No, if I was saying that, I would have said it.

I hated that film.

Unfortunately, i don't think peace is obtainable any day soon b/c both Hamas and Fatah call for the destruction of Israel. Therefore, I guess you can say I'm a warmonger, as I think the only way there will be peace is if Israel wipes out those who are determined to destroy it. That means, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, and taking out Iran's nuclear ambitions. Once all of that is taken out, peace will be far more likely. Until then, Israel's enemies are beating the war drum and wishing for Israel's destruction, every single moment, of every single day.

Maybe some of the land. Much of it was granted by the United Nations, on a majority vote of every single country then existing. Egypt, Transjordan and other countries then invaded in 1948 and Israel acquired more land as a result of defending itself. In 1948, the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries supported Israel and I suspect they had more Czech arms than US ones.

Yeah, you've mentioned.

Problem is, pesky little things like western civilization have a tendency to hang on, whereas religion-based thugocracies flame out and impoverish everyone associated with them.

The Arabs will be out of oil sooner or later. Then what, you switch teams again? Great way to live your life.

The long-term US national interest is to build strong alliances with friendly nations, not to kneel before our enemies. Eventually when they see us as being steadfast and loyal, they'll come over to our side.

Curiously, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, PFLP and all the other enemies Israel think exactly the same way: if Israel was "taken out", peace would be a sure thing. Hard to argue with this position; once the war is over what else remains but peace? At least until the next war.

Is this the pop-psych of international affairs?

Long term interest for any entity -- collective or individual -- is to Mind Your Own Fucking Business.

Unfortunately, the US is deeply entangled in the affairs of the middle east. This came home to roost on 2001 Sep 11. Problem magnified by the Iraq war in 2003 onwards. US leaders clearly felt they could control the situation, but were deeply wrong on all counts.

Time for radical solutions: per Milton Roe, the US can continue to buy the oil they have for sale -- and any other economic transactions both sides feel comfortable with -- but generally The West should just say "Fuck y'all" to the region.

Just to head back 'on topic', I am still amazed by the complexity added to this discussion by the revelation that David Irving is actually Jewish. Looking at the animation of the expansion of the Israel state above ... is that not the perfect diagrammatically accurate representation of how Wiki-cabals operate to expand their territories? I'd say The Electronic Intifada is doomed ... and domination of the Wikipedia is assured.

Still, at least it will keep them off the streets for a while, as they edit war, and stop them blowing each other up.

It is not the Jewish state, it really should not be allowed to promote itself as such. There can be no Jewish state until after the Messiah returns. It is a state which has always sought to market itself as being Jewish, and attracting and using mostly innocent Jewish people as a justification for it existence just as it seeks to promote and control the image of Zionism as "the innocent state of Anne Frank victimhood".

What horrifies me is that many of the mouths, the violence and vulgarity carried out in the name of Israel is done by individuals who are not remotely religious at all. They are just loud mouth, aggressive Americans, seriously heavy Eastern Europeans seeking a nice place in the sun for themselves.

Here is the reality. Look at these Black Shirts beating up some Rabbis. The Black Shirts are Zionist, the Orthodox Rabbis are Jews. This is taking place in Palestine today.


Muslims, Christians and Jews used to live peacefully together in the Palestinian lands until their land was stolen ... now, it is just chaos.


Watch this stuff ... and please explain it to me. It is amazing ... what is going on here!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oeB3QhX2RI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY

Anti-Judiaism I do not support. Anti-Mammonism ... count me in with Moses on that one. What you write is true. My reading of much of the history in the Old Testament was, "God says go over that hill, kill all the men, rape the women and take the donkeys." and, sure, the West should ditch it.

Shame about the destruction of the Lebanon and Beruit ... but, ultimately, who is to blame? Probably the Brits. Which brings up back full circle to David Irving.

Yup, more anti-Israel propaganda. thanks. it's absolutely the Jewish State. A State of Jews. A Homeland for the Jews. Even anti-Zionist Jews you claim to support live there, y'know.



The difference is that these Islamic terrorist organizations don't just focus on Israel, but the West as a whole. If you read up on Islam, you'd see that to be true. It's aim is to dominate the West. Israel is just one of their many targets. At the root of nearly every major violent conflict in the world today, is Islam.

FTFY.

The Contagion of Mimetic Desire


There is an alternate model, due to René Girard.

This is standard rhetoric for those who dislike the Daily Mail, to refer to it supporting Hitler.

The Wikipedia article has only recently been changed from 'The Daily Mail is a paper for fascists, by fascists' into something more representative.

It depends what meaning you give to the word Israel. I'd say my comments, and the position of the Neturei Karta, are actually Pro- the real Israel ... differentiating from the Zionist hijacking of the term (region and religion). As you must well know, the Zionist never had an interest in whole of the people.

Next you will try to tell us that the Talmud is full of anti-Zionist propaganda too ... Well, I suppose you are right there.

The Talmud teaches that Jews shall not use human force to bring about the establishment of a Jewish state before the coming of the universally accepted Moshiach, a Messiah from the House of David.

If you mean the "Neturei Karta", they live in Jerusalem not Israel. Their roots, and fight against Zionism, goes back to either 1938 or 1912 depending on how you measure it, and their existence in Jerusalem pre-dates the Zionist land grab.

Specifically, I never said I "support" them ... I think the West should keep out of the Middle East and scour itself of its tradition of tribal warring ... but I do know that the Neturei Karta have an interesting relationship with the Zionist Parvenues whose state they refuse to recognise and take part in. From memory (dont quote me), it goes something to the extent of not voting, non-paying taxes and not taking part in the military ... and they get away with it because,

a) they are just too damned Jewish, and
b) because theologically they are correct, everyone knows it, and the Zionist state would never risk taking them to court over it.

What I love about it all is the complexity and how reality paint such a different picture that the one sided or binary impression sold in the Western media.

Moving back on topic, quote another David, Yisroel Dovid Weiss, "you should know that the Jewish people died, and do not try to say that it did not happen. They did die. ... but that being said, it doesn’t mean that the holocaust is a tool to use to oppress other people." People should understand the diversity of opinions and the complexity of the issues between even the Ashkenazi, the Sephardim and the Mizrahi.

Meanwhile, in Beersheva, hundreds of another Orthodox Jews have just been cleared of disrupting a Messianic Jewish service throwing chairs about and duffing people up too. A community that over a 1,000 of them had a go at before. Imagine ... gang banging rabbis on the rampage!

Not really interested in your antisemitic views, or your turning to antisemitic Jews and a wide variety of false antisemitic propaganda to rationalize them, but thanks! Am Yisrael Chai!

Jews, views, you choose!

Do you prefer a room with a view or a room with a jew?

it's depends on the Jew and the view.

Leonard Bernstein in the library (lovely view of the croquet lawn) with the bratwurst (loved his sausage did Leonard).

that's both a jew and a view.

Are you petrified of or just allergic to the truth ... or is that just a tribal war drum and horn you have in your hand?

I don't have an antisemitic view. My position is ... consistent with my position on other such conflicts ... that there is no one monopolistic (Jewish) point of view. There are many views and many of them conflict.

As soon as someone is forcing one into a binary situation (good versus evil, black versus white etc), or is seen to be stuck in binary thinking, something is very wrong. The trick is not to get sucked into it but look around elsewhere to see what is REALLY going on.

The world soon gets sick of shit smearers, regardlessly of what race, religion or hue they belong to. If you run around going antisemite, antisemite, antisemite, antisemite, antisemite ... (never mind if you mean anti-Zionist and that might have stuck better) ... people will soon tire of you. Humanism forces one to respect the rights of the Neturei Karta, the violence and vulgarity of the attacks upon them speak sufficiently of their abusers.

What I find interesting about these discussions is how they push one to go and actually look at issues one has heard about but really knows little. Back on topic, I'd often heard of David Duke in the same vein as David Irving ... It must be something to do with the House of David ... but never thought to listen to anything of his as he was "obviously a bad man". Here is actually is ... something of a first for WR I would guess. Ditto for me.

I think he loses points in the same way that Max Blumenthal does, above, for adolescent humor but what about the issue he raises about racial purity and the control of marriage in Israel, and how the world would respond if it were applied to whites against blacks, for example?

What is the genuine Jewish/Zionist response to that issue?

Ouch.

Let's hope it's also the last...


The far-right in the USA is really big on "reverse racism" these days, mostly as a means of scaring people into voting against Obama in 2012. David Duke is no exception - most of what he's saying (indeed, most of what he always says) is simply false, and even if it were, Orthodox Jews don't have religious strictures against intermarraige as part of some sort of evil genetics/eugenics experiment involving "purity" and "superiority," they do it simply to preserve their religious traditions. (And the Zoroastrians are much worse!) So really, I wouldn't put any stock in this whatsoever.

Having said that, some of the social policies espoused by Orthodox Jews in Israel are fairly, uh... well, let's just say that sort of thing wouldn't fly here in the States. Theirs is a very different culture, I'm afraid.

Anyway, back to Irving.

The far right has had plenty of practice in trying to appear "respectable" and both Irving and Duke are typical examples. Put on a suit, get a university degree, tone down the rhetoric and speak in a lot of codewords which are understandable to others within the movement but which offer the avenue of deniability.

One particular difference though is between European and American crypto-neo-nazis. In US where there's no Holocaust denial laws and you can publish any kind of racist rubbish you wish, you pretty much know who is who and attempts by folks like Duke or Kevin McDonald to look "respectable" sooner or later fall flat on their face. In many European countries where Holocaust denial laws are well designed to hurt these individuals' and groups' pocketbooks (and they are or at least were effective,) these folks have gotten really good at obeying the letter of the law while pushing their agenda in other ways. So they don't outright deny the Holocaust, just "raise some questions" about it. Or they focus on supposed "Allied war crimes" which are meant to show that the "US occupation of Germany" was a "genocide of the German race". Or that the expulsions of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia after the war (which were real enough) were the moral equivalent of the Holocaust and that they happened in a vacuum (i.e. all of sudden the people of these countries just out of the blue decided to be mean to the Germans). And so on. There's a half dozen different ways to pursue an agenda, the two main ones though are 1) deny that you did anything bad (i.e. Holocaust denial) and 2) accuse others of being just as bad. Since in many European countries #1 is more or less illegal, the far right has just focused on #2.

There's actually a lot more "little Irvings" around - "historians" with questionable credentials and a Nazi past or modern Neo-Nazi connections which get presented as "respectable scholars" on Wikipedia. They just haven't gotten the same publicity as Irving so most people who are not directly familiar with the topic are clueless about it and can be easily convinced that these are in fact "respectable scholars". And there's quite number of editors like Tholzel who defend these "respectable scholars". I could name names here but I know it'd come back and bite me in the ass later, a public off-wiki forum though this may be.

This is actually a good question for the folks here who are concerned with BLP issues. I fully agree that BLPs on Wikipedia are a big problem and that they need to be well sourced, unsourced ones need to be deleted, etc. etc. etc. But how do you deal with a BLP of a David Duke, Irving or McDonald? Do you whitewash all this nasty info out of these articles on BLP grounds?

Just remember the #1 policy of Wikipedia: any Wikipedia policy, no matter how well written, good intentioned, and reasonable, can be abused and gamed by unscrupulous editors adept at this sort of thing (in fact WP:GAME gets gamed all the time) and this includes WP:BLP.

I don't think this is by any means recent. It goes back to as long as I can remember being aware of politics in US. Of course with Obama it probably took on a renewed force.