Lilly Marlene
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2007
- Messages
- 243
am I seeing really that we are debating policy based on the bible?
Actually I think palerider makes a far more convincing case basing his on religious ideas, than others make by using the Holocaust.
[And as Friendindeed noted, it goes without saying that it's far more convincing than the tactic of just stepping in to call people "antisemitic" or "Nazis".]
Why ?
Because palerider forces the question to fence sitters, and so many Americans ARE fence sitters.
That is,
In order to deal with him, one must clarify one's position and there really is no equivocating.
Whereas,
Utilizing the Holocaust as a grounds for Israel's supposed right to come in there and take over ...begs the question Aminadijad asked ( which loosely paraphrased is,
"If it's all about the crimes committed against Jews by Europeans in the Holocaust then why isn't the homeland located in Europe ?")
Now to Smila and anyone else who might want to come and jump all over my stuff, that is Amadinejad's question which I am quoting so don't try to attribute it to me.
I also want to speak to something I didn't see before, namely, look at this sentence from three posts above:
Smila said:I will give you credit though for couching your anti-Israel sentiments in such a civil tone. You almost make anti-semitism look scholarly.
There is the reflexive equivalence made there between "anti-Israel" and "anti-semitism" as though they were the same thing.
Does all the material I posted about the Neturei Karta fall on blind eyes ?
Is it not just a little absurd to accuse Jews of being "anti semitic" ?
Yet that is what it amounts to, because they are strenuously opposed to the State of Israel.