 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
OUCH! Well, that didn't take too long...apparently there's still quite the gold mine of articles out there about Amir....I stand corrected. Apparently he had ties to a Jewish-Extremist group....
Highlights below:
"The man who confessed to killing Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin appeared in court for the first time Monday. Jewish law student Yigal Amir told the judge the assassination was meant to halt the Mideast peace process.
Surrounded by guards and a barrage of journalists, Amir was led into Tel Aviv's main court in the same clothes and black skullcap he wore when he fired the fatal shots Saturday. Amir told Magistrate Dan Arbel that Rabin wanted to "give our country to the Arabs." "We need to be cold-hearted," he said.
MORE
"Investigators are trying to determine whether Yigal Amir killed Rabin on behalf of a Jewish extremist group. Several dozen militants have been questioned. Police are also looking for the head of the Eyal group -- an offshoot of the outlawed anti-Arab Kach movement.
Asked where he got his ideas, Yigal Amir told the magistrate that he drew on the Halacha, which is the Jewish legal code. "According to the Halacha, you can kill the enemy," Amir said. "My whole life, I learned Halacha. When you kill in war, it is an act that is allowed."
MORE
"He also complained that "a Palestinian state is starting to be established" because of Rabin's policies. Amir said that "50 percent were Arabs" at the peace rally where Rabin spoke minutes before he was shot. "What do you want, for them to bury us in our own state? Rabin wants to give our country to the Arabs."
-=Vel=-
Good call, Kropotkin, and thanks for keepin' me honest. I doubt I'd have checked, and would have relied on my (faulty) memory!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Strange but true, Kro...
Back to the topic at hand, I found this while cruising the archive.....http://www.io.com/~freeman/updates/593.htm
Feb 26, 2002 - Points regarding the Saudi Peace Initiative - Most recent offer on the table/under discussion:
1) There has been no official substantiation from the Saudis that such an "offer" has been made.
2) There is no reason to believe that the offer is genuine, in light of the 54 years of Saudi opposition to the very existence of the State of Israel, and the presence of any Jews in the Middle East.
3) Further doubt is cast on Saudi sincerity by the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, sentiments publicly expressed to crowds of millions in Mecca this week.
4) There is no evidence to believe that the "Arab World" is willing to agree to the rumoured Saudi offer, and considerable evidence to the contrary.
5) There is no evidence to believe that the "Palestinian" Arabs are willing to agree to the rumoured Saudi offer, and considerable evidence to the contrary. "Palestinian" Arab spokesmen have already rejected the offer.
6) Saudi Arabia has no right to speak for the "Arab World", "Palestinian" Arabs, or any country other than Saudi Arabia.
7) Barak made a similar offer to Arafat 17 months ago, without any conditions. Arafat patently rejected the offer, and began the current all-out war (described by the media as 17 months of violence) against Israel.
Why would he accept it today?
8) History, and especially recent history, has shown us the worth of an Arab "promise". 83 % of the Jewish Homeland was given to the "Palestinian" Arabs, to establish the "Palestinian State of TransJordan" (now Jordan) in the first part of the 20th century. That huge territorial concession did not quell the Arab desire to make all of the Middle East "Judenfrei". In the past 9 years of the grossly-misnamed "peace process", the "Palestinian" Arabs have been given control over 97 % of the "disputed" (not "occupied") territories. That huge territorial and political concession has not changed the Arab goal of annihilating Israel and the Jewish populace, nor has it reduced the political and military attacks against Israel. In fact, it has exponentially increased Arab violence. There is absolutely no reason to believe that further concessions will have any different effect.
9) The magical "pre-1967 boundaries" were nothing but the cease fire lines, following the 1948 war, in which seven Arab armies invaded the newly-established State of Israel, with the declared intent of annihilation. There was no "Palestinian" state on the western side of the Jordan, and there was no "Palestinian" people claiming title to the land. Rather, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt were squabbling amongst each other as to how to divide Israel up, when they had driven the Jews into the sea.
10) The "pre-1967 boundaries" would leave Judaism's holiest cities (Jerusalem, Hebron) in the hands of those who would deny Jewish access. It would also leave Christian holy sites under the administration of those who have historically persecuted non-Muslims, and denied them freedom of worship. And it would leave Jewish "settlements", which have been rebuilt since 1967, subject to the same destruction and confiscation by the Arabs as occurred in 1948.
11) The "pre-1967 boundaries" would leave Israel extremely vulnerable to continued Arab attack. For example, from 1948 to 1967, the Syrians used the highly-fortified Golan Heights solely to stage continued mortar attacks against the Israeli communities in the Galilee below; the Jordanians used the high-ground in the West Bank to attack Israel with mortar fire, and to stage terrorist infiltrations; the Egyptians staged daily terrorist raids from Gaza.
12) In fact, since Arafat and the "Palestinian Authority" have been given control over most of the West Bank and Gaza, the pre-1967 sort of attacks have resumed — ten fold. This, despite Arafat agreeing to "reign in terror and anti-Semitic incitement" as a pre-condition of being given political control of these territories.
13) A number of years ago, Sadat of Egypt approached Israel with a professed desire for a permanent peace. Israel "returned" the Sinai Peninsula (which is of immense strategic and economic value) to Egypt, in return for the promise of peace, and normalization of relations with Egypt. Yet, Egypt has violated the conditions of that treaty, virtually since its inception. For example, Egypt has withdrawn its ambassador; the official Egyptian press continually published the most vile anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, inciteful, hateful, propaganda; Egypt has rebuilt and re-armed a huge army (which has only one possible purpose).
14) Why should we expect any different from an unofficial, unauthorized "peace offer" from Saudi Arabia? For that matter, why should we expect anything but non-compliance and further warfare, from a "peace agreement" with an Arab/Muslim entity? They have never adhered to any agreements in the past, but suddenly we should risk our very existence on the unlikely possibility that the leopards have changed their spots?
15) The Koran describes, and applauds, an incident where Mohammed makes a false peace treaty with his sworn enemy, and then, while they are lulled into a false sense of security and lay down their arms, regroups, re-arms, and attacks. Arafat and other "Palestinian" spokesmen have frequently described their agreements with Israel as such "temporary measures". In fact, it is the Arabic term describing the aforementioned incident which is used in lieu of the word for "treaty", when there are discussions of "agreements" with Israel.
A Trojan horse, by any other name, is still a Trojan horse.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
Nopey, far-right leanings tend to be Nazi-ish, and not only in Germany.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Ned, to answer your question : yes Le Pen is quite antisemitic. Sympathizer of his party has been involved in jews graves desecration, and he was the one that said that gaz chambers were "a detail".
Hearing that you see more antisemitism to the left is quite surprising for me, 'cause AFAIK, I only encountered racism from right-winged people. Though it was a right-only turn of mind. |
Akka, Now this is where it gets weird. In America, anti-Israeli, indeed anti-Semetic, hatred is coming larglely, if not exclusively, from the left. Campuses across American have witnessed demonstrations against Israel and in favor of Palestine. The left calls Sharon a Nazi and worse. Arafat is praised.
In contrast, the conservatives here in the U.S. are now the loudest and strongest supporters of Israel. Christians, particularly fundamentalist Christians, have declared "solidarity."
If you see an American here on the boards arguing in favor of Israel, that American probably is not a liberal. And vis-a-versa if the argument is made in favor of the Palestinians.
But if I understand you correctly, anti-Semitism in Europe is coming from the right. Le Pen and his ilk would like to see the Israeli's driven into the sea, or at least given a taste of what they "deserve."
I don't get it.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Akka, Now this is where it gets weird. In America, anti-Israeli, indeed anti-Semetic, hatred is coming larglely, if not exclusively, from the left. Campuses across American have witnessed demonstrations against Israel and in favor of Palestine. The left calls Sharon a Nazi and worse. Arafat is praised.
In contrast, the conservatives here in the U.S. are now the loudest and strongest supporters of Israel. Christians, particularly fundamentalist Christians, have declared "solidarity."
If you see an American here on the boards arguing in favor of Israel, that American probably is not a liberal. And vis-a-versa if the argument is made in favor of the Palestinians.
But if I understand you correctly, anti-Semitism in Europe is coming from the right. Le Pen and his ilk would like to see the Israeli's driven into the sea, or at least given a taste of what they "deserve."
I don't get it.
Ned |
Don't mix antisemitic with anti-Israël, and you will get it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
|
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Akka, What do you mean by this? In France, the Neo-nazi's can both be anti-Semetic and pro-Israeli, and average Frenchman can be anti-Israeli and not anti-Semetic?
I still don't get it.
Ned |
That is.
I don't get how you don't get it 
Antisemetic is racism. Anti-Israël is politics. Both are clearly different things, just like I can condemn a governmental decision of the Germany, USA, Italy, etc. and still not be racist against Germans, Americans, Italians and so on.
Personnally, I think that Israël was acting, since the assassination of Rabbin, in a way that could only end in a new war. They were provocative, they humiliated the Pals, and they were only wanting to negociate through force. Hence I am condemning the actions of Israël. Now, WHY this would make me any kind of racist ? It's just opinion on politics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
|
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Akka, I grant you, for the moment, that one can be against Israeli policy without being anti-Semitic because one's true desire is to see Israel safe, secure and at peace with its neighbors. |
Well, just for the sake of the argument... Someone can wish the utter destruction for Israël and still not be racist. He can just think that this territory belongs to Pals and that they are the one that should be in control. Or he can trust that it would be best for the balance of power in ME that Israël disappear. Or he can believe that the 999 pleas of the Three Gods of Apolyton will plague the Earth if Israël survive. Well, all in all, a STATE is not a RACE, and it's two very different things to A) blame a state and to B) consider that someone is worth less than one other just because he was born at one place and not another, from certain parents and not another.
quote:
But what about the avowed anti-Semite, neo-Nazi being in favor of Israel. Does that make sense?
|
It CAN makes sense.
Right-winged extremist can be antisemitic, but as long as Israël is on a faraway land, then it keeps the Jews far from they, hence they don't care anymore. And the way Israël is dealing with the Pals (brute force, police and military control, etc) is the kind of policy they approve.
Example : the now infamous Le Pen, who is a notorious racist and whose political carreer was full of disguised view on how Arabs and Blacks are inferiors to Whites, was the one who made a friendly trip to Bagdad during the months before the Desert Storm operation.
Because Saddam Hussein was an Arabic-like man, sure, but he was also a "friend of arms" about the way he was ruling his country.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Well, just for the sake of the argument... Someone can wish the utter destruction for Israël and still not be racist. He can just think that this territory belongs to Pals and that they are the one that should be in control. Or he can trust that it would be best for the balance of power in ME that Israël disappear. Or he can believe that the 999 pleas of the Three Gods of Apolyton will plague the Earth if Israël survive. Well, all in all, a STATE is not a RACE, and it's two very different things to A) blame a state and to B) consider that someone is worth less than one other just because he was born at one place and not another, from certain parents and not another.
It CAN makes sense.
Right-winged extremist can be antisemitic, but as long as Israël is on a faraway land, then it keeps the Jews far from they, hence they don't care anymore. And the way Israël is dealing with the Pals (brute force, police and military control, etc) is the kind of policy they approve.
Example : the now infamous Le Pen, who is a notorious racist and whose political carreer was full of disguised view on how Arabs and Blacks are inferiors to Whites, was the one who made a friendly trip to Bagdad during the months before the Desert Storm operation.
Because Saddam Hussein was an Arabic-like man, sure, but he was also a "friend of arms" about the way he was ruling his country. |
Akka, OK, let's put this in perspective. France once had sister states in the ME, the Crusader states. I could imagine that a Frenchmen could decide to end his support of those states without being "racist" because the citizens of those states could always return to France. However, the same is not true of Israel. The Jews have nowhere to go.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
"Poland was, however, occupying former German territories with a majority German population. Wasn't Germany justified in attacking Poland to free their German brothers from a humiliating Polish occupation? "
You are ignorant, Drake, to say it in most gentle way. Primo, Germans weren't majority in no Polish region. They were majority in Gdañsk (Danzig) but that city didn't belong in to Poland and in fact Poles were persecuted there. They were majority in some of industrial Silesian cities, but villages around were Polish, as well as villages and smaller cities in German part of Upper Silesia and Mazury, and part of Pomorze region. You also don't distinguish occupation and owning of a land.
British/French guaranties for Poland were sth completely different than American support for Israel. Germans were a possible threat for France and Britain too, while Palestinians are no threat to America.
And France/Britain didn't do what they were supposed to do accrording to the deal in year 1939, while American help for Israel
is real. Additionally, Poles haven't immigrated to their territory and they, not Germans, were autochtons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
|
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Akka, OK, let's put this in perspective. France once had sister states in the ME, the Crusader states. I could imagine that a Frenchmen could decide to end his support of those states without being "racist" because the citizens of those states could always return to France. However, the same is not true of Israel. The Jews have nowhere to go.
Ned |
I was talking "for the sake of the argument" like I told it in the very first line.
Though, the creation of Israël was a mistake. You just can't come on a land and claim it yours. I think that what should have been done is not "Israël", but a new state named Palestine where Jews AND autochtons could have felt at home. It would not have been a "Jewish state", it would have been a state were Jewish people would be able to go and says "it's my country". Well, the difference is subtle, but fundamental.
I think that one of the main problem is that being Jews is either/both being part of the Jewish people and/or being of the Judaïc religion. A people can have a state, not a religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by red_jon
I'm doing it in history for a-level. Protestants emigrated there a few hundred yeas ago and Britain invaded Ireland. Ireland remains under British rule with the Act of Union in 1801. Several failed uprisings, revolutions, etc, later, Britain finally pushes the Home Rule Act in 1914, to grant the Irish and independant state. However, the people in the north are British and wish to remain art of the UK. In the end the Irish were given their own country and the Northern Irish remained in the UK. All is fair, the populace voted for this. However, the IRA think that the Northern Irish should be forced to join the Republic and decided the best way to do this is by bombing British civilians. Americans fund them, feeling the Irish are an 'oppressed people'.
NATIVE AMERICANS, ANYONE? |
During the struggle for independence large numbers of protestant Irish moved to the Ulster area, enough to tip the scales in favor of remaining part of the UK when the plebescite was held. This has always been a sore spot in the minds of Ulster Catholics, they feel that the vote should only have counted those who had lived there before the war.
Not all Irish protestants are descended from immigrants. The reformation came to Ireland just like the rest of the world. In the 19th century many Irish protestants found it to their advantage to claim Scottish or English ancestry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
I was talking "for the sake of the argument" like I told it in the very first line.
Though, the creation of Israël was a mistake. You just can't come on a land and claim it yours. I think that what should have been done is not "Israël", but a new state named Palestine where Jews AND autochtons could have felt at home. It would not have been a "Jewish state", it would have been a state were Jewish people would be able to go and says "it's my country". Well, the difference is subtle, but fundamental.
I think that one of the main problem is that being Jews is either/both being part of the Jewish people and/or being of the Judaïc religion. A people can have a state, not a religion. |
Akka, As opposed to the French in 1099, the Jewish army did not land on the shores of Palestine and take the land by force. They formed the state of Israel from local residents who were Jewish and who were under attack, at the time they formed the state, by the non Jewish residents of Palestine. The egalitarian concepts you propose may have been the better course, but they were not possible given the conditions at the time, nor were they offered to the Jews of Palestine as an alternative.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
"Poland was, however, occupying former German territories with a majority German population. Wasn't Germany justified in attacking Poland to free their German brothers from a humiliating Polish occupation? "
You are ignorant, Drake, to say it in most gentle way. Primo, Germans weren't majority in no Polish region. They were majority in Gdañsk (Danzig) but that city didn't belong in to Poland and in fact Poles were persecuted there. They were majority in some of industrial Silesian cities, but villages around were Polish, as well as villages and smaller cities in German part of Upper Silesia and Mazury, and part of Pomorze region. You also don't distinguish occupation and owning of a land.
British/French guaranties for Poland were sth completely different than American support for Israel. Germans were a possible threat for France and Britain too, while Palestinians are no threat to America.
And France/Britain didn't do what they were supposed to do accrording to the deal in year 1939, while American help for Israel
is real. Additionally, Poles haven't immigrated to their territory and they, not Germans, were autochtons. |
Heresson, if you know, did UK and French treaties with Poland guarantee Poland's security only from German attack? Otherwise the declaration of war on only Germany, and not the co-invader, the USSR, was "illegal," albeit, real-politik.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2002 18:52
)
|
|