1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

dresden8

I think it's fair to say the Israeli's have used the

"We had a holocaust so we can bomb Arab civilians back to the stone age"

excuse just one too many times.

Serenity Now!

Suff wrote: »

Basically, to state that Arabs are Anti-Semitic is rediculess...Semitic people are the Arabs, Arameans, Hebrews, and Phoenicians

You can muck around with semantics all you like. I mean, its not like anybody has trouble distinguishing what the word is describing, is it?

Your quote reference says "This has been the Zionist ideology from the beginning to the present time". What is your problem with that? Centuries of persecution would of course lead to a point where they decide that they should tolerate it no more and try to up sticks to the region in question.

Look at some of Ireland's original Jews, for example. Uprooted from homes in the Tsarist Empire etc and sent to the 'Pale' in Russia. Uprooted from there during the pogroms of the late 19th century and kicked out. In the scatter, some headed to Palestine. Others Central Europe. Others to Britain (where they were previously forbidden from migrating to before), Sth Africa or to the US. With those in Ireland (as it was part of Britain then), they even were at the receiving end of anti-Jewish actions such as in Limerick in 1904 thanks to the local priest, Fr Creagh. Read some of Oliver St John Gogarty's writings about Jews, for example. Or Arthur Griffith's own rhetoric. How about the behaviour of the Justice Dept during the war years regarding Jewish refugees? Or Charles Bewley in Berlin as Ambassador to Germany.

So yes, there were movements to encourage settlers and it was these kind of people who moved there especially after the great war was over and the Palestine region's former occupier, Turkey, was removed to be replaced by a British Mandate. After the liberation of Europe in 1945, its hardly surprising that even more Jewish people who survived went there.

Zionism is European history's own creation right up to the middle of the 20th century.
People just keep on giving the more extreme faction of this movement excuses and more excuses, in my opinion.
Israel is split in how it wants itself as a country to be. It actually always has been. Between religious and secular or hardline right and the moderates. Irgun and Lehi were at loggerheads with Ben-Gurion and Herzog, who opposed their methods, for example.

There is a reason, in my opinion, why the Israelis are so defensive about their existance and its not solely down to the Final Solution. Its being moved on and on again while being treated like sh*t on a shoe. Its the massacres at various moshavim and kibbutzisms in the 20s and 30s. Its Nasser in 1967 or the Yom Kippur war. Some people conveniently tend to forget this somehow.

None of this is an excuse for what Olmert's govt have done of course despite Hamas' actions today after their alleged 'ceasefire'.

Offy

Serenity Now! wrote: »

You can muck around with semantics all you like. I mean, its not like anybody has trouble distinguishing what the word is describing, is it?

Your quote reference says "This has been the Zionist ideology from the beginning to the present time". What is your problem with that? Centuries of persecution would of course lead to a point where they decide that they should tolerate it no more and try to up sticks to the region in question.

Look at some of Ireland's original Jews, for example. Uprooted from homes in the Tsarist Empire etc and sent to the 'Pale' in Russia. Uprooted from there during the pogroms of the late 19th century and kicked out. In the scatter, some headed to Palestine. Others Central Europe. Others to Britain (where they were previously forbidden from migrating to before), Sth Africa or to the US. With those in Ireland (as it was part of Britain then), they even were at the receiving end of anti-Jewish actions such as in Limerick in 1904 thanks to the local priest, Fr Creagh. Read some of Oliver St John Gogarty's writings about Jews, for example. Or Arthur Griffith's own rhetoric. How about the behaviour of the Justice Dept during the war years regarding Jewish refugees? Or Charles Bewley in Berlin as Ambassador to Germany.

So yes, there were movements to encourage settlers and it was these kind of people who moved there especially after the great war was over and the Palestine region's former occupier, Turkey, was removed to be replaced by a British Mandate. After the liberation of Europe in 1945, its hardly surprising that even more Jewish people who survived went there.

Zionism is European history's own creation right up to the middle of the 20th century.
People just keep on giving the more extreme faction of this movement excuses and more excuses, in my opinion.
Israel is split in how it wants itself as a country to be. It actually always has been. Between religious and secular or hardline right and the moderates. Irgun and Lehi were at loggerheads with Ben-Gurion and Herzog, who opposed their methods, for example.

There is a reason, in my opinion, why the Israelis are so defensive about their existance and its not solely down to the Final Solution. Its being moved on and on again while being treated like sh*t on a shoe. Its the massacres at various moshavim and kibbutzisms in the 20s and 30s. Its Nasser in 1967 or the Yom Kippur war. Some people conveniently tend to forget this somehow.

None of this is an excuse for what Olmert's govt have done of course despite Hamas' actions today after their alleged 'ceasefire'.

Based on that argument is it ok for the IRA to start bombing England again because we were mistreated in the past? No its not nor is it acceptable for Israel to turn itself into Nazi Germany because of any of the arguments you have listed. The abused HAS become the abuser.
Persecution of Israel's neighbours will of course lead to a point where they decide that they should tolerate it no more and try to annihilate all Jews in the region in question.

lwellan dowd

Serenity Now! wrote: »

You can muck around with semantics all you like. I mean, its not like anybody has trouble distinguishing what the word is describing, is it?

Your quote reference says "This has been the Zionist ideology from the beginning to the present time". What is your problem with that? Centuries of persecution would of course lead to a point where they decide that they should tolerate it no more and try to up sticks to the region in question.

Look at some of Ireland's original Jews, for example. Uprooted from homes in the Tsarist Empire etc and sent to the 'Pale' in Russia. Uprooted from there during the pogroms of the late 19th century and kicked out. In the scatter, some headed to Palestine. Others Central Europe. Others to Britain (where they were previously forbidden from migrating to before), Sth Africa or to the US. With those in Ireland (as it was part of Britain then), they even were at the receiving end of anti-Jewish actions such as in Limerick in 1904 thanks to the local priest, Fr Creagh. Read some of Oliver St John Gogarty's writings about Jews, for example. Or Arthur Griffith's own rhetoric. How about the behaviour of the Justice Dept during the war years regarding Jewish refugees? Or Charles Bewley in Berlin as Ambassador to Germany.

So yes, there were movements to encourage settlers and it was these kind of people who moved there especially after the great war was over and the Palestine region's former occupier, Turkey, was removed to be replaced by a British Mandate. After the liberation of Europe in 1945, its hardly surprising that even more Jewish people who survived went there.

Zionism is European history's own creation right up to the middle of the 20th century.
People just keep on giving the more extreme faction of this movement excuses and more excuses, in my opinion.
Israel is split in how it wants itself as a country to be. It actually always has been. Between religious and secular or hardline right and the moderates. Irgun and Lehi were at loggerheads with Ben-Gurion and Herzog, who opposed their methods, for example.

There is a reason, in my opinion, why the Israelis are so defensive about their existance and its not solely down to the Final Solution. Its being moved on and on again while being treated like sh*t on a shoe. Its the massacres at various moshavim and kibbutzisms in the 20s and 30s. Its Nasser in 1967 or the Yom Kippur war. Some people conveniently tend to forget this somehow.

None of this is an excuse for what Olmert's govt have done of course despite Hamas' actions today after their alleged 'ceasefire'.

Enlightening account of the horrifiic persecution the Jews have suffered continuously over the centuries. Many thanks.
It puts in context why 6 milliion Israelis citizens defend their country and ancestral homeland so vigorously.

Zynks

Serenity Now! wrote: »

None of this is an excuse for what Olmert's govt have done of course despite Hamas' actions today after their alleged 'ceasefire'.

Spot on! It doesn't matter what the background to all the trouble is. The actions of the Israeli government in the last few weeks are inhumane, blatantly wrong and totally inexcusable.
No matter how much it is discussed, there is no possible justification for this ongoing human tragedy, and it is infuriating to see the Israeli PR machine justifying it with "well, Hamas should know better than using civilians as shields".
One day Israel will realize that if they have any hope for a normal existence, US support and brutal force alone are not the answer.

paulaa

lwellan dowd wrote: »

Enlightening account of the horrifiic persecution the Jews have suffered continuously over the centuries. Many thanks.
It puts in context why 6 milliion Israelis citizens defend their country and ancestral homeland so vigorously.

By doing the same to the Palestinians what was done to them ?
Very poor excuse.

Why were the Jews not wanted anywhere ?

humberklog

paulaa wrote: »

Why were the Jews not wanted anywhere ?

That's a blanket statement hidden in a question that isn't correct. Even Germany (or particularly Germany) pre 30's had a hugely fully immersed Jewish population. Ireland (on the whole) has been brilliant for its jewish citizens, britain too, USA and on and on and on. There's not much news in harmony.

marcsignal

paulaa wrote: »

Why were the Jews not wanted anywhere ?

can i phone a friend ??

*rings hitler*

paulaa

humberklog wrote: »

That's a blanket statement hidden in a question that isn't correct. Even Germany (or particularly Germany) pre 30's had a hugely fully immersed Jewish population. Ireland (on the whole) has been brilliant for its jewish citizens, britain too, USA and on and on and on. There's not much news in harmony.

Lose the paranoia:)
It was a genuine question and I was interested in an answer from a Jewish perspective.
I have seen many, many statements to this effect from pro Israeli over the last 3 weeks

paulaa

marcsignal wrote: »

can i phone a friend ??

*rings hitler*

Time up !!!!:D

humberklog

paulaa wrote: »

Lose the paranoia:)
It was a genuine question and I was interested in an answer from a Jewish perspective.
I have seen many, many statements to this effect from pro Israeli over the last 3 weeks

Well I don't agree that that question makes sense and I really don't know any other Jews that would be interested in forwarding that point. It's a very broad church.


Really I'm not paranoid nor titchy on such matters. If Ireland gave me anything it was a thick skin. Your question's just way out there in most Jewish peoples minds. The same pro Israeli people furthering that statement have been shown to use both ill judged weaponry, tactics, reason and hyperbole. It doesn't make it right.

marcsignal

paulaa wrote: »

Time up !!!!:D

Drat !! :mad:

ok, i'll ask the audience ??

humberklog

marcsignal wrote: »

Drat !! :mad:

ok, i'll ask the audience ??

Because gentiles find full on pogroms easier than monthly direct debit when it comes to personal financing? (See Limerick!)

paulaa

humberklog wrote: »

Well I don't agree that that question makes sense and I really don't know any other Jews that would be interested in forwarding that point. It's a very broad church.


Really I'm not paranoid nor titchy on such matters. If Ireland gave me anything it was a thick skin. Your question's just way out there in most Jewish peoples minds. The same pro Israeli people furthering that statement have been shown to use both ill judged weaponry, tactics, reason and hyperbole. It doesn't make it right.

Can you tell me then why so many Pro Israelis say things like. "We have been persecuted everywhere we go and we just want to live peacefully in Israel "(conveniently forgetting that it was not their land until Lord Balfour and the collective guilt over the Holocaust planted them there)

Is it just to garner sympathy or is there a reason ? It's something I've never understood tbh.

Why did Ireland give you a thick skin if as you say, "Ireland (on the whole) has been brilliant for its jewish citizens"

youcrazyjesus!

Serenity Now! wrote: »

You can muck around with semantics all you like. I mean, its not like anybody has trouble distinguishing what the word is describing, is it?

Your quote reference says "This has been the Zionist ideology from the beginning to the present time". What is your problem with that? Centuries of persecution would of course lead to a point where they decide that they should tolerate it no more and try to up sticks to the region in question.

Look at some of Ireland's original Jews, for example. Uprooted from homes in the Tsarist Empire etc and sent to the 'Pale' in Russia. Uprooted from there during the pogroms of the late 19th century and kicked out. In the scatter, some headed to Palestine. Others Central Europe. Others to Britain (where they were previously forbidden from migrating to before), Sth Africa or to the US. With those in Ireland (as it was part of Britain then), they even were at the receiving end of anti-Jewish actions such as in Limerick in 1904 thanks to the local priest, Fr Creagh. Read some of Oliver St John Gogarty's writings about Jews, for example. Or Arthur Griffith's own rhetoric. How about the behaviour of the Justice Dept during the war years regarding Jewish refugees? Or Charles Bewley in Berlin as Ambassador to Germany.

So yes, there were movements to encourage settlers and it was these kind of people who moved there especially after the great war was over and the Palestine region's former occupier, Turkey, was removed to be replaced by a British Mandate. After the liberation of Europe in 1945, its hardly surprising that even more Jewish people who survived went there.

Zionism is European history's own creation right up to the middle of the 20th century.
People just keep on giving the more extreme faction of this movement excuses and more excuses, in my opinion.
Israel is split in how it wants itself as a country to be. It actually always has been. Between religious and secular or hardline right and the moderates. Irgun and Lehi were at loggerheads with Ben-Gurion and Herzog, who opposed their methods, for example.

There is a reason, in my opinion, why the Israelis are so defensive about their existance and its not solely down to the Final Solution. Its being moved on and on again while being treated like sh*t on a shoe. Its the massacres at various moshavim and kibbutzisms in the 20s and 30s. Its Nasser in 1967 or the Yom Kippur war. Some people conveniently tend to forget this somehow.

None of this is an excuse for what Olmert's govt have done of course despite Hamas' actions today after their alleged 'ceasefire'.

I don't disagree with any of this. However it doesn't justify inflicting a crime worse than September 11th (before anybody replies I'm not talking about death toll 1:1) on a desperate population this week and last. It also doesn't justify dispossesing Palestinians of their land. No more than it would have justified ultranationalist Jewish groups doing the same thing in New York, Ireland or Argentina. Some people would say Palestinians were violent towards Jewish immigrants and wouldn't accept them and use this as further justification but this a total doublethink. For a start I would point out that Jewish immigration may have been welcomed but Zionism is not simply immigration. There are many other issues there. Israel is a remarkable achievement but it came at a price. The Palestinians paid it but they were not responsible for the genocide of 6 million Jews and didn't do anything to deserve being subjected to a colonial process like this. Jews deserve a lot of sympathy and the fundamental human rights denied to them in such a way in Europe during the WWII years. However so do Palestinians, no more and no less than Europe's Jews did, you cannot have one over the other or have one being more important than the other. They are fundamental rights, however disparate the crimes each group was and is being subjected too.

Israel is in a strong position now, it's as strong a position as it will ever be in the Middle East. It would do well for it's citizens and it's future citizens to make peace now. By that I mean do what everybody but a small hardcore of reactionaries want, withdraw to it's 1967 borders. It's still a massive victory for Israel.

Matt Holck

marcsignal wrote: »

can i phone a friend ??

*rings hitler*

because their religion tells them
out of all the people in the world that they are the chosen people
everyone else feels slighted by this

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Simple – I consider the UN and John Ging to be biased

Slander. John Ging is a well informed, honourable 3rd party.

The UN human rights council is proud to have amongst its members countries like China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Angola

Best to be judged by a jury of your peers no?

And these crimes are not being comitted "in Israel". They are being committed against another nation. These things naturally carry more weight in the UN.

Sand

Israel is in a strong position now, it's as strong a position as it will ever be in the Middle East. It would do well for it's citizens and it's future citizens to make peace now. By that I mean do what everybody but a small hardcore of reactionaries want, withdraw to it's 1967 borders. It's still a massive victory for Israel.

The problem isnt that Israel doesnt realise it won in 1967. It is Hamas realising that the Arab alliance against Israel lost.

No sustainable peace deal with Hamas is possible whilst the best Hamas offers is a temporary truce to allow Hamas to build up the strength to attack Israel at some convenient opportunity.

The use to which Hamas and the Palestinians put Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal has completely undermined the concept of land for peace. Any territory Israel offers to a Palestinian state will simply be used for further attacks on Israel at some point in the future.

Serenity Now!

Offy wrote: »

Based on that argument is it ok for the IRA to start bombing England again because we were mistreated in the past? No its not nor is it acceptable for Israel to turn itself into Nazi Germany because of any of the arguments you have listed. The abused HAS become the abuser.
Persecution of Israel's neighbours will of course lead to a point where they decide that they should tolerate it no more and try to annihilate all Jews in the region in question.

I guess that just went right over your head, eh? I didn't try to justify anything. Somebody brought up antisemitism and I explained why Jewish people and in particular, Israeli Jews, tend to be defensive and why those that did fled to Israel. There has always been mistrust and irrational hatred of the Jew even, as I pointed out, here in Ireland.

In case you didn't know it but annihilation of Israel and its inhabitants is precisely what has been constantly attempted since year dot there.

Your 'IRA' moral relativism is laughable at best, by the way. I don't know if its just me or not but I don't see a religious extremist side of a split Britain firing rockets and mortars daily over the border or Irish Sea.

Lemming

Sand wrote: »

The problem isnt that Israel doesnt realise it won in 1967. It is Hamas realising that the Arab alliance against Israel lost.

No sustainable peace deal with Hamas is possible whilst the best Hamas offers is a temporary truce to allow Hamas to build up the strength to attack Israel at some convenient opportunity.

The use to which Hamas and the Palestinians put Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal has completely undermined the concept of land for peace. Any territory Israel offers to a Palestinian state will simply be used for further attacks on Israel at some point in the future.

Or it may not. Until tried, the answer will never be known. And to date, Israel has shown itself to be disinterested in the roadmap it agreed to. Reading that you've written, my immediate impression on the jist of what you've written is "why make the effort of having peace?". So I'll ask the exact same question to you (since I very much consider you to be an Israeli cheer-leader) I've put to republican & loyalist cheer-leaders over the years in the North;

Has anything - in the absence of peace - that's happened made a blind bit of difference and brought improvement?

I think, if you genuinely search your soul to answer that question, the answer is "no". Nothing either side has done has done anything but perpetuate more hatred, more destruction, more death.

The alternative is more of the same ... which I would hope that anyone would find utterly and horrifyingly unappealing. The only tangible solution is to sit down and talk no matter how much you think you hate the other guy. Genocide isn't an option.

Macha

lwellan dowd wrote: »

Enlightening account of the horrifiic persecution the Jews have suffered continuously over the centuries. Many thanks.
It puts in context why 6 milliion Israelis citizens defend their country and ancestral homeland so vigorously.

Old injustices are no excuse for committing new injustices.

I could equally argue that women or homosexuals have suffered horrific persecution throughout the years and therefore deserve a "homeland".

paulaa wrote: »

Why were the Jews not wanted anywhere ?

Throughout the centuries, different nations or communities have accepted and rejected Jews as suited them politically. When an "enemy within" was needed to unite the populous, Jews were used, the most famous example being Nazi Germany of course.

Christians and Muslims were not allowed to charge interest and so Jews played an important role in setting up lending institutions - hence the strong connection between Jews and banking that remains today.

I don't see Jewish persecution during the fanatically religious middle-ages as any different to the persecution of any other religion in Europe at the time. Muslims saw Jews and Christians as dhimmi and the Christians went gung-ho at everyone, especially after the Reformation. But since the Enlightenment, anti-semitism has taken on a different aspect. I don't really know how to explain it, myself.

I just find it bizarre that this particular group of people were given a country (that was taken away from another people) based simply on huge levels of guilt and a religious text, that effectively promises the land in question to followers of 3 of the world's largest religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. What about all the homosexuals and gyspies that were also persecuted in Nazi Germany? Where is their "homeland"? Did they not get one because they didn't have a religious text and pretext necessary to justify being given land?

Nodin

paulaa wrote: »

Why were the Jews not wanted anywhere ?

A loaded question based upon a false presumption. Ironically the 'trouble wherever they go' slur has been reused to slander Palestinians. Nobody is served well by you using it in its original context here.

paulaa wrote: »

It was a genuine question and I was interested in an answer from a Jewish perspective.?

From a gentile perspective it looked fairly nasty to me....

paulaa wrote: »

Can you tell me then why so many Pro Israelis say things like. "We have been persecuted everywhere we go and we just want to live peacefully in Israel ".?

Because of Hitler, his enabling of anti-semites in Europe generally, and the Arab reaction to Jews post 1948. Historically overall, it was in christian states that the worst persections took place, though this was gradually changing in the West. Russia was a slow learner in that regard however, as was Poland. A raft of reasons exist, usually hidden, helped or driven by the "You killed Jesus" thing. However thanks to Herr Schickelgruber, this sort of nonsense killed millions, and deprived Europe of much of its artistic and intellectual elite, who were either killed or fled to America.

humberklog

paulaa wrote: »

It's something I've never understood tbh.

It could be that you're asking all the wrong questions in all the wrong ways for all the wrong reasons to all the wrong people.

(Your post 2617 for e.g.).

Macha

humberklog wrote: »

It could be that you're asking all the wrong questions in all the wrong ways for all the wrong reasons to all the wrong people.

(Your post 2617 for e.g.).

Admittedly, it was a badly-phrased question but I think Paulaa was genuinely looking to understand the history of the persecution of the Jews.

I don't see why you deem us to be the "wrong people" or why it was a "wrong question".

As much as the history of anti-semitism is no excuse for the treatment of the Palestinian people, its study/discussion can help people to understand the mind-set of the Israeli people. And surely you conisder that to be a good thing?

humberklog

taconnol wrote: »

Admittedly, it was a badly-phrased question but I think Paulaa was genuinely looking to understand the history of the persecution of the Jews.

I don't see why you deem us to be the "wrong people" or why it was a "wrong question".

I don't deem the posters here to be wrong. I was on a roll with the wrongs and didn't want to break my stride for being correct. There are a lot of excellent posters on this thread and it has ran very well and informatively by people on all sides of the discussion.
I've only being reading mostly but I did step in on that post as it is as you say 'badly phrased'. I really didn't know at what angle it was coming at and it does read very odd and very loaded and starts from a point it appears as though the poster is more informed on issues. As a question it is badly phrased but so badly it strikes one as a badly disguised mis-informed statement.

youcrazyjesus!

Sand wrote: »

The problem isnt that Israel doesnt realise it won in 1967. It is Hamas realising that the Arab alliance against Israel lost.

No sustainable peace deal with Hamas is possible whilst the best Hamas offers is a temporary truce to allow Hamas to build up the strength to attack Israel at some convenient opportunity.

I've posted up many statements from a wide range of sources that state Hamas is ready to accept a 2-state solution. The problem is actually that nobody wants to involve them despite the fact they clearly enjoy the support of a large number of Palestinians. It is the same as creating a "solution" in the North that ignores the IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries.

Jimmy Carter and some senior Mossad and Shin Bet officials say Israel SHOULD talk to Hamas, for different reasons admittedly but they agree Israel had nothing to lose from talking to Hamas and something to gain. The problem mainly is that Israel will not talk to them, im my opinion it's fundamentally because of the psychological problem of the Israeli state; the mindset - it is actually Israel's leaders who cannot or will not accept reality. Ehud Olmert said the exact same thing no so long ago. The reality that expansion and stealing your neighbours land is unacceptable, that they will have to return to their 1967 borders and that they will have to accept the RIGHT of Palestinians to return, if not the reality of it happening which everybody knows will not happen.

Hamas are no so far removed from reality that they think they can defeat Israel militarily. Nobody believes this in Palestine. The fact is Hamas will accept the DEMOCRATIC will of Palestinians and 80% of them accept a 2-state solution.

The beauty of any peace process is that the solution is ready made. There are some minor details but the fundamentals are already there. Many times people have said on there that Hamas AND Palestinians get what they deserve but if that is true than Israeli and Israelis deserve what it gets in the form of rockets. It is disappointing to see that people can only see the conflict as a 1-way street; Hamas bad, Israel good, Hamas attack = terrorism, Israel attack = justified retaliation. Or the idea that if only Hamas and Palestinians would stop their nefarious activities, which incidentally sprung up overnight for no reason and certainly not in response to occupation, stop attacking poor little Israel, the benevolent Israelis will grant them the right to govern themselves. What a load of rubbish.

The use to which Hamas and the Palestinians put Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal has completely undermined the concept of land for peace. Any territory Israel offers to a Palestinian state will simply be used for further attacks on Israel at some point in the future.

You're not clairvoyant. "Land for peace" is absolute horse****, a slogan that means nothing. Israel will find terrorism reduced to almost nil and in a relatively short amount of time to nil, as Hamas achieved itself in the Gaza Strip during the summer, once it starts to behave like a civilised nation and stops terrorising and antagonising Palestinians. Not to mention occupying stolen land. Again this is something that Ehud Olmert himself said; that Israel cannot expect terrorism to end completely prior to any solution.

paulaa

Nodin wrote: »

A loaded question based upon a false presumption. Ironically the 'trouble wherever they go' slur has been reused to slander Palestinians. Nobody is served well by you using it in its original context here.



From a gentile perspective it looked fairly nasty to me....



Because of Hitler, his enabling of anti-semites in Europe generally, and the Arab reaction to Jews post 1948. Historically overall, it was in christian states that the worst persections took place, though this was gradually changing in the West. Russia was a slow learner in that regard however, as was Poland. A raft of reasons exist, usually hidden, helped or driven by the "You killed Jesus" thing. However thanks to Herr Schickelgruber, this sort of nonsense killed millions, and deprived Europe of much of its artistic and intellectual elite, who were either killed or fled to America.

You misunderstand my motives for asking this question.
My question was based on what Jews have said themselves over the years.
Sorry is it looked "nasty" to you, it certainly wasn't meant that way. What other way could I have phrased it ?

paulaa

humberklog wrote: »

It could be that you're asking all the wrong questions in all the wrong ways for all the wrong reasons to all the wrong people.

(Your post 2617 for e.g.).

I am asking a question about a statement I have been hearing for years from Jewish people ? Why do they say this if it has no basis and no one who supports them can't answer it ?

paulaa

taconnol wrote: »

Admittedly, it was a badly-phrased question but I think Paulaa was genuinely looking to understand the history of the persecution of the Jews.

I don't see why you deem us to be the "wrong people" or why it was a "wrong question".

As much as the history of anti-semitism is no excuse for the treatment of the Palestinian people, its study/discussion can help people to understand the mind-set of the Israeli people. And surely you conisder that to be a good thing?

Thank you taconnol. We can all read and inform ourselves on the facts of history , that's the easy part. What I wanted to know is why Jewish people think this way and if it has any basis in fact.

Sorry I didn't dress it up in pretty language but as you all get to know me you will find I call a spade a spade and I have no hidden agenda.

Macha

paulaa wrote: »

What I wanted to know is why Jewish people think this way and if it has any basis in fact.

Unfortunately, it does have a factual basis. Jews have been one of the most persecuted peoples in history. Often used as scapegoats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_Affair or wiki the "Black death and Jews".), their involvement in the financial sector and subsequent wealth was also viewed suspiciously and often used against them.

I suppose part of the problem is when this (very justified) sense of victimisation is passed down to a new generation, that never personally experienced the persecution at the same intensity, it takes on an almost mythical nature and becomes a sort of communal mindset, a way of viewing the world and everything that happens in it. And as anyone knows, it is very difficult to get a victim to see themselves as anything but a victim, even when they are themselves guilty of wrongdoings.