Skip to main content


Last week, after Israeli targeted Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi - and,
instead, got a woman passer-by and a three year-old child, while 27 others
were injured. - George W. Bush came out with some very mild criticism of

"I am troubled by the recent Israeli helicopter gunship attacks. I regret
the loss of innocent life. I also don't believe that the attacks help
Israeli security."

From the hysterical reaction, one might have thought that he had uttered a
blood libel, or suddenly taken to wearing a kaffiyeh. Such a commotion!
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), reportedly strode into the Oval
Office and threatened to push a resolution through Congress offering
unconditional support to Sharon and implicitly rebuking the President.

God forbid the President of the United States should mourn the death of a
three-year-old child whom the Israelis say was inadvertently killed. That
this troubles him troubles DeLay - and that is more than a little
troubling. I mean, what are we talking about here: aren't we supposed to be
against the taking of innocent life? And why, pray tell, shouldn't an
American President forbidden say out loud what he really thinks about the
immoral and self-destructive behavior of a foreign government, albeit one
that is ostensibly our faithful ally?

We hear constantly about the supposed rise of anti-Semitic sentiments in
Europe: this is not neo-Nazi activity, or the "old" anti-Semitism of the
Protocols, but the "new anti-Semitism," which boils down to criticism of
Israel and its supporters...

If you criticize "the only state controlled by Jews" you aren't necessarily
anti-Semitic - but you probably are. And just what are these standards that
Israel alone is held to? Any other country that separated out the majority
of the population on the basis of ethnicity, and subjected them to
draconian controls, controlling their movements, and keeping them penned up
in special ghettos, would long ago have been declared an international
pariah. How has Israel managed to get away with it - and, not only that,
but how have they managed to go on the offensive, and target their critics
as 'bigots"...
"I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn't want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn't know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X)
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest


No matter what, come Hell or high water the so-called Zionist tolerate absolutely 0 criticism of Israel! Even when print and visual media note Israel to be dead wrong on issues of how they treat the Palestinians, - the Zionist still characterize any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic! Zionist intolerance of Israeli disapproval is so evident that not a single black US Congressman or other politician will dare openly criticize Israel, - and when they do they mysteriously disappear from office ah-la Cynthia McKinney.

Just imagine what the political backlash would be if African Americans generally believed that it is racist to point out the fact that black street gangs generally kill black people. If blacks were to assume that posture then liberal democratic dollars earmarked for inner-city anti-gang programs would surely vanish in a hurry! Clearly, more discourse rather than a muffling of discourse is what is needed in order to solve inner-city crack cocaine and gang problems. If African Americans relegate to anti-black everybody who says something about the drug and crime epidemic, then we as a people risk denying ourselves the voices that may carry the solutions we so desperately need. Israel is no different! Consigning those who disagree with Sharon's Palestinian policy as anti-Semite also muffles the voices that may carry solutions that involve life or death. The Zionist unfortunately works against the many voices theory and hypothesis and subscribe instead to the one voice premise with no room for constructive criticism.

Meanwhile, Jewish lobbyists in Washington are waiting and anxious to reward all those who assume a political position that defacto disallows any criticism of Israel or its policy on the Palestinian issue. Herein rest the avarice of the typical black conservative republican politician, - who all to often openly supports Israel while condemning affirmative action as a useful remedy for past wrongs and injustices!

[This message was edited by kraaaal on June 29, 2003 at 06:50 PM.]
One may also ask how the arabs managed to cause jews to scatter throughout the world, denying them of their homeland for much of their history. Israel is NOT controlled by 'jews', Israel has the only democratically elected government in the region. This 'justin raimondo' obviously isn't very in tune with diplomatic and historical events and how they they actually come down in the real world.

Suffice it to say that Bushes 'public' words had little to do with Tom Delay's actions, and its hard to believe he'd have no knowledge at all of the behind the scenes events related to this. Funny, I think the entire episode was over his head, as his little personal 'emotional' diatribe demonstrates, and that accounts for a strictly 'emotional' bloodletting here. I also do not recall Bush getting so worked up in public when the never ending saga of muslims killing jews occurs daily. I mean, what exactly was this little article supposed to demonstrate?
Contrary to belief, Arabs did not spread the jews around the world. Arabs did not leave the peninsula until after the rise of Islam, well before the biblical dispersement of the jews. You can blame that on the Romans, Babylonians and others.

As for Isreal, it is a Jewish state. We seem to have some discomfort regarding an Islamic state but not a Jewish one... Both religions are very similiar, the Jewish more militant that the Islamic, you just need to review the first 5 chapters of the Bible to see where I am comming from and you would actually have to force yourself to read the Qur'an to see that they have limits to war that is very similar to the Geneva Conventions. Many of these practices were followed during the Crusades and they have not changed.

You say that there is a never ending saga of Muslims killing Jews everyday? I seem to remember that the body count is much higher for Palestinians, in fact double, in regards to the conflict over there. Muslims are being slaugtered in India and they were slaughtered in Bosnia and Kosovo before the intervention.

I recall that Bush released many statements in regards to the killing of Jews but said little in regards to the Isreali military using serious excessive force with no regards to civilians.

Lets take the race and religion out of this. Think about this for awhile... A conqured area whose population is brutaly oppressed. A military that views all in that area as sub-human and potential terrorist. Killing a child is to get rid of a possible future terrorist. Race is still out of it, religion is still out of it, try your best. Then some people band together, tired of this, never trusting their oppressors, getting revenge for the deaths of their children. It is called fighting fire with fire. When the oppressors have already set the rules the other side play by it.

Now, this is not to say that you should support the excessive use of force,which is against the geneva conventions, and this is not to say that terrorism is a proper response, since it is against Islamic and Christian behavior. As for the Jewish belief, they are, in my opinion, living in biblical thought, kill every man, woman, child and animal, let not one live... In pursuit of a greater promise land...

What are your thoughts now?

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.