SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Obama Watch

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Broken_Clock who wrote (196)3/18/2009 1:34:44 PM
From: LTK007  Read Replies (1) of 290
 
Being jewish these days in social situations with others jews of which one doesn't know where the each stands then tend to AVOID the subject as it has become a subject EXPLOSIVE .
The one positive element is the percentage of jews that view is sympatheic to Palestinians(and are firm about the Moral WRONG of the Gaza Ghetto, and will righttfully compare it to the Warsaw Ghetto) and/or suggesting zionism is a terrible failure is increasing, and little by little the amount of jews starting to look at history of Zionist Movement more honestly is increasing.
A great humanist/jewish movie director from Manchester, England that is strongly anti-Israel, said that in his own family history the word zionism has gone from respectable to a word now spoken in disgust.

He stands against jews that smear either jews or non-jews that express their views against Israel and also stands against the Rich Power Dog zionists that do in fact have a powerful system of propaganda and that they did create the Israel Lobby.

All honest people will know the Israeli Lobby is a hard reality, it is not about "what is jewish" it is solely about Ultra Zionism, and pressing its agenda, and it has been around for a looooooooooooong time.

People in groups that call themselves "Jews for Christ" are ultra right wing on many matters, and virtually all are ultra zionist, and you get both a CristianRightWinger/UltraZionist--it will not likely be a nice meeting unless you just nod and agree with everything he says.

i have seen friendships die on this issue, and families split apart.

Now i want it known i was once a NAIVE zionist(in my distant youth), but i can tell the primary reason was simply IGNORANCE, for as one anti-israel jew has said the frst thing jews need stop reading is Leon Uris'es Exodus and thinking they are reading truth---it is largely a book of propaganda.

But this is so complex and i nodded in agreement with Michael Leigh, when he said, one, if wasn't for the pandemic breakout of rabid anti-semitiem in Europe(including Russia) in the 19th century, we would not have had a Zionist Movement, and secondly, if we did have the european holocaust of 20th century there would NOT be Israel an Israel.

One key element is to undrerstand the cold blooded plans of Ben-Gurion to get rid of the Palestinians, that we can document all the way back to 1921, was not known by many----and come the Hlocaust that exterminated 6million jews, over 7 million non-jews--of which it is argued 500,000 were Gypsies, which would mean The Roma lost the highest % of their population: as Simon Wiesenthal said ody, the the Holocausst was NOT uniquely Jewish, and stood in direct opposition to Eli Wiesel proclaiming at NO time in history was a kiled for no reason other than they existed: want to ask the Aboriginal Americans about that Wiesel, wantn to ask The Roama about that Eli!! i have viewed Wiesel dismissal of the extermination of the Gypsy as not being comparable to what happen to the jews as SUPREMELY RACIST to The Roma; and i praise Wiesenthat refusal to see the Holocaust as uniqurly Jewish( He-Wiesenthal-- has said , 'all i know a great deal of the prisoners in his camp were NOT jewish'.
Wisenthal stated the Holocausst was a crime against all humanity, this the SAME view of Primo Levi--so both Levi and Wiesenthal opposed Wiesel for proclaiming the Holocaust as uniquely a crime agaist Jews and he meant for ALL of History this was UNIQUE.

The Hideous Irony of this is the Palestinians(Semites themselves) are the cruel VICTIMS for the Crime of Europe.
Let's throw another light on this when the Crusaders finally took Jerusalem at one point, there were within Jerusalem 6,000 jews living in peaceful co-existence with the moslems, so what happened when the Great Crusaders moved in??????????

They slaughtered every jew, man woman and child, inside Moslem Jerusalem, on the basis that they were "Christ Killers".

Problem is the Askhenazi jews had been so "westernized" , they allied with the west that had brought them such hell. and made the Palestinians pay the price for the crimes of Europe!

BTW, anyone that thinks Anti-Semitism was not rampant in the U.S. moving into the 50s, have no clue about anything.


In the word for word accurate(they found the original stenographer's text--it was saved in a safe there) about the Wannasee Conference(where the "Final Solution" plan was set in play)--a CHILLANY brilliant performance by Kenneth Branagh, who actually, during a break in the action PUKED, it was so hard playing what Branagh said was the part of Absolute Evil: the movies title is Conspiracy----- well in this word for word accurate script, these evil bastards, had sought other solutions, one was they asked Roosevelt and Churchchill to relieve them of THEIR STORAGE PROBLEM and have the jews go to america and britain, they also ask South Africa.
Roosevelt and Churchill REFUSED, and they DAMNED WELL KNEW WHAT THAT REFUSAL WOULD MEAN.


It is NOT surprising that in a world like this Hannah Arendt would commence as a Zionist--intense at that--(she wanted an all jewish military unit that flew the Israeli Flag, in WWII) But i have nothing but respect for her that she reversed her position, on witnessing the reality of Zionism and perceiving that falling into the grip of Evil, NO people/nation are immune from, NONE, absolutely none, including Israel---this the same view as Primo Levi.
Hannah Arendt at that time OUTRAGED the zionist community, and remains to this day under relentless attack, their target being when in her early 20s she had an INTENSE love affair with Martin Heidegger in the 1920s and he when he later became a Nazi sympathizers and never left Nazi Germany, she could NOT condemn bring herself to condemning a man that in her youth was the love of her life.

She should have? Yes.
But to denounce someone that was the profound love affair of your youth is hard, she could never grasp what Heidegger had become.
This has been used to attack Arendt , without mercy, not confronting that Love can be Foolish--she just could confront Heidegger had become what he was not,when they were lovers.

i could write forever:) End post. Max
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext