Fine. So let's deal with that. Anti-semite to me means that you hate ALL jews. In fact I hate no jews. Now, how can someone from one person like fascist butcher Sharon who I do consider to be a bad politician from his policies, equate that to hate of ALL jews is beyond me. Because there are many Jews who also have similar views to mine about Sharon. In fact all the people who voted for the Labor Party will be in that category. So it buffles me for some of you to be using a term like anti-semite like that just because someone has a different opinion than you on a few people like Sharon. So the only thing that I can come up with is that you just label anyone who makes any negative comment about ANY single jew or jewish policy. So I have to wonder if you will label this Israeli soldier an anti-semite as well because he says the following:
"Prevention of terror, I hear you say. Let me use the wonderful words of my friend Ishay Rosen-Zvi: "You are 'fighting against terror'? What a joke. The Israeli government, in its policies of Occupation, has turned the Territories into a greenhouse for growing terror!!!" We have sown the seeds, grown them, nurtured them - and then our blood is spilled, and the centrist-right-wing politicians reap the benefits. Indeed, terror is the right-wing politician's best friend. You know what? When you treat millions of people like sub-humans for so long, some of them will find inhuman strategies to fight back. Isn't that what the Zionists, and other Jewish revolutionaries, argued about a hundred years ago in order to explain the questionable strategies of survival that Jews used in Europe? Didn't our forefathers say, "Let us live like human beings, and see how we'll act just like other human beings"?
I agree with this Israeli soldier 100%. Does that make him an anti-semite? If not, then why the label? Views are views and they do not encompass the whole population. Just because Sharon is who he is does not mean every jew supports him. Or just because Bush is who he is it does not mean that every american supports him. In fact a great president of ours said:
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." Theodore Roosevelt", May 7, 1918
I REPEAT: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
And here I have people like ikay70 who want absolutely positively no criticism for the president. So who's right? Ikay70 or Theodore Roosevelt?
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
"Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.