostHacked telling to go back to Israel or Hudson Jones telling me my thoughts are cancerous and need to be wiped out because I am Zionist or Ghost smeering the entire nation of Israel and Israelis because some Israelis make a living showing how Israelis fight terrorists.

The smeers and negative stereotypes on this board go on daily and Kactus only seems to get his nose out of joint when it comes to "Arabs" and this is what I challenged.

I have challenged Argus and anyone else on this board making NEGATIVE generalizations about an entire group just as I have everyone else.

To say Arabs have a herd mentality about certain political issues is a fact. Its not derogatory its a fact no different than Liberals in this country do about Trudeau and his ideology or some consider Zionists do about Israel.

Its fair game on this forum and the selective righteousness I do not buy. I do not buy people staying silent on generalizations until it onlyu impacts on their own ethnic group.

I say it again-Argus unlike Kactus holds everyone to the same standard of criticism, Kactus does not. This does not mean I agre with Argus or anyone stating all Muslims are terrorists all Arabs hate Jews, all Zionists are terrorists, on and on.

Kactus can shove the self righteous crap and trying to suggest I was disagreeing with Spanky. On one level our ethnicities of course are different but on race, I won't buy into the bullshit we look different. Its crap.

Race is a subjective social construct created back in an era where secondary physical characteristics were thought to define people's differences so we defined peopleby their skin colour, nose shape, hair texture. Genetics, biology andmany other fields of science have gone on to prove these secondary characteristics are meaningless. You can have a coal black African with purple skin and a pale white Swede with blue eyes thyat have more in common genetically than that Swede and other white Swede or that African with another African.

Semites that means people who originated from the Middle East, i.e., Jews, the descendants of Arabian peoples who were not Jewish, d o share the same blood type, it doesn't mak them a race or different races. Todays Arabs are a mixed people. There physical make up is mix of anything from coal black to pale white to every physical characteristic there is and the same goes for Jews and any other people on this planet. You want to get accurate, then understand most of us are the result of rape from war mixing genetic pools.

Race my ass. Look at the word they use for Caucasian. It as taken by white Europeans who came across people in the Caucasus  mountain region. Caucasian peoples are in fact Turks, Jews, certain Arabs, people of every skin colour, etc. Go look it up. Mongoloids the term of race used for Chinese, Japanese, South Korean was created because it was felt all these people originated from  the Mongolian planes. That's why the word was used. Not all Asians come from the Mongolian places and to prove how subjective a term it is, most non Asian people can tell the difference between Japanese, Chinese, Korean, but will lump them all as one. Why? Because that's what people do. We generalize to simplify what would otherwise be difficult to take the time to properly understand. Its a short cut to organize information to avoid going further in depth with analysis. That's what we primates do. We look at a different pack's fur colour or variation of spots to differentiate, not much more. We define each other no different then other apes do-we define by what we think is pack familiarity.

There is no such thing as race. Its an ism/ist  word like feminimism, anti-Semitism, agism, etc.

Its used to explain when people make a negative generalization about a targeted group of people because of their physical characteristics, i.e., skin colour mostly

In that sense we use racism, and its real yes, but race is a nonsensical word and it means nothing in science and should mean nothing to a logical, rational person.

People choose to use religion, physical characteristics, political ideology as their excuse to stereotype others to justify their own discrimination.

Everyone does it. The difference is some of us depend on it to construct our entire world and what we perceive, others realize its an illusion, its only a starting point in the journey to understand not the absolute point of understanding the meaning in the world.

People quick to scream racism are usually in my experience as racist as the people they accuse of being racist.

Everyone is a racist, everyone. We all have our  isms and ists and yes we challenge them.

I argue some people on this forum try use their ists an disms accusations as cards, free cards to avoid debate.

Go on I defy any anti-Semite on this board who I have challenged to show when I have accused them of anti-Semitism, when I have not gone in to detail to explain why-I have not thrown it out to censor, just condemn and I explain why and I still invite the anti semites on this board to put up or shut up and show one post from me where I said someone could not challenge Israeli state policies. If I see someone using discussion of Israeli policies to stereotype all Israelis, all Zionists, any Jew who believes we are a political collective, I will call them out as a bigot for doing so precisely because they do not say the same about Arabs, Muslims, Christians. They only select Jews to deny as a collective of people no one else and that is what makes them anti-Semitic.

If I heard just one person hold the entire world to the same standard as Israel on this post, if they were to use the same standard and say no one on this planet should have a collective identity, then I might listen and probably respect the argument although maybe I would or would not agree with it depending on context.

I don't see that. I see people, the same people who engage in bigotry and hold different groups to different standards of criticism, throwing out the accusation of racism. I say bullshit to that.

I say again,  I am a bigot, we all are bigots Political forums necessarily by their inherent nature invite generalized stereotypical thought processes when issues are discussed.

We have an entire generation now brought up believing they understand truth from looking onn the internet and not having to meet the very people or travel to the very nations they claim to be experts on. That is what I challenge and I challenge hear and now my own bigotry as I do anyone else's but you want to try make quick brownie points in a debate calling Argus a racist. when he said nothing racist, I will challenge it.

Kactus if your argument is herd mentality is an unfair generalization, so be it. I see it across the Arab world generating inter-Muslim sect wars and anti-Semitism and and hatred against Kurds, Bebers, Yazidis, Zoroastreans. Buddhists, Bahaiis, Hindus, Jews, Druze, Coptics, SAssyrians, Armenians, on and on.

 I see certain fundamentalist Jews as herds, I see many people becoming sheep and delegating too much of their day to day beliefs on others to tell them how to think

Zionism by defining my Jewishness as a political collective never said I was different than non Jews, better than them, or should blindly follow someone who was Jewish over someone who is not. All it stated was that to survive we must form a state to assure the state apparatus can n ot be used to extinguish us but to assure our continued existence. It is a concept of  ollective identity not delegation of individual responsibility for decisions to the collective.

I am a conservative not a liberal because I believe ultimately the responsibility for moral and behavioural decisions rests with each individual not the state as liberals do.

Now I have again made myself clear but the very people crying racism against Argus won't read this They only read that which reflects back their own opinion and won't acknoledge for any other opinion or belief. I don't care. I only care that people like Dialamah and Argus keep debating and know they are listened to by me equally.

[GostHacked]

I would like to add that I am only partially anti-semetic,  there are some Jews I actually like and respect. 

[Rue]

7 hours ago, kactus said:

No you sir have a habit to spin off words...knock yourself out old man! This time I am not gonna let you off the hook and let you get away with your lies and deceits. Surely Argus knows better than you what he has said as he has made his views about all arabs clear. So we don't need your interpretation to justify him....

 

What is pathetic is your desperate attempt by trying to justify Argus describing All arabs to a bunch of herds who look the same. It is clearly there on this forum which is why Spanky and myself questioned him. Infact Argus has responded to me saying that there is no difference between  arabs which is why Spanky has correctly replied to Argus...

So next time save your righteousness for the sheeps and don't expect the rest of us to buy into this crap. I know you don't like my views just like almost half the people on this forum, which is why you get your knickers in the twist and get a knee jerk to respond to me...

What Argus has said about all arabs looking the same and a bunch of herds is blatant racism. By you confirming that their culture dictates this behaviour shows your ignorance and bigotry. I don't give a damn if you have lived in Israel that doesn't suddenly make you an expert on the area. Especially someone who is known for his biased views on that region.  But you know rue what is interesting is that you come on this forum masking behind a chatacter that tries to portray himself as a moderate appeasing to everyone whereas in reality your views are biased and support racism against others. A sheep disguised as a wolf in a nutshell. That's what's pathetic sir!

You construct and respond to me with generalizations no different than the ones Argus has. Do you call yourself a racist? Look in the mirror. I do. I don't necessarily like what I see, do you?

By the way nowhere in any post have I claimed to be an expert on anything I do state again, my having lived with both Israelis and Palestinians and Beduins, gives me a perspective the internet will not provide you and I challenge people who have never been to a country or met its people challenging the right of those people to exist. What I have said is you have never met an Israeli, you have never lived in Israel, you've never been to Gaza, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the West Bank, I have. Its why I have contempt for two posters on this board who posed as if they have. Had they been to these countries, as I have, they would not be extolling the differences between any of these peoples and choosing sides.

You choose sides precisely for that reason. There is no right or wrong side in the Middle East that is what people know who have been there and lived there. There just is a never ending disagreement between thousands of groups for many reasons and this disagreements come and go continuously as different shapes in the sand form. The wind blows and the disagreements form and just as suddenly vanish. No disagreement is permanent just as no sand dune is. That analogy I give you is identical in Jewish, Muslim and Christian ideology of the Middle East and its a lesson all people living in hostile envirionments desert or not, understand. Its outsides who insist on trying to blow on the sand thinking it will change things.

[Rue]

24 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

I would like to add that I am only partially anti-semetic,  there are some Jews I actually like and respect. 

The passive aggressive reference is to be expected and in it you show again that you are a narcissist and define issues on this board by your subjective feelings.

Here let me put it in simple terms for you, what the phack do your feelings for me have to do with the issues? None.

If you think people should care or do care that you need to couch your lack of respect or liking me, that makes you delusionary.

Better still why not form a group with other "Rue haters". Meet once a week and discuss you victimization by Rue and express ideas on how you can help each other overcome your injuries. Call it "Survivors of Rue Group". I think you should be the first to stand up and say, " I am a victim of Ruisms and I stand here to affirm myself, I am a good person."

Make sure to bring the "depends " because when you get moved, you'll be glad you depended on those depends.

Was that too cryptic for you?.

" What a putz. He sits on his Ducati, revs the engine, the bike kicks, and he falls off flat on his ass. Then  he cries and says a Jew must have tampered with his bike." 

Rue 8888889

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Rue