"Throw the Jews Down the Well"

Slightly off topic (I'll get back to the topic in a minute), one thing that struck me about the Borat song video is how at first the audience was very uncomfortable (great comedians do that, like Andy Kaufman, for example) but the song was catchy and an authority figure on the stage (the performer) encouraged them to clap and sing along with a catchy tune and they did! Even though the chorus was extremely offensive!

To me it shows that you can get people to go along if it has a hypnotic rhythm and an authority figure gives you permission. I found that a little scary, especially when the vile chorus kept ringing in my head for the rest of the day. Again, funny but disturbing like the best comedy.
 
Joshua, I get your point - you'd like to discuss forum members reactions to differing POVs. I encourage you to create separate topic for that matter and I really think it can become another 'must read'.
 
DonaldJHunt said:
Slightly off topic (I'll get back to the topic in a minute), one thing that struck me about the Borat song video is how at first the audience was very uncomfortable (great comedians do that, like Andy Kaufman, for example) but the song was catchy and an authority figure on the stage (the performer) encouraged them to clap and sing along with a catchy tune and they did! Even though the chorus was extremely offensive!

To me it shows that you can get people to go along if it has a hypnotic rhythm and an authority figure gives you permission. I found that a little scary, especially when the vile chorus kept ringing in my head for the rest of the day. Again, funny but disturbing like the best comedy.
I agree.

It's also interesting how much play Coen is getting in the Big Ring. I love the Ali G show, one of the cleverest television shows I've seen in recent years. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie. This guy is as good as Chris Rock at biting sociological commentary.
 
OK, following Joshua's suggestion to slow down and discuss calmly, let's look at the subtle twist in the statement below:

ChienFume said:
There is no reason that we should not live in Israel. Except for the irrational hatred of Jews.
I agree, there is no reason this person shouldn't live in Palestine. Especially if ChienFume was born there. But there are many reasons that there shouldn't be a "Jewish State" in Palestine. That's something else entirely. I would say anyone should be able to live anywhere in secular democratic states. So, ChienFume, how about a single, democratic, secular Palestine with equal rights for ALL including the dispossessed?

What ChienFume does, and there are entire schools and programs where you can learn to do this in defense of the Zionist position, is the classic straw man argument: set up a false, ridiculous opponent that is easy to knock down, and ignore valid points raised.

Your move, ChienFume.
 
j0da said:
Joshua, I get your point - you'd like to discuss forum members reactions to differing POVs. I encourage you to create separate topic for that matter and I really think it can become another 'must read'.
Good point. To be clear, and I'm not the best at doing such, my MACRO point is really more than you state above.

At what point does all the analyzing energy move into active solution based theorizing?

Obviously Governments and Politics will never accomplish this. Putting aside poneroolgical considerations, it's not in their interest to do so, END OF STORY. We all know what Governments interests are lined up for...

As I've no ideas for 'active, solution based theorizing' I'm hungery for input from the WORLD CLASS INTELLECTS I encounter on a daily basis here.

Now the above is a 'must read' thread if there ever was to be one.

Would you agree jOda?
 
On the contrary, it may actually be the case the commentary IS Judaism ;)

Because what, after all is Judaism, but the belief that Yahweh is the eternal God and that a certain people was set apart from the rest and given permission to commit genocide on other people and have the survivors serve them?

This:

"God is eternal
Is in all of us
Is in everything
Is ONE, without second."

is not Judaism, it's Monotheism. You could even say that that quote summarizes Islam more than Judaism or Christianity

I mean, I admire the fact that you disregard the racist commentary in the Torah and Talmud, but it's all there, ready to infect those with weaker immune systems.

I could also say that about the "tradition" I was born into, Liberal Protestantism: very tolerant, etc., but it still acts as a passive carrier of the dangerous virus of Old Testament genocide and blood sacrifice to a psychopathic entity claiming to be the Creator.

OK ChienFume, let's see if you really came here to discuss or just to flame and run...


ChienFume said:
God is eternal
Is in all of us
Is in everything
Is ONE, without second.

This pretty much sums up the idea of Judaism. Everything else is commentary, which Hillel suggested we spend our time studying.

To those of you who still have a slight connection to your 3,400+ year-old heritage:
Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach!

C
 
Now, let me talk a bit about Zionism in general:

The act of recognition of the Jewish STate of Israel implies, ipso facto, acceptance of Israel's legitimacy. One cannot recognize a State and yet maintain that it is illegitimate.

But acceptance of the legitimacy of the State of Israel is fundamentally different from the acceptance of the legitimacy of any other State in the world because of the following:

1) recognition of the State of Israel implies acceptance of the basic claim of the Jews that God gave Palestine to them as an exclusive and ever-lasting possession. That is their claim. It is based on the Torah.

2) the Jews believe that they are the chosen people of God (the one and ONLY legitimate god, I should mention), and that this god made a covenant with them and that covenant is still valid.

3) the Zionists believe that they have the right to take possession of Palestine because of their special status with God. They believe that their success in taking control of Palestine validates their beliefs about themselves (never mind that they got it and took it by deception and coercion as Douglas Reed plainly shows in Controversy of Zion), and their religion, and their claim to the ONLY Truth. Recognition of the State of Israel implies acceptance of Judaism's right to control Palestine, and thus, Judaism's claim to be the "owners" of the one trut god and Truth itself.

In the meantime, however, the Jewish claim to a divine right to Palestine has created a dilemma for today's Jews and for the so-called Peace Initiative. After all, by acknowledging Israel's primogeniture, one ipso facto also acknowleges something else in the Torah: "every spot on which you tread shall be yours." (Deuteronomy 11:24)

The Zionists, piggybacking their claim to Palestine on the backs and suffering of all Semites believe that Palestine belongs to them even now, despite the fact that it has been occupied by another people (including the descendants of former Jews that did not "disperse", some of whom converted to Islam) for the past 1400 years and longer.

Acceptance of the legitimacy of the State of Israel is fundamentally different from the acceptance of the legitimacy of any other State in the world because, in the case of Israel, it implies acceptance of the basic claim of the Zionist Jews that God gave Palestine to them as an "ever-lasting possession.

This is utter nonsense.

Anyone who reads current day biblical research is aware of the history of the writing of the Old Testament and that the books from which these claims are taken are pretty much the result of a priestly political manipulation in the time of the so-called "Second Temple." (It is clear from archaeological research that there never was a First Temple, by the way.)

Deuteronomy was the product of one group of priests from one area of ancient Canaan and was used in a political coup and imposed on many other tribes, including the original tribe of Israel which was not, in any way, an adherent of this nihilistic ideology.

Douglas Reed writes:

The Talmud became, in the course of centuries, "the fence around the Law"; the outer tribal stockade around the inner tribal stockade. The significance lies in the period at which it was begun: when Judea was gone, when "the people" were scattered among all nations, and when a new religion was taking shape which taught that God was the father of all men, not merely the patron of a selected tribe.

Looking back from this distance of time, the task which the Pharisees undertook looks hopeless, for the wish to become part of mankind must surely have had strong appeal to a scattered people.

The Pharisees, as the event has proved, were successful in their huge undertaking. The Talmud was effective in interposing a fence between the Jews and the forces of integration released by Christianity.

Two examples from our present time illustrate the effect of the Talmud, many centuries after its compilation. The brothers Thoreau in their books give the diligent student some rare glimpses behind the Talmudic walls; in one book they depict the little Jewish boy in Poland who had been taught to spit, quite mechanically, as he passed the wayside Calvary and to say, "Cursed be thou who created another religion". In 1953, in New York, a young missionary of the Moravian Church in Jerusalem described the seizure by the Zionists of the Moravian leper home there, called "The Jesus Mission"; their first act was to putty over the name "Jesus" which for more than a hundred years had been inscribed above its door.

Such incidents as these (and the ban on the mention of the name Jesus) derive directly from the teaching of the Talmud, which in effect was another "New Law" with a specifically anti-Christian application. For this reason the next period in the story of Zion is best described as that of the Talmudists, the former ones being those of the Pharisees and of the Levites.

While the Pharisaic Talmudists, in their new academy at Jamnia, worked on the new Law, the tidings of Jesus' life and lesson spread through the territories of Rome.

A Pharisee greatly helped to spread them; Saul of Tarsus set out from Jerusalem (before its fall) to exterminate heretics in Damascus and before he arrived there became a follower of Christ. He preached to Jew and Gentile alike, until he was prevented, and he told the Jews, "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing that ye put it from you and judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, we turn to the Gentiles".

Dr. Kastein says of Saul, named Paul, that "he made all those whom he persuaded to believe in his prophecy renegades in the widest sense, whether they were Jew or Gentile".

However, what Paul (and others) said was in fact inevitable at that point in time, because men everywhere were groping towards the universal God and turned to the teaching of Jesus as growing things to the light. Possibly this impulse in men was also the reason why Jesus had to appear among the Judeans; the Judaic creed was tribalism in its most fanatical form, even at that time, and, as every action produces its reaction, the counter-idea was bound to appear where the pressure was greatest. {The latest research by New Testament scholar, Burton Mack, suggests that the man around whom the Jesus legend accreted was not even Jewish.}

This was a fateful moment for that great area, then little known or populated, which today is called The West. Had not the disciples turned their faces westward, the term, "the West", and that which it denotes, might never have come about.

What is called "Western civilization" cannot be conceived without Christianity. During the nineteen hundred years which followed the death of Jesus the West improved so greatly that it left the rest of the world behind. In material things its advance was so great that at the time when this book was written it was on the brink of the conquest of space; it was about to open the universe to exploration by man. But that was much the lesser part of its achievement.

Its greatest improvement was in the field of the spirit and of man's behaviour towards man. The West established men's right to public charge and open trial, or release, (a right which was again in jeopardy in the Twentieth Century) and this was the greatest advance in the entire history of man; on the survival or destruction of this achievement depends his future.

The shadow that followed the disciples out of the gates of Jerusalem, before the Romans entered, also followed Christianity into the West and the Talmudic sect dogged it during all those centuries. The West, in the Twentieth Century, became the scene of the struggle between the nations which had risen with Christianity and the sect dedicated to the destructive idea.

Not only the West is involved in its issue. About five hundred years after the life of Jesus the instinctive impulse of men to seek one God produced another challenge to Talmudic racialism, and this time it came from among the Semitic masses. The Arabs, too, attained to the concept of one God of all men.

Muhammad (dismissed by Dr. Kastein as "a half-educated Bedouin"), like Saul on the road to Damascus, had a vision of God. His teaching in many ways resembled that of Jesus. He held Jesus to have been, like Abraham and Moses, a prophet of God (not the Messiah). He regarded himself as the successor of Moses and Jesus and as the prophet of God, whom he called Allah. There was but one God, Allah, the creator of mankind, and Allah was not the tribal god of the Arabs, but the God of all men.

This religion, like Christianity, taught no hatred of other religions. Muhammad showed only reverence for Jesus and his mother (who are both the subjects of profane derision in Talmudic literature).
However, Muhammad held the Jews to be a destructive force, self-dedicated. The Koran says of them,

"Oft as they kindle a beacon fire for war, shall God quench it. And their aim will be to abet disorder on the earth; but God loveth not the abettors of disorder ".

All down the centuries the wisest men spoke thus of the tribal creed and the sect, until the Twentieth Century of our era, when public discussion of this question was virtually suppressed.

Thus was Islam born, and it spread over the meridianal parts of the known world as Christianity spread over the West and Buddhism, earlier, over the East. Great streams began to move, as if towards a confluence at some distant day, for these universal religions are in no major tenet as oil and water, and in the repudiation of master-racehood and the destructive idea they agree.

Christianity and Islam spread out and embraced great masses of mankind; the impulse that moved in men became clear. Far behind these universal religions lay Judaism, in its tribal enclosure, jealously guarded by the inner sect.

In the Twentieth Century this powerful sect was able to bring the masses of Christendom and Islam to the verge of destructive battle with each other. If the present generation sees that clash, the spectacle will be that of one great universal religion contending with another for the purpose of setting up the creed of the "master-race".
And so it is: for this they have called you back to Israel.
 
DonaldJHunt said:
OK ChienFume, let's see if you really came here to discuss or just to flame and run...
I think we most likely will find he came to 'flame and run', but if he didn't I would still put forth a shift in the discussion to:

How can both sides coexist peacefully in Palestine /Israel from his point of view?

As much as we can, possibly, expect a certain line of propaganda from him I would proffer that this is the line of questioning to keep hitting on.

After all isn't that the point?

HOW CAN BOTH SIDES CO-EXIST PEACEFULLY?
 
Joshua said:
HOW CAN BOTH SIDES CO-EXIST PEACEFULLY?
I don't believe they can for the simple reason that the land belongs to the Palestinians. Period.

From Norman Finkelstein's book "Beyond Chutzpah":

"In the course of preparing the chapters of this book devoted to Israel's human rights record in the Occupied Territories, I went through literally thousands of pages of human rights reports, published by multiple, fiercely independent, and highly professional organizations - Amnesty International, Human Rights Watchs, B'Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights - Israel - each fielding its own autonomous staff of monitors and investigators.

Except on one minor matter, I didn't come across a single point of law or fact on which these human rights organizations differed.

In the case of Israel's human rights record, one can speak today not just of a broad consensus - as on historical questions - but of an UNQUALIFIED consensus.

All these organizations agreed, for example, that Palestinian detainees have been sytematically ill treated and tortured, the total number now probably reaching the tens of thousands.

Yet if, as I've suggested, broad agreement has been reached on the FACTUAL record, an obvious anomaly arises: what accounts for the impassioned controversy that still swirls around the Israel-Palestine conflict?

To my mind, explaining this apparent paradox requires, first of all, that a fundamental distinction be made between those controversies that are real and those that are contrived.

To illustrate real differences of opinion, let us consider again the Palestinian refugee question.

It is possible for interested parties to agree on the facts yet come to diametrically opposed moral, legal, and political conclusions.

Thus, as already mentioned, the scholarly consensus is that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948.

Israel's leading historian on the topic, Benny Morris, although having done more than anyone else to clarify exactly what happened, nonetheless concludes that, morally, it was a good thing - just as, in his view, the "annihilation" of Native Americans was a good thing - that, legally, Palesitnians have no right to return to their homes, and that, politically, Israel's big error in 1948 was that it hadn't "carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan" of Palestinians.

However repellant morally, these clearly can't be called FALSE conclusions.

Returning to the universe inhabited by normal human beings, it's possible for people to concur on the facts as well as on their moral and legal implications, yet still reach divergent POLITICAL conclusions.

Noam Chomsky agrees that, factually, Palestinians were expelled; that, morally, this was a major crime; and that, legally, Palestinians have a right of return. Yet, politically, he concludes that implementation of this right is infeasible and pressing it inexpedient, indeed, that dangling this (in his view) illusory hope before Palestianian refugees is deeply immoral.

There are those, contrariwise, who maintain that a moral and legal right is meaningless unless it can be exercised and that implementing the right of return is a practical possibility.

For our purposes, the point is not who's right and who's wrong but that, even among honest and decent people, there can be a real and legitimate differences of political judgment.

This having been said, however, it bears emphasis that - at any rate, among those sharing ordinary moral values - the range of political disagreement is quite narrow, while the range of agreement quite broad."
It is quite clear that those individuals running Israel - not to mention the Neocon Administration - are psychological deviants without consciences. Reading Douglas Reed's history, Controversy of Zion, reveals the means by which Palestine was stolen from its inhabitants. Knowing the true history would make any Jew of conscience realize instantly that the land they are living on was stolen by way of deception and terror and that the intentions of the Zionist State are malevolent not only toward the Palestinians, but toward the Jews themselves. Any Jew of conscience would make immediate arrangement to find out who the land they are living on previously belonged to and, if possible, return it to them (family or descendants) and return to where they came from, or where their parents or even grandparents came from.

The stealing of the land from the Palestinians by deception and terror is an atrocious injustice that it is not too late to correct, though as long as Psychopathic Talmudists are in charge, it's not likely to happen.

And as long as those same psychopaths are in charge, there is no possibility of Peaceful Co-existence because they don't want it. Like the alien in "Independence Day," their intentions for the Palestinians are DEATH.
 
That's easy, or would be if powerful forces didn't want to prevent people from living together peacefully. The same way they do in any healthy, multi-ethnic state: no established religion, no privileged groups, healthy wealth distribution, one person, one vote with human rights guaranteed for all. And, above all, respect, or as Ali G. would say, Respec' ;)

But for that to happen some HUGE sacred cows would have to be slaughtered!


Joshua said:
DonaldJHunt said:
OK ChienFume, let's see if you really came here to discuss or just to flame and run...
I think we most likely will find he came to 'flame and run', but if he didn't I would still put forth a shift in the discussion to:

How can both sides coexist peacefully in Palestine /Israel from his point of view?

As much as we can, possibly, expect a certain line of propaganda from him I would proffer that this is the line of questioning to keep hitting on.

After all isn't that the point?

HOW CAN BOTH SIDES CO-EXIST PEACEFULLY?
 
Laura said:
Joshua said:
HOW CAN BOTH SIDES CO-EXIST PEACEFULLY?
I don't believe they can for the simple reason that the land belongs to the Palestinians. Period.
It is quite clear that those individuals running Israel - not to mention the Neocon Administration - are psychological deviants without consciences. Reading Douglas Reed's history, Controversy of Zion, reveals the means by which Palestine was stolen from its inhabitants. Knowing the true history would make any Jew of conscience realize instantly that the land they are living on was stolen by way of deception and terror and that the intentions of the Zionist State are malevolent not only toward the Palestinians, but toward the Jews themselves. Any Jew of conscience would make immediate arrangement to find out who the land they are living on previously belonged to and, if possible, return it to them (family or descendants) and return to where they came from, or where their parents or even grandparents came from.

The stealing of the land from the Palestinians by deception and terror is an atrocious injustice that it is not too late to correct, though as long as Psychopathic Talmudists are in charge, it's not likely to happen.

And as long as those same psychopaths are in charge, there is no possibility of Peaceful Co-existence because they don't want it. Like the alien in "Independence Day," their intentions for the Palestinians are DEATH.
Bravo. Now here is an opinion, explained with logic. For me this is a starting point for a discussion that goes beyond 'just' analyzing the 'GeoFarcitical' history.

Laura has stated a strong opinion, backup with reason.

I think this is a great starting point for:

HOW CAN BOTH SIDES PEACFULLY COEXIST.

Totally off topic. I posted this video of Keith Olberman absolutely ripping Bush. It's not on the front page of SOTT forum section not sure why-usually new topics show up right away?

But, you've got to see this. I've never seen anything like it in the Big Ring. Please excuse my
shifting of topic subject matter, the video is that good.

PONEROLOGY: Olberman Rips Bush

http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=63f6e02a-0aca-4276-80cc-581bd06b4c1c&p=news_comment%20-%20analysis&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/&fg=
 
Joshua said:
I think this is a great starting point for:

HOW CAN BOTH SIDES PEACFULLY COEXIST.
Actually, it's the ending point. The rest is just historical detail. It's all been written and the only thing that matters is what maps to reality.
 
Laura said:
Joshua said:
I think this is a great starting point for:

HOW CAN BOTH SIDES PEACFULLY COEXIST.
Actually, it's the ending point. The rest is just historical detail. It's all been written and the only thing that matters is what maps to reality.
For you perhaps it is and I respect that. For me your opinion could perhaps stimulate some interesting ideas and dialogue.

Both sides are going to have to give. You've stated an opinion about what Isareli citizens would have to give up. It would be interesting to hear reacton from rational Israelis to your point.
 
Joshua said:
I'm Jewish and a stauch Anti-Zionist. The bottom line is that both sides of this issue-Palastinian and Israeli/Zionist are going to have to give, and give in a big way.
The facts show that Palestinians have always been the ones that were forced to give, at gun point, while the Zionists simply took.

Joshua said:
The time is past for debating who is right and wrong and who did what when, this is has been the MO for 50 years and it's only made the situation worse for all conerned save for the political leaders on both sides.
The time is not "past" for highlighting who is right and who is wrong. The problem is that the clear wrongs of the occupation of Palestine have NEVER been published clearly by the mainstream press. We are still waiting for that time.

Joshua said:
Both sides have to give up their polemics. This is so obvious to me yet it is not discussed and most likely will never happen. I use the above thread as an example.
This strategy plays directly into the hands of the agressors. The victim, as long as he continues to be victimised, cannot give up his position as the victim. This is exactly what the aggressor tries to force the victim to do. It is a recipe for injustice.

Joshua said:
I hear you jOda, the guys a propagandist. The point is-he doesn't think he is. That is the foundation we must approach him from. It's a larger POV than engaging in low level ideological back and forth, which is obviously not getting anyone anywhere.
Ideology is what it is all about. The clash of the ideology of the psychopath against the ideology of justice and freedom from oppression.

Joshua said:
Again, it's easy to be right. It's a more difficult task to engage the opponent in an intelligent way, regardless of how un-intelligent he/she might be behaving.
Indeed, it is often an impossible task, especially when the person has made a conscious decision to adhere to inhuman ideologies.

Joshua said:
One of the most successful political/social changes ever made was with Ghandi's tactics in India. I only site Ghandi as he played the game differently. I'm not saying his tactics exactly would work in this Is/Pal. situation. Only that some different thinking and tactics are required.

Anyone have any ideas??????
I don't have any ideas other than exposing the VERY CLEAR rights and wrongs of the Israel/Palestine question.

Joe
 
Joe said:
Joshua said:
I'm Jewish and a stauch Anti-Zionist. The bottom line is that both sides of this issue-Palastinian and Israeli/Zionist are going to have to give, and give in a big way.
The facts show that Palestinians have always been the ones that were forced to give, at gun point, while the Zionists simply took.

Joshua said:
The time is past for debating who is right and wrong and who did what when, this is has been the MO for 50 years and it's only made the situation worse for all conerned save for the political leaders on both sides.
The time is not "past" for highlighting who is right and who is wrong. The problem is that the clear wrongs of the occupation of Palestine have NEVER been published clearly by the mainstream press. We are still waiting for that time.

Joshua said:
Both sides have to give up their polemics. This is so obvious to me yet it is not discussed and most likely will never happen. I use the above thread as an example.
This strategy plays directly into the hands of the agressors. The victim, as long as he continues to be victimised, cannot give up his position as the victim. This is exactly what the aggressor tries to force the victim to do. It is a recipe for injustice.

Joshua said:
I hear you jOda, the guys a propagandist. The point is-he doesn't think he is. That is the foundation we must approach him from. It's a larger POV than engaging in low level ideological back and forth, which is obviously not getting anyone anywhere.
Ideology is what it is all about. The clash of the ideology of the psychopath against the ideology of justice and freedom from oppression.

Joshua said:
Again, it's easy to be right. It's a more difficult task to engage the opponent in an intelligent way, regardless of how un-intelligent he/she might be behaving.
Indeed, it is often an impossible task, especially when the person has made a conscious decision to adhere to inhuman ideologies.

Joshua said:
One of the most successful political/social changes ever made was with Ghandi's tactics in India. I only site Ghandi as he played the game differently. I'm not saying his tactics exactly would work in this Is/Pal. situation. Only that some different thinking and tactics are required.

Anyone have any ideas??????
I don't have any ideas other than exposing the VERY CLEAR rights and wrongs of the Israel/Palestine question.

Joe
All excellent points Joe. The last one is especially hard, in the sense that you're probably right. Thanks for taking the time to address my questions/points. It's making me think about this in a differing manner than I was before this thread.

Warmly,
Joshua
 
Back
Top Bottom