http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080302/D8V5I2I00.html


How often do you hear that Israeli citys are under constant bombardment from Gaza? We constantly hear about what Israel does, but we so rarely hear about WHY Israel does what she does.

Yes. You have a point.

Suppose that some idiots were launching (Iranian made) rockets into Toronto...or San Diego...or Seoul...or London.

Suppose it was like 80 per day.

Suppose that the ding dongs firing the rockets were setting
them off next to innocent civilians using them as shields...

The rocket brigades have blood on their hands from their
innocent targets AND innocent shields. They are war criminals.

absolutley. all in the name of peace and tolerance and exceptance in the name of allah.
allah lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala akbar

I believe Israel is occupying Pallestine same as we are occupying Iraq and those Arabs are being crowded out by intimidation from their homeland. If some Arab is upset by Israeli tactics and throws a stone, Then Israel will retaliate with missiles and tanks or maybe bulldoze a row or 2 of Arab houses down with the people still in them .Those Israelis are vicious how they occupy those Arabs. If some Arab kills one Israeli, then they mass murder a whole lot of Arabs. A lot of the time when they say the Arabs shot rockets, I am beginning to have doubts on that. Those Arabs are so poor ,they don't have much of anything to fight with.

Seriously, ask any Arab ,then ask any jew, what he thinks of your Jesus Christ? tHE jEW PROBABLY won't dare to tell you how bad he thinks, But the Arab will probably tell you Jesus was a great man or a great prophet.

The Judeans were semetic and the Khazars are NOT SEMETIC.

And if you are a white person you are most likely truly Semetic, or Shemetic, contrary to what you might have originally thought. The Judeans need to expose the Khazars who have stolen their identity and are exploiting them too, and yet both are presented to you as Jews. But one is not semetic. I consider myself as semetic, so how could I be anti-semetic??

Arabs and Jews are both semetic, but Judaism is also a religion, so they are of all races, including white. White people are not semetic.

You are a Jew hater, not an anti-semite, because you don't appear to have any hatred towards Arabs.

Anti-Semitism is defined as discrimination against Jews.
This has been the definition for over 100 years.

See the dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitism

or

http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Anti-Semitism.htm

or

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anti-Semitism

or

http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_International/Default.htm

s1owhand,

Regardless of what definition "anti-semitism" has, Arabs are also Semitics.

http://www.habtoor.com/anenemycalledapathy/l-14.htm


Google "Arabs are semites too" for more information on this subject.

in the last few years there has been an effort on the
part of some apparently to "redefine anti-semitism"

but a redefinition just muddies the water...

Anti-semitism, traditionally understood as discrimination
against Jews is common all over the world. An attempt by
the authors cited at hatoor and "arabs are semites too" does
nothing but attempt to erase the term traditionally applied
to anti-jewish activities such as the ones listed in the
Wiki article on Arab anti-semitism here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_and_antisemitism

Source?

The water is muddied, because the term "anti-semetic" is etymologically incorrect. "anti-semetic" literally means "against the languages spoken by the various semetic racial groupings", but is defined as "Jew-hatred". "Jew-hatred" has the same etymological meaning and defintion. Therefore, I choose to say "Jew-hatred". You are free to use either term, but when you comment on an Arab being "anti-semetic", he is fully justified to reply "I can't be anti-semetic, I am Semetic."

SHhhhhhhhhhh,
Reprogramming in Process......

Im watching World News on The 700 Club!!!

What nobody liked that?
I thought it was good...

"i liked it"

but, you are interrupting my bible study, i'm trying to figure out how to block "Teletubbies" using my new cable remote, and in a few minutes it's my hour of power and i have to watch my Marvin Gorman and Jim Bakker tapes.

quote of the day...

"the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians … the ACLU (and) People for the American Way" were to blame...

-Jerry Falwell (on origin of 9/11)

hoo boy not the Khazarian Hypothesis again!!

from the Wiki:

"The theory that the majority of Ashkenazic Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars was advocated by various racial theorists[12][13] and antisemitic sources[14][15][13][16] in the 20th century, especially following the publication of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe. Despite recent genetic evidence to the contrary,[17] and a lack of any real mainstream scholarly support, this belief is still popular among groups such as the Christian Identity Movement, Black Hebrews, British Israelitists and others (particularly Arabs[18][19][20]) who claim that they, rather than Jews, are the true descendants of the Israelites, or who seek to who usurp the connection between Ashkenazi Jews and Israel in favor of their own."

"Alleged Khazar ancestry of Ashkenazim

The theory that all or most Ashkenazi ("European") Jews might be descended from Khazars (rather than Semitic groups in the Middle East) dates back to the late nineteenth century, and is frequently cited to malign modern Jews as not actually being Israelites and/or to undermine Israeli claims to territory also sought by Palestinians. It was first publicly proposed in lecture given by Ernest Renan on January 27, 1883, titled "Judaism as a Race and as Religion."[27] It was repeated in articles in The Dearborn Independent in 1923 and 1925, and popularized by racial theorist Lothrop Stoddard in a 1926 article in the Forum titled "The Pedigree of Judah", where he argued that Ashkenazi Jews were a mix of people, of which the Khazars were a primary element.[13][28] Stoddard's views were "based on nineteenth and twentieth-century concepts of race, in which small variations on facial features as well as presumed accompanying character traits were deemed to pass from generation to generation, subject only to the corrupting effects of marriage with members of other groups, the result of which would lower the superior stock without raising the inferior partners."[29] This theory was adopted by British Israelites, who saw it as a means of invalidating the claims of Jews (rather than themselves) to be the true descendants of the ancient Israelites, and was supported by early anti-Zionists.[13][30]

In 1951 Southern Methodist University professor John O. Beaty published The Iron Curtain over America, a work which claimed that "Khazar Jews" were "responsible for all of America's - and the world's - ills beginning with World War I". The book repeated a number of familiar antisemitic claims, placing responsibility for U.S. involvement in World Wars I and II and the Bolshevik revolution on these Khazars, and insisting that Khazar Jews were attempting to subvert Western Christianity and establish communism throughout the world. The American millionaire J. Russell Maguire gave money towards its promotion, and it was met with enthusiasm by hate groups and the extreme right.[31][32] By the 1960s the Khazar theory had become a "firm article of faith" amongst Christian Identity groups.[13][33] In 1971 Glubb Pasha also took up this theme, insisting that Palestinians were more closely related to the ancient Judeans than were Jews. According to Benny Morris:

Of course an anti-Zionist (as well as an anti-Semitic) point is being made here: The Palestinians have a greater political right to Palestine than the Jews do, as they, not the modern-day Jews, are the true descendants of the land's Jewish inhabitants\owners.[34]

The theory gained further support when the novelist Arthur Koestler devoted his popular book The Thirteenth Tribe (1976) to the topic. Koestler's historiography has been attacked as highly questionable by many historians; it has also been pointed out that his discussion of theories about Ashkenazi descent is largely unsupported; to the extent that Koestler referred to place-names and documentary evidence his analysis has been described as a mixture of flawed etymologies and misinterpreted primary sources.[35] Commentors have also noted that Koestler mischaracterized the sources he cited, particularly D.M. Dunlop's History of the Jewish Khazars (1954).[36]

Koestler himself was emphatically pro-Zionist based on secular considerations, and did not see alleged Khazar ancestry as diminishing the claim of Jews to Israel, which he felt was based on the United Nations mandate, and not on Biblical covenants or genetic inheritance. In his view, "The problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago ... is irrelevant to modern Israel". In addition, he was apparently "either unaware of or oblivious to the use anti-Semites had made to the Khazar theory since its introduction at the turn of the century."[37]

Nevertheless, in the Arab world the Khazar theory has been adopted by anti-Zionists[18] and antisemites;[38] such proponents argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of God's Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the theological basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists. In the 1970s and 80s the Khazar theory was also advanced by some Russian chauvinist antisemites, particularly the historian Lev Gumilyov, who portrayed "Judeo-Khazars" as having repeatedly sabotaged Russia's development since the 7th century.[39]

According to Bernard Lewis:

This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.[18]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars