About fecking time. More of this please you pricks.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Say please.
What sites news are you talking about? Care to give an example that was used by me in this case? Or is it just your usual nonsense.
That of course didn't happen. It is not me who is being asked to leave threads because of inability to deal with opposing views.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
See this Patel guy too for another example of those cnuts.
Oh, but it did.
I don't give a flying one about your opinion of me or my posts. There are many Israelis or Israel supporters in this thread whose take on the matter I respect even if I disagree with, take interest in and am willing to discuss. Yours and gtfactor86's don't belong to them.
Now, make a meal of this post. Or not. Or just put me on ignore, which would be the most decent way to avoid each other.
Last edited:
Where did you get it from, by the way? You obviously never read the original article.
A glimpse at what a 2nd Trump term may look like.
Absolutely.
Regardless of Biden's domestic record, which by all accounts looks much better than his critics give him credit for, if I were an American I'd vote for him even if I massively disagree with him on international matters. The idea that Trump couldn't be any worse is completely delusional.
Trump would start war in the Middle East.
Your initial argument holds no weight so you’re just moving the goalposts and taking, literally any, criticism of Chomsky, by anyone, in an attempt to try and give more credence to your argument.
Only see Iran as a possiblilty. Never seen anyone from US being so chummy with KSA before, so if any war is started in the ME on Trump's watch, then it probably would be on MBS' orders.
The fact that you quoted him completely out of context shows you haven't read the article and just copy pasted it from a website that has an interest in quoting him out of context. That tells me you're basing your information in websites that are not reliable, and are in fact pro-israel propaganda.
So, you have nothing, just your assumptions. Good.
You started spreading anti-semitic bs like the "self hating jew". You were asked to prove your claim about chomsky and came up with a fake quote. You were asked for a source and you provided a link that you obviously haven't read, because if you had, you would've noticed it was fake.
Since you haven't read your own link, one has to assume you got it from somewhere else, and when asked where you simply ignore it. That tells me you're embarrassed by the source.
But please, saves all from having to make assumptions, be a grown up and tell us directly:
1 - where did you get the fake quote from?
2 - what is your goal with spreading tropes like the self hating jew?
Be direct and honest, don't force me to make assumptions.
Are you for real? I am not going to waste my time on your captious questions.
We don't need assumptions if you tell us where you were made aware of the quote. Is it a secret?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
"democracy"
It's not really captious questioning though is it? The quote that you used was taken out of context - I have no reason to believe that this wasn't honest - but it seems unlikely you selected that quote yourself from the work in question, precisely because it is out of context and misleading in that state.
Therefore, likely lifted as a quote from elsewhere. And where it was lifted from matters, because it is entirely possible that source is portraying Chomsky as an antisemite, deliberately or not, inaccurately.
There are plenty of anti-semites in this blighted World. They must he confronted. But it is important that people are correctly identified as such, especially in this current hellish set of events. Chmosky may be an antisemite, but, despite spending a fair chunk of time following the trail you set, I'm yet to find that evidence. I'll continue to look however.
For all the fears about Russian tampering in their elections, the US seems a little apathetic towards the power an organisation like AIPAC yields, at the behest of another country no less.
The argument about quotes being taken out of context is a fair one. It is always a tricky thing to do. You and some other posters provided in good faith context which is ok, no problem with that. But frankly it changed nothing apart from shifting from first-person narrative to third-person ambiguity. And the discrepancy why important words have been altered is still without an explanation.
Look, this is a matter how you evaluate the information. I provided other instances (e.g. Khazar theory) why I give him absolute zero benefit of doubt. You can interpret the information differently, and that is perfectly fine.
The local gang here tried to attack me, that quotes are fabricated, what failed miserably. The quotes are real. So then they moved on to the out of context question, which I admit is a fair thing. Then they moved on to the topic where I got the quotes from, which is completely irrelevant. Even if it was a book written by Bibi. It changes nothing on the quotes and their context. I have no interest in feeding their Zionist, Israeli propaganda obsession. I think you are discussing this in good faith and I would like hear if you find something interesting in the future.
So even when talking to someone who you yourself say is arguing in good faith, you still won't say where you get it from?
And how is the Khazar theory, even if its factually incorrect, antisemitic? Is it antisemitic to say the Ethiopian Jews descend from a Nilotic people?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Nah must be all that food at the bustling markets gfactor keeps telling people about.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If you are getting your information about this conflict from sources that purposefully engage in deception and fake stuff, then it's very relevant. The fact you refuse to share the source only makes people more suspicious.
You came here all guns blazing convinced chomsky is an anti-semite. He's not. Does that not make you wonder what other things you might have been lied to about from those sources?
Last edited:
I literally answered your question in my post. Because it promotes the notion that Ashkenazim have no historical connection to the Land of Israel.
I am not sure I understand your follow up. What is your point about Ethiopian Jews?
Even if it promotes the notion that Ashkenazim have no historical connection to the land of Israel, what does it matter? How does it change things? How is it anti-semitic to say that Ashkenazim do not descend from the land, even if it is factually incorrect?
The fundamental fact is that, as my Ashkenazi British reform Jewish friend says, he has the right to rock up to the land of Israel tomorrow if he so wishes, despite having never lived there, despite being able to trace his family history within Europe for literal centuries and never having lived in these lands, and have significantly more rights than a Palestinian born in the same land. Even more, he can move to Judea and Samaria and have more rights than a Palestinian who can trace their own family back for centuries to Nablus or Jerusalem.
In basically any other situation, this would be acknowledged as being quite ridiculous but this is of course disputed here.
My point with the follow up is that, unless I am severely mistaken and a massive anti-semite, the Ethiopian jews are demonstrably a Nilotic people, with no specific tied history to the land, including in chromosomal analysis, beyond slightly legendary and nonsensical biblical stories. Yet of course, they all had the right to move to Israel as well. Is it therefore anti-semitic to say they do not have a historical connection to the land of Israel? If not, why not in this case?
And again....how has it affected the reality, which is that they could go and move to Israel and immediately pick up more rights than the Palestinians?
In fairness I would say that the Khazar theory is one of those things that, on the face of it, does not appear to be problematic as a proposal; but 95% of the time it seems to be genuine antisemites pushing it. That’s been my experience of encountering it online for many years anyway.
I am genuinely interested in your reference to Chomsky’s understanding of the violence of 1929. I’m not a ardent defender of Chomsky, he’s as open to criticism as anyone else writing on this topic, and his most enthusiastic fans do tend to regard his word as semi-divine and defend it accordingly. But I have a particular interest in 1929 right now and although it’s never occurred to me to check what Chomsky has written on it (after all he’s not a historian or an Israel-Palestine specialist at all), your post prompted me to check his Fateful Triangle for any references. In the midst of a very brief overview of the British Mandate period, which I would agree heavily reflects the standard Arab narrative of those years, he has a paragraph on 1929 that actually wouldn’t look out of place in an Israeli school textbook:
“They repeatedly resorted to terrorist violence against Jews. The most extreme case was in late August 1929, when 133 Jews were massacred. The “most ghastly incident” was in Hebron, where 60 Jews were killed, most of them from an old Jewish community, largely anti-Zionist; the Arab police “stood passively by while their fellow Moslems moved into the town and proceeded to deeds which would have been revolting among animals,” and a still greater slaughter was prevented only by the bravery of one member of the vastly undermanned British police. Many were saved by Muslim neighbors.”
So I’m intrigued as to whether he has subsequently revised his understanding of that awful episode, and if so what new sources might have prompted him to do so. Or perhaps you feel the above quote represents a misinterpretation in some way?
Why is there such a weird obsession with AIPAC?
They're a loud, chatty lobby group who have very small, in the grand scheme of things, impact in the US political system.
Prior to post 2020 election, AIPAC themselves didn't even do any direct funding of candidates, and even the affiliated groups funding barely put them in the top 50% of PACs.
Now, they've formed a proper superpac and have never broke into the top 20 of contributers, spenders or influencial hitters.
JETO, on behalf of Japan, have 2x'd what AIPAC have spent, and nobody really knows or cares. Liberia are the most influential lobbying group in the USA, strangely enough.
Between Liberia's two main lobbying groups, they've spent 200 million USD lobbying in 2023.
I agree that there's a lot of pro Israeli influence in US congress and senate, but it's to do with the intrinsic backgrounds of many of the political class as opposed to some brash loudmouth mid-tier lobbying group.
They're a loud, chatty lobby group who have very small, in the grand scheme of things, impact in the US political system.
Prior to post 2020 election, AIPAC themselves didn't even do any direct funding of candidates, and even the affiliated groups funding barely put them in the top 50% of PACs.
Now, they've formed a proper superpac and have never broke into the top 20 of contributers, spenders or influencial hitters.
JETO, on behalf of Japan, have 2x'd what AIPAC have spent, and nobody really knows or cares. Liberia are the most influential lobbying group in the USA, strangely enough.
Between Liberia's two main lobbying groups, they've spent 200 million USD lobbying in 2023.
I agree that there's a lot of pro Israeli influence in US congress and senate, but it's to do with the intrinsic backgrounds of many of the political class as opposed to some brash loudmouth mid-tier lobbying group.
I skimmed through the whole thread just now, from the point where you started on Chomsky, and I didn't find the people saying the quotes are fabricated. I did it quite fast, so maybe I missed it. What were you referring to?
I don't know if your claims are true. But I don't think they are. You say that Liberia is the most influencial with 200 million but AIPAC is not in top 20 spending close to 100 Million? And Japan spend 2x than AIPAC (therefore 200) and is not top contribuitor with liberia? some of the numbers doesn't add up. But of course correct me if I am wrong
Then, AIPAC had been the top contributor to several politicians in US. Among them Speaker Johnson that being the tp contributor during his campaign, they quadrupled the donation after the Gaza campaign. Of course Johnson had no problem on pass the Israel aid package
You las sentence " it's to do with the intrinsic backgrounds of many of the political class..." might be completely true, but donations reinforces and/or props up this intrinsic backgrounds and makes sure that the ones that they don't have the intrinsic backgrounds are the ones that wins.
No one is saying that Israel changes anti-zionist politician to a zionist politician but that donates the ones that favours them or the ones that are neutral and not give a damn, to give a damn for the money that are being given