- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
By the way, you guys must've known Alex Jones. Well it's not hard to find some antisemites in the youtube comment section in his videos. Maybe some cow golds lurk there.
OY VEY!!! Antisemitism!
- Thread starter The Great Chandler
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
Well you haven't heard about it, or almost all other occupations, because people don't care about them. The only conflict that people seem to care about is Israel. Which is why, while its true Israel obviously messes up like every country does, the absolute disproportionate amount of attention when its by the most humane occupation in similar circumstances. And yes, a humane occupation. To wit, an excerpt of 'What Occupation?' by Efraim Karsh, founding director of MENA studies and professor emeritus at King's College, London for context (pretty long), and right after statistics to that context
In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area's inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect-and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan-caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.
Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League's successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab.
The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination -- an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state's midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today -- namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).
None of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation.
As is well known, the implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not."
This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, "it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan's] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed." A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that "the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt."
The British proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank -- which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of "land for peace" as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state. To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers -- Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem" -- a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war.
At this time -- we are speaking of the late 1960's -- Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. "Moderate" Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed, having their own purposes in mind for the region. As late as 1974, Syrian President Hafez alAssad openly referred to Palestine as "not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria"; there is no reason to think he had changed his mind by the time of his death in 2000.
Nor, for that matter, did the populace of the West Bank and Gaza regard itself as a distinct nation. The collapse and dispersion of Palestinian society following the 1948 defeat had shattered an always fragile communal fabric, and the subsequent physical separation of the various parts of the Palestinian diaspora prevented the crystallization of a national identity. Host Arab regimes actively colluded in discouraging any such sense from arising. Upon occupying the West Bank during the 1948 war, King Abdallah had moved quickly to erase all traces of corporate Palestinian identity. On April 4, 1950, the territory was formally annexed to Jordan, its residents became Jordanian citizens, and they were increasingly integrated into the kingdom's economic, political, and social structures.
For its part, the Egyptian government showed no desire to annex the Gaza Strip but had instead ruled the newly acquired area as an occupied military zone. This did not imply support of Palestinian nationalism, however, or of any sort of collective political awareness among the Palestinians. The local population was kept under tight control, was denied Egyptian citizenship, and was subjected to severe restrictions on travel.
What, then, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most "varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution" ever devised by the human mind?
At the very least, such a characterization would require a rather drastic downgrading of certain other well-documented 20th-century phenomena, from the slaughter of Armenians during World War I and onward through a grisly chronicle of tens upon tens of millions murdered, driven out, crushed under the heels of despots. By stark contrast, during the three decades of Israel's control, far fewer Palestinians were killed at Jewish hands than by King Hussein of Jordan in the single month of September 1970 when, fighting off an attempt by Yasir Arafat's PLO to destroy his monarchy, he dispatched (according to the Palestinian scholar Yezid Sayigh) between 3,000 and 5,000 Palestinians, among them anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 civilians. Similarly, the number of innocent Palestinians killed by their Kuwaiti hosts in the winter of 1991, in revenge for the PLO's support for Saddam Hussein's brutal occupation of Kuwait, far exceeds the number of Palestinian rioters and terrorists who lost their lives in the first intifada against Israel during the late 1980's.
This "occupation" did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel's success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it.
Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as "systematic oppression" is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this "occupation" did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel's success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of Israeli-Egyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs' "final round" with Israel.
Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration. In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention. The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda.
Israel's restraint in this sphere -- which turned out to be desperately misguided -- is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "oppression." At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors.
Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League's successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab.
The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination -- an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state's midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today -- namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).
None of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation.
As is well known, the implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not."
This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, "it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan's] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed." A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that "the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt."
The British proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank -- which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of "land for peace" as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state. To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers -- Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem" -- a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war.
At this time -- we are speaking of the late 1960's -- Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. "Moderate" Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed, having their own purposes in mind for the region. As late as 1974, Syrian President Hafez alAssad openly referred to Palestine as "not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria"; there is no reason to think he had changed his mind by the time of his death in 2000.
Nor, for that matter, did the populace of the West Bank and Gaza regard itself as a distinct nation. The collapse and dispersion of Palestinian society following the 1948 defeat had shattered an always fragile communal fabric, and the subsequent physical separation of the various parts of the Palestinian diaspora prevented the crystallization of a national identity. Host Arab regimes actively colluded in discouraging any such sense from arising. Upon occupying the West Bank during the 1948 war, King Abdallah had moved quickly to erase all traces of corporate Palestinian identity. On April 4, 1950, the territory was formally annexed to Jordan, its residents became Jordanian citizens, and they were increasingly integrated into the kingdom's economic, political, and social structures.
For its part, the Egyptian government showed no desire to annex the Gaza Strip but had instead ruled the newly acquired area as an occupied military zone. This did not imply support of Palestinian nationalism, however, or of any sort of collective political awareness among the Palestinians. The local population was kept under tight control, was denied Egyptian citizenship, and was subjected to severe restrictions on travel.
What, then, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most "varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution" ever devised by the human mind?
At the very least, such a characterization would require a rather drastic downgrading of certain other well-documented 20th-century phenomena, from the slaughter of Armenians during World War I and onward through a grisly chronicle of tens upon tens of millions murdered, driven out, crushed under the heels of despots. By stark contrast, during the three decades of Israel's control, far fewer Palestinians were killed at Jewish hands than by King Hussein of Jordan in the single month of September 1970 when, fighting off an attempt by Yasir Arafat's PLO to destroy his monarchy, he dispatched (according to the Palestinian scholar Yezid Sayigh) between 3,000 and 5,000 Palestinians, among them anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 civilians. Similarly, the number of innocent Palestinians killed by their Kuwaiti hosts in the winter of 1991, in revenge for the PLO's support for Saddam Hussein's brutal occupation of Kuwait, far exceeds the number of Palestinian rioters and terrorists who lost their lives in the first intifada against Israel during the late 1980's.
This "occupation" did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel's success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it.
Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as "systematic oppression" is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this "occupation" did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel's success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of Israeli-Egyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs' "final round" with Israel.
Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration. In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention. The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda.
Israel's restraint in this sphere -- which turned out to be desperately misguided -- is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "oppression." At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors.
In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule.
During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world -- ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew somewhat more slowly, the rate was still high by international standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the better off Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent.
Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.
No less remarkable were advances in the Palestinians' standard of living. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars.
Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, during the two decades preceding the intifada of the late 1980's, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102 percent, and the number of classes by 99 percent, though the population itself had grown by only 28 percent. Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990's, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 percent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria.
You should read the whole article. But you have to realize that, as someone born in the 90s, your view of the conflict is only of the recent years when terrorists decided to screw everything up for their population when their lives were so much better. It used to be in 2000 that Israelis would go shopping in Gaza, while Gazans worked in Israel, they would go to each other's weddings etc.. The two societies were much closer. The current situation is due to extremists like Arafat, Abbas, and terrorist groups like Fatah and Hamas deciding to kill civilians while using their own as shields.
Gibraltar then. Or Cyprus. Or whatever land that is being occupied. Occupation is occupation is occupation, no?
I would highly suggest the following:
Palestine Betrayed, followed by The Palestine War 1948 by Efraim Karsh. The first one is in-depth from both the Arab and Jewish perspective about what happened between 1920 until the 1948 war and, well I'll let you guess what the second one is about.
Israel: A History by Martin Gilbert. Starts at the birth of the Zionist movement until recent days
The Revolt by Menachem Begin. It will give you a first-person perspective from one of Israel's Prime Minister when he fought against both Arab and British forces as the leader of the Irgun.
And as far as documentaries, start with Israel: Birth of a Nation (from the History Channel, 1996)
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
Gibraltar was annexed almost 300 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. Modern Gibraltar wants to be, or at least are perfectly fine with being British. They had a referendum in 2002, with an overwhelming percentage wanting to stay in. Same goes with the Falklands in 2013, before anyone brings that up.
Can't say much about Cyprus, the situation there seems pretty complex, but that's another thing I'll have to do some research on.
It's only a problem for me if it's being persistantly forced.
Thanks for the sources, by the way.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
I used to be anti Israel until I realized how much better they are than Palestine and that a superior culture coming in and civilizing an inferior culture happens all the time throughout history and that's how 'Murrica came to be.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
I really wish I could rate this :semper fidelis:
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2014
Since we're apparently discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict now, I'll throw in my two cents.
What really annoys me about virulent Israel haters (not talking about anyone in this thread btw, but there are a lot of them on the interwebz) is that they literally never blame Palestine or hold it accountable for anything. Let's be honest, Palestine has done some really shitty things. But if those things are ever acknowledged, people are quick to blame Israel for instigating it.
If you truly care about the Israel-Palestine conflict, you should probably acknowledge that Palestine isn't helping itself all that much. For example...
What really annoys me about virulent Israel haters (not talking about anyone in this thread btw, but there are a lot of them on the interwebz) is that they literally never blame Palestine or hold it accountable for anything. Let's be honest, Palestine has done some really shitty things. But if those things are ever acknowledged, people are quick to blame Israel for instigating it.
If you truly care about the Israel-Palestine conflict, you should probably acknowledge that Palestine isn't helping itself all that much. For example...
- Palestine in general glorifies terrorists and suicide bombers as "martyrs" and refuses to truly condemn their actions. They literally name schools, streets, and other locations after terrorists. They also publish gushing eulogies about and shower posthumous awards on their "martyrs." It doesn't take a sociologist to tell how harmful this culture of glorifying death, violence, and terrorism is. What's really toxic is the Palestinian idea of "martyrdom;" many parents openly admit that they would love and be honored to see their children become "martyrs." Golda Meir, an Israeli politician, said it best: "Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us."
- Why the fuck don't people call out the Palestinian Authority on how blatantly corrupt and horrible it is? Honestly, the Palestinian people are fucked because the PA doesn't give a shit about them. Other countries send billions in aid to Palestine and the majority of it gets embezzled by Palestinian politicians. Not only that, the PA is actively involved in the radicalization of children.
- Palestine needs to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. It's here. It's been here for decades. It's kind of too late to hit the rewind button. And yet Palestinian Authority has no intention of recognizing Israel's right to exist. Hamas and the PA are extremely transparent when it comes to their ultimate goal: wiping Israel off the map and establishing an Islamic state in its place. Palestine needs leaders who are truly committed to working with Israel instead of against it. By this point, I get the feeling that most Palestinian civilians just want this entire mess to be over and truly want to coexist with Israel, but unfortunately they're ruled over by Islamists and terrorists who are determined to keep the fighting going.
- President Abbas and other Palestinian leaders continue to incite hatred by insisting that Jews are "desecrating" Islamic holy sites and plotting to destroy them. Oh, and by the way, all a Jew has to do to "desecrate" an Islamic holy site is simply walk on it. Ironically, the site that incites the most frenzy with rumors of its desecration is the Temple Mount... which originally belonged to the Jews and is the holiest site in Judaism. Islamists (like, you know, the people running Palestine) have complete contempt for non-Muslims; to them, we're intrinsically filthy and unclean and must never be allowed to defile Islamic sites with our presence.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
I thought we already have a Is Real vs Pal of Stein thread?
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/israel-palestine.18226/
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/israel-palestine.18226/
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2014
Oy vey.
I'm Jewish and somewhat interested in Judaism. However I like listening to black metal, some of which could be considered anti-semetic. For example, ol' uncle Varg sent a bomb to an Israeli black metal band. I feel like you can enjoy things without endorsing them, it's human nature.
I'm Jewish and somewhat interested in Judaism. However I like listening to black metal, some of which could be considered anti-semetic. For example, ol' uncle Varg sent a bomb to an Israeli black metal band. I feel like you can enjoy things without endorsing them, it's human nature.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
I don't see how that would be a problem. I've met Orthodox Jews who are into metal, for some reason.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
From what I've seen around the net, if you start by acknowledging that Palestine has done some pretty terrible things you're branded a racist, because you know, brown people and all. If you say that Israel has done some pretty terrible things then you're obviously a Nazi.
So that kind of makes it difficult to have a conversation when stating a simple fact gets you branded a racist.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
IRL? I don't think I have. I'm kind of insulated from them where I'm from.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
When I was a teenager I knew a couple kids who went through a skinhead (of the outright neo-Nazi sort) phase.
They got better.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2015
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2016
Well, most Antisemitism stems from European problems with European Jews. Too be fair, Jews happened to be much richer than most ethic Europeans at the time for various reasons, which is what started most Antisemitism. Ethic majorities in Europe thought it was unfair that they had to be poor when Jewish people, who were merely permitted to stay and had no cultural or ethnic ties to the land that they lived on, had plenty of money to spare.
Although, I don't know where all of this "da j00s r tryin ta kill whyte people!!1!" talk started. The only conclusion I can fathom is that Karl Marx, a Jewish person, started Communism, and of course Zionism. Although in my opinion, Marx didn't create Communism to divide and conquer teh whytes for some grand Zionist conspiracy, he created Communism because his family was so rich that he never had to work a day in his life and felt bad for people that didn't have any money, so he made up some utopian government where nobody was poor or suffering and everybody worked not for material payment but for the good of society. But, because communism = bad and a Jew happened to create it, this somehow makes Jews a global conspiracy to some people.
Although, I don't know where all of this "da j00s r tryin ta kill whyte people!!1!" talk started. The only conclusion I can fathom is that Karl Marx, a Jewish person, started Communism, and of course Zionism. Although in my opinion, Marx didn't create Communism to divide and conquer teh whytes for some grand Zionist conspiracy, he created Communism because his family was so rich that he never had to work a day in his life and felt bad for people that didn't have any money, so he made up some utopian government where nobody was poor or suffering and everybody worked not for material payment but for the good of society. But, because communism = bad and a Jew happened to create it, this somehow makes Jews a global conspiracy to some people.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
I wish I could find the quote I'm thinking about, I heard it years ago. It was about anti-semitism and went along the lines of 'The Jew is a communist. The Jew is a capitalist. The Jew is a parasite living off of his host nation, the Jew is the all-powerful entity behind the curtain controlling everything. The Jew is a dumb little creature, the Jew has been manipulating and orchestrating Human history on all continents for thousands of years' and so on and so forth going through all of the anti-semitic tropes, pointing out that ultimately 'The Jew' is a blank state for whatever you want to hate at the moment.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2016
Exactly. There are SJW communist types who hate Jews because they think they spread capitalism, there are Antisemite types that think they spread communism to kill the whites or whatever, they're just a excuse to justify their shitty life.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
I was explaining to someone* how the Jews building the pyramids was a myth and that the pyramids were built from paid labor**. His response was "Wow, that just proves the Jews are greedy and only care about money." He's not very bright.
* I think this guy is anti-semite the same way OPL is racist. Only on the dumb side and watches way too much TV.
**Apparently there are no mentions of pyramids in the Bible
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
Exodus 1:11 "So they appointed over them tax collectors to afflict them with their burdens, and they built store cities for Pharaoh, namely Pithom and Raamses."
So clearly not pyramids. No mention of apples anywhere in the story of Adam & Eve either. That's what happens when people think they know the Bible from pop culture and not, you know, reading it.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
Haha that's where you're wrong. Ben Carson already laid the smackdown on pyramids.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ore-grain-and-it-just-may-get-him-some-votes/