View Full Version : An Israel/Zionism thread
Melonie
06-13-2008, 08:08 PM
Melonie we get minimal investment capital from Israel.
All I can say is to take a walk down Wall St. ! Better yet take a walk through the financial district in Geneva or London ! Better yet check out the guest list at the next Bilderbergers' meeting !
puts together some facts with some faces ...
Melonie how would Tel Aviv become a glowing crater when Iran is SUSPECTED of building ONE nuclear bomb and Israel is KNOWN to have over 200 nuclear bombs? w\Wouldn't it be Tehran that should be worried it could become a glowing crater?
I think you answered your own question ! Iran probably has one bomb, but also has a leader who vows at every opportunity to wipe Israel off the face of the map ! Israel probably has quite a few bombs, but for the past 40 years has restrained from taking unprovoked / offensive action whenever possible. Besides, if Israel made a nuclear 'first strike' against an arab / islamic country, the resulting Jihad WOULD wipe Israel off the face of the map ... nuclear or not !
~
Yekhefah
06-13-2008, 08:13 PM
LadyLuck, I'm not saying that you personally want to kill Jews. I'm just saying that the breeze of antisemitism blowing through this thread sounds a lot like the breeze that blew through Germany in the 1930's when the Nazis slowly started gaining power. Most German gentiles weren't on board for the Holocaust, they just "disagreed" with the alleged power the Jews had, too much money and influence while the rest of us are suffering, they're not REAL Germans because their allegiance lies elsewhere, etc. Those little sparks blew up into a hell of a fire before anyone knew what was happening.
And I see it about to happen again, which frightens and upsets me.
Melonie
06-13-2008, 08:45 PM
they're not REAL Germans because their allegiance lies elsewhere
^^^ a viewpoint that is certainly on the increase these days ... i.e. that Jewish residents of any and all countries actually owe their allegiance to Israel first and to their country of residence second !
Yekhefah
06-13-2008, 08:55 PM
Funny how nobody says that about Catholics and the Vatican anymore, or Asian-Americans and Japan...
LadyLuck
06-14-2008, 12:08 PM
Funny how nobody says that about Catholics and the Vatican anymore, or Asian-Americans and Japan...
Good point, Yek.
I don't think strongly supporting an issue in another country that may not be one that is of immediate concern to one's country of origin makes them someone who owes their allegiance to the other nation first.
Yekhefah
06-14-2008, 12:19 PM
You seem to be in the minority. There's a growing opinion that American Jews (and especially Zionists) are Israelis first and Americans second, which is being used to drum up some pretty vicious antisemitism. Violence is on the rise again, and interestingly it seems to be in liberal pro-Arab spots like San Francisco. Why liberals side with theocratic sexist mass murderers over Israel, I have no idea, but Jews are being called upon to renounce Zionism or face violence. I'm not Israeli, but I'm not renouncing Zionism either, and if it comes down to it I will fight. It just sucks that we have to make the decision.
missjzone
06-14-2008, 12:46 PM
well thats not Israeli investment you're referring to. That is people of the jewish religion. two different things. minimal investment comes from Israel.
Secondly don't be fooled by this idea of a pan-Islam ideology. Turkey and Saudi Arabia which are both Islamic countries are also very anti-Iran. in fact during the wars that followed the break up of the Soviet Union, Iran allied itself with Armenia-a Christian country againsy Azebajian-a Muslim country. Iran is not a threat to us. We're just being led to taught they are so supprt can be drummed up to attack them and affect 'regime change
All I can say is to take a walk down Wall St. ! Better yet take a walk through the financial district in Geneva or London ! Better yet check out the guest list at the next Bilderbergers' meeting !
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=44988 puts together some facts with some faces ...
I think you answered your own question ! Iran probably has one bomb, but also has a leader who vows at every opportunity to wipe Israel off the face of the map ! Israel probably has quite a few bombs, but for the past 40 years has restrained from taking unprovoked / offensive action whenever possible. Besides, if Israel made a nuclear 'first strike' against an arab / islamic country, the resulting Jihad WOULD wipe Israel off the face of the map ... nuclear or not !
~
missjzone
06-14-2008, 12:48 PM
Edit-Double Post
Huh? Where are you getting tha I want to kill Jews? I am happily married to a man of Jewish decent. Why would I want to kill my husband? Just because someone doesn't agree with Zionism or US policy towards Israel doesn't make them some kind of Nazi type.
In fact, know quite a few full blooded Jewish people who don't support Zionism and take issue with US policy towards Israel as well. Does that mean they want to off themselves? Obviously not.
I know and respect that you feel extreemly strong about this subject matter but please be more reasonable than the above quoted post.
missjzone
06-14-2008, 12:51 PM
pay no attention to hyperbole. that is often what is done to guilt and scare people from having an intellectual, fact based conversation. Wanna get someone to stop talking? call them a Nazi---it always works.
Huh? Where are you getting tha I want to kill Jews? I am happily married to a man of Jewish decent. Why would I want to kill my husband? Just because someone doesn't agree with Zionism or US policy towards Israel doesn't make them some kind of Nazi type.
In fact, know quite a few full blooded Jewish people who don't support Zionism and take issue with US policy towards Israel as well. Does that mean they want to off themselves? Obviously not.
I know and respect that you feel extreemly strong about this subject matter but please be more reasonable than the above quoted post.
Dirty Ernie
06-14-2008, 01:18 PM
You seem to be in the minority. There's a growing opinion that American Jews (and especially Zionists) are Israelis first and Americans second, which is being used to drum up some pretty vicious antisemitism. Violence is on the rise again, and interestingly it seems to be in liberal pro-Arab spots like San Francisco. Why liberals side with theocratic sexist mass murderers over Israel, I have no idea, but Jews are being called upon to renounce Zionism or face violence. I'm not Israeli, but I'm not renouncing Zionism either, and if it comes down to it I will fight. It just sucks that we have to make the decision.
I live in the Bay area and am unaware of any recent violence. Care to cite a source? A search of sfgate returns this as the first US related article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=26785
Yekhefah
06-14-2008, 04:09 PM
pay no attention to hyperbole. that is often what is done to guilt and scare people from having an intellectual, fact based conversation. Wanna get someone to stop talking? call them a Nazi---it always works.
I didn't call anyone a Nazi. Sorry for intruding upon your "intellectual, fact-based" bashing of Israel and Judaism. I didn't realize that it would be hyperbolic to point out that this conversation has taken place before.
Yekhefah
06-14-2008, 04:24 PM
I live in the Bay area and am unaware of any recent violence. Care to cite a source? A search of sfgate returns this as the first US related article:
Not sure how that article is related to the U.S. or anything else in this discussion, but I'm surprised your search of the San Francisco Gate (not exactly an unbiased paper, but OK) didn't turn up on "the new antisemitism."
Then there's , which names several incidents. There's on the phenomenon, which references ; funnily, the San Francisco media seems not to have been too interested in a near-riot there on May 7, 2002, in which several Jewish students were surrounded by a pro-"Palestinian" group who assaulted them, destroyed the Israeli flag, called the Jews pigs, and shouted that "Hitler didn't finish the job." There was also the Malcolm X mural that the university approved in the 1990's, which featured yellow stars of David, dollar signs, skulls, bones, and the phrase "African blood."
Funny that your search failed to turn that up.
minnow
06-14-2008, 07:43 PM
Melonie how would Tel Aviv become a glowing crater when Iran is SUSPECTED of building ONE nuclear bomb and Israel is KNOWN to have over 200 nuclear bombs? <snip>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's a pretty wild assertion there, mjz. Where did you get that info from???
Dirty Ernie
06-14-2008, 10:29 PM
Not sure how that article is related to the U.S. or anything else in this discussion, but I'm surprised your search of the San Francisco Gate (not exactly an unbiased paper, but OK) didn't turn up this article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/27/MNG9DNQ8TC1.DTL) on "the new antisemitism."
Then there's this article (http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000065.html), which names several incidents. There's this Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism) on the phenomenon, which references the epidemic of anti-Jewish sentiment and violence at San Francisco State University (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=36DB832F-0A15-465A-BAAC-37BEE520DAC1); funnily, the San Francisco media seems not to have been too interested in a near-riot there on May 7, 2002, in which several Jewish students were surrounded by a pro-"Palestinian" group who assaulted them, destroyed the Israeli flag, called the Jews pigs, and shouted that "Hitler didn't finish the job." There was also the Malcolm X mural that the university approved in the 1990's, which featured yellow stars of David, dollar signs, skulls, bones, and the phrase "African blood."
Funny that your search failed to turn that up.
Actually I asked because I thought I might have missed something. I read the SF Chron 6 days a week, but watch national news channels and almost no local tv news. Regarding the US reference, the first 2 articles from my search were based in Israel/occupied territories. Apparently our definitions of "recent" differ. And unbiased.
Yekhefah
06-14-2008, 10:32 PM
If "national news channels" means CNN, then that explains a lot.
Dirty Ernie
06-14-2008, 10:44 PM
Actually I watch Fox mostly. A little msnbc, very little CNN.
Yekhefah
06-14-2008, 11:26 PM
It's all just corporate advertising anyway these days.
missjzone
06-16-2008, 01:35 PM
If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
The Nazis didn't start out the way they became. There was a lot of this exact same talk years before it grew into mass murder and loading us on trains for death camps. The deja vu here is overwhelming.
this is the definition of hyperbole.....a conversation amongst adults is not equatable to a world war.
missjzone
06-16-2008, 01:50 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's a pretty wild assertion there, mjz. Where did you get that info from???
its only a "wild' statement here in the states, where our major media is censored. the rest of the world knows this to be fact.
see below;
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9019
First, we went after nonexistent nuclear weapons in Iraq, and now we are consumed with the possibility that Iran might develop nuclear weapons sometime in the future.
Hillary Clinton has declared that she would obliterate Iran if it ever attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon. But what nobody wants to talk about is the fact that Israel has had a secret nuclear weapons program for more than 30 years that has produced well over 200 nuclear bombs.
Ever since Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear technician, confirmed the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons program with his photographs of the secret underground bomb facility that were published in the London Sunday Times in 1986, the world has known that Israel has been making nuclear bombs but has pretended that they do not exist. Israel continues to publicly deny that it possesses nuclear weapons.
I talked with Vanunu in Jerusalem in 2005, and here are my notes from that interview:
also here
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
Israel has not confirmed that it has nuclear weapons and officially maintains that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. Yet the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is a "public secret" by now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons.
Melonie
06-16-2008, 03:45 PM
its only a "wild' statement here in the states, where our major media is censored. the rest of the world knows this to be fact
... censorship which is quite understandable once one acknowledges who actually owns / controls the vast majority of American media !
(snip)"Some of the most Waspy papers in the US have just been acquired by the most Jewish of publishers
NOT so long ago, the very idea of the Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, Newsday, Baltimore Sun and the Los Angeles Times falling into Jewish ownership would have looked preposterous. The New York Times and Washington Post may glory in their Jewish antecedents. But the Tribune, the creation of the Anglophobe colonel Robert McCormick, an American-firster who thought the Nazis were Europe's problem, not America's, was despised in Jewish households.
The colonel loathed the wartime US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he viewed as being in cahoots with the British and a traitor to his social class. In McCormick's view, FDR was unsound because he was in thrall to the Jews. Now, after a very public auction, the Tribune Company has fallen into the hands of a very Jewish entrepreneur, Sam Zell, described by the American Jewish paper The Forward as a "billionaire boychik".
At the state-of-the-art Washington bureau of the main titles, the reporters in their gleaming steel work pods regard the arrival of Zell as the second coming. Uncertainty is the enemy of newspapers and ever since the Tribune group was put on the block, there has been nervousness about new ownership.
Zell, described by Forbes magazine as the 52nd-richest man in America, is as Jewish as you can get. The son of Polish refugees from the Shoah, he attends a traditional synagogue regularly, is a big donor to Israeli- and Jewish causes and made most of his money in property. But unlike many Jewish philanthropists, he shows little interest in associating with the rich and the great, eschews the idea of having his name plastered across donated buildings, and at the age of 65 years he still prefers denim to Brooks Brothers.
Even though Zell is a neophyte when it comes to the press, he has eased concerns with plans for an employee shareholder ownership plan which would give workers a stake in the enterprise and incentivise them to "deliver the goods".
In the financial world, Zell, whose original family name was Zielonka, is known as the "grave dancer" because of his success in picking up burnt-out businesses, cutting costs, fixing them up and turning them around.
It might have been thought that the Tribune company -- which aside from its main newspaper titles also owns 25 television stations, the Chicago Cubs baseball team and its historic ground, Wrigley Field -- is hardly the kind of burnt-out business in which Zell specialises. But most American big-city newspapers are currently regarded as in the emergency ward.
Circulations even for emblematic titles like the Los Angeles Times have been tumbling, advertising revenues are under pressure from the Internet and the magic pill of making online news and information pay is still a long way off. The days when the Chandler family, founders of the LA Times, ruled over California's media have gone. The family, which dominated California's power elites, sold the paper to the Tribune in 2000, ending a 120-year association.
This title, like the Chicago Tribune, was also known for its trditional, preppie background and its disdain for Hollywood and things Jewish.
Yet in many ways, the LA Times ought to be the jewel in the crown of Tribune. It ranks alongside the Washington Post and New York Times in the annals of quality journalism in the United States. Its reputation began to suffer when it became part of a media conglomerate, losing the special edge which comes with local ownership.
Indeed, it is thought that Zell could recover some of his investment rapidly were he to sell the paper on to another Jewish tycoon, the movie and record producer David Geffen, one of the founders of Dreamworks with Steven Spielberg.
The scenario is favoured by some of the paper's workforce. Geffen is much more of a political figure than Zell, having been an early supporter of Bill Clinton. More recently, he raised $1.3 million (£650,000) for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama at a star-studded Hollywood fundraiser.
Were Geffen to acquire the LA Times, it would be a transformational deal.
The big question for British Jews when the Telegraph changed hands in 2004 was whether the new owners, the Barclay brothers, would be as friendly towards Israel and the Zionist cause as Lord Black. Among British media, which are often hard on Israel, the Black Telegraph had been a beacon of fairness. The US media are very different. They generally start from the point of view that Israel is a good thing, an exemplar of democracy in a crazy part of the world and, crucially, an important strategic ally of the United States.
Yet the histories of the Chicago Tribune, banned from many Jewish households over the decades, and the LA Times have been very different, despite the large Jewish populations in their respective cities. Ownership by Zell and possibly by Geffen, if the LA Times is disposed of, would be likely to change the complexion of the papers.
Zell and Geffen may not be traditional newspaper proprietors, but both are overtly Jewish and pro-Israel. They would bring a different perspective to the previous American first-owning families, whose culture still lingers on the fringes."(snip)
Yekhefah
06-16-2008, 04:29 PM
this is the definition of hyperbole.....a conversation amongst adults is not equatable to a world war.
The Holocaust started with conversations amongst adults. Did you think it just blew up out of nowhere?
missjzone
06-17-2008, 05:47 AM
The Holocaust started with conversations amongst adults. Did you think it just blew up out of nowhere?
many things begin with conversations. Conversations are the root of our democratic system. Equating it the with events of WW2 is illogical.
missjzone
06-17-2008, 05:54 AM
Melonie, It goes much beyond. Censorship in the states also is facet of the extreme power pseudo ministers like John Hagee or Benny Hinn in influencing US foreign policy away from a fair and balanced approach to a extremely Israeli biased one. John Hagee actually believes that JC is coming back in a few years and the only way that he'll return is fro Arabs to be removed (either by death or ethnic cleansing) from Israel and many of the surrounding countries. The irony is that many of these Arabs that have been forcibly expelled from Israel are Chrsitian-something that Hagee and Hinn purports to be.
... censorship which is quite understandable once one acknowledges who actually owns / controls the vast majority of American media !
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/07/04/JChron_200407.html
(snip)"Some of the most Waspy papers in the US have just been acquired by the most Jewish of publishers
NOT so long ago, the very idea of the Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, Newsday, Baltimore Sun and the Los Angeles Times falling into Jewish ownership would have looked preposterous. The New York Times and Washington Post may glory in their Jewish antecedents. But the Tribune, the creation of the Anglophobe colonel Robert McCormick, an American-firster who thought the Nazis were Europe's problem, not America's, was despised in Jewish households.
The colonel loathed the wartime US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he viewed as being in cahoots with the British and a traitor to his social class. In McCormick's view, FDR was unsound because he was in thrall to the Jews. Now, after a very public auction, the Tribune Company has fallen into the hands of a very Jewish entrepreneur, Sam Zell, described by the American Jewish paper The Forward as a "billionaire boychik".
At the state-of-the-art Washington bureau of the main titles, the reporters in their gleaming steel work pods regard the arrival of Zell as the second coming. Uncertainty is the enemy of newspapers and ever since the Tribune group was put on the block, there has been nervousness about new ownership.
Zell, described by Forbes magazine as the 52nd-richest man in America, is as Jewish as you can get. The son of Polish refugees from the Shoah, he attends a traditional synagogue regularly, is a big donor to Israeli- and Jewish causes and made most of his money in property. But unlike many Jewish philanthropists, he shows little interest in associating with the rich and the great, eschews the idea of having his name plastered across donated buildings, and at the age of 65 years he still prefers denim to Brooks Brothers.
Even though Zell is a neophyte when it comes to the press, he has eased concerns with plans for an employee shareholder ownership plan which would give workers a stake in the enterprise and incentivise them to "deliver the goods".
In the financial world, Zell, whose original family name was Zielonka, is known as the "grave dancer" because of his success in picking up burnt-out businesses, cutting costs, fixing them up and turning them around.
It might have been thought that the Tribune company -- which aside from its main newspaper titles also owns 25 television stations, the Chicago Cubs baseball team and its historic ground, Wrigley Field -- is hardly the kind of burnt-out business in which Zell specialises. But most American big-city newspapers are currently regarded as in the emergency ward.
Circulations even for emblematic titles like the Los Angeles Times have been tumbling, advertising revenues are under pressure from the Internet and the magic pill of making online news and information pay is still a long way off. The days when the Chandler family, founders of the LA Times, ruled over California's media have gone. The family, which dominated California's power elites, sold the paper to the Tribune in 2000, ending a 120-year association.
This title, like the Chicago Tribune, was also known for its trditional, preppie background and its disdain for Hollywood and things Jewish.
Yet in many ways, the LA Times ought to be the jewel in the crown of Tribune. It ranks alongside the Washington Post and New York Times in the annals of quality journalism in the United States. Its reputation began to suffer when it became part of a media conglomerate, losing the special edge which comes with local ownership.
Indeed, it is thought that Zell could recover some of his investment rapidly were he to sell the paper on to another Jewish tycoon, the movie and record producer David Geffen, one of the founders of Dreamworks with Steven Spielberg.
The scenario is favoured by some of the paper's workforce. Geffen is much more of a political figure than Zell, having been an early supporter of Bill Clinton. More recently, he raised $1.3 million (£650,000) for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama at a star-studded Hollywood fundraiser.
Were Geffen to acquire the LA Times, it would be a transformational deal.
The big question for British Jews when the Telegraph changed hands in 2004 was whether the new owners, the Barclay brothers, would be as friendly towards Israel and the Zionist cause as Lord Black. Among British media, which are often hard on Israel, the Black Telegraph had been a beacon of fairness. The US media are very different. They generally start from the point of view that Israel is a good thing, an exemplar of democracy in a crazy part of the world and, crucially, an important strategic ally of the United States.
Yet the histories of the Chicago Tribune, banned from many Jewish households over the decades, and the LA Times have been very different, despite the large Jewish populations in their respective cities. Ownership by Zell and possibly by Geffen, if the LA Times is disposed of, would be likely to change the complexion of the papers.
Zell and Geffen may not be traditional newspaper proprietors, but both are overtly Jewish and pro-Israel. They would bring a different perspective to the previous American first-owning families, whose culture still lingers on the fringes."(snip)
minnow
06-17-2008, 02:02 PM
its only a "wild' statement here in the states, where our major media is censored. the rest of the world knows this to be fact.
see below;
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9019
First, we went after nonexistent nuclear weapons in Iraq, and now we are consumed with the possibility that Iran might develop nuclear weapons sometime in the future.
Hillary Clinton has declared that she would obliterate Iran if it ever attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon. But what nobody wants to talk about is the fact that Israel has had a secret nuclear weapons program for more than 30 years that has produced well over 200 nuclear bombs.
Ever since Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear technician, confirmed the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons program with his photographs of the secret underground bomb facility that were published in the London Sunday Times in 1986, the world has known that Israel has been making nuclear bombs but has pretended that they do not exist. Israel continues to publicly deny that it possesses nuclear weapons.
I talked with Vanunu in Jerusalem in 2005, and here are my notes from that interview:
also here
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
Israel has not confirmed that it has nuclear weapons and officially maintains that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. Yet the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is a "public secret" by now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks, mjz. Prior to above post, I did google search on "nuclear weapons inventories"- your 2nd link was 1 of the 1st to come up. I don't have time to view a bunch of googles, but even so, its obvious that nobody knows for sure how many nukes Israel has. 2nd links estimate of PRODUCTION POTENTIAL of 100-200, and qualifier of not significantly more than 200 is not quite equivalent to being KNOWN to have at least 200. Even 100 can wipe out many cities. What makes someones "SWAG" better than someone elses??
Recall 1991 war where Iraq fired some Scuds at Israel?? (One doesn't really know what warhead is prior to impact/detonation point). Somebody was exercising some restraint there not to fire a nuke back at Iraq.
Melonie
06-17-2008, 05:25 PM
Somebody was exercising some restraint there not to fire a nuke back at Iraq.
Actually, that 'somebody' was George Bush ... who ordered the deployment of US troops and Dan Quayle's newly developed Patriot anti-missile missile systems to Israel in order to intercept incoming missiles fired by Iraq. Had the US not immediately deployed those G.I.'s and advanced weapons (as is likely to be the case in the future if Israel is seriously attacked with a 'pacifist' president in the White House), Israel would have quickly been 'forced' to defend herself directly against the Arab country (or countries) attacking her.