Ray Rider wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Let's start with the fact that 99% of Congress is already Zionist, some vehemently so.
GreecePwns wrote:I'm pretty sure all of what I've written in this thread is true. If you don't think so, prove it.
Actually no, if you make ludicrous statements like that, the onus is on you to prove their veracity, otherwise we'll just dismiss them offhand along with all the other crack-pot claims copied from Ahmadinejad.
Zionist, being a state-of-mind, can't be objectively proved so to suggest GreecePwns needs to present the membership rolls of congressmen who are pro-Zionist in order to maintain the idea that the overwhelming majority of Congress is Zionist, is a ridiculous standard.
If we look at members of Congress who have received money from AIPAC, every single Republican (I only note Republicans because I don't know the figure for Democrats, but I bet it's close to 100%) has taken funds from a Zionist front group except three (four prior to Ron Paul's retirement) ... the Quebecois-American congressman Geoff Davis, plus Bob Inglis and Charles Boustany. These three were among the only U.S. congressmen who voted for the U.S. to endorse the United Nations Goldstone Report that accused Israel of crimes against humanity. (But, obviously, Judge Goldstone
must have been anti-Semitic.)
GreecePwns wrote:Having a harsh view of Israeli citizens is not anti-Semitism. It can be argued that the Israeli citizens, of which 99.9% are sitting on stolen land and of which 116 for every 120 vote for militant Zionist parties (militant to varying degrees, this according to the current Knesset configuration), are just as much a part of the offensive as the IDF. Justice calls for the following:
1. The return of illegally seized property to Palestinian owners or their estate. Theft is theft, and the legal conventions for theft include the return of stolen property.
2. The entire region put under Palestinian administration.
3. The land legally purchased by Jews pre-1948 to stay in the hands of the owners.
After you return upstate New York to the Seneca people, the Dakotas to the Sioux, the Ohio valley to the Osage, etc., etc., etc., you might have enough moral stature to start lecturing other countries about how to settle their indigenous land claims.
While a generally valid point, the U.S. - at least - has settled its territorial disputes with the Senecas and Dakotas to the extent that neither the governments of the Seneca or Dakota Nations are making any active claims against the United States. And, when claims arise, a means of peacefully resolving them through a neutral tribunal exists.
In contrast, the Palestinian government does
have active claims against Israel and the tribunals that exist to objectively arbitrate those disputes have had their rulings ignored by Israel. Palestinian-Israeli relations are at the same point Seneca-American relations were in the 1780s. To suggest an 18th century modus operandi
is good enough for the Palestinians is dehumanizing.