Hizbullah â??is not anti-Jewish. I repeat, they are not anti-Jewish.â?�

We are now seeing who the real enemy is.

Oh wait guys (won't name names!)...its from infowars.com. Better not read it. You might get enlightened. We can't have enlightened free thinking people in a fascist country now can we!
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3...nti_jewish.htm
Video on website too!


"[Hizbullah was] a direct result of Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. The Israelis killed tens of thousands of people in Southern Lebanon during that occupation . . . this [was] part of the civil war. This is 1980. They devastated the south. Hizbullah went in really as a social services organization during the civil war. They are NOT anti-Jewish. I repeat, they are NOT anti-Jewish."
There goes the anti-semite card.

â??There is this great vilification of the Hizbullah people. They are always labeled as terrorists. They have NEVER, despite what Israel says, they have never attacked Israel, they have not attacked the northern border. It is Israel that has sent rockets into southern Lebanon on almost a daily basis and this is documented in daily UN reports of the situation.

I was in Tyre in 2004 and I saw the Israeli rockets coming over and exploding and the local people shrug their shoulders and say this happens daily.

I was in Beirut in July of 2004, and my husband was there last year, and the Israeli jet fighters come over with no provocation from the Lebanese army or air force - which is pretty weak - and they break the sonic boom, itâ??s a reminder to people as to who is boss â?? itâ??s bullying.â?�

nice propaganda posters, albeit somewhat cliche.

on another note, brian williams said in an interview with Jon Stewart, that hizbullah rockets were shitty anyways. He said they'd shoot them off, and the rockets would land somewhere in the lebaneese forrest... not even reaching their target...burning the forrest. Willaims said that there's alot of forrest fires in lebanon now. in a sense, brian williams has somewhat played down the conflict in the middle east.

i think there is something important that all jewish people and jewish sympathisers should know--you do NOT have to be a ZIONIST to support JEWS AND JUDAISM. being anti-zionist is NOT being anti-semantic. I know this because there are plenty of jews who do not supprot israeli occupation. That's what it is--it is an occupation. Learn and understand that.

Zionism is a nice idea in theory--let's give the displaced jews a homeland. in practice, it's not so good. the israeli jews could live perfectly well amongst the palestinians. however, like most provokers of war, they are greedy for power. it's not enough that they have a fucking country to live in--now they want to control the government, now they even rob the palestinians of their rights. fuck the zionists. you aren't real jews. jewish people are welcome in israel, just as long as they don't occupy the country with tanks and weapons.

I will put it in perspective: imagine all the mexicans in mexico invading the states of Texas, California, and all their territory that america robbed from them. Now imagine the mexicans using brute military force, driving through the streets of los angeles with thanks and automatic weapons, killing innocent american children because this territory once belonged to the mexicans. Their motive: the territory once belonged to mexico, so they are re-establishing their homeland. Now, do you think the american people would react kindly to this sort of thing? If mexico tried to occupy american cities, using brute military force, don't you think you as an american would be irate and scared , upset and fearful? This is how the palestinians feel.

what i see in zionism is a contradiction of the Torah--the jewish scriptures. the very basis of zionism has its roots in the religious scriptures, using the excuse that god gave the jews the land of israel for their own benefit and home. they use this excuse as a means to justify their killing of innocent people, of occupying a country using military force. If you read the 10 commandments, however, it states "do not take the name of the lord your god in vein". This doesn't mean, "Don't say god damnit because that takes the name of the lord in vein". Contrary, the commandment is meant to discourage people from using the name of God to justify their personal, selfish desires--which gives them some form of gain. Don't use the name of God to convince people to buy your religious audiocassette lectures, by which you profit from. Don't use the name of god to manipulate people into doing what you want. don't use the name of god to kill people so you can have power over a land that god expelled you out of anyways (as it is said in jewish scriptures).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanCurtisWishlist

Zionism is a nice idea in theory--let's give the displaced jews a homeland. in practice, it's not so good. the israeli jews could live perfectly well amongst the palestinians. however, like most provokers of war, they are greedy for power. it's not enough that they have a fucking country to live in--now they want to control the government, now they even rob the palestinians of their rights. fuck the zionists. you aren't real jews. jewish people are welcome in israel, just as long as they don't occupy the country with tanks and weapons.

I will put it in perspective: imagine all the mexicans in mexico invading the states of Texas, California, and all their territory that america robbed from them. Now imagine the mexicans using brute military force, driving through the streets of los angeles with thanks and automatic weapons, killing innocent american children because this territory once belonged to the mexicans. Their motive: the territory once belonged to mexico, so they are re-establishing their homeland. Now, do you think the american people would react kindly to this sort of thing? If mexico tried to occupy american cities, using brute military force, don't you think you as an american would be irate and scared , upset and fearful? This is how the palestinians feel.

what i see in zionism is a contradiction of the Torah--the jewish scriptures. the very basis of zionism has its roots in the religious scriptures, using the excuse that god gave the jews the land of israel for their own benefit and home. they use this excuse as a means to justify their killing of innocent people, of occupying a country using military force. If you read the 10 commandments, however, it states "do not take the name of the lord your god in vein". This doesn't mean, "Don't say god damnit because that takes the name of the lord in vein". Contrary, the commandment is meant to discourage people from using the name of God to justify their personal, selfish desires--which gives them some form of gain. Don't use the name of God to convince people to buy your religious audiocassette lectures, by which you profit from. Don't use the name of god to manipulate people into doing what you want. don't use the name of god to kill people so you can have power over a land that god expelled you out of anyways (as it is said in jewish scriptures).

---

very well said, I cant say it any better...U, my friend can see thru....

Huh, they're not anti-Semitic? Ever see the Hezbollah-produced TV show called "Al-Shatat"? I guess not, or you wouldn't make an obviously false statement like that.

The series includes a dramatization of the killing of a Christian child and the use of his blood to make matzah. Of course, no one would think that was anti-Semitic. *laugh*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great Spirit

We are now seeing who the real enemy is.

Oh wait guys (won't name names!)...its from infowars.com. Better not read it. You might get enlightened. We can't have enlightened free thinking people in a fascist country now can we!
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3...nti_jewish.htm
Video on website too!


"[Hizbullah was] a direct result of Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. The Israelis killed tens of thousands of people in Southern Lebanon during that occupation . . . this [was] part of the civil war. This is 1980. They devastated the south. Hizbullah went in really as a social services organization during the civil war. They are NOT anti-Jewish. I repeat, they are NOT anti-Jewish."
There goes the anti-semite card.

â??There is this great vilification of the Hizbullah people. They are always labeled as terrorists. They have NEVER, despite what Israel says, they have never attacked Israel, they have not attacked the northern border. It is Israel that has sent rockets into southern Lebanon on almost a daily basis and this is documented in daily UN reports of the situation.

I was in Tyre in 2004 and I saw the Israeli rockets coming over and exploding and the local people shrug their shoulders and say this happens daily.

I was in Beirut in July of 2004, and my husband was there last year, and the Israeli jet fighters come over with no provocation from the Lebanese army or air force - which is pretty weak - and they break the sonic boom, itâ??s a reminder to people as to who is boss â?? itâ??s bullying.â?�

---

GS you usually just humor me but this time.............

You are as fucking stupid as...........(come on guys what is he as stupid as?)
dirt..............


Thanks Jam... I ll educate this punk for you



Scenes from the TV series Al-Shatat, the episode about the blood libel of killing a Christian child
for baking Passover matzoth (Al-Manar TV, October 2003)

During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when television viewing peaks, an independent Jordanian TV station called Al-Mamnou broadcast an anti-Semitic TV series called Al-Shatat (â??The Exileâ?� or â??The Diasporaâ?�). The series was produced in Syria and first broadcast on Hezbollah's Lebanese Al-Manar satellite channel in October-November 2003 (also during Ramadan) and by Iranian TV in 2004. That created a furor of protests around the world which led to the banning of Al-Manar broadcasts in France and other countries.

The series presents a warped, fallacious, anti-Semitic pseudo-historical survey of the Zionist movement from its beginnings at the turn of the 19 th century to the founding of the State of Israel. It exploits anti-Semitic myths taken whole from of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, including the blood libel, which accuses Jews of kneading the blood of a Christian child into the Passover matzoth. 1

Al-Mamnou 2 managed to broadcast 22 of the original 29 episodes before the Jordanians banned further broadcasting in response to pressure exerted on the government by various Israeli and American organizations (AP, October 30). After the series was taken off the air, the Jordanian embassy in the United States announced that the Jordanian government had been informed that the controversial program Al-Shatat had been aired on a private, independent channel called Al-Mamnou, operated by the Free Media City Company in Jordan which was subject to Jordanian law. 3 According to the announcement, because the series was suspected of propaganda inciting to hatred and violence, its broadcasting stopped as of October 25 (See Appendix). 4

Walid al-Hadidi , Al-Mamnou's chairman, said the show was taken off the air â??for technical rather than political reasons.â?� He refused to comment as to whether the Jordanian government had exerted pressure on him. He noted that the series, which he claimed cost $1.25 million, would return after Ramadan (MEMRI report, October 23, 2005). It would therefore seem that the outrage of this blatantly crude anti-Semitic series has not yet ended.

If making a tv series thats anti your warmongering neighour makes you anti-semetic then Hollywood leads the way not the arabs.
The white man and the jew have been knocking the arabs forever in our films and its sheer hypocrisy to use this Al-Shatat to prove a point.They're doing no more than copy what we've done since discovering cinematography.

Reel Bad Arabs:
How Hollywood Vilifies a People
by Jack G. Shaheen
New York, Olive Branch Press, 2001

Reel Bad Arabs provides an in-depth look at how Hollywood has consistently denigrated Arabs in movies over the last hundred years. Author Jack Shaheen (professor emeritus of mass communications at Southern Illinois University and the world�s foremost authority on media images of Arabs) examines more than 900 feature films and describes the negative portrayal of Arab characters in each. "Reel Arabs," as Shaheen calls the Hollywoodized version of people from the 22 Arab states, are murderers, rapists, terrorists, hijackers, religious fanatics, and greedy oil-millionaires. They are bearded, camel-riding, harem-overseeing, bumbling, swarthy, hateful, crazy, and obnoxious. Almost entirely absent from the big screen are ordinary Arabs�the "man who works ten hours a day, comes home to a loving wife and family, plays soccer with his kids, and prays with family members at his respective mosque or church."

Hollywood�s worst treatment, Shaheen argues, is reserved for Muslim Arabs. "Today�s imagemakers," writes Shaheen, "regularly link the Islamic faith with male supremacy, holy war, and acts of terror, depicting Arab Muslims as hostile alien intruders, and as lecherous, oily sheikhs intent on using nuclear weapons. When mosques are displayed onscreen, the camera inevitably cuts to Arabs praying, and then gunning down civilians."

While the negative stereotyping of Arabs in American movies is nothing new (it began in the early 1900s), the practice took on a new viciousness toward the end of the century. This trend is evidenced by movies such as True Lies (1994), G.I. Jane and Operation Condor (1997), and The Siege (1998). In True Lies, the all-American hero, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, prevents a group of pyschotic-yet-idiotic Arabs from destroying the United States with nuclear weapons. In G.I. Jane, Demi Moore plays an enlisted Navy woman who has to prove her mettle by killing scores of Arabs. Jackie Chan, in Operation Condor, battles evil Arabs as he attempts to recover a chest of gold hidden by the Nazis at the end of World War II. And in The Siege, heroes Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington outwit a group of Arab Muslims planning to bomb New York City.

Particularly racist depictions of Arabs have been presented by the American film company Cannon, which was co-founded by Israeli producers Yorum Globus (former director of Israel�s Film Industry Department) and Menachem Golan. By the end of the 1990s, Cannon had released twenty-six "hate-and-terminate-the-Arab" movies; three of the most notorious being Hell Squad (1985), The Delta Force (1986), and Killing Streets (1991). In those films, Palestinians were killed by Las Vegas showgirls, U.S. Marines, and U.S. Special Forces, respectively.

What is the consequence of this steady stream of negative portrayals of Arabs and Muslims? According to Shaheen, the movie stereotypes contribute to a climate of Arab-hating�that the substitution of "reel Arabs" for "real Arabs" dehumanizes Arabs and makes them vulnerable to mistreatment. Shaheen draws the parallel between past cinematic abuses of Asians and the ease with which the American people accepted the imprisonment of more than 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II. He makes a similar case for the prior demonization of African Americans, American Indians, and Jews on the silver screen, and the injustices that have been done to those groups of people. While it is no longer fashionable to discriminate against the aforementioned groups on screen, Shaheen claims, Arabs remain fair game. He draws a connection between unsavory Arab film images and the more than 300 hate crimes committed against Arabs in the direct aftermath of Timothy McVeigh�s bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 (Arabs were initially suspected by law enforcement officials in the incident).

Shaheen makes the following recommendation to Hollywood movie-makers: "The time is long overdue for Hollywood to end its undeclared war on Arabs, and to cease misrepresenting and maligning them. All I ask of filmmakers is to be even-handed, to project Arabs as they do other people�no better, no worse. They should enjoy at the very least relative immunity from prejudicial portrayal."

They dont need help being evil.............

Look up wahhabism...................

Infidel..................................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong30

They dont need help being evil.............

Look up wahhabism...................

Infidel..................................

---

But if they need an example they can just copy the U.S, Britain and Israel.;)

Being 'against' a neighbor is one thing. Accusing them (with zero proof, mind you) of killing children to use their blood in bread is something else entirely. Of course, all Arabs aren't terrorists. Not even close. But it does seem like the majority of terrorists are Arabs, does it not? Should that fact be ignored?

Those films you mention are located in the 'fiction' department. Al-Shatat is presented as fact, as a documentary. No one really believes that Jackie Chan is out there killing Arabs for Nazi gold. No one believes Arnold Schwarzenegger ever fought Arabs with nuclear weapons. But Al-Shatat, presented as it is, as fact, might convince Arabs that Jews really do kill children to make matzah.

One must also take into account purpose. The purpose of making Operation Condor (or whatever) is to entertain people with an obviously fictional story, in order to make money at the box office or DVD stores. If the bad guys are Arabs, so what? And if they were Jewish, so what again? The movie isn't saying all Arabs are bad, just that the Arabs fighting Jackie are bad. The bad guys have to be *something*. The purpose of Al-Shatat, on the contrary, is obviously to incite hatred between Jews and Christians/Arabs. It portrays ALL Jews as evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamstigator

Being 'against' a neighbor is one thing. Accusing them (with zero proof, mind you) of killing children to use their blood in bread is something else entirely. Of course, all Arabs aren't terrorists. Not even close. But it does seem like the majority of terrorists are Arabs, does it not? Should that fact be ignored?

Those films you mention are located in the 'fiction' department. Al-Shatat is presented as fact, as a documentary. No one really believes that Jackie Chan is out there killing Arabs for Nazi gold. No one believes Arnold Schwarzenegger ever fought Arabs with nuclear weapons. But Al-Shatat, presented as it is, as fact, might convince Arabs that Jews really do kill children to make matzah.

One must also take into account purpose. The purpose of making Operation Condor (or whatever) is to entertain people with an obviously fictional story, in order to make money at the box office or DVD stores. If the bad guys are Arabs, so what? And if they were Jewish, so what again? The movie isn't saying all Arabs are bad, just that the Arabs fighting Jackie are bad. The bad guys have to be *something*. The purpose of Al-Shatat, on the contrary, is obviously to incite hatred between Jews and Christians/Arabs. It portrays ALL Jews as evil.

---

Sorry Jamstigator but your post comes over to me as hypocritical .:(
To me it reads that all the highly anti-arab films churned out by the jewish film company Cannon are completely nonpropogandist and definitely not designed to imbibe the viewer with a feeling that arabs are in any way bad or dangerous. However one series designed to appeal to the arab not the white man is cus it claims the more fanatical of the jewish faith may have rituals as unsavoury as those our media claims the arabs themselves practice.
Something there smells of bullsh1t as the blues bro's would say .:p

Seems pretty clear to me, but let me check dictionary.com. Yep, documentary and fiction, two different meanings. Arabs are probably the fiction-makers' most used antagonist, but the reason for that is that there are more extremist Arabs. Sure, these movies could use Buddhist extremists, or Hindu extremists, but that wouldn't be very believable, seeing as there aren't really any around, whereas Arab terrorists are a dime a dozen.

It's not like anyone is saying all Arabs are bad though. When you see a movie that involves KKK members beating up black people, likewise, that isn't saying all white people are that way. If Arabs don't like playing the antagonists in movies, maybe they should look to their own flock and try to weed out the many that really *are* antagonists. In other words, if they acted more like peaceful Buddhists, they'd probably get the same film treatment as peaceful Buddhists. Unfortunately, there seems to be a disproportionately high number of suicide bombers and terrorists and such mixed into their population. You're judged by those with whom you associate. Whether that's fair or not is a question for another thread.

Can't remember the last time I saw a Jew kill a Christian child to use his blood to make matzah though. Oh yeah, that's right: never. Good thing 'documentary' doesn't necessarily mean 'true'. In any case, I was responding to the statement that Hezbollah isn't anti-Semitic. Their own documentaries prove that statement false, in as complete a way as is possible. They're their own worst PR people.

regardless of hizbullah being anti-semantic or not, that is not the point. they aren't zionists. secondly, most arabs aren't terrorists. most arabs just want to live their life like everybody else in the world. these terrorists are only a small militant sect of islam--a cult, if you will--much similar to jim jones and his crew. however because it is the militants blowing themselves up and killng people, it's them who receive the media coverage. it gives them a bad name.

and there is proof that israel is killing children. maybe you should read some news reports. when you're dropping bombs on a fucking city, do you think it's only military men, or adults being killed? thats as absurd as saying the bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki were killing only imperialists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanCurtisWishlist

regardless of hizbullah being anti-semantic or not, that is not the point. they aren't zionists. secondly, most arabs aren't terrorists. most arabs just want to live their life like everybody else in the world. these terrorists are only a small militant sect of islam--a cult, if you will--much similar to jim jones and his crew. however because it is the militants blowing themselves up and killng people, it's them who receive the media coverage. it gives them a bad name.

and there is proof that israel is killing children. maybe you should read some news reports. when you're dropping bombs on a fucking city, do you think it's only military men, or adults being killed? thats as absurd as saying the bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki were killing only imperialists.

---

do you have the mental intilect to debate the use of BIG BOY?

No.... I didnt think so..... What was the causulity projections if we needed to invade mainland Japan? Dont know.... didnt think so.


Jim Jones.......are you kidding me?

this is math.... 1 billion muslims, 10% are wahhabist...........

100 million people want you DEAD..........

I was unaware that Jim Jones had 100 million people....

Huh learn something new every day.........NOT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong30

do you have the mental intilect to debate the use of BIG BOY?

No.... I didnt think so..... What was the causulity projections if we needed to invade mainland Japan? Dont know.... didnt think so.


Jim Jones.......are you kidding me?

this is math.... 1 billion muslims, 10% are wahhabist...........

100 million people want you DEAD..........

I was unaware that Jim Jones had 100 million people....

Huh learn something new every day.........NOT

---

Excuse you for being so crude.

100 million people do not want me dead. You are mistaken.

Jim Jones was a cult leader. Jim Jones didn't represent mainstream christianity. In this respect, RADICAL JIHADING MUSLIMS are considered a cult by even other Muslims. This is because they do NOT represent the mass view of their religion--only a perversion of what muslims believe to be truth. They are disowned by fellow Muslims and denounced and condemned as terrorists.

Yes, I do have the mental intellect to debate the use of BIG BOY. Do you have the mental intellect to debate me? You're somewhat hostile. I think you need to lay down on the padded couch for a while and talk with a therapist or something.

Where are you finding your statistics? Kindly get me a source for these "facts". Thanks.

It's anti-Semitic, not anti-semantic. I'm not sure the latter has any meaning. And judging from the title of the thread, I thought that was the point: someone was postulating that Hezbollah has nothing against Jews, when in fact they operate their own racist printshops and pay to have the racist videos that they produce aired on television for the masses.

Sure, they're just a 'cult', but they're a cult with good funding from Iran and Syria, who use that funding to spread a message of hate to the masses. How powerful would Hitler have ever become if he hadn't been able to easily spread HIS messages of hate to the masses via radio and television? Giving a known terrorist organization (and 95 percent of the nations of the world consider them exactly that) access to mass media piped into everyones' living rooms just helps spread their messages of hate and encourages the violence.

I still find it weird to see anyone American defend Hezbollah. These are the guys that blew up hundreds of our people. In my book, that makes them an enemy. I guess I'm just unforgiving that way: when a group blows up hundreds of my fellow citizens, I like to see them get blown up some too. The more vertical Hezbollah members that are permanently transformed into horizontal Hezbollah members, the less hate and violence there will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamstigator

It's anti-Semitic, not anti-semantic. I'm not sure the latter has any meaning. And judging from the title of the thread, I thought that was the point: someone was postulating that Hezbollah has nothing against Jews, when in fact they operate their own racist printshops and pay to have the racist videos that they produce aired on television for the masses.

Sure, they're just a 'cult', but they're a cult with good funding from Iran and Syria, who use that funding to spread a message of hate to the masses. How powerful would Hitler have ever become if he hadn't been able to easily spread HIS messages of hate to the masses via radio and television? Giving a known terrorist organization (and 95 percent of the nations of the world consider them exactly that) access to mass media piped into everyones' living rooms just helps spread their messages of hate and encourages the violence.

I still find it weird to see anyone American defend Hezbollah. These are the guys that blew up hundreds of our people. In my book, that makes them an enemy. I guess I'm just unforgiving that way: when a group blows up hundreds of my fellow citizens, I like to see them get blown up some too. The more vertical Hezbollah members that are permanently transformed into horizontal Hezbollah members, the less hate and violence there will be.

---

i'm not defending hizbullah. i'm making my point now: radical islam is not true islam. radical islam is to osama bin laden as jim jones was to christianity.

yo bong u got to chill out and look at this thing wit a more open perspective man. u gotta cut the racist bullshit and have a longer memory than a month... this conflict dates back to the creation of israel... in a place where there already was a country... palestine. im not anti semetic, i have a lot of jewish friends, im half jewish... but i dont agree with the forced creation of israel. and i also dont agree with your points of view and neither do a few other people on this thread, but you dont need to get all bitchy about it calling people shit and bein racist you can have an intelligent conversation and share ur point of view instead of telling other people wut to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reeferizer420

yo bong u got to chill out and look at this thing wit a more open perspective man. u gotta cut the racist bullshit and have a longer memory than a month... this conflict dates back to the creation of israel... in a place where there already was a country... palestine. im not anti semetic, i have a lot of jewish friends, im half jewish... but i dont agree with the forced creation of israel. and i also dont agree with your points of view and neither do a few other people on this thread, but you dont need to get all bitchy about it calling people shit and bein racist you can have an intelligent conversation and share ur point of view instead of telling other people wut to believe.

---

Palestine was never a state intended for the palestinians. It was a mandate to allow a jewish state, and maintain arabs' civil and religious rights. In 1945, arabs owned more land than jews. With the creation of Israel, lead to a lot of illegal land-seizing from arabs. Doesn't excuse any concept of terrorism, however, this people have great reason to be pissed. Just like Americans that have land taken away for a stadium or strip mall.

http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg

I don't agree with the forced creation of Israel either. I may not agree with much of what bong says, but he's right in that regard. The most disturbing part is that GS claims to be a free-thinker, but at the same time, all he displays is straight propaganda.

Hizbollah does some good for Lebanon. They built hospitals and schools, maintained intrastructure. However as a political party in Lebanon with armed forces, it's undermines the authority of the Army of Lebanon. It's a difficult position. You force Hezbollah to disarm, and what may happen is civil war.

But this claim that the Hezbollah isn't anti-semetic, GS obviously knows nothing about Nasrallah. He grew up in the slums, displaced by the civil war in Lebanon, his son killed by Israel forces. He is obviously bitter of the actions took upon his country.

A quote from Nasrallah himself, at the graduation of Haret Hreik on October 22, 2002. "if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

Apparently our free-thinker GS think this is not anti-seminetic, but rather using his free-thinking to side-step facts, and rely on his "theories."

What happened to Palestine the country: "Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring Arab states eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. It was divided between Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan."

So there ya go, that's what really happened to Palestine as a country. It was absorbed into Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Everyone talks about the lands that Israel has, but nobody ever mentions the fact that Egypt, Syria and Jordan also now own parts of what was once Palestine. Since the Palestinians aren't having a lot of luck talking the Israelis out of any land, perhaps they should ask their brethren in Egypt, Syria and Jordan for THAT land back.

Keep in mind that Israel agreed to a peaceful partitioning of the land that would have given the Palestinians more than they have now. But the local Arabs disagreed with the partitioning and went to war instead, were beaten back, and now have less land than they would have if they'd just agreed to the partitioning in the first place.

I'd like to share an interestin' story by J.R.Church and Gary Steadman www.prophecyinthenews.com O.K.you know how a hebrew child is circumcised at 8 days old right? On the evenin' of May 21,1948 Israel/Judah's seventh day,the Arabs from Lebanon to Egypt surrounded the newborn state and was preparin' for full annihilation waitin' for the sun to come up. There were no streetlights back then,meanwhile IDF commandos commandeered taxi cabs and other automobiles,took the tires OFF the rims and replaced them with metal barrels which they welded on the rims. Then they pot loggin' chains on the rims to give the audio illusion of treads on a tank! Then they took off the exhaust manifolds and ran on straight headers to make the engines real LOUD! Out of about 400,000 or so against 6 million Arabs armed to the teeth,they only had 25 handguns with 15 rounds each and one mortar with no shells,the rest were slingshots. Under cover of darkness they lined up east of the Jordan river side by side to within 3 miles of the enemy lines and on cue moved in between 40-50 miles an hour and overran the enemy camps! The enemy could only see a wall of dust and thought an army of tanks were comin and PANICKED! They FLED the camps leavin'
everything behind which the jews confiscated and returned home! They only suffered 3,000 casualties which was more reminiscent of a brit melah (circumcision) rather than a wholesale slaughter and Israel was saved!

Here's somethin' else I wanted to share before I ran outta time. In 1961,Israel was 13 years old and there was a vote in the U.N. whether or not to keep Israel on the table of underdeveloped nations. David Bin Gurion pointed out that Israel was celebratin' it's BAR MITZVAH,so they considered that and Israel was moved to the table of developed (adult) nations!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamstigator

Keep in mind that Israel agreed to a peaceful partitioning of the land that would have given the Palestinians more than they have now. But the local Arabs disagreed with the partitioning and went to war instead, were beaten back, and now have less land than they would have if they'd just agreed to the partitioning in the first place.

---

REALLY GOOD POINT!:thumbsup: