Am I a anti-semitist?

[Eli]

Half of the Israelis are more secular than the average American.

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, I think there is a difference between a refuge or a haven for Jews and a Jewish state, which (as far as I know though I could be wrong) Israel is. And while many Israelis might be more secular than the average American (though I can't imagine how ) I don't think that makes Israel not a government based on a particular religion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Well, I think there is a difference between a refuge or a haven for Jews and a Jewish state, which (as far as I know though I could be wrong) Israel is. And while many Israelis might be more secular than the average American (though I can't imagine how ) I don't think that makes Israel not a government based on a particular religion.

As far a I know, you are right because Israel does not have a constitution that was every formally adopted that guarantees equal rights to all religions and races. It is like England in this regard. England is and English state in the same way as Israel is a Jewish state.

I presume you are equally against England.

Ned

[Natan]

Most people with some judgement would be able to define a "true Muslim" or a "true Roman Catholic". Someone who doesn't acknowledge the authority of the pope cannot be possibly considered a Catholic. ALL Muslims accept the Five Pillars of Faith.
I propose we listen to the opinion of "true Jews" themselves!

Okay, sounds good. I assume you mean Orthodox ones.

"Articles of Faith (ikkarim, Heb., 'roots') Formulations of Jewish belief. These are not as important as are creeds in Christianity, since every person born of a Jewish mother is automatically a Jew irrespective of religious conviction. The Shema‘, recited twice daily, is the fundamental Jewish article of faith. Philo spoke of eight basic principles, Hananel b. Hushi'el isolated four articles, and Maimonides set down thirteen principles. The latter are (i) God's existence; (ii) his unity; (iii) his lack of a physical body; (iv) his eternity; (v) his unique claim to divinity; (vi) the validity of prophecy; (vii) Moses' status as chief prophet; (viii) Moses' reception of the whole Torah; (ix) the completeness of Torah; (x) God's omniscience; (xi) reward and punishment; (xii) the coming of the Messiah; and (xiii) the resurrection of the dead. These thirteen principles became the basis of later formulations, including ani ma'amin of the Prayer Book, the 'ikkarim' of David Kokhavi, Hasdai Crescas 'Or Adonai (Light of the Lord), and Joseph Albo's Sefer ha-Ikkarim (Book of Roots). In the 12th cent., the Karaite Judah Hadassi produced ten articles of faith, and in the 19th cent., Moses Mendelssohn, the pioneer of modernism within Judaism within Judaism, identified three essential principles."

"Torah (Heb., 'teaching') The teachings of the Jewish religion. In the Pentateuch, the term 'Torah' can mean all the laws on a particular subject (e.g. Leviticus 7.2) or the summation of all laws (e.g. Deuteronomy 4.44). It is also used to refer to the Pentateuch in contrast to the Prophets and Hagiography (as in Tanach), and later a distinction was made between the written and the oral law. Although the rabbis taught that 'Moses received the Torah from Sinai', they also taught that it was in existence before the creation of the world, and R.Akiva declared it to have been 'the precious instrument by which the world was created'. Rav Hoshaiah equated it with Wisdom described in the Book of Proverbs, and Philo, in his discussion of the logos (word of God), identified the logos with Torah. These conjectures were the source of much discussion among such later Jewish philosophers as Sa‘adiah Gaon, Abraham ibn Ezra and Maimonides. The purpose of Torah is to make Israel 'a kingdom of priests, a holy nation' (Deuteronomy 33.4), and much Hebrew poetry is concerned with the sweetness and joy entailed in keeping it (e.g. Psalms 19 and 119). None the less, the message of the Torah is for all humanity, and 'a pagan who studies the Torah is like a High Priest'. In a famous exchange Hillel summarized Torah in the maxim, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow' (B.Shab. 31a), and Akiva maintained that its overriding principle was 'Love your neighbour as yourself' (Leviticus 19.18). Maimonides laid down in his thirteen principles of the Jewish faith that Torah is immutable and that it was given in its entirety to Moses. The belief in the divine origin of both the written and oral Torah remains the touchstone of Orthodox Judaism. The Karaites accepted the written, but not the oral law, while the Progressive movements tend to distinguish between the moral and ritual law."

Yes, good so far.

"Halakhah (Heb., from halak, 'he went') A particular law or the whole Jewish legal system. The halakhah is traditionally believed to go back in its entirety to Moses. According to Maimonides, 'In the two Talmuds and the Tosefta, the Sifra and the Sifrei, in all these are explained the permitted and the forbidden... ..as handed down from person to person from the mouth of Moses our teacher at Sinai.' The halakhah is composed of the written law (the six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Pentateuch), the statements handed down by tradition (such as the words of the prophets and the hagiography, the oral law (which includes interpretations of the written law), the sayings of the scribes, and established religious customs. Written law is Torah she-bi-khetav, oral law is Torah she-be‘al peh ('.... by mouth'). In the days of the second Temple, a major point at issue between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was the validity of the oral law -the Sadducees adhering only to the written law. Even among the Pharisees, the schools of Hillel and Shammai differed in their interpretation of the biblical law and in their oral rulings. Various attempts were made to draw up collections of rulings. At the end of the 2nd cent. CE, however, R.Judah ha-Nasi summarized the legal debates in a form that came to be regarded as authoritative, and this record of the final decisions of the tannaim now constitutes Mishnah. Once this text was established, further debate centred on its meaning and interpretations; these discussions of the Palestinian and Babylonian amoraim are recorded in the two Talmuds. In the Middle Ages and subsequently halakhah was codified. The final decisions of the Talmud and further responsa were collected in such volumes as Maimonides' Mishneh Torah (Second Law) and Joseph Caro's Shulhân Arukh (The Laid Table). The Shulhân Arukh in particular became so authoritative that there was a marked reluctance to depart from its rulings.

Also good.

The acceptance of the yoke of halakhah is seen by many as the distinctive essence of Judaism. According to the Orthodox, halakhah is God-given and must be obeyed. The Progressive movements, while reverencing the halakhah, do not accept its binding obligation in every aspect of life. In so doing, Progressive Jews are perceived by their Orthodox co-religionists as rejecting the point and purpose of the tradition. Hence Reform rabbis are not accepted, and Reform proselytes are not believed to be Jews. Thus it is their unconditional adherence to halakhah, that Orthodox Jews define themselves and their commitment."

"Orthodox Judaism Traditional Judaism. The term 'Orthodoxy' was first applied in Judaism in 1795 as a distinction between those who accepted the written and oral law as divinely inspired and those who identified with the Reform movement. The Orthodox believe that they are the sole practitioners of the Jewish religious tradition and regard non-Orthodox rabbis as laypeople and non-Orthodox proselytes as gentiles. Orthodoxy involves submission to the demands of the halakhah as enshrined in the written and oral law and in the subsequent codes and responsa.

Right, and IMHO, (some will disagree) Orthodox Judaism is the Judaism which was practiced for some 1500-2000 years before the other sects showed up, and is therefore the real deal.

Within Orthodoxy, some authorities have retained a position of isolation, detaching their followers from the temptations and perils of the modern secular world, while others have tried to espouse openness to modern culture while insisting on the binding character of halakhah. The traditional Orthodox way of life has been under threat in W.Europe since the haskalah, and in E.Europe it was undermined by emigration and Zionism in the early 20th cent. and ultimately destroyed by the Holocaust. None the less, Orthodox communities continue to exist, particularly in Israel, the USA, W.Europe and the British Commonwealth."
(source: 'The Oxford Dictionary of World religions' ed. J.Bowker,1997)

The least one cay say is that the position of the Orthodox is clear and univocal. Yet since you seem to object to me making a choice, I suggest that you pronounce your preference.
I assume you will realise the consequences of your choice for the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

Most Orthodox Jews support Israel. www.ou.org - the website of the Orthodox Union, which represents the vast majority of American Orthodox Jews. Or you could visit the website of a chasidic sect like Chabad (www.chabad.org). Or read some history:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zio...s_Zionism.html
Or, let’s use the Library of Congress, a rather respectable source I think: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/
“Within the Orthodox or dati category one can distinguish between the ultra-Orthodox or haredi, and the "modern" or "neo-Orthodox." At the very extreme, the ultra-Orthodox consists of groups such as the Neturei Karta, a small fringe group of antiZionist extremists, who reject Israel and view it as a heretical entity. They want nothing to do with the state and live in enclaves (Mea Shearim in Jerusalem and towns such as Bene Beraq), where they shut out the secular modern world as much as possible. Nevertheless, among the ultra-Orthodox one can also count some of the adherents of the Agudat Israel Party, who accept the state, although not its messianic pretensions, and work within many of its institutions. These adherents are exempt from compulsory military service and do not volunteer for police work, yet they demand that the state protect their way of life, a political arrangement known as the "preservation of the status quo" (see The Role of Judaism , this ch.). In practice, they live in the same neighborhoods as the more extreme haredi and maintain their own schools, rabbinical courts, charitable institutions, and so on. The state has not only committed itself to protecting the separate institutions of different Orthodox Jewish groups but also, especially since 1977, to their financial subvention.

The modern or neo-Orthodox are those who, while scrupulously adhering to halakah, have not cut themselves off from society at large. They are oriented to the same ideological goals as many of the secularists, and they share the basic commitment to Israel as a Zionist state. Furthermore, they participate fully in all the major institutions of the state, including the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). This group is also referred to as "Orthodox Zionists." They have been represented historically by a number of political parties or coalitions, and have been the driving force behind many of the extraparliamentary social, political, and Jewish terrorist movements that have characterized Israeli society since the June 1967 War (see Exraparliamentary Religio-nationalist Movements , ch. 4). Most Orthodox Zionists have been "ultra-hawkish" and irredentist in orientation; Gush Emunim, the Bloc of the Faithful, is the most prominent of these groups. A minority of other Zionist groups, for example, Oz Veshalom, an Orthodox Zionist movement that is the religious counterpart to Peace Now, have been more moderate.”
So many Orthodox Jews are quite Zionist.
Since the writing of this piece (1980s) the Haredi community has only drifted further towards Zionism - I will bring sources to document this, but the fact that Chabad supporters created a website like www.truepeace.org already shows it.

Perhaps some (or many) Sephardim gradually learnt to accept the inevitable. In 1896 they had opposed both the territorial AND the political goals of Zionists, because they feared that Jewish immigration would disturb their relations with both Moslem and Christian neighbours.

No such body existed to represent all Sephardim. Those in Palestine represented less than 1% of the million or so Sephardi Jews in the world, and I see no evidence that Jews in Iraq and North Africa even knew about Ashkenazi Zionism in 1896.

I used the word 'neutralized'; I could also have said 'marginalized'. Until 1917 they held a dominant position. My source -see previous extensive quote, a.o. about Eliezer Ben-Yehuda- shows they, Arab Jews with by far the longest presence in the region- did originally oppose Zionism violently. You have NOT succeeded in refuting Idinopulos or B.Thomas, who basically tell the same story.
I do not have the source at hand, but in the Royal Library I perused an Encyclopaedia that estimated Orthodox Jews in Israel at 14%. Not impressive!

That’s higher than the percentage amongst world Jewry at large.

I would prefer a world where Muslims, Jews AND Europeans would not fight one another to the finish, because of some small, inhospitable piece of desert. When they would contest Tuscany or South Africa it would be easier to understand. Only for Jews who follow the commands of halakhah does it make sense to desire to live in this waste.

So you agree that for Orthodox Jews (i.e., ‘Jews who follow the commands of halakha’) Zionism is legitimate and desirable?

On account of your consistent description of Muslims and Arabs as warlike and hostile, it seems you DO acknowledge the fact that they do not like some alien element in their midst.

Do you think my noting that the Arab League intended to kill Jews in 1948 constitutes a “consistent description of Muslims and Arabs as warlike and hostile?” Sure though, I can agree that they didn’t like having Zionists there. Of course, seeing as the same kind of people who opposed Zionism were busily killing Christians in Syria, I’m not sure the objection was to “alien elements” as much as anything which could be identified with the West. I don’t think this sort of violence was characteristic of most Arabs and certainly not of most Muslims.

You also agree with me that Israel is NOT a theocracy. Or would you defend the position that present-day Israel is 'a kingdom of priests, a holy nation'?

Theocracy implies rule by religious leaders and religious law/principles. I don’t think that’s a good description of modern Israel.

Do you deny the fact that about 90% of all Zionists came out of Europe?

That sounds about right. And it’s easily explained by the fact that 90% of all jews came out of Europe:
“The impulse and development of Zionism was almost exclusively the work of Ashkenazim--Jews of European origin; few Sephardim (see Glossary) were directly engaged in the movement in its formative years. (In 1900 about 9.5 million of the world's 10.5 million Jews were Ashkenazim, and about 5.2 million of the Ashkenazim lived in the Pale of Settlement.)”
(source: Library of Congress country study on Israel, chapter1 “Origins of Zionism: Zionist precursors.” And in fact, many Sephardi Jews lived in Europe in Bulgaria, Greece, and Yugoslavia (basically, in Ottoman holdings) so some European Zionists were Sephardi.

Do you deny the fact that decisions made by Britain and the U.S. were decisive for the creation of Israel?

They were very important for Israel, but they were not themselves decisive in the sense of taking a clear position - the white paper, for example.

I can understand that it may be unpleasant for you to admit that decisions of Christian politicians -those jolly Nazis came all from pious Catholic families

It’s a sidenote, and no, I have no stake in whether Christian politicians have great influence except my stake in the truth - but actually, despite their background, the Nazis were largely anti-Christian and celeberated paganism. Family background isn’t the same as religion or ideology.

To illustrate my argument I will give another quotation from 'my guy'. When you can recommend some study about millenarianism, please do! You seemed to have doubts about 'my guy'.

"The Western penetration of Palestine from the early nineteenth century through the period of Muhammed Ali's rule was spurred by an extraordinary burst of Christian religious energy in Britain, known as millenarianism. This was the belief that only after the Jews returned to their ancestral homeland would Jesus return to earth to inaugurate the thousand-year reign of God over the world.

The opening of the British vice-consulate(1838) particularly had profound religious consequences. A few months after Palmerston had made the decision to do so, Anthony Ashley Cooper (later Lord Shaftesbury), who was his stepson and a devout Christian millenarian, sought to persuade the foreign secretary that government support of the Jewish restoration to Palestine would hasten Christ's Coming as well as serving British interests.

Palmerston, who had little use for religious arguments and scarcely any mystical feeling about Palestine, quickly recognized the wisdom of his stepson's advice. With the loyal support of a substantial minority of Jews in Palestine, Britain might compete favorably in the region with Catholic France and Orthodox Russia. For years, under the trade agreements with the Ottoman government called Capitulations, France had exercised protection for pilgrims and other Roman Catholics living in the Holy Land, while Russia had done the same for Orthodox pilgrims and the twenty thousand Arab members of the Greek Orthodox church.(13) No doubt both France and Russia used their priviliged positions to advance their own national interests in Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East. Britain, a Protestant nation, had no such privileged position. This might change if Britain would "adopt" the Jewish nation and urge its return to the ancestral homeland. The newly opened vice-consulate might in fact use its offices to facilitate the Jewish resotration. Thus almost eighty years before the Balfour Declaration of 1917 pledging British government support of a Jewish national home in Palestine, a powerful and fateful British-Jewish connection was formed in the country.(14)"

Israel was created because Jews wanted to create it. The British helped, but they could not make Jews want to create Israel. This is like saying that Arab nationalism was created by Britain to destroy the Ottoman empire, or that Communism was a German imperialist plot since they sent Lenin back to the country.

By the way Natan, do you submit to ALL six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Pentateuch?

Well, I admit, I haven’t had many opportunities to offer passover sacrifices in Jerusalem, and lacking the ashes of a Red Hiefer blessed by a pure priest, I am ritually impure . . .

Why would you be a more objective arbiter of Jewish identity?

Not more objective, but perhaps better informed.

What is -in your view- the nationality of a French Jew?
The people that were systematically slaughtered during the Holocaust were -at least in my view- Germans, Poles, Russians etc..

I think they thought of themselves as Jews, and I think their German, Polish and Russian neighbors thought of them the same way - Ashkenazi Jews were a distinct ethnic group, who in addition to having a different religion also spoke a different language (Yiddish) from their slavic neighbors. They generally had no loyalty to their governments (be they Czarist or Polish) except in as much as they did good things for Jews. Calling them “Germans, Poles, Russians” is a nice way to dodge the fact that they were Jews, but it’s like calling the ethnic Albanians murdered by Milosevic Serbs or calling the victims of the Armenian genocide Turks. It’s ridiculous.

Or would you defend the thoroughly racist view that people with ancestors from another part of the world -black, Semitic, Indian or Mongoloid- are not able to lay claim to full civil rights and equal legal protection by law?
I hope not?

What does identifying a person’s nationality/ethnicity have to do with a rascist world view which denies people civil rights and legal protection by law? If I call a Jew a Jew instead of a Pole, does he lose his rights? I don’t think so.

[Dom Pedro II]

Ned, I think you might have misunderstood. I'm not against Israel. I wasn't sure if Israel had a state religion, or if it was like the United States granting a separation of church and state. You cleared that up. Thank you. As far as England goes, I don't like the notion of them having a state religion either, but both England and Israel are liberal enough that I think it will most likely not make a difference. So I suppose then that I am against England as much as I am against Israel since I am in fact not against either of them.

[Dry]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
There is only one Belgian: the king of Belgium!

Just one small comment on this.
The King in Belgium is not king of Belgium, but rather the king of Belgians.
One subtle, but important detail, meaning btw that your statement is simply... non-sense: if there is no more belgians, he is king of... nothing.
It also means that he is king, as long as we agree. The day we decide we want to be a republic he is... simply fired.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dry


Just one small comment on this.
The King in Belgium is not king of Belgium, but rather the king of Belgians.
One subtle, but important detail, meaning btw that your statement is simply... non-sense: if there is no more belgians, he is king of... nothing.
It also means that he is king, as long as we agree. The day we decide we want to be a republic he is... simply fired.

hi ,

i believe that before any belgian should fire the king , well they should fire all the members of parlement and senate , i mean what kind of a country has 5 governments , what kind of country sends his man to an other country , without weapons , .....and then when they are killed , , "there is nothing that we can do about it" , .....this week there was an article in the press , saying that killers of the belgian paracommandos could only be arrested if they are in belgium , STOP , there is the capability to bring these killers to justice , and we could have arrested them when they where in belgium (some of the killers) in 2001 , no , why should we , but to ask for an extradition of Ariel Sharon , sure , for that the belgian government moves earth and sky , .......

so , nothing is simple in belgium , the belgiums themselves are laks , do nothing , work "under the table" , dont vote , and they get themselves involved with places where they have nothing to search , ....

hence , back to the topic , its a country that forgets his lessons , ....in a small town was the deportation center of the SS , for all the jews of belgium , some of Holland and some of France , and not just jews , lesbian , gay , gypsy , anything that was different , .......and it is in this town today , that the son of a nazi collaborater is now , ......meir , mamamia , .......

oh yeah , what kind of a "democratic" government ask's to lie to the public , .......???

and on top of that , the last 10 years its the only European country that sit's always in the top 20 of corrupt countries on earth , ......

so , the will of the people , .....where is that ????

oh yeah the above , their is evidence enough to support it .

have a nice day

[Dry]

Originally posted by panag
what kind of a country has 5 governments

I agree with you, I find it silly, but that is the solution (price to pay?) we have found to make it possible to have 2 people living in the same country without killing each other.
Do you know that in Belgium there has never be one single dead due to community conflicts ?
Do you mean the ETA, IRA or hamas solutions are better? Each people its solution.
I may be wrong, but I think Spain is not so far with basque parliament, and same for UK and Scotland.

, what kind of country sends his man to an other country , without weapons , ...

They were not without weapons. They were just told not to shoot.
I don't know the hole story of it, so I cannot tell the why and how, but I know there were discussions about responsabilities of this.
The poor soldiers had confidence in their UN leaders. This was their mistake.

... this week there was an article in the press , saying that killers of the belgian paracommandos could only be arrested if they are in belgium ,

In most civilized countries, the police may only arrest people on their own ground. This is also an international agreement. Belgium is democratic and has sign international agreements. We try to respect our signature, even if it cost us much. What we hope with it is respect from others in our word, and consequently, that they also respect their word.
But this, only civilized people are able to understand.

But maybe you are right. Instead of relying on justice, we should have start a war with a people who was momentarily mad. We should have spent millions of euros to bombs them to the ground, generating generations of terrorists, generating world hate against us because 'those bloody belgians colonists are back'. We should have punished a whole people for the mistake/crime of a few of them. All this, just to show that we have balls...
Well, that is not our style.

STOP , there is the capability to bring these killers to justice , and we could have arrested them when they where in belgium (some of the killers) in 2001 , no , why should we ,

I didn't know... so, I don't know the reasons...

but to ask for an extradition of Ariel Sharon , sure , for that the belgian government moves earth and sky , ...

What are you talking about?
In most democratic countries, justice in TOTALY independent from government. Belgium is democratic. The goverment has NOTHING to say to Justice.
Mr Mobutu has also ask many times our goverment to forbid things from our tribunals. He never understood that by constitution the governement has NO POWER at all.
FYI: Those who try to bring Mr Sharon to justice is not the belgian governement, it is Palestinian people.
There is not a single official Belgian on the accusation part.
So, please, stop thinking Belgium is some kind of African or South-American dictatorship where political leaders have power on justice.

so , nothing is simple in belgium , the belgiums themselves are laks , do nothing , work "under the table" , dont vote , and they get themselves involved with places where they have nothing to search , ....

I don't understand what you are talking about.
Just one small comment on vote: vote is mandatory in Belgium, so you cannot say we do not.

hence , back to the topic , its a country that forgets his lessons , ....in a small town was the deportation center of the SS , for all the jews of belgium , some of Holland and some of France , and not just jews , lesbian , gay , gypsy , anything that was different , .......and it is in this town today , that the son of a nazi collaborater is now , ......meir , mamamia , .......

Indeed, nothing is simple in Belgium. Belgium is made of 2 people: Flemmish and Walloons. During last century, Wallonia was the rich part (heavy industry) and thus attracted people from different part of europe. They needed a common language. In that time, the common language was french. So, the same way today, english is spoken in big companies, whole Wallonia start speaking french. But french was also the language of the elite, even the flemish one. Those elites, made them feel that they were stupid and inferiors, because they were not speaking french. So flemish people, loving their language, learned to hate french, and start hating everything that was related with french (including the Walloons). During the war, the Germans exploit this hate and helped the flemish independentists. Due to this, some of the flemish extremists helped those 'nice' Germans and get involved in the Nazi crimes.
Today, as all heavy industry regions, Wallonia is the poor regions of Belgium and Flemish nationalists wants their revenge. They have their proof that speaking french does NOT make you superior, on the countrary, it makes you inferior. If we try to condamn those people, on the flemish part, you will find people arguing that those people are not criminals, but were just fighting for their independance.
It has become almost inpossible for us, french speaking Belgians to condamn them, because each time we do it, we risk being accused of arrogance against those poor flemish independentists.
That is were nationalism lead. Are you still surprised we dislike (hate) nationalists?

oh yeah , what kind of a "democratic" government ask's to lie to the public , .......???

All govs pinpoint their POV. It is not necessarily a lie, it is only one side of a problem. It is to the public to try to be smarter, to have different source of information, to learn more languages to be able to understand what are the POV of other countries.

and on top of that , the last 10 years its the only European country that sit's always in the top 20 of corrupt countries on earth , ...

Yes, so do you allow us to try to change it, or do you mean that as long as this is the case we have no right to express our opinion ?

so , the will of the people , .....where is that ????

I live in a democracy and even if I disagree with many of my fellow citizen, it is still the majority who decides. Even if I want to get rid of the king, even if I want to change many things in Belgium, I have to do it in a democratic way,
Sorry for you if you don't understand.

oh yeah the above , their is evidence enough to support it.

I will tell you a great secret: it is possible NOT to support its own country in all circumbstances and to survive.
Do you think you live in a perfect country? Nothing you would like to change in your country?
My country is not perfect, and most people here DO agree that there are problems, therefore we do NOT support it in all circumbstances. But I know this concept is hard to understand for nationalists.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dry

I agree with you, I find it silly, but that is the solution (price to pay?) we have found to make it possible to have 2 people living in the same country without killing each other.
Do you know that in Belgium there has never be one single dead due to community conflicts ?
Do you mean the ETA, IRA or hamas solutions are better? Each people its solution.
I may be wrong, but I think Spain is not so far with basque parliament, and same for UK and Scotland.


They were not without weapons. They were just told not to shoot.
I don't know the hole story of it, so I cannot tell the why and how, but I know there were discussions about responsabilities of this.
The poor soldiers had confidence in their UN leaders. This was their mistake.

In most civilized countries, the police may only arrest people on their own ground. This is also an international agreement. Belgium is democratic and has sign international agreements. We try to respect our signature, even if it cost us much. What we hope with it is respect from others in our word, and consequently, that they also respect their word.
But this, only civilized people are able to understand.

But maybe you are right. Instead of relying on justice, we should have start a war with a people who was momentarily mad. We should have spent millions of euros to bombs them to the ground, generating generations of terrorists, generating world hate against us because 'those bloody belgians colonists are back'. We should have punished a whole people for the mistake/crime of a few of them. All this, just to show that we have balls...
Well, that is not our style.


I didn't know... so, I don't know the reasons...


What are you talking about?
In most democratic countries, justice in TOTALY independent from government. Belgium is democratic. The goverment has NOTHING to say to Justice.
Mr Mobutu has also ask many times our goverment to forbid things from our tribunals. He never understood that by constitution the governement has NO POWER at all.
FYI: Those who try to bring Mr Sharon to justice is not the belgian governement, it is Palestinian people.
There is not a single official Belgian on the accusation part.
So, please, stop thinking Belgium is some kind of African or South-American dictatorship where political leaders have power on justice.


I don't understand what you are talking about.
Just one small comment on vote: vote is mandatory in Belgium, so you cannot say we do not.


Indeed, nothing is simple in Belgium. Belgium is made of 2 people: Flemmish and Walloons. During last century, Wallonia was the rich part (heavy industry) and thus attracted people from different part of europe. They needed a common language. In that time, the common language was french. So, the same way today, english is spoken in big companies, whole Wallonia start speaking french. But french was also the language of the elite, even the flemish one. Those elites, made them feel that they were stupid and inferiors, because they were not speaking french. So flemish people, loving their language, learned to hate french, and start hating everything that was related with french (including the Walloons). During the war, the Germans exploit this hate and helped the flemish independentists. Due to this, some of the flemish extremists helped those 'nice' Germans and get involved in the Nazi crimes.
Today, as all heavy industry regions, Wallonia is the poor regions of Belgium and Flemish nationalists wants their revenge. They have their proof that speaking french does NOT make you superior, on the countrary, it makes you inferior. If we try to condamn those people, on the flemish part, you will find people arguing that those people are not criminals, but were just fighting for their independance.
It has become almost inpossible for us, french speaking Belgians to condamn them, because each time we do it, we risk being accused of arrogance against those poor flemish independentists.
That is were nationalism lead. Are you still surprised we dislike (hate) nationalists?


All govs pinpoint their POV. It is not necessarily a lie, it is only one side of a problem. It is to the public to try to be smarter, to have different source of information, to learn more languages to be able to understand what are the POV of other countries.


Yes, so do you allow us to try to change it, or do you mean that as long as this is the case we have no right to express our opinion ?


I live in a democracy and even if I disagree with many of my fellow citizen, it is still the majority who decides. Even if I want to get rid of the king, even if I want to change many things in Belgium, I have to do it in a democratic way,
Sorry for you if you don't understand.

I will tell you a great secret: it is possible NOT to support its own country in all circumbstances and to survive.
Do you think you live in a perfect country? Nothing you would like to change in your country?
My country is not perfect, and most people here DO agree that there are problems, therefore we do NOT support it in all circumbstances. But I know this concept is hard to understand for nationalists.

hi ,

care for a cup of coffee next week , ..........

oh yeah , who is a "nationalist" , ...??

have a nice day

[Ned]

S. Kroeze, I believe you made the point that the Zionists were responsible for the lack of a places of refuge in counties other than Palestine. I find the following piece of history for November 21, 1941 to be "relevant" to that topic.

While Americans look upon that era as one of innocence, life
is harder for women and minorities. Magazines and newspapers tell
housewives that their job "is to please him."
If women have it hard, so do Jews. Despite continuing
revelations of anti-Semitic outrages in Germany, there are no
widespread protests or efforts to loosen immigration quotas to
help European Jewish refugees. Far from it. Isolationist leader
Charles Lindbergh publicly denounces Jews as being the cause of
America's efforts to improve its defense posture, and calls them
"warmongers." Employment ads say "Christians wanted only," while
resort hotel ads say, "No Hebrews taken."

Ned

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Ned,

Please read again carefully my extensive citation on page 9 of this thread!
A fragment:

"If Evian demonstrated the parochial interests and selfishness of the civilized nations, the Zionists themselves were not free of blame. They made no outcry at Evian, wanting Jews to be settled in Palestine, not in Britain, the United States or elsewhere. (10) What Evian did support was the Zionist demand for immigration into Palestine - Palestine as the only answer to Hitler. (11) At the same time Evian gave support to an Arab objection that large Western nations would not inconvenience themselves with a relatively small number of refugees - whereas that refugee population was large enough to substantially alter the population and politics of Palestine. The British had little rebuttal."

My point was -and still is- that in ALL Western Christian countries anti-Semitic feelings were virulent. The Western powers were most reluctant to receive Jewish refugees, nor were the Arabs in Palestine or the original Jewish population of Palestine more enthusiastic.
Your quote tells this same story about the USA.

Yet spreading ALL Jewish refugees over the whole world -every country taking its share- would have been the most fair and reasonable solution. Instead the Zionists insisted -and the Western powers were most happy to oblige- to migrate ALL refugees to Palestine -a country about as large as Massachusetts- despite the fact that in previous years a disproportionate number of Jews had already migrated to this same country against the wish of the original inhabitants.

So all problems of Europe and the Western world were transferred to the poor Arabs. And when it became clear that more migration to Palestine would cause a revolt of those Arabs -something the British tried to avoid- the Zionists never tried earnestly to change the migration policy of Britain, the US and other countries. For the Zionist leadership the importance of saving Jewish life was always subordinate to the conquest of Palestine.
In the end they succeeded, but at a terrible price....

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Ned]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Dear Ned,

Please read again carefully my extensive citation on page 9 of this thread!
A fragment:

"If Evian demonstrated the parochial interests and selfishness of the civilized nations, the Zionists themselves were not free of blame. They made no outcry at Evian, wanting Jews to be settled in Palestine, not in Britain, the United States or elsewhere. (10) What Evian did support was the Zionist demand for immigration into Palestine - Palestine as the only answer to Hitler. (11) At the same time Evian gave support to an Arab objection that large Western nations would not inconvenience themselves with a relatively small number of refugees - whereas that refugee population was large enough to substantially alter the population and politics of Palestine. The British had little rebuttal."

My point was -and still is- that in ALL Western Christian countries anti-Semitic feelings were virulent. The Western powers were most reluctant to receive Jewish refugees, nor were the Arabs in Palestine or the original Jewish population of Palestine more enthusiastic.
Your quote tells this same story about the USA.

Yet spreading ALL Jewish refugees over the whole world -every country taking its share- would have been the most fair and reasonable solution. Instead the Zionists insisted -and the Western powers were most happy to oblige- to migrate ALL refugees to Palestine -a country about as large as Massachusetts- despite the fact that in previous years a disproportionate number of Jews had already migrated to this same country against the wish of the original inhabitants.

So all problems of Europe and the Western world were transferred to the poor Arabs. And when it became clear that more migration to Palestine would cause a revolt of those Arabs -something the British tried to avoid- the Zionists never tried earnestly to change the migration policy of Britain, the US and other countries. For the Zionist leadership the importance of saving Jewish life was always subordinate to the conquest of Palestine.
In the end they succeeded, but at a terrible price....

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

S. Kroeze, Try for the moment to put yourself in the shoes of a European Jew in the late 30's and early 40's. You have to leave Europe. Would you prefer to go to Israel to live with your cousins, or would you prefer go to places like the United States with open and virulent anti-Semitism such as illustrated by my example?

I think you would know the preference of the average Jew, whether he or she was a Zionists or not.

(Just as an aside. When I read about our own history on this matter, I am sickened. Clearly the Holocost changed American attitudes concerning anti-Semitism, and perhaps racism in general.)

[Ethelred]

S. Kroeze, Try for the moment to put yourself in the shoes of a European Jew in the late 30's and early 40's. You have to leave Europe. Would you prefer to go to Israel to live with your cousins, or would you prefer go to places like the United States with open and virulent anti-Semitism such as illustrated by my example?

A lot of them DID come to the US. Some even came here after they lived in Israel first. I don't know how many came before WWII vs after but an awful lot of the survivors did come to the US.

[Natan]

Yet spreading ALL Jewish refugees over the whole world -every country taking its share- would have been the most fair and reasonable solution.

Not really. It wouldn't make much sense to send Jews to China, for example, (they wouldn't go and the Chinese wouldn't want them) and those who returned to their home countries in Eastern Europe faced totalitarian regimes and renewed pogroms. So realistically, the Jews could either have been spread out in the west, kept in camps, or sent to Israel. Now perhaps Jews could have campaigned to have them resettled in the West rather than in Israel, but I think we both know that wouldn't have been successful.

Instead the Zionists insisted -and the Western powers were most happy to oblige- to migrate ALL refugees to Palestine

Did the Zionists say that Jews couldn't go to other countries? Did they turn down some plan for their resettlement in other countries? Or did they merely offer a home to these refugees who had no other place to go?


Ethelred: Again, that was only an option for people with relatives in the United States.

[Ethelred]

Ethelred: Again, that was only an option for people with relatives in the United States.

I don't think my boss had any reletives that were here before WWII. I know who is relatives are and I can check on the only one I am not sure was in a concentration camp. Well I think I can he was a screewriter. IMDF to the fore.

Well you may be right. He was born in the US, New York in 1933.

[Ned]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze

At the same time Evian gave support to an Arab objection that large Western nations would not inconvenience themselves with a relatively small number of refugees - whereas that refugee population was large enough to substantially alter the population and politics of Palestine. The British had little rebuttal."

S.Kroeze

As we have discussed before, the British liberated Palestine from the Turks. It was not Arab territory. It was a British Mandate.

What the Arab nations were objecting to in the 1940's was Jewish immigration into Palestine. But that was not Arab territory. There was no imposition or burden placed on any Arab state. The burden, if anything, was on the British or the inhabitants of Palestine.

It may be true that Jewish immigration into Palestine altered the demographics of the area; it did not alter it in any fundamental way. The Jews remained a decided minority throughout the war and up to 1948. The Nazi’s eliminated the problem of a large number of refugees. Had the British not placed such hard restrictions on immigration into Palestine, though, perhaps a lot more of those the Nazi’s murdered would have survived.

Today, due to their own and Arab aggression, the Palestinians find themselves under the boot of the people they tried to kill. They ask for sympathy. Poor Palestinians! This sounds just like the child asking for mercy for killing his parents because he was an orphan.

The Arab nations and the Palestinian people must agree to live in peace before the Palestinians have a right to an independent state. The Arab nations, lead by Saudi Arabia, have offered an olive branch. The primary remaining obstacle to peace, however, is the lead aggressor-terrorist, a man who no one can trust, the one and only Arafat. So long as he remains, there is no solution. Nothing he signs or agrees to can be trusted. Even by now, the EU must understand this.

The EU and the United States should stand together on this. Taking sides on the side of aggression is not the solution.

If you still doubt who the aggressor is here, think about the term "Land for Peace."

Ned

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you still doubt who the aggressor is here, think about the term "Land for Peace."

It is simple... the aggressor, without a doubt, is and has been Israel. We should beat them down as we did Iraq when they used aggression against Kuwait.

[Sirotnikov]

Imran - think of who gives land, and who gives peace.

palestinians want land
israelis want peace.

simple.

[Imran Siddiqui]

palestinians want land
israelis want peace.

Lets see... back in 1946... Jews want land, Arabs want peace .

simple.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Lets see... back in 1946... Jews want land, Arabs want peace .

simple.

I'm going to have to call a BS on this one, Imran.

[S. Kroeze]

Ned,

Do people under foreign rule have any human rights?

Until now you have consistently argued that conquered people -after all, they are just infidels, barbarians, savages etc,- have no rights at all. The conqueror can at his own discretion evict them from their land, abduct them into slavery, use them for medical experiments etc.

The fact they lost their political independence proves their inferiority and the right of the conqueror to rule!
When they protest, one should shoot them: that will teach them!

[Az]

S.Kroeze , you're another person that I'd like to share my sig with.

[Kropotkin]

Martin Luther King Jr. is wrong Dal...

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
S.Kroeze , you're another person that I'd like to share my sig with.

Dear Dalgetti,

I have no problem with your statement, but I think it would become even more convincing when you would at least try to argue your case.

I also kindly ask you to read -and I mean real reading, not skimming through- ALL my posts in this thread.
I hope you will have more respect for professional historians and truth than is generally shown on this Forum. My opponents have shown to be highly selective in their use of historical facts and tend to disregard all information that does not suit their argument.

I hope you will display more intellectual integrity!

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

Just one example that refutes Ned's last post about the preference of European Jews to migrate to Palestine:

S. Kroeze, Try for the moment to put yourself in the shoes of a European Jew in the late 30's and early 40's. You have to leave Europe. Would you prefer to go to Israel to live with your cousins, or would you prefer go to places like the United States with open and virulent anti-Semitism such as illustrated by my example?

I think you would know the preference of the average Jew, whether he or she was a Zionists or not.

"Between 1880 and 1900 more than a million Jews reached the United States. A fraction of that number, most of them with strong religious and nationalist feelings about Eretz Yisrael , immigrated to Palestine."

"The Orthodox Jewish pietists of the Old Yishuv, living on haluka, predominated in Palestine until after World War I, when Zionist-sponsored immigration created a majority of the New Yishuv. Whenever they arrived, Jewish immigrants were not met with an easy life in Palestine. Between 1881 and 1914 as many as 50,000, one of two, left Palestine for the West."

"The ultra-Orthodox community... ..rejected secular Zionism but after the riots of 1920 and 1921 did nothing to oppose it."

"In 1922 a government census recorded some 84,000 Jews in Palestine; that population doubled by 1931, bringing the New Yishuv to 175,000."
(source: T.A.Idinopulos: 'Weathered by Miracles', 1998)

The Jews did not prefer to migrate to Palestine; they were manipulated by the Zionist leadership. Some of them will have had relatives in Palestine, but there were far more Jewish relatives living in the USA.
Nor will a true refugee care about his refuge; his priority is to save his life!

[Ned]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Ned,

Do people under foreign rule have any human rights?

Until now you have consistently argued that conquered people -after all, they are just infidels, barbarians, savages etc,- have no rights at all. The conqueror can at his own discretion evict them from their land, abduct them into slavery, use them for medical experiments etc.

The fact they lost their political independence proves their inferiority and the right of the conqueror to rule!
When they protest, one should shoot them: that will teach them!

I think the point I was making is that this war or series of wars took place in Palestine between the residents of Palestine, Arab and Jew, with outside intervention. In this regard, the area currently occuppied by the Arab-Palestinians is like the South after the American Civil War, which many in the South call, even to this day, the War of Northern Aggression.

What went on in America after the Civil War was not pretty. There was a lot of "pay back." However, whatever rights the people of the North had to live in the South was restored. A lot moved South. They were called "Carpetbaggers." Generally they moved South to acquire property cheaply. They were highly resented by Southerners.

I do not believe the Jewish settlements are "illegal." They or Israel have to pay for the land. I know the land owners of expropriated property have a right of action in Israeli courts. I know that the right has been exercised.

As to the future, there is tension between the right of Israel to annex the land into the state of Israel and the right of a people to self-determination. I believe that most Americans and most Israeli's do support that right for the Palestinians - but only after they agree to stop making war on Israel.

Ned

[Az]

Kroeze:
And I'll explain it with another quote by the same man .

And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

; they were manipulated by the Zionist leadership

the quotes you've mentioned have no connection to the statement. and so what if Orthodox jews opposed it?

( good reasoning and all , Kropo , as always )

[Kropotkin]

But he IS wrong, antisemtism and anti-zionism is to distinctly different "anti-ideas".

And Martin Luther Kings defintiton of anti-zionism is wrong, that a people living in a land have a right to freedom is not the same as a peoples right to land that they claim as their homeland.

If I am to accept zionism I might as well accept the pals right to re-settle Israel, the american Indian peoples right to the entire continent and all kinds of more or less realistic claims.

[S. Kroeze]

As usual Ned categorically refused to answer my question!

Do people under foreign rule have any human rights?

And his comparison with the Confederate states is most far-fetched.
Just one small detail:
The Confederate states had of their own free will chosen to be part of the United States. The Arab people of the Middle East had NEVER chosen to become part of the British Empire!

And Dalgetti refused to read my previous posts.
Otherwise he would react to my position that Jews are defined by their religion. Even Natan agreed with my conclusion!
So the opinion of Orthodox Jews living in Palestine since time immemorial shouldn't be considered irrelevant.
Yet on second thoughts, were these Orthodox Jews Europeans....?

If I am to accept zionism I might as well accept the pals right to re-settle Israel, the american Indian peoples right to the entire continent and all kinds of more or less realistic claims.

Dear Kropotkin,

You forget one important detail:
Europeans ALWAYS have the right to conquer some territory outside Europe.
Europeans ALWAYS have the right to settle in another part of the world against the wish of the native population.
Europeans ALWAYS have the right to abduct non-Europeans into slavery.
Europeans ALWAYS have the right to promise an oppressed people (i.e. Arabs) self-determination without honouring this promise.
Europeans deserve democracy and self-determination, while non-Europeans do not.
European refugees deserve preferential treatment, while non-Europeans do not.
European powers have the right to restrict the immigration of refugees, while non-Europeans have NO right whatsoever!

The British had every right to rule India, Egypt, the Middle East etc. They only departed because they chose to do so, but when they desire they can re-establish their rule tomorrow....

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

palestinians want land israelis want peace.

Lets see... back in 1946... Jews want land, Arabs want peace .

simple.

hi ,

of course , ............but would it not be Jews want peace in 1946-41-48-49 , .....00-01-02 , and Arabs , most of them never lived there , and have nothing to do there , ....want war , ........and if it would not be against Israel it would be sure that they would wage war against an other country , .......

have a nice day

[Az]

Jews are defined by their religion , among other things.

and since when does natan count as a voice of judgement?