THE OFFICIAL FORUM FOR JEWS AGAINST ZIPPO

farmerman, I take it then you dont accept 1967 borders.

If Israel agrees to and retreats to the 1967 borders, can you show one statement from ANY of the terrorist groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) that they will immediately guarantee an immediate halt to all types of attacks on Israel?
Can you show even one time where they have said they would recognize Israel's right to exist and where they would allow Israel to live in peace, with no more rocket or terrorist attacks on Israel its citizens, or any of its interests ANYWHERE in the world?

link

Nice dodge bf, but you didnt answer my questions.

mysteryman, my article recounted a very important day. A day where Israel and Shin Bet dodged a major step towards resolution. Of course you would dodge the substance of the article.

I didnt dodge the substance of the article, it was well written.

But, you didnt answer my questions, so I will ask them again...



Answer those questions, if you can.

mysteryman, no one can guarantee that even if a resolution is reached that some renegade might attack and that goes for both sides. Can you guarantee that even with an agreemment some mad fundamentalist Israeli wont plug a bunch of Muslim worshippers in the back while they're praying as has happerned in the past? Of course you cant. Your questions are just more mysteryman dribble. What Shin Bet did to squash real negotiations set up by Rabbi Froman shows how desperate they are to keep resolution from happening. As did the assassination of Rabin.

blueflame, you are a full fledged zippo mensch.

farmerman, " A true friend of Israel, one that is sincerely concerned for its fate, is only that friend who dares to express sharp criticism of its policy of occupation, which poses the most serious risk to its future, and who also takes practical steps to end it. Most of the "friendly" statesmen do not understand this." link

What a consummate hypocrisy to call it a "policy of occupation" in as much as one could say much the same thing for most chunks of viable land on earth over time.

Chumly, so because it happens elsewhere it's excused? In reality it's way beyond a policy of occupation. It's an imperialist policy with designs way beyond currently occupied territory as is America's occupation of Iraq.

Nope, not so much because it "happens elsewhere it's excused" but because unless or until you support and promote the return of North American lands to North American Aboriginals, you are a de facto consummate hypocrite.

And that's assuming your so-called "policy of occupation" is as you claim.

Can Criticism of Israel Be Stopped?

By Alan Hart

09/04/08 "ICH" -- -How can criticism of Israel be stopped? By labeling it as anti-Semitism, or so supporters of Israel right or wrong believe. This has always been Zionism's game but now the U.S. State Department, no doubt under immense pressure from the Zionist lobby and its Christian fundamentalist allies, is playing it, too. In my view the State Department's 94-page study, Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism, is a disengenuous and dangerous document which might well make all Jews everywhere more not less vulnerable.

In his report of the study, Ron Kampeas of the JTA ('The Global News Service of the Jewish People') says: 'U.S. diplomats and other officials will be expected to take their cues from this forceful language in how they deal with political groups and individuals overseas.'

The'forceful' language of the State Department study includes the following two paragraphs (my emphasis added for comment below)

'Anti-Semitism has proven to be an adaptive phenomenon. New forms of anti-Semitism have evolved. They often incorporate elements of traditional anti-Semitism. However, the distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy ' whether intentionally or unintentionally -- has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel's perceived faults to its Jewish character.

'Regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and correspondingly discriminatory measures adopted by the UN against Israel, have the effect of causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fuelling anti-Semitism.'

I am very much aware that telling the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of conflict in and over Palestine could provoke classical anti-Semitism, this because the truth of history includes the fact that Israel was created, mainly, by Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleaning. Though the two crimes against humanity were different in scale, the denial by supporters of Israel right or wrong of Zionism's ethnic cleansing in Palestine is as obscene as the denial of the Nazi holocaust.

The question is-- How can the truth of history be told, and Israel be criticised, without provoking classical anti-Semitism? The short answer is that the context must explain the difference between Judaism and Zionism. As I never tire of writing and saying, knowledge of this difference is the key to understanding why it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (opposed to Zionism's colonial enterprise) without being in any way shape or form anti-Semitic; and, also, why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hardest core Zionist few in Israel.

If citizens of all faiths and none in the nations of the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian world were aware of the differencies between Judiasm and Zionism, and how Zionism has made a mockery of and has contempt for the moral values and ethical principles of Judaism, there would be no danger of the truth of history and criticism of Israel provoking anti-Semitism.

As it relates to those of us who, with our books and public speaking, are on the frontline of the war for the truth of history and are by definition anti-Zionist, the State Department's assertion (emphasised above) that we attribute Israel's 'perceived faults' to it's 'Jewish character' is libellous nonsense. We say the very opposite - that Israel is a Zionist state, not a Jewish state.

In conversation with me for a forthcoming television production, Professor Ilan Pappe, Israel's leading 'revisionist' or honest historian, offered a most penetrating observation. He was talking about the principle of the One State solution and he said:

'The One State would replace the racist and apartheid state with a shared democracy, a state for all of its citizens. This would create a state that was far more Jewish than the Zionist state because the Zionist state is not a Jewish state and abuses the principles of Judaism.' (My emphasis added).

As emphasised above, the State Department's study also asserts that regardless of intention, 'disproportionate criticism of Israel' (what the hell is that?) has the effect of 'causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general.' This could not happen if audiences were aware of the difference between Judaism and Zionism.

Memo to the State Department: If you really want to play a part in stopping the monster of classical anti-Semitism going on the rampage again, take the lead in explaining the difference between Judaism and Zionism. (And read my two-volume book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews).

True anti-Semites used to be those who hated Jews for being Jews. Today, the rabid dogs of Zionism would want us to believe that anti-Semites are also those who speak up in defense of human rights in Palestine, people like Christian peace activists in Hebron who escort terrified Palestinian kids to their schools, lest they be attacked by a ghoulish breed of Zionist Jews called "hilltop settlers."

...is it not also true that "anti-Semitism" is often utilized to the fullest by many Zionist Jews to silence legitimate criticisms of this evil State that murders, lies and steals and then claims to be the only true democracy in the Middle East?

UN expert stands by Nazi comments

"The next UN investigator into Israeli conduct in the occupied territories has stood by comments comparing Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7335875.stm

=======================

Are UN experts also "anti-semites" ?

Actually, there already is one statelike entity that exists where Jews of all degrees of religiousness and Moslems of all degrees of religiousness live peacefully; passing each other in the streets with no antagonisms. Where you cry out in disbelief? Brooklyn, NYC. And, that is so, I believe, because it is part of the United States, and perhaps more important there is a long history of many diverse groups living peaceably together there. Remember, Brooklyn was always called the Borough of Churches, so perhaps, as the churches lost some of its respective congregants/parishoners, the basic paradigm was already set down - live, and let live!

Also, in my opinion, the reason that so many non-Jews equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is, in some degree, due to many people thinking that American Jews, British Jews, French Jews, Russian Jews, Argentinean Jews, Jews living all over the world, as somehow virtual Israelis, or diehard Zionists, aside from their respective degree of religiousness or ethnicity. I say this in context of many American WASP's (White Anglo Saxon Protestants), prior to WWII, likely wanted the United States to enter the war to protect Mother England, yet were not thought of as virtual British. You see folks, anti-Semitism is so subtly entrenched in the popular culture, that even well meaning folks may not realize they do think of Jews as different, in that they are really not allowed to be a citizen of a country without the belief that they really have dual loyalty.

But, keep up the Yiddishims. It's like you're aspiring Hollywood folk, and trying to ingratiate yourselves with the Jewish framework in Hollywood.

Foofie,

What would you call this:

"All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts." This was the religious opinion issued one week ago by Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tsomet Institute, a long-established religious institute attended by students and soldiers in the Israeli settlements of the West Bank. In an article published by numerous religious Israeli newspapers two weeks ago and run by the liberal Haaretz on 26 March, Rosen asserted that there is evidence in the Torah to justify this stand.

"evidence in the Torah to justify this stand"?

Foofie, when are you going to tell your people to stop behaving like nazis?
Ever time I try to convey this message I get called an "anti-semite".

Are you going to help reduce world-wide anti-semitism? Maybe they'll take you more seriously.

Zippo, please stop addressing your posts to me specifically. I only made a general comment for the benefit of other posters, and I didn't address my post specifically to you. Please don't mind my business. I don't live in your world, and you don't live in my world. I have no interest in your unsolicited advice. Please don't be obtrusive with me.

I'm not Foofie, but I would call that the ravings of ONE PERSON.
And that person has no connection to the Israeli govt, nor does he set official Israeli policy.

But, if you want to say that he represents all of Israeli public opinion and govt policy, then you must admit that those calling for the destruction of Israel and the elimination of the Jews represent the official Palestinian or arab policy.
Is that fair?