- Status
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
....so now we have some support for the latest Saudi action....ironicalistically ( or maybe not ) from relatives of folks who danced in approval of a prior action that involved many Saudis and raised world-wide condemnation....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neocons Defend Saudi Arabia
https://lobelog.com/neocons-defend-saudi-arabia/
...btw for those brave enough to read this have a barf bag at ready....
Cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neocons Defend Saudi Arabia
https://lobelog.com/neocons-defend-saudi-arabia/
...btw for those brave enough to read this have a barf bag at ready....
Cheers
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
.....some background on the creation of Saudi Arabia ( and the relationship that creation with the creation of the state of Israel ).....can't vouch for the provenance of the information though the site has provided some good work....others who may have more info on this please say your piece....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/zionism-kingdom-arabia
Cheers
Cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/zionism-kingdom-arabia
Cheers
Cheers
- Jun 22, 2009
- 4,991
- 1
- 0
Re:
My God! That article starts with a couple of sharp blows to the solar plexus, and then just pummels you into the ground. I really detest those mothers.
Good find, thanks for posting.
*barf*
blutto said:
My God! That article starts with a couple of sharp blows to the solar plexus, and then just pummels you into the ground. I really detest those mothers.
Good find, thanks for posting.
*barf*
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
Re:
It is difficult to stomach their hypocrisy, when America has egged on and abetted among the worst oppresive regimes in Saudi Arabia since the nefarious and covert Quincy Agreement, on the one hand, and the US's role in the execution of the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq, on the other. Other than the "Persian Empire" threatening the US since 1979, the US (and Britain) "made sure" Iran's future was to its own liking in 1953. After the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi served this purpose. But then came the revolution. Which means the CIA begot the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Grand Ayatollah Khomeyni. The breakdown in US-Iranian relations was thus self-inflicted. Unfortunately the many secular Iranians didn't deserve the ayatollah, as Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis poetically relates.
Not even after 9-11 did the US alter its acritical position toward the Saudi monarchy, despite their being a number of Sauds among the terrorists. No, the necons instead destroyed Iraq, from which not one of the terrorists hailed. While IS, like the Saudi regime, is a Sunni Caliphate. It's just mind boggling. But I have already meantioned the global stratigic worth for the empire, by keeping the Saudi family in a position of regional dominance and the US fleet as protectorate of the Persian Gulf (even if the US doesn't buy Saudi oil anymore).
If America is hated so much around the globe, these guys are the reason that's for sure.
blutto said:
It is difficult to stomach their hypocrisy, when America has egged on and abetted among the worst oppresive regimes in Saudi Arabia since the nefarious and covert Quincy Agreement, on the one hand, and the US's role in the execution of the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq, on the other. Other than the "Persian Empire" threatening the US since 1979, the US (and Britain) "made sure" Iran's future was to its own liking in 1953. After the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi served this purpose. But then came the revolution. Which means the CIA begot the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Grand Ayatollah Khomeyni. The breakdown in US-Iranian relations was thus self-inflicted. Unfortunately the many secular Iranians didn't deserve the ayatollah, as Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis poetically relates.
Not even after 9-11 did the US alter its acritical position toward the Saudi monarchy, despite their being a number of Sauds among the terrorists. No, the necons instead destroyed Iraq, from which not one of the terrorists hailed. While IS, like the Saudi regime, is a Sunni Caliphate. It's just mind boggling. But I have already meantioned the global stratigic worth for the empire, by keeping the Saudi family in a position of regional dominance and the US fleet as protectorate of the Persian Gulf (even if the US doesn't buy Saudi oil anymore).
If America is hated so much around the globe, these guys are the reason that's for sure.
There is no evidence that any Saudi or anyone else for that matter were involved in hijacking planes on that day. 9/11
Show me the proof ? There is not one photo or cctv footage of any of the so called terrorists at any of the airports.
There is no so called terrorists name on any of the passenger lists Not one There were no phone calls ever made from any of the flights . This was proven in a court of law by the FBI . No phone calls . So how can anyone claim terrorists did it when there is not one piece of evidence putting them at the airports or boarding the planes etc None.
The only way you knew there was terrorists was from the phone calls . There were no phone calls. Simple.
The fact that it was Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson telling lies on major TV stations about getting calls from his wife who was supposedly on board flight 77 should make alarm bells go off . He lied and its proven in a court of law.
No inside job , then why lie about such a thing?
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1024
Show me the proof ? There is not one photo or cctv footage of any of the so called terrorists at any of the airports.
There is no so called terrorists name on any of the passenger lists Not one There were no phone calls ever made from any of the flights . This was proven in a court of law by the FBI . No phone calls . So how can anyone claim terrorists did it when there is not one piece of evidence putting them at the airports or boarding the planes etc None.
The only way you knew there was terrorists was from the phone calls . There were no phone calls. Simple.
The fact that it was Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson telling lies on major TV stations about getting calls from his wife who was supposedly on board flight 77 should make alarm bells go off . He lied and its proven in a court of law.
No inside job , then why lie about such a thing?
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1024
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
ray j willings said:
According to the official CIA website, the hijackers of the 9-11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, the others from Egypt and Lebanon.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf
Mossadegh, executed? Lol.
Mossadegh was a fervent monarchist who remained loyal to the Shah all his life. Mohamed Reza Pahlavi NEVER abolished Mossadegh's nationalist reforms. Only the Brits lost their monopoly. Mossadegh approved of the Shah's White Revolution. Then the Shah made the Algiers Agreement with Iraq and started the Iranian Nuke Programme. Too much that the US could bear.
It's the Carter administration (with the French) that overthrow the Shah and put Khomeyni instead. I persist and sign. Whether you, Yanks, like it or not. It's a historical fact. They replaced a true religious monarch for an obscurantist secular republic.
Good post. It confirms everything I said in my previous post.
Mossadegh was a fervent monarchist who remained loyal to the Shah all his life. Mohamed Reza Pahlavi NEVER abolished Mossadegh's nationalist reforms. Only the Brits lost their monopoly. Mossadegh approved of the Shah's White Revolution. Then the Shah made the Algiers Agreement with Iraq and started the Iranian Nuke Programme. Too much that the US could bear.
It's the Carter administration (with the French) that overthrow the Shah and put Khomeyni instead. I persist and sign. Whether you, Yanks, like it or not. It's a historical fact. They replaced a true religious monarch for an obscurantist secular republic.
blutto said:
Good post. It confirms everything I said in my previous post.
rhubroma said:
Some are even still alive
http://topinfopost.com/2013/05/06/911-fbis-blunder-the-hijackers-were-alive-and-well
- Dec 7, 2010
- 8,770
- 3
- 0
- Dec 7, 2010
- 8,770
- 3
- 0
- Apr 3, 2009
- 12,593
- 8,454
- 28,180
We all realize that Mondoweiss is edited by a guy who unabashedly professes to be "progressive and anti-Zionist", yes? Meaning he is against the establishment of the Jewish state. I would think as such folks would question the facts and perspective of anything written there.
- Dec 7, 2010
- 8,770
- 3
- 0
Re:
Yes and well I was caught up in the moment of Medieval. Guess I should have paid close attention to what these peeps link to and post up.red_flanders said:
- Dec 7, 2010
- 8,770
- 3
- 0
Re: Re:
But if we had to guess maybe it would have been Buffalo Carcass?
Stop that FrenchFry! You know I don't want to go there. I actually can have a conversation / discussion with Python now.frenchfry said:
But if we had to guess maybe it would have been Buffalo Carcass?
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
Re:
....funny you would make that call because to critics of the Zionist movement Mondoweiss is often referred to as Zionist-Lite ( this in the face of Mondoweiss's published protestations to the contrary ) and btw I think he could with a bit of clever editing be quite at home in the NYT ( for what that is worth )....
....that being said he is most definitely a screamimng anti-Zionist in the minds of the most die-hard rabid Zionists ( you know those guys who want to see a final solution for the Palestinians )...
...all that being said everything comes from a particular context which has a parent bias....but to get to an understanding one should read as broadly as possible because the contrast state is as important as the finished article....
....so is Mondoweiss writing truth directly from the lips of gawd....well no...but he has become an important voice in the discussion and he has written many informative and important pieces...ignore him if that is your want but you are doing so at your peril...
....and btw being an anti-Zionist does not mean he is not against the establishment of the Jewish state but rather the establishment of a Zionist state....there is a difference...
Cheers
red_flanders said:
....funny you would make that call because to critics of the Zionist movement Mondoweiss is often referred to as Zionist-Lite ( this in the face of Mondoweiss's published protestations to the contrary ) and btw I think he could with a bit of clever editing be quite at home in the NYT ( for what that is worth )....
....that being said he is most definitely a screamimng anti-Zionist in the minds of the most die-hard rabid Zionists ( you know those guys who want to see a final solution for the Palestinians )...
...all that being said everything comes from a particular context which has a parent bias....but to get to an understanding one should read as broadly as possible because the contrast state is as important as the finished article....
....so is Mondoweiss writing truth directly from the lips of gawd....well no...but he has become an important voice in the discussion and he has written many informative and important pieces...ignore him if that is your want but you are doing so at your peril...
....and btw being an anti-Zionist does not mean he is not against the establishment of the Jewish state but rather the establishment of a Zionist state....there is a difference...
Cheers
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
Echoes said:
Here you go Echoes, is this your take? I ask, though, what do you propose to do about the situation?
I mean, after all the drivel, speak up man.
http://www.shoah.org.uk/2012/08/19/saudi-royal-family-is-jewish-king-and-prince-are-all-jew/
- Apr 3, 2009
- 12,593
- 8,454
- 28,180
Re: Re:
Every definition of Zionism I have ever read is quite simply the view that the Jews should have their own state. This isn't debatable. They already have their own state, so anti-Zionism is clearly the belief that they should not. In other words, if you're an anti-Zionist now, not only do you believe they should not have their own state, it seems that you believe the Jews should have their state removed from them.
Zionists are not defined as wanting a "final solution" for the Palestinians, they are defined as people supporting (or previously wanting) a Jewish state. You're being very loose and dangerous with your terms here, and bringing up the spectre of the holocaust in this situation is distasteful to say the very least.
All that aside, to your point I don't ignore him at all. I'm simply pointing out the perspective from which the article is written, which is important since it's an opinion piece posing as a historical analysis. Which is familiar reading from some quarters of this forum, who are unsurprisingly cheering it along. It seems clear that people don't know the background of the writer(s) in this situation. It's helpful to understand the piece with that information, because if you're like many of us, we don't have a deep and detailed understanding of the topic. So anyone writing with what seems like depth and a historical perspective is going to sound convincing.
To point out where someone is coming from is hardly ignoring them. Just part of the factual picture.
blutto said:
Every definition of Zionism I have ever read is quite simply the view that the Jews should have their own state. This isn't debatable. They already have their own state, so anti-Zionism is clearly the belief that they should not. In other words, if you're an anti-Zionist now, not only do you believe they should not have their own state, it seems that you believe the Jews should have their state removed from them.
Zionists are not defined as wanting a "final solution" for the Palestinians, they are defined as people supporting (or previously wanting) a Jewish state. You're being very loose and dangerous with your terms here, and bringing up the spectre of the holocaust in this situation is distasteful to say the very least.
All that aside, to your point I don't ignore him at all. I'm simply pointing out the perspective from which the article is written, which is important since it's an opinion piece posing as a historical analysis. Which is familiar reading from some quarters of this forum, who are unsurprisingly cheering it along. It seems clear that people don't know the background of the writer(s) in this situation. It's helpful to understand the piece with that information, because if you're like many of us, we don't have a deep and detailed understanding of the topic. So anyone writing with what seems like depth and a historical perspective is going to sound convincing.
To point out where someone is coming from is hardly ignoring them. Just part of the factual picture.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 8,660
- 16
- 17,510
Re: Re:
I say it was an anachronistic solution and, based upon a biblical definition of what that state should be, not fortuitous. This was the parent bias. One that didn't consider, whatever may have been set down in the Torah, that land belonged to the Arabs for circa 1400 years, when the former Roman province of Palestine was conqered from Byzantium in 640. This is no small historical oversight. That the Arabs, then, were not afforded their own state - but rather had their land taken from them, is as horrible as what Europeans and then Americans did to the natives. On this account, Zionism is morally debatable.
Having said that, it is too late to amend for the past and a two-state solution with a split, shared capital at Jerusalem is now the only viable path. Unfortuantely the whole situation has become so exaspirated that rational Jews and Arabs willing to accept such a solution, are smothered (for I can't say outnumbered without stats, however odds are they are a minority) by religious fanatics and ideologues (or ideologues who don the mantel of religious fanaticism and vice versa). This is a concrete example of how religion poisons everything. Zionists today, if they don't want to be accused of radicalism, need to come down in support of a two state system. It would also behoove them to desist with claims that holding such a position makes one "anti semetic." In the majority of the cases it simply makes one a rationalist, who doesn't find that the fate of civilization should be decided by 4 million people that consider their ethnic and religious identities as divinely prefered to all others. I'm not speaking only of Jews. For Arabs should also recognize the Jewish state.
Neither is willing to do this, however. To the contrary, each seems mortaly against doing so.
red_flanders said:
I say it was an anachronistic solution and, based upon a biblical definition of what that state should be, not fortuitous. This was the parent bias. One that didn't consider, whatever may have been set down in the Torah, that land belonged to the Arabs for circa 1400 years, when the former Roman province of Palestine was conqered from Byzantium in 640. This is no small historical oversight. That the Arabs, then, were not afforded their own state - but rather had their land taken from them, is as horrible as what Europeans and then Americans did to the natives. On this account, Zionism is morally debatable.
Having said that, it is too late to amend for the past and a two-state solution with a split, shared capital at Jerusalem is now the only viable path. Unfortuantely the whole situation has become so exaspirated that rational Jews and Arabs willing to accept such a solution, are smothered (for I can't say outnumbered without stats, however odds are they are a minority) by religious fanatics and ideologues (or ideologues who don the mantel of religious fanaticism and vice versa). This is a concrete example of how religion poisons everything. Zionists today, if they don't want to be accused of radicalism, need to come down in support of a two state system. It would also behoove them to desist with claims that holding such a position makes one "anti semetic." In the majority of the cases it simply makes one a rationalist, who doesn't find that the fate of civilization should be decided by 4 million people that consider their ethnic and religious identities as divinely prefered to all others. I'm not speaking only of Jews. For Arabs should also recognize the Jewish state.
Neither is willing to do this, however. To the contrary, each seems mortaly against doing so.
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
"....that being said he is most definitely a screaming anti-Zionist in the minds of the most die-hard rabid Zionists ( you know those guys who want to see a final solution for the Palestinians )..."
....you may want to re-read the above part of my reply that you either missed, glossed over, or misunderstood....and please focus on the term most die-hard rabid Zionists which is a term I used specifically to demarcate a particular group of people ....and yes among these folks are people who have advocated some rather horrific means to solving the current problems with the Palestinian population within the bounds of lands controlled by Israel ( and yes as disgusting as it may be the term final solution has been used by some in that group )....
...the point I was trying to make is that Mondoweiss is trying to straddle between a progressive Jewish point of view and criticism of the ongoing Israeli project.....and in the process he manages to take fire from both sides of the debate....one of the main problems is that the more fervent proponents of Zionism have a habit of labelling any and all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, a scorched earth approach that seems to polarize any debate about Israel and its policies and they have also inserted themselves into the Jewish culture as the only representative of that culture ....many Jews, Mondoweiss included, do not see Judaism as being solely represented by the Zionist viewpoint and they end up being branded anti-Zionists for that reason....many critics of Israel take the opposite position in that polarized debate and end up calling Mondoweiss Zionist-Lite ....
....in a lot of ways Mondoweiss stands as a very important point in the debate about Israel and how that debate has been framed....and I would argue it is that framing that is a major impediment to developing workable solutions to the Palestinian issue....so while the Zionist movement should be congratulated for helping create a Jewish haven it should also be taken to task for the form that this development has taken over the last few decades ( they are not doing the world-wide Jewish culture any favours by often acting like their own worst nightmare....which is the point that Mondoweiss plays of off...)...
...anti-Zionism has become a rather complicated term apart from the more standard knee-jerk one designed mainly to polarize debate...see below from Wiki which, while not comprehensive, gives a bit of an overview...read, it is not a one size fits all phenomenon...it has become very complisticated...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Diversity of anti-Zionism
Opposition to Zionism has changed over time and has taken on a spectrum of religious, ethical, political or military forms. Some include opposition to the creation of a Jewish state prior to the appearance of the messiah; objection to the idea of a state based on maintenance of a Jewish majority; differing democratic values and differing levels of geographical extension.[69] Zionism "met bitter opposition from conservative religious circles, who saw it as opposing divine will. The left, on the other hand, objected that this concept was based upon religion - something enlightened Jews should keep their distance from."[70]
"Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism," an essay published by the American Jewish Committee, concludes that, with the maturing of Israel since its founding in 1948, the term anti-Zionism in scholarly work is often used to mean advocating the elimination of the State of Israel.[71] Brian Klug of The Guardian has argued that anti-Zionism represents fair opposition to Israel.[72] The legitimacy of anti-Zionist views has been disputed to the present day, including the more recent and disputed relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.[73] Other views regarding the various forms of anti-Zionism have also been discussed and debated.[74][75][76] Post-Zionism a related term has been criticized as being equivalent to anti-Zionism.[77]
Cheers
red_flanders said:
"....that being said he is most definitely a screaming anti-Zionist in the minds of the most die-hard rabid Zionists ( you know those guys who want to see a final solution for the Palestinians )..."
....you may want to re-read the above part of my reply that you either missed, glossed over, or misunderstood....and please focus on the term most die-hard rabid Zionists which is a term I used specifically to demarcate a particular group of people ....and yes among these folks are people who have advocated some rather horrific means to solving the current problems with the Palestinian population within the bounds of lands controlled by Israel ( and yes as disgusting as it may be the term final solution has been used by some in that group )....
...the point I was trying to make is that Mondoweiss is trying to straddle between a progressive Jewish point of view and criticism of the ongoing Israeli project.....and in the process he manages to take fire from both sides of the debate....one of the main problems is that the more fervent proponents of Zionism have a habit of labelling any and all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, a scorched earth approach that seems to polarize any debate about Israel and its policies and they have also inserted themselves into the Jewish culture as the only representative of that culture ....many Jews, Mondoweiss included, do not see Judaism as being solely represented by the Zionist viewpoint and they end up being branded anti-Zionists for that reason....many critics of Israel take the opposite position in that polarized debate and end up calling Mondoweiss Zionist-Lite ....
....in a lot of ways Mondoweiss stands as a very important point in the debate about Israel and how that debate has been framed....and I would argue it is that framing that is a major impediment to developing workable solutions to the Palestinian issue....so while the Zionist movement should be congratulated for helping create a Jewish haven it should also be taken to task for the form that this development has taken over the last few decades ( they are not doing the world-wide Jewish culture any favours by often acting like their own worst nightmare....which is the point that Mondoweiss plays of off...)...
...anti-Zionism has become a rather complicated term apart from the more standard knee-jerk one designed mainly to polarize debate...see below from Wiki which, while not comprehensive, gives a bit of an overview...read, it is not a one size fits all phenomenon...it has become very complisticated...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Diversity of anti-Zionism
Opposition to Zionism has changed over time and has taken on a spectrum of religious, ethical, political or military forms. Some include opposition to the creation of a Jewish state prior to the appearance of the messiah; objection to the idea of a state based on maintenance of a Jewish majority; differing democratic values and differing levels of geographical extension.[69] Zionism "met bitter opposition from conservative religious circles, who saw it as opposing divine will. The left, on the other hand, objected that this concept was based upon religion - something enlightened Jews should keep their distance from."[70]
"Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism," an essay published by the American Jewish Committee, concludes that, with the maturing of Israel since its founding in 1948, the term anti-Zionism in scholarly work is often used to mean advocating the elimination of the State of Israel.[71] Brian Klug of The Guardian has argued that anti-Zionism represents fair opposition to Israel.[72] The legitimacy of anti-Zionist views has been disputed to the present day, including the more recent and disputed relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.[73] Other views regarding the various forms of anti-Zionism have also been discussed and debated.[74][75][76] Post-Zionism a related term has been criticized as being equivalent to anti-Zionism.[77]
Cheers
Zionism has nothing biblical. The Jewish State is anti-Torah. I've already proved it. Always the same lies by the same poster.
Zionism is based on racism/tribalism and was originally a Marxist atheistic undertaking which aimed at "emancipating" the Jews from their centuries old spiritual values. It's also deeply rooted in the romantic era of nationalism (the 19th century).
Obviously I'm 100% anti-Zionist.
Zionism is based on racism/tribalism and was originally a Marxist atheistic undertaking which aimed at "emancipating" the Jews from their centuries old spiritual values. It's also deeply rooted in the romantic era of nationalism (the 19th century).
Obviously I'm 100% anti-Zionist.
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
^that mondoweiss piece, blutto, was an interesting read ! never heard of him never read him.
what i find curious is how easily the labels get thrown around. i mean if some people want to call themselves zionists and others who disagree with them to some (or more) degree anti-zionists, that's fine. it's their right to pigeonhole themselves. but making a broad stroke assumption that an anti-zionist is against the existence of the state of israel imo view is incorrect to put it mildly...
as far as i know the zionist idea or zionism is the ideology (i hesitate to call it the 'official state ideology' b/c i dont know) to which both the parties on the left and right are subscribing. they may express it differently, but for a political party to reject zionism, or even to be perceived as the less fervent zionists, is a political suicide.
i am not jewish and their history really never interested me, but personally i find little wrong with the zionist idea per se and even with the way it was practiced by its followers up to and including the time when it was about the israeli state survival. i deliberately stay away from the specific dates, b/c people will argue no matter the date...my point is simply that at some point, the zionism had evolved from a typical, even progressive nationalist/political movement, into an aggressive even arrogant doctrine. the classic zionist idea of creating the state of israel as a protected home for jews had somehow become a justification for denying the very home for the palestinians. etc etc. of course, i simplified some complex issues, but in its core the zionism has become a conduit for a range of unfair, oppressive even racist policies against israel's neighbours..
if opposing those policies is anti-zionst, i am the one !
what i find curious is how easily the labels get thrown around. i mean if some people want to call themselves zionists and others who disagree with them to some (or more) degree anti-zionists, that's fine. it's their right to pigeonhole themselves. but making a broad stroke assumption that an anti-zionist is against the existence of the state of israel imo view is incorrect to put it mildly...
as far as i know the zionist idea or zionism is the ideology (i hesitate to call it the 'official state ideology' b/c i dont know) to which both the parties on the left and right are subscribing. they may express it differently, but for a political party to reject zionism, or even to be perceived as the less fervent zionists, is a political suicide.
i am not jewish and their history really never interested me, but personally i find little wrong with the zionist idea per se and even with the way it was practiced by its followers up to and including the time when it was about the israeli state survival. i deliberately stay away from the specific dates, b/c people will argue no matter the date...my point is simply that at some point, the zionism had evolved from a typical, even progressive nationalist/political movement, into an aggressive even arrogant doctrine. the classic zionist idea of creating the state of israel as a protected home for jews had somehow become a justification for denying the very home for the palestinians. etc etc. of course, i simplified some complex issues, but in its core the zionism has become a conduit for a range of unfair, oppressive even racist policies against israel's neighbours..
if opposing those policies is anti-zionst, i am the one !
- Dec 7, 2010
- 8,770
- 3
- 0
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
....US policy and the current Syrian clusterfuck....some history....
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43922.htm
Cheers
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43922.htm
Cheers
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram