Arafat and Jesus
- Thread starter Skeptic
- Start date
geni said:
So am I: I heard a Ku Klux Klan leader demand his followers lynch blacks the other day. Clearly, this is equally the fault of his and his followers' racist agenda, on the one hand, and of the awful surge in rapes the criminal black animals had unleashed on America, on the other.
See? I'm EVEN-HANDED! It's EVERYBODY'S fault!
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Gem said:
I know, I know, Pick Me!!!
Arafat is Sharon's Monica.
Still, I think he should seriously consider limited carpet bombing. The limit is two weeks.
The real anti-Semites here are the Zionists.
Shame they have f**ked it up for the Jews, because initially (most of my life in fact) the PLO was a secular resistance movement, which did not rely on such an escalation or expansion of the anti-Israel argument as that put by Jibril Rajoub.
Every US military action benefitting the existance and expansion of a racist Zionist state -such as the recent subjugation of the neighbouring Arab nation Iraq will now be chalked up against, not only Israeli-Jews, but also against Jews who have been financial supporters, or simply bystanders who enabled and allowed Zionist to achieve their aims by such passivity.
Shame, since many Jews used to be actively anti-Zionist, but in a weird kind of epiphany were persuaded by the radical racist actions perpetrated against them by the nazis, to support and embrace their very own supremacist racism as perpetrated against the Palestinians.
Shame, because the whole world was repentant about the racism inflicted against Jews and ready to allow them and welcome them to live, well, anywhere they chose, - shame so many Jewish people chose to forcibly take away the land and livelihoods of their brethren Semites and in the process make themselves hated throughout the Middle East.
Only last summer I talked with a Christian Palestinian peace activist who had come to Germany to gather support against the building of the wall, and she still saw then -not 10 months ago- still saw the possibility of a rational solution, a reasonable deal to be done between non-fundamentalist/non-fanatical/non-fatalistic Palestinians and non-fundamentalist/non-fanatical Jews in Israel. A two-nation solution with the "right of return" restricted to returning to post-1967 borders with surrounding Arab states involved in accepting old refugees permanently and with European & US finance helping to pay for creating decent living and working conditions for displaced Palestinians. Maybe, even including Israel and Palestine into the European Union in some "favoured states" kind of arrangement.
Promises of massive UN backing for an intervening, stabilizing and protective shield have been offered for a long time.
Let there be no doubt about this, the radical and racist Zionists are screwing this up for Israel and for Jews generally. If you want to see one of the major causes for anti-Semitism then look no further. It is they and their warmongering Likudnik backers in the USA who are in the driving seat and could promote positive change and attitudes if they wanted to but they won`t. The Palestinians on the other hand are not in a position of power, but only in a position to react and unsurprisingly they are reacting angrily.
Germans standing by, watching, tolerating or denying what the nazis were doing to German Jews stand accused of the same kind of blood libel for which Jews will be be blamed by the occupied and opressed Palestinians. It would make some sense for Palestinians to call Israeli Zionist-Jews anti-Semitic.
Shame they have f**ked it up for the Jews, because initially (most of my life in fact) the PLO was a secular resistance movement, which did not rely on such an escalation or expansion of the anti-Israel argument as that put by Jibril Rajoub.
Every US military action benefitting the existance and expansion of a racist Zionist state -such as the recent subjugation of the neighbouring Arab nation Iraq will now be chalked up against, not only Israeli-Jews, but also against Jews who have been financial supporters, or simply bystanders who enabled and allowed Zionist to achieve their aims by such passivity.
Shame, since many Jews used to be actively anti-Zionist, but in a weird kind of epiphany were persuaded by the radical racist actions perpetrated against them by the nazis, to support and embrace their very own supremacist racism as perpetrated against the Palestinians.
Shame, because the whole world was repentant about the racism inflicted against Jews and ready to allow them and welcome them to live, well, anywhere they chose, - shame so many Jewish people chose to forcibly take away the land and livelihoods of their brethren Semites and in the process make themselves hated throughout the Middle East.
Only last summer I talked with a Christian Palestinian peace activist who had come to Germany to gather support against the building of the wall, and she still saw then -not 10 months ago- still saw the possibility of a rational solution, a reasonable deal to be done between non-fundamentalist/non-fanatical/non-fatalistic Palestinians and non-fundamentalist/non-fanatical Jews in Israel. A two-nation solution with the "right of return" restricted to returning to post-1967 borders with surrounding Arab states involved in accepting old refugees permanently and with European & US finance helping to pay for creating decent living and working conditions for displaced Palestinians. Maybe, even including Israel and Palestine into the European Union in some "favoured states" kind of arrangement.
Promises of massive UN backing for an intervening, stabilizing and protective shield have been offered for a long time.
Let there be no doubt about this, the radical and racist Zionists are screwing this up for Israel and for Jews generally. If you want to see one of the major causes for anti-Semitism then look no further. It is they and their warmongering Likudnik backers in the USA who are in the driving seat and could promote positive change and attitudes if they wanted to but they won`t. The Palestinians on the other hand are not in a position of power, but only in a position to react and unsurprisingly they are reacting angrily.
Germans standing by, watching, tolerating or denying what the nazis were doing to German Jews stand accused of the same kind of blood libel for which Jews will be be blamed by the occupied and opressed Palestinians. It would make some sense for Palestinians to call Israeli Zionist-Jews anti-Semitic.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
demon said:
You can of course provide evidence to back up your second claim. I can provide evidence to support both of mine.
Of course you can--from Arab propaganda web sites and other places "exposing" the "awful truth" about the "evils of zionism" that the mass media is "hiding" from you. I, too, can provide a whole bunch of KKK-inspired links "exposing" the "awful truth" about the "evils of blacks" that the mass media is "hiding" from you. There's plenty of "evidence" for both claims, if you just look at things "objectively" and are not "brainwahsed"...
In reality, your "explanation" is merely excusing the belief in one anttisemitic libel--the jews killed Jesus--by claiming it is a "justified reaction" to another antisemitic libel--the jews "occupying Palestine". This isn't new. In the 19th century, the story was "of course it's wrong to blame the jews for killing Jesus--but that's a justified reaction of unsophisticated people to the fact that the jews have all the money and exploit the workers", or "of course it's wrong to blame the jews for killing Jesus--but that's a justified reaction of unsophisticated people to the fact that the jews are parasites who don't even have their own country".
So now it's "justified reaction" to the jews having their own country, which of course is "racist". But if israel is destroyed tomorrow, abtisemites will still spread the same Christ-killing libel, and the likes of you will still justify them (do you really think Rajoub or the crowd will STOP believing the jews killed Jesus if israel is destroyed?). You'll just change the excuse yet again, and find some OTHER nefarious, evil jewish action that Christ-killing accusations are a "justified reaction" to. If nothing else, "the jews having all the money" is an old favorite.
In any rate, again, you are missing the point. Suppose that blacks DO commit rapes of white women a lot (they don't). Will that really make it the black's fault that the KKK leader is calling for lynching? No! All it would mean is that blacks are responsible morally for what they do wrong (the rapes) and the KKK leader is responsible for what he does wrong (the call for lynching). Even if one considers the awful thing the Nazis did, those in the US who claimed all German-Americans should be killed were morally wrong. Moral responsibility lies with the person who performs the actions.
It is ONLY when jews are accused, and ONLY when antisemites spread libels about them, that all of a sudden the ANTISEMITES' actions are the moral responsibility, not of themselves, but of the jews (or, as you so "even-handedly" and "moderately" put it, they and their intended victims "share" the moral responsibility.) The jews are blamed automatically for everything they do wrong (whether they actually did it or not), and ALSO bear the blame for their opponent's antisemitism.
It is ONLY when jews are libeled and threathened that anybody even considers it reasonable to even LOOK for the "real reasons" for the antisemitism in the jews' actions, while nobody would for a moment consider even looking--let alone finding--the "real reasons" for the racist's evil doing in black's behavior, or for the rapist's evil actions in his victim's behavior.
The underlying assumption is clear: if you hate blacks, or rape women, or otherwise have prejudices against any other group, it is entirely your fault, and it is morally insulting to even suggest that your targets are in any way responsible for your hate; even if they wronged you, this doesn't justify prejudice. But if you hate jews--and ONLY when it's jews--well, that's another story! In that case, it just HAS to be due to something awful the jews did to you, and to "really understand" why you hate jews one needs to examine the jews' nefarious behavior and how they drove you to this extreme. Of course, the more you hate the jews, the more awful they are--after all, if you hate them SO MUCH, they must have done something REALLY awful to you, right?
Of course you can--from Arab propaganda web sites and other places "exposing" the "awful truth" about the "evils of zionism" that the mass media is "hiding" from you. I, too, can provide a whole bunch of KKK-inspired links "exposing" the "awful truth" about the "evils of blacks" that the mass media is "hiding" from you. There's plenty of "evidence" for both claims, if you just look at things "objectively" and are not "brainwahsed"...
In reality, your "explanation" is merely excusing the belief in one anttisemitic libel--the jews killed Jesus--by claiming it is a "justified reaction" to another antisemitic libel--the jews "occupying Palestine". This isn't new. In the 19th century, the story was "of course it's wrong to blame the jews for killing Jesus--but that's a justified reaction of unsophisticated people to the fact that the jews have all the money and exploit the workers", or "of course it's wrong to blame the jews for killing Jesus--but that's a justified reaction of unsophisticated people to the fact that the jews are parasites who don't even have their own country".
So now it's "justified reaction" to the jews having their own country, which of course is "racist". But if israel is destroyed tomorrow, abtisemites will still spread the same Christ-killing libel, and the likes of you will still justify them (do you really think Rajoub or the crowd will STOP believing the jews killed Jesus if israel is destroyed?). You'll just change the excuse yet again, and find some OTHER nefarious, evil jewish action that Christ-killing accusations are a "justified reaction" to. If nothing else, "the jews having all the money" is an old favorite.
In any rate, again, you are missing the point. Suppose that blacks DO commit rapes of white women a lot (they don't). Will that really make it the black's fault that the KKK leader is calling for lynching? No! All it would mean is that blacks are responsible morally for what they do wrong (the rapes) and the KKK leader is responsible for what he does wrong (the call for lynching). Even if one considers the awful thing the Nazis did, those in the US who claimed all German-Americans should be killed were morally wrong. Moral responsibility lies with the person who performs the actions.
It is ONLY when jews are accused, and ONLY when antisemites spread libels about them, that all of a sudden the ANTISEMITES' actions are the moral responsibility, not of themselves, but of the jews (or, as you so "even-handedly" and "moderately" put it, they and their intended victims "share" the moral responsibility.) The jews are blamed automatically for everything they do wrong (whether they actually did it or not), and ALSO bear the blame for their opponent's antisemitism.
It is ONLY when jews are libeled and threathened that anybody even considers it reasonable to even LOOK for the "real reasons" for the antisemitism in the jews' actions, while nobody would for a moment consider even looking--let alone finding--the "real reasons" for the racist's evil doing in black's behavior, or for the rapist's evil actions in his victim's behavior.
The underlying assumption is clear: if you hate blacks, or rape women, or otherwise have prejudices against any other group, it is entirely your fault, and it is morally insulting to even suggest that your targets are in any way responsible for your hate; even if they wronged you, this doesn't justify prejudice. But if you hate jews--and ONLY when it's jews--well, that's another story! In that case, it just HAS to be due to something awful the jews did to you, and to "really understand" why you hate jews one needs to examine the jews' nefarious behavior and how they drove you to this extreme. Of course, the more you hate the jews, the more awful they are--after all, if you hate them SO MUCH, they must have done something REALLY awful to you, right?
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
My claims:
Palistanians have been blowing themselves up and killing poeple including children while rejecting peace offers. I don't think you have a problem with that but I'm sure ZN will bck it up for you.
Israel drove palistains off their land (about 50 years ago). Israel has been killing them and restricting their movement ever since. We what happen 50 years ago is quite we documented as are the limit Israel has put on palistians.
Now you could argue that palistian are justifed in blowing them selves up kiliing israelies because of what Israel has done. You could also argue that Isreal is justifed in what it has done because that palistians keep blowing up Israelie children. Or you could accept that the blame game lead nowhere. Right now I don't think anyone on either side is really driving the situation (least of all driving it in the direction of peace) so all you are getting is the playing out of the situation. Lets hope someone on one side or the other come along with the strength or the determination to change this.
Palistanians have been blowing themselves up and killing poeple including children while rejecting peace offers. I don't think you have a problem with that but I'm sure ZN will bck it up for you.
Israel drove palistains off their land (about 50 years ago). Israel has been killing them and restricting their movement ever since. We what happen 50 years ago is quite we documented as are the limit Israel has put on palistians.
Now you could argue that palistian are justifed in blowing them selves up kiliing israelies because of what Israel has done. You could also argue that Isreal is justifed in what it has done because that palistians keep blowing up Israelie children. Or you could accept that the blame game lead nowhere. Right now I don't think anyone on either side is really driving the situation (least of all driving it in the direction of peace) so all you are getting is the playing out of the situation. Lets hope someone on one side or the other come along with the strength or the determination to change this.
jesus is another prophet in islam just like the messanger mouhammad, so ofcorse he is important to them.
however in the koran story jesus wasn't crusified but he was
raised to the heaven before they thought they arrested him, but the fact is they crusified another person they thought it was him.
I don't think palestinians wants to hear that its the bad religion of jews who made them kill jesus but rather he wanted to tell them that assasinating leaaders is very common among jews throughout history.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Indeed. I was having a conversation about this with a Muslim a few days ago. He told me that while the Romans thought they were crucifying Jesus, Jesus was there beside the cross laughing. I wasn't clear if he was there in spirit or in physical form, but either way the idea of him laughing while another man in tortured to death in his place is not very flattering to the Christian version of him.
I think that interpretation is hard to reconcile with your previous statement that according to Islam he was not crucified, and it's hard to reconcile with the assertion that the "crime" would follow the Jews forever. But if we accept this interpretation, it's still a vilification of an entire people.
however in the koran story jesus wasn't crusified but he was
raised to the heaven before they thought they arrested him, but the fact is they crusified another person they thought it was him.
I see. So Rajoub, as a Muslim, doesn't even believe that Jesus was crucified or killed, but still blames the jews for crucifying him. Illogical? Of course, but then again, antisemitism never is logical.
raised to the heaven before they thought they arrested him, but the fact is they crusified another person they thought it was him.
I see. So Rajoub, as a Muslim, doesn't even believe that Jesus was crucified or killed, but still blames the jews for crucifying him. Illogical? Of course, but then again, antisemitism never is logical.
Given the expulsion, discrimination and brutality the Palestinians have experienced at the hands of Israel, it is depressing, but not surprising that racist and anti-Semitic ideas can find an audience. The argument advanced by Zionists is that Israel has to oppress, exploit, humiliate and massacre Palestinians because otherwise they would perpetrate a second holocaust. Neville Nagler, head of the board of British jews, wrote a letter to this effect to yesterday's "Guardian".
However, in the case of Rajoub, he is part of the faction close to Arafat which was been willing to compromise with Israel to the point of being a quisling (which was the relationship of the PA to Israel before Oct 2000). He has called for an end to attacks inside Israel and in April 2002 handed a group of captured Hamas fighters over to Israel. Last autumn he met Sharon's son for secret peace talks, and has in the past had close links to both Shin Beth, the CIA and members of the Israeli Labour party. During the discussion over Arafat's successor, he was one of the favoured candidates of the USA. This suggests that far from being committed to the destruction of Israel, he would relinquish most Palestinian rights in exchange for becoming part of the ruling class in a truncated Palestinian state.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=13&id=722392002
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13507&intcategoryid=1
However, in the case of Rajoub, he is part of the faction close to Arafat which was been willing to compromise with Israel to the point of being a quisling (which was the relationship of the PA to Israel before Oct 2000). He has called for an end to attacks inside Israel and in April 2002 handed a group of captured Hamas fighters over to Israel. Last autumn he met Sharon's son for secret peace talks, and has in the past had close links to both Shin Beth, the CIA and members of the Israeli Labour party. During the discussion over Arafat's successor, he was one of the favoured candidates of the USA. This suggests that far from being committed to the destruction of Israel, he would relinquish most Palestinian rights in exchange for becoming part of the ruling class in a truncated Palestinian state.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=13&id=722392002
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13507&intcategoryid=1
Indeed. I was having a conversation about this with a Muslim a few days ago. He told me that while the Romans thought they were crucifying Jesus, Jesus was there beside the cross laughing. I wasn't clear if he was there in spirit or in physical form, but either way the idea of him laughing while another man in tortured to death in his place is not very flattering to the Christian version of him.
in the koran story there is nothing like Jesus beside the cross laughing. the story stops where jesus was raised to stay in heaven untill the time comes when he should return to earth and die normally because its a devine law that all humans die, but nobody comes back to life after death. i think this is a more logical story since the three religions declair that jesus will come back.
think that interpretation is hard to reconcile with your previous statement that according to Islam he was not crucified, and it's hard to reconcile with the assertion that the "crime" would follow the Jews forever. But if we accept this interpretation, it's still a vilification of an entire people.
yes he wasn't crucified but jews at that time believed that they murdered him. however in the koran there are other stories of other prophits who were killed by jews such as (Yahya) and (Zakaria), sorry i can't recall their names in english but one of them was the spause of mary. so they were known as prophits killers at that time.
in the koran story there is nothing like Jesus beside the cross laughing. the story stops where jesus was raised to stay in heaven untill the time comes when he should return to earth and die normally because its a devine law that all humans die, but nobody comes back to life after death. i think this is a more logical story since the three religions declair that jesus will come back.
think that interpretation is hard to reconcile with your previous statement that according to Islam he was not crucified, and it's hard to reconcile with the assertion that the "crime" would follow the Jews forever. But if we accept this interpretation, it's still a vilification of an entire people.
yes he wasn't crucified but jews at that time believed that they murdered him. however in the koran there are other stories of other prophits who were killed by jews such as (Yahya) and (Zakaria), sorry i can't recall their names in english but one of them was the spause of mary. so they were known as prophits killers at that time.