I just posted the following comment over on OpEdNews on the post there entitled, "Dealing with Anti-Semitism from a Jewish Perspective."
When I saw the headline of this article, I thought to myself, does he mean anti-Semites or anti-Jews or anti-Zionists as in anti-Jabotinsky-type terrorists? I see now that you mean Jews who are against the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which ethnic cleansing, as we all know, is a euphemism for murder and land theft.
I like Palestine. I've decided that my offspring will be a great nation. I'm instructing them now to takeover Palestine/Israel and "clean" (exterminate or horn out) the place of everyone who isn't my descendant because my descendents will be able to. Does that sound good to you?
Let's see, were there German anti-Nazis where that sentiment, that insanity, was diagnosed by the Nazis as a virus? Did those Nazis hate themselves?
You need to get up to speed. Alan Dershowitz said that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
You say some of the staff of OpEdNews agrees with this junk you're spewing? Well, there's a definite fascist streak within OpEdNews then.
Do you really believe people are still falling for your propaganda? It's worn out. It stopped working long ago. You're just restating all the failed racist excuses. Your article is weak. You give no valid reasons for anyone who is truly anti-fascist to accept your agenda.
You mention Meier Kahane without even mentioning the reprehensible Jewish Defense League? Are you sure that OpEdNews staff agrees with you?
So, what's a Semite? My understanding is that it means the descendents of Shem. It is also my understanding that the Palestinian Arabs descend from Shem. So, where do the Zionists get off calling anti-Zionists anti-Semites? Also, how can a Jew be against himself when he is for righteousness toward the Palestinian Arabs and his fellow Jews alike?
Your logic isn't logical. Your reasoning is specious.
Let's look at the word "Zion." Everyone's root understanding about it should come from the Bible. It's a hill. It's tied in with Salem, which is the place of peace. The "Zionists," however, didn't return in peace to share the land. They return to horn out others by any means necessary including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, all the things they decry when done to them. Yet, you have the audacity to use the term "double standard."
Is the Zionist Project legitimate? Not in my book it isn't. Plenty of nations are wrong, illegal, and illegitimate, etc. The U.S. is one of them as a matter of fact. Of course, it depends upon the law one follows.
When was the first Palestinian suicide bomber? What was going on before that with the Zionists? Were they being nice to the Arabs? I'm not for suicide bombing, and I don't excuse it; but I know who has the greater sin if you're going to keep talking directly or indirectly about collective guilt and rights, etc.
Let's look at the name "Israel." It comes from Jacob. Jacob said his sons make Jacob's house to stink among the nations by the actions of those sons. To the real "Israel," Jacob, everything his sons did was not excused. In fact, he cursed them.
Then you go on to demean "Catholic Liberation Theology" as if it's less worthy than the so-called "just wars" of greedy capitalists? You are seriously confused. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Marxist, but not all liberation theologians are Marxist or violent. I'm a liberation theologian, and I'm a total pacifist and can't stand capitalism, including the Austrian School variety.
Sharansky test? Sharansky doesn't set the definitions. He and you are losing and will lose. The only hope for him and you is to give it up: the racist, fascistic Zionist Project.
By the way, I don't care what Rob Kall thinks about this comment of mine in terms of whether or not he'll ban me from his site on account of it. Let him if he's a rabid Zionist. He'll fail right along with you. I hope he's brighter than that though.
You're wearing out the Stockholm Syndrome analogy and especially since it applies to Zionists more than the other way around. Zionists are the ones who have taken on the characteristics of those they complain most about: the Nazis. Of course, that's assuming that they weren't there already but just suppressed enough by other "nations."
You also cite a study on pain. Do you know who feels more the way the Arabs in that study feel? I bet you don't. People who feel more that way are people who have been more abused. The Zionists are the abusers right now, and more importantly, many of them have never been on the receiving and have their dirty work done for them by people barely out of their teens.
Was your point to show that there's an ethnic superiority-inferiority thing going on there? It sure sounds that way. However, I've known Arabs who weren't abused and who were born and raised in the U.S. as Christians. I'll tell you, I'll stack them up against your brain scan anytime.
You're piece starts out lumping everyone together. Then intermittently, when it suits you, you talk about individual Jews. What about the Jews who help to rebuild the houses of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs that are demolished by their fellow Jews? Are they all sick? Should they be like Meier Kahane and his followers? How many Palestinians would be left in the West Bank if they did that, none? Would they all be dead? It's likely if all the Zionists weren't dead first.
Try peace rather than lies. Ilan Pappe has more reasons to like himself. I like it that his ilk stands up telling the truth rather then spreading the false propaganda of the Zionist Project.
You're an OpEdNews Senior Editor? Will this comment even make it on? By the way, I'm prepared to debate you point-by-point in writing right here on OpEdNews. To me, failure to be willing to do that and just hitting with selective statements while ignoring the other person's points or twisting them into what they are not are the only legitimate reasons for censorship (barring porn and such of course). Some libertarians wouldn't even bar the porn.
Anyway, it's clear that you aren't a "liberal." You're a neocon. I thought OpEdNews was for liberals, not neocons. What is this, bait and switch now that Rob has plenty of people "invested" with time and energy? I hope not; but right now, it isn't looking good.
By the way, I wrote this before reading any comments. Then before posting it, I read the comments without changing from here up in my comment.
Let me say bravo to those Jews who stood right up to you. Mark Sashine is a particular shining example of why real anti-Semitism stinks. All the anti-Jew stereotyping does not apply against him. Fortunately, there are many, many Jews who are likewise standing up to be heard saying that what the Zionist Project has done is disgusting and inexcusable, just as what Apartheid South Africa did and slavery America and Nazi Germany and on and on all around the world.
The Zionists aren't special. You're just being some of the worst if not the worst for the time being.
Hallelujah for Rob Kall writing, "Put me on the list, I guess," with the exception of the "I guess" part. He probably means that he doesn't hate himself for being a Jew, per se.
"...we are building an Israeli-type 2,000 mile wall too." Whose idea is that? Could it have come from neocons within the U.S. government? Yes, it sure could have. It did, didn't it?
We don't need that wall. That wall is ridiculous. That wall is paranoid. That wall is the result of people who will profit selfishly by it at the greater expense of those who don't need or want the stupid, fascist wall. They are wicked people who have fired up the arms race in Mexico and stand to benefit by the drug wars.
As for Pearl Harbor, try reading the real reasons behind that event and the works of researchers who did firsthand studies of the historical documents, such as documented in, "Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor," by Robert Stinnett.
Oh by the way, you're supposed to hate yourself when you do wrong.
Lastly, Tony Blair and George W. Bush took more heat from Anglo-Saxons than Ariel Sharon took from Jews any day. I'm Anglo-Saxon and don't shrink a bit from saying that Blair and Bush and many others were monstrous and very fascistic, right in there with the Likud, although, Bush and Blair didn't like it all the time. They sucked it up for the money though and the Great Anglo-American-Israeli Empire.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)