A Leauki's Writings

I am often told that there is anti-Semitism. In fact I have seen it. Almost everyone tells me that anti-Semitism is a bad thing and must be fought. In fact that point is often brought up by the same people who tell me something else as well.

They tell me that the "Palestinian Cause" is a noble cause and not related to anti-Semitism in any way; that the leaders of the Palestinian Cause and the Palestinian people have to be supported and that their fight is necessary and noble. And anyway, Israel has no reason to fight them and is the cause for the war. "We are all Hamas."

So I took the liberty of selecting a few quotes by respected leaders of the Palestinian Cause, by people celebrated by Palestinians and other Arabs today. I am here showing these quotes mixed with a few quotes by Nazis so as to present the stark difference between the evil ideology of anti-Semitism and the noble Palestinian Cause.

Of course those same people have also said other things. But Hitler also spoke about art and managed to get a few words out without sounding like a racist. So I carefully selected only those quotes that were representative of what I think could easily be mistaken for anti-Semitism.

One might argue that Zionists also make anti-Arab statements that make Zionism appear racist. But the question is whether most Jews or Israelis (or any supporters of Zionism) really consider those Zionists representative of the Zionist movement or the Jewish nation. The Arabs among the quotes were and remain respected leaders of the Palestinian Cause and are among the people I am told are our "partners" in the peace talks.

If you find a racist quote by a Zionist, I'll tell you what I think of that Zionist and I guarantee you that such a person would not have the support of a majority of Israelis or Jews.

 

And here we go: the quotes. Can you even tell who is a Nazi and who is a supporter of the noble Palestinian cause or what that cause is? Remember that we are told that the "Palestinian cause" is not about killing Jews or the destruction of Israel. And remember that the Arabs quoted are considered heroes of the Palestinian cause by Hamas and the PLO. They ARE representative of the Palestinian cause. THEY are the people you demonstrate for when you condemn Israel for fighting them.

"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood"

"The existence of Israel has continued too long. We welcome the Israeli aggression. We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel."

“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel”

“The Zionist barrack in Palestine is about to collapse and be destroyed. Every one of the hundred million Arabs has been living for the past nineteen years on one hope – to live to see the day Israel is liquidated…There is no life, no peace nor hope for the gangs of Zionism to remain in the occupied land.”

“As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel….The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence”.

“Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse any aggression, but to initiate the act ourselves, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland of Palestine. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. I believe that the time has come to begin a battle of anihilation.”

"We want a full scale, popular war of liberation… to destroy the Zionist enemy"

“We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel.…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.”

“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map”

“Those [Israelis] who survive will remain in Palestine. I estimate that none of them will survive.”

"Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy."

"To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory."

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."



Comments (Page 10)
10 PagesFirst 8 9 10 
on Oct 29, 2009

"Palestinians" (exclusively Arab such) did not exist until the 1960s. The region you call "Palestine" was made up of the Ottoman provinces of Jerusalem and Beirut.

 

Wrong, first off, there has been a difference in that area's arabs and other regions arabs. secondly, it wasn't until the 1960s, it was 1834.

thirdly, their identity today is merely a transition from what it once was. your own words do not deny that they were not palestinians before  You're not reconciling the fact that the palestinians existed in a different...form, shall we say, prior to the 60s. i wonder why you do that, could it be bias? could it be that, in my opinion, i think you want it that way so that it's easier to group them.

 

But if you now tell me that since a majority of "Palestinians" (people living in "Palestine") were at some point in history Arabs, Palestinians are now an exclusive Arab (sub-)group, you are advocating a racist principle.

 

How am I being racist for looking at something in an anthropological sense? Simply saying that they're a sub group of a larger group (Arabs), is merely stating what they are. They're still arabs, but more specifically, they're palestinian arabs. wtf?

 

 

I'll be back later to reply in more depth. have a good day. 

 

on Oct 29, 2009

Wrong, first off, there has been a difference in that area's arabs and other regions arabs. secondly, it wasn't until the 1960s, it was 1834.

It was the 1960s.

The only relevance 1834 has, if I recall correctly, was that it was the date of a pogrom against Jewish Palestinians by Arab Palestinians. To use that date as a defininf moment for the formation of an alleged "Palestinian nation" that are a "sub-group" of the Arab nation is probably the most insulting definition of the "Palestinian people" that I have heard in some time.

And yes, there are differences between Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs. I didn't say they weren't. I am saying that there were no stark differences between Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians (at least not differences that didn't also exist among, say, Iraqi Jews and Iraqi Arabs) and that "Palestine" didn't exist before the British called it such. What you refer to as "Palestinians" were simply Arabs that lived in the Levant. They are culturally different from, say, the Arabs of Arabia, but they are NOT culturally different from Arabised Lebanese or Arabs from Transjordan or the Sinai.

 

thirdly, their identity today is merely a transition from what it once was. your own words do not deny that they were not palestinians before  You're not reconciling the fact that the palestinians existed in a different...form, shall we say, prior to the 60s. i wonder why you do that, could it be bias? could it be that, in my opinion, i think you want it that way so that it's easier to group them.

Yes, it's bias. I am biased towards not seeing such stark differences between Arabs and Jews and other nationalities as you do.

It's the thing I have been mentioning before. You just don't get it and that's where our differences lie.

 

How am I being racist for looking at something in an anthropological sense? Simply saying that they're a sub group of a larger group (Arabs), is merely stating what they are. They're still arabs, but more specifically, they're palestinian arabs. wtf?

I explained it. Not all inhabitants of "Palestine" are Arabs, and to use the term "Palestinian" to refer to only Arab inhabitants of "Palestine" is racist, just as using the term "American" for white Americans exclusively is racist.

You are not looking at something in an "anthropological sense". You are SPECIFICALLY and ON PURPOSE ignoring facts in order to end up with a pure Arab "Palestinian" people. That's the opposite of anthropology.

There is a Levantine Arab dialect. It's spoken by Arabs in Lebanon and Israel (including disputed territories and Gaza) as well as by Arabs in Transjordan. (The river Jordan is not a cultural border. The same people lived on both sides of the river. You can walk through it.)

It was the British who decided which parts of which Ottoman provinces would be "Palestine".

And it was later the PLO who decided that exactly those Arabs that lived within the borders defined by the British but west of the river Jordan are "Palestinians". (And that Jews who lived in the same place are not. Incidentally, the "Palestinian people" includes Arabs from Egypt when necessary, including Arafat himself.)

Contrary to what you think, decisions of the British foreign office and the PLO do not constitute "anthropology" for you to study.

What you are doing here is like looking at Africa and defining people's cultures according to borders made up by European imperialists. But tribes and nations are not defined by artificial borders.

There is such a thing as a "Nigerian" (someone who lives in Nigeria) and there are "Hausa" (members of the Hausa people). Some Hausa are Nigerians, but that doesn't make Nigerians a "sub-group" of the Hausa. And neither are non-Hausa people living in Nigeria not Nigerians.

 

on Oct 29, 2009

LEAUKI POSTS:

For YOU this is just an online forum where you can make claims about Israel as you like.

Aren't we ALL making claims about something or other? Dialogue, as long as it is civil and dignified, is good and useful....there is always something to be learned.  

The Romans renamed Judaea and Samaria "Palestine" ("invaderland") to insult the Jews. And oddly enough those who want to insult Jews or Israel still use the name.

Political correctness protects everyone but the Jews and hence calling the land "Palestine" has become an accepted way of insulting Jews.

(Ha, here in the USA, political correctness protects everyone except the married (to his wife), white Anglo-Saxon male!!!)

And furthermore Isreal was created in 1948 by the UN as a result of politics.

What I have learned from these various discussions is that everything and everyone that is not pro-Jews, pro-Jewish, pro-Isreal, pro-Talmud, etc.  is insulting Jews. Jews, for the most part, do not seem to take legitimate criticism of their actions, decisions, behavior, policies, etc. It's almost as if the truth doesn't matter....the ends always justify the means. Again, I'm speaking in generalities.

The constant victimhood drumbeat doesn't hold....Isreal is most probably the second most powerful nation in the world and is in the process of nation/empire building...to accomplish that you must take over others land.

The entire story about a "Palestinian people" hasn't helped a single Arab living in Canaan, but it did help to prolong an unecessary war by adding fake legitimacy to the idea that Jews have no right to live in a "country" known as "Palestine" which is purely and exclusive Arab.

Here you are centering on what people are to be called! Truth is....Isreal has been at war ever since its creation in 1948 when it was given 56 percent of Palestine land even though Jews owned only 6 percent of the land (most of them mandate era immigrants) and made up one-thrid of the population.

Evidentlly, the Palestinian people who were already living on the land didn't think they got a just shake....And from that moment on...the Mideast struggle has been underway.

There are always two sides to war, to struggle, to fighting......so that automatically means it's not only about the Jews' right to land allotted by the UN in 1948.

Isreal didn't stop at defending themselves but actually went much furrther ...they took over the land as their own and occupied and populated it with their own people.

I think it's true to say that the Palestinian Arab owned lands post 1967 were seized (not bought).. I think the Palestinians are outraged becasue they have been dispossessed of their land. This outrage has been buiilding year after year.  

 

 

on Oct 29, 2009

LEAUKI WRITES:

I am often told that there is anti-Semitism. In fact I have seen it.

LULA POSTS: 2

What is anti-Semitism in your mind?

LEAUKI 3

Your past attempts to lie about the Talmud come to mind.

LEAUKI

I find it interesting how many people will actually BLAME Israel for the fact that several Arab states ATTACKED her. But the same people are not sure what "anti-Semitism" is.

KFC 36

Apostolic Sacred Tradition" is man-made by committee.

What's the "huge difference"?

The "Sacred Tradition" you speak of has been used to persecute people for centuries. The Talmud has never caused or commanded such sin. Does your god seek violence?


Lula, Leauki's right on this one. Totally.

This is nothing more than anti-semetic talk Lula. You've been brainwashed here. Totally. Your premise is the RCC has replaced Judaism and that is so not true.

AJ POSTS 53

Not to mention that "race" is a sociological construct; it was brough about as to stratify societies based on differences. An example that comes to mind is early america with: Whites/Caucasions, Blacks/Negroes, Indians/Savages, etc. There was a desire to be...in a sense...superior over another. Why? I don't know...just is what it is.

70

Either Jewish money is as good to you as anybody else's money or you are an anti-Semite. If you are not an anti-Semite you HAVE to accept that land Jews buy is after the sale THEIRS.

LULA POSTS 78

Leauki's rhetoric is Zionist propaganda and Isreal damage control, but we are not supposed to notice such things...if we do, and say something disagreeable of Isreal, Zionism, Jews, etc., then we are speaking "nonsense" and labeled anti-Semitic.

kfc  posts 98

I feel that I'm being objective here especially in this discussion. Lula comes here with a bias of anti-semitism from the RCC and Leauki you are one who has a heart for the Nation as a Jew and are biased (and rightly so) because of your heritage.

106

aj POSTS:

There's a point where it goes beyond merely defending yourself or your country/family. There's a point where you begin to use that noble concept as a justification for any over step, miscues, etc. Israel has gone past that a number of times in my opinion.

LEAUKI POSTS:

And you base that opinion on what? Stories people tell you about Israel? What you yourself saw? Your opinion that Israel cannot possibly be innocent?

You are wrong. The IDF goes to more extreme lengths than any other army in the world to avoid civilian casualties and has had much better results than any other army in the world.

The continuing accusations are purely based on anti-Semitism.

122



We call upon Christians in churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Isreali people, both of whom are sufferieng as victims of occupation and militarism. These discrimitative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusinve Isreali settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the separation wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermine the vialibility of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region.

You are praying for anti-Semitism. G-d probably won't listen.

132

Your anti-Semitism is annoying, "Alderic", but what's even worse is that you keep assuming that everybody else thinks along the same prejudiced lines as you do.

135

If you read texts from the 19th century you will find that the word "Palestinian" was then used in Europe to refer to Jews living in Europe. The word has travelled with anti-Semitism for 2000 years. It is no coincidence that it was picked up by racist Arab nationalists and that Bedouins and Druze in Israel rarely associate themselves with the term.

Keeping in mind that my mother taught that "sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you"..Leauki and KFC's false charges of anti-Semitism just rolled off me.  I was ignoring them until this last statement.

2,000 years ago, Christ came and established Christianity. Anti-Semitism is not 2,000 years old. It's a word created in 1870 by a German, Wilelm Marr referring to hatred of Jews becasue of certain ineradicable biological characteristics.  After Hitler, "anti-Semitism" got a different meaning. Today any criticism or anything derogatory of Isreal, Jews, modern Judaism, the Talmud, or calling the eviction of Palestinians from their land morally wrong, is labeled as anti-Semitic.

I have no interest to harm Jews or see them harmed in any way, but I will defend against Jewish and Protestant subversion of and calumnies against the Catholic Faith.

that means I will condemn anti-Semitism which means hatred of Jews as a "race" or an ethnic or cultural people, but at the same time, I won't let the Jews redefine the term "anti-Semitic" as a designation any form of opposition to themselves.

Earlier in the discussion Leauki described Zionism as the only way...and I believe it. I oppose Jewish (and Protestant) Zionism whose ambition is to impose its rule on other nations or people and that's not anti-Semitic. I oppose the revolutionary Talmudic agenda of opposition to Christ that fuels Jewish Zionism and that's not anti-Semitic.  

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

on Oct 29, 2009

Today any criticism or anything derogatory of Isreal, Jews, modern Judaism, the Talmud, or calling the eviction of Palestinians from their land morally wrong, is labeled as anti-Semitic.

I have no interest to harm Jews or see them harmed in any way,

 

Well said, and I agree; 99% of it is labeled. And, neither do I want to see them harmed, but I can't morally agree with some of the things they do. 

 

~AJ

on Oct 30, 2009

Today any criticism or anything derogatory of Isreal, Jews, modern Judaism, the Talmud, or calling the eviction of Palestinians from their land morally wrong, is labeled as anti-Semitic.

If that "criticism" is made up of lies about Israel, Jews, Judaism, the Talmud or consists of propagating the lie that "Palestinians" were "evicted" from their land, it IS anti-Semitic.

Why exactly would telling lies about Jews not be anti-Semitism?

I have shown you the map of the land the Zionists bought. The Arabs were not "evicted". The land was _bought_.

Unfortunately it was bought by Jews and hence we left ourselves wide open for accusations of having "stolen" the land and when the Arabs fled (after other Arab countries called on them to do so), the Jews obviously "evicted" them.

 

I have no interest to harm Jews or see them harmed in any way,

No, you are too much of a coward for that.

But if you tell and repeat enough lies, other people will do the job.

 

Well said, and I agree; 99% of it is labeled. And, neither do I want to see them harmed, but I can't morally agree with some of the things they do.

But telling lies about the Talmud and Judaism and claiming that the land the Jews bought was really "stolen" is fine with you?

If I had a penny for every anti-Semite who claims he doesn't want to harm Jews, I'd be a Rothschild.

I totally believe you two. You don't want to harm Jews.

But you don't find anything wrong with telling the worst lies about Jews and Israel and that's why other people want to harm Jews. Do you not understand than when you (Lula) tell stories like "the Jews stole the land" or when you (both of you) claim that "Palestinians" were "evicted", other people will believe that nonsense and try to murder Jews as punishment?

It is people like you who keep the conflict going. Thank you for that.

Alderic, before you agree again with Lula, you might want to check what she wrote about Islam in other threads. I think you will find that Lula is an equal-opportunity hater and liar who hates not only Judaism but also Islam (and she knows little about either religion). She is not "for the Palestinians" because she has any respect whatsoever for them (her statements about Islam make that very clear) but because she is adamantly against a Jewish state because it goes against her religion.

Apart from that I find it just disappointing. When the Arabs attacked in 1948 Jewish leaders _begged_ local Arabs to stay and help defend the country. But they ran away and left the Jews to die. Nobody at that point knew that Israel would survive.

And not only did most of them run away and leave the Jews to die, but now it is the Jews' fault and the Jews "evicted" them.

Jews must be the most powerful and all-knowing beings on earth. They were so secure in their knowledge that they would beat the British-equipped and British-led Arab armies, that they even spend some time making more local enemies by deploying part of their troops to "evict" local Arabs. Does that make sense to you? Do you REALLY believe that the Zionists were so certain of their victory that they would actually make more enemies and divert troops from the front just out of hatred for Arabs?

And on the other side, Israel won the war because the Arabs failed to mobilise all their troops. The reason the Arabs didn't mobilise all their troops was because they were certain that they would win. And it was close.

But you are not an anti-Semite, right? You look at this from an unbiased point of view and just rationally decided that the Jews must have had the evil energy and the will to evict local Arabs while fighting for their lives. That's not anti-Semitism, that's perfectly rational, right?

Alderic, that is what anti-Semitism is: the belief that Jews are somehow different and evil, and the belief that Jews are very powerful. That is what Lula believes and that is what guides your opinions.

But you don't realise it's anti-Semitism. It's so ingrained in your mind that it doesn't occur to you that THAT is it. To you it makes total sense that Jews would obviously want to evict Arabs and obviously would take the time to do so while under attack and obviously would think that they can afford to divert troops and create more enemies during a war for their lives. Tou you that all makes perfect sense and it is not anti-Semitism.

Can you try applying it to another people and see if it still works?

If the US attacked Quebec, would you find it plausible that

1. Quebec would not call on English-speaking Canadians to help against the attackers.

2. Quebec would use the opportunity to evict all English-speaking people from Ontario (similar in number to the French-speaking Quebecers).

3. Quebec would succeed in evicting all English-speaking people from Ontario while fighting off the Americans.

4. Quebec would from the beginning know that they would beat the United States, which is only possible if the US do not deploy all their troops, which would only happen if the US themselves disagreed that Quebec would easily win.

5. Quebec has enough troops to fight off any number of Americans and therefor had the ability to deploy troops to evict English-speaking Canadians from their homes in Ontario during the war with the US.

Do these things still make sense when the attacked party are not Jews?

 

10 PagesFirst 8 9 10