The Jews.

http://abbc.com/islam/english/toread/pr-zion.htm#protocol_1

i would say that zionism kills more people each year than anti-semitism.
are zionists like yourself, ignorant of of their blatant bias or are they conscience of the fact that level-headed people would never agree with them?

You are wrong, ye110man.

I'll get you the numbers to prove it.

Let's keep things polite here....also, keep in mind that Zionism is also a term that has also been adopted by black Muslims and Rastafarians. I posted the definition. The extreme side of it is simply an extreme side, as with any philosophy/political view. I am getting just a tad annoyed with ye110man's vague posts...not because the topics are not worthy of investigation and debate, but because no proof of the allegations are ever cited. Post some more links so we can get into your line of thinking a little better.

I want very much to keep things polite here, as well. I admit it is disturbing to me that opinion is thrown out as fact on this issue.

I have a lot of material to go through to find deaths attributable to anti-Semitism and Zionism, but I will continue to search for it until I find it.

Even the small numbers of Zionists (and this is not a bad word to me) and the magnitude of the different groups actively attacking Jewish people tell me the numbers are very one-sided...

But, aside from that-- what other ethnicity is attacked in public speeches by politicians with no dissenting voice or outcry? It is wrong! It is dangerous!

This is what we must pay attention to.

Ye 110

My ignorant friend thanks for labeling me a Zionist, whatever you think that is. However, as far as I know I never joined the '"party". Regarding what and who kills more people Zionism or Anti-Semitism. I know how and by who Jews were killed as a result of Anti Semitism throughtout the centuries but not how Zionism as an concept does it.

.

A Definition of Zionism

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1893 by Nathan Birnbaum...

au wrote,


De Kere answered your question about Jews killing Christians, au. Pharisaical Jews were invoking Talmudic prescriptions of death against Christian Jews during the first century. Eventually, beginning around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, c.68 C.E., the Pharisaical Jews began a campaign of consolidation of power and purging of non-pharisaical Jews, and succeeded in completely ostracizing Christian Jews from what was to become known as Judaism.

But your question, "When have Jews killed Christians for there beliefs?" is a red-herring, au. My question was, "Has Talmudic Judaism come to grips with its anti-Christianity and anti-goyism, and if so how?"

Or, are you implying by answering my question with your question that the only legitimate accusations of hatred, bigotry and intolerance are only those which lead to, or have lead to, death? If so, you are in error. Hatred, bigotry and intolerance, for the most part, don't lead to death. They more often do lead to subtler manifestations such as discrimination.

There are many instances of anti-Christianity, and Christ hatred in the Talmud, au. There are also many instances of goy hatred and anti-goyism there as well.

So lets pay attention. A quick google will get you a fuller story:

Practical overview on reactions to Mahathir's speech (further condmnations from Canada, Australia, for example) through The Economist Malaysia news page.

This BBC story on it has an alarming side and a side putting it in context, both important.

Alarming:



Contextualising:



The second part obviously doesnt make the first part any less wrong or even any less dangerous.

What it does do is profer an alternative explanation to the "hating muslims" one. Outside Europe and North-America, people have ...

- neither gone through the intensive fifty-year process of coming to terms with the guilt of the Holocaust - which they had part nor parcel in and thus remains far from their bed like Pol Pots genocide is far from ours

- nor gone through the intensive self-training in political correctness (in the best sense of the term) when it comes to bandying about racial/ethnic stereotypes etc.

Which leaves them, when it comes to Jews:

- a collective obsession over Israel/Palestine (that can be partly - though only partly - explained by Jerusalem's status as a Muslim holy city);
- an overwhelming ignorance of the Jewish community's history in their own countries;
- and the very same stereortypes and prejudices that used to be so vibrant in the West before WW2 (and probably actually originated here*)

*that'd be an interesting topic, btw - are the anti-semitic prejudices that now abound in the Muslim world autochtonous or modernistic, 20th century import from Europe?
(For those feeling oversensitive: that question is not a hint at some "its all the West's fault" ploy, but a reference to how many notions and representations on national and ethnic collective identities that are currently held around the world originate in the birth of modernistic nationalism in 18th/19th century Europe.)

My 2p? I would guess they are the result of encounters with Christianity in the late 19th century.

"'Nother example is Vilnius, Lithuania."

Noone else interested in Eastern Europe's Jews? Especially the Lithuanian example is, though very sad, a fascinating one ...

I found it really interesting to look that info back up again last night ... 's cool where A2K threads lead you ;-)

InfraBlue


.

You are speaking of ancient history. However, these people I can only suppose were considered Jewish heretics. And as in any religion including Christianity the sentence for that was death. Again that was ancient history. As for the next 2000 or so years my answer still stands.
"Did you expect Jews to trust Christians after what was and is being done to them simply because of their religion and by Christians. As far as anti-Christianity[thats a new one] no such thing we simply do not believe that Jesus the pillar of Christianity was anything more than a man. And the rest is myth."
Again I would ask what is anti-goyism. If it is distrust I think my answer is clear.



When it's,anti-goyism, as you so aptly put it, it leads to nothing. However, if you check your history you will find just the opposite true more often than not when it's the other way around. And when it did not lead to death it lead to what you call not so subtle manifestations of discrimination such as ghetto's,restrictions, massacres and expulsions.

When have the Jews ever even been in a position to act upon what you call anti-goyism. Talk about red herrings. They may not have loved you for obvious reasons but have never done you harm.

Israeli Discrimination Against Non-Jews Is Carefully Codified in State of Israel's Laws

By Dr. Israel Shahak

The legal system of the State of Israel can be described as a weird mixture of advanced democracy and retrogressive discrimination, combined with clumsy attempts to hide the discriminatory reality. For example, in all Israeli laws except one, the Law of Return, the word "Jew" does not appear. The term employed when the law gives discriminatory privileges to Jews is that those privileges are granted to "persons who would have benefited from the Law of Return had they been outside the borders of Israel." The Law of Return specifies that its benefits can be given only to Jews. However, Israeli propagandists calculate, correctly in my view, that a great majority of the opponents of discrimination would not dare to criticize this law.

The second trick, especially beloved by the Meretz Party and other "leftist" hypocrites, is to campaign for and then pass a high-sounding law in favor of equality or human rights. Such laws, however, always contain one little paragraph stating that their provisions will not affect any laws or regulations enacted in the past. The high-sounding preambles of the new laws then can be solemnly quoted without mentioning that since discriminatory laws and rules were passed in the 1950s and early 1960s (by Labor, of course), the new laws cannot change the existing discrimination. When one understands those two tricks, one comprehends that Israeli laws, and even more so government regulations on all possible subjects, are full of discriminatory measures which, if employed against Jews anywhere else in the world, would be regarded as anti-Semitic.

The greatest discrimination, regarded as an ideological duty, is practiced with regard to land. Before explaining the legal niceties, let me summarize the ideology involved. It still is inculcated in Jewish schools in Israel, as well as in the diaspora, although increasingly resented because of the increasing competition of Western ideologies and fashions. The key concept of this ideology, established in Zionism from its beginning and much stronger on its "left" than its right wing, is "redeeming the land."

It is supposed that landed property, whether urban or agricultural, in the Land of Israel (whatever its borders are) which does not belong to Jews, privately or collectively, is "unredeemed." When the ownership changes and it becomes owned by Jews, either privately or collectively, the land undergoes magical transformation and becomes "redeemed." (Let me add that these two terms have been taken from the Jewish religious law.)

According to Zionism the most important Jew ish duty is to accomplish this magical change. Even some Zionists have recognized that this duty, as often happens with quasi-religious concepts, is unlimited in every respect.

For example, land owned by a Jewish gangster is "redeemed" land, but land owned by a non-Jew who helps Israel to the utmost is "unredeemed." There is also no limitation. All the land which is "unredeemed" should become "redeemed."

Dr. Irving Moskowitz, the American Jew who buys Arab-owned land in East Jerusalem for occupation by Jewish settlers, is quite right when he says that he acts in the spirit and according to the intentions of the Founding Fathers of Zionism.

Naturally, when Israel was ruled by the true believers in the Zionist faith, its laws and regulations were shaped accordingly, but also with due regard to the needs of Israeli propaganda. The key law is "Israeli Land Law," which set up a government-appointed body called the "Israel Land Authority" (ILA), controlled by a board partly appointed by the government and partly by the World Zionist Organization through its subsidiary branch, the "Jewish National Fund" (JNF), to control all the land owned by the state. A key paragraph in the law states that ILA will administer its land according to the regulations of JNF. The regulations of the latter strictly prohibit all non-Jews from benefiting in any way from JNF land and by this simple trick the Israeli state lands (92 percent of the area of Israel) were removed from the use of non-Jews.

In the old days of Zionist purity, until about 1980, this apartheid system was strictly observed and enforced, but?-as also happened in South Africa?-it was then found that apartheid, especially if strictly enforced, interferes with money-making. As Israel became richer, especially since about 1987, and as Israeli Arabs also benefited from this enrichment to a limited extent (currently the average income of an Arab family in Israel is 70 percent of the average income of a Jewish family), it became increasingly difficult to prevent Arabs from purchasing flats in the neighborhoods formerly strictly reserved for Jews. Most Jews, at least in the towns, have come to accept the new situation.

The result was that in practice ILA ceased to discriminate in cases involving urban property in the last 10 to 12 years. However, when a concern for "Jewish purity" of an urban neighborhood "threatened by Arab penetration" (or coveted by the settlers, as in East Jerusalem) was especially felt, ILA used to transfer its property rights in that area to the JNF or its subsidiary, Heimanuta, usually by an exchange of land.

The two latter companies, being branches of the World Zionist Organization, have kept faith with Jewish apartheid and, being formally private organizations, can continue to indulge in racism and discrimination. However, since their budgets are, at least in part, paid by the state, and because of many other considerations, the chief of which is the change of public mood, especially prominent under Likud, I agree with the view that if a case involving JNF apartheid were to be brought before the courts, they would, one way or another, disqualify the case.

I expect that the present government will abolish the entire system of discrimination with regard to land in favor of extensive land privatization. Selling most of the JNF- and Heimanuta-owned land will abolish the system of apartheid as practiced and believed in since the beginning of Zionism.

Such a change is being proposed by Ariel Sharon and is furiously opposed not only by the JNF but also by Meretz and most Labor Party leaders. However, since privatization is one of the articles of the new faith of the Israeli capitalist elite, I think that Ariel Sharon will be able to carry out his plans and, incidentally, to strike a death blow to the pure Zionist ideology and faith. It is another example of what Hegel used to call the "irony of history".

ye110man, on an aside, do you mind using the [ quote ] function for pasted-in quotes and articles?
Make 'em look better, take less space and appear more clearly as a quote rather than personal opinion.

Oops. big time oops.

Goodnight, from Florida

You, au, wrote,

I was directly answering your question,au. You didn't ask, "when have Jews killed Christians for their beliefs--in the Common Era?" or, "when have Jews killed Christians for their beliefs--in post ancient times?' did you, au. You specifically asked an unqualified, general question, au. You asked, and I

What's ironic is that one of your rationalization of the arrogation of Palestine by the Zionists is that your ancestors had lived there in ancient history. Your irony is more aptly called hypocrisy,au.

You, au, also wrote

Anti-goy Jews have been, and are in postitions to act upon their anti-goyism when they have been, and are in positions of wealth, influence and power. Anti-goyism is manifest in the ideology, modus operandi and raison d'être of Zionist Jews and the state of Israel, and features such subtleties as self-imposed ghettoization, restrictions of the Palestinians, massacres of the Palestinians, expulsions of the Palestinians and the arrogation of Palestine in the name of ethnocentric, bigoted, separatist Zionism.

But your question is yet another red herring.

What I find interesting is that you continue to drag your red herrings through my specifically unqualified, general question. I repeat:

Has Talmudic Judaism come to grips with its anti-Christianity and anti-goyism, and if so how?

I don't care if you have never killed me, au, or have never discriminated against me, au.

What I want to know is:
Has Talmudic Judaism come to grips with its anti-Christianity and anti-goyism, and if so how?

That's an easy, straightforward question, au. If you can't answer it, please refrain your red herrings. Thank You

That you don't love me just breaks my heart, au.