Who exactly is "Israel?" And how do you think they "made a nation?"

(Israel is a Rothschild creation, the Rothschild and the J.P. Morgan family dynasties are the International bankers ("Banksters")who are stealing trillions of dollars of wealth throughout the entire world with fractional reserve lending, usury and common theft.)

Before I launch into my critique, we are going to need some definitions:

Semite: "a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semite

Arab: "a member of the Semitic people of the Arabian Peninsula"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arab?show=0&t=1354467417

Hebrew: "a member of or descendant from one of a group of northern Semitic peoples including the Israelites"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hebrew

Jew:
1) "a member of the tribe of Judah"
2) "a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d."
3) "a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people"
4) "one whose religion is Judaism"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jew

Ashkenazi:"a member of one of the two great divisions of Jews comprising the eastern European Yiddish-speaking Jews"

Sephardim: "a member of the occidental branch of European Jews settling in Spain and Portugal and later in the Balkans, the Levant, England, the Netherlands, and the Americas; also : one of their descendants"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sephardi?show=0&t=1354468000

Zionism: (too complicated…read the link)
http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_definitions.htm
(the important thing to take way from the definition is that zionism, being a political thing, has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity, and consequently, anti-zionism is not anti-semitism or anti Jew)

There is a bit of confusion between what is called "oriental jews" and the definition for the Sephardi. Basically, the sephardi defined by the dictionary form a subset of the oriental jews by virtue of the fact that many oriental jews never migrated to Spain after the Moorish conquest. For the purposes of my comment, it is sufficient to call the oriental jews "sephardim", as they have the same ethnic origins.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/jew-oriental.htm

It appears then that what we'd call "ethnic jews" originated from ONE of the twelve tribes of Israel mentioned in the bible (a terribly unreliable source of information that conflicts in many places with historical and archeaological fact), which carved Judah out of Canaan (the "promised" land). Judaism as a religion had not yet taken shape (see "religion" on this page…in fact read the whole page for a more accurate historical perspective):

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

If we take the worship of Yahweh as a marker for the beginning of Judaism, we'll see that Judaism was a religion in flux as a competitor to other Hebrew religions in Judah. Paying attention to the dates and the known archaeology, we can see that the legendary "Kingdom of David" pre-dated Judaism and only consisted of a small portion of the "promised Land"…In fact recent archaeology suggests that it consisted only of two cities about 70 miles apart. This is a far cry from what is called "Eretz Israel" a myth propagated by nationalistic priests of a religious nation recently stomped on by Rome, who exaggerated the "empire" of their greatest King David to epic proportions (A small territory in Canaan wouldn't befit the scion of an almighty God like Yahweh?)

It seems fair to say that if territory of the State of Israel is to be based on the history of the religion of Judaism (as actual recorded history and not biblical legends) that claim to much more than a small portion of Palestine is erroneous at best, since claim to part of the "promised land" must be shared with other semitic, non-judaic peoples of the day like the Samaritans, Ammonites, Philistines, etc.

Contrary to popular myth, the Romans didn't expel all the jews after their last rebellion around 132 CE. Many remained and became what we now call the Sephardim. These are the only Canaanites who might have a historical, ethnic and religious claim to some land which they SHOULD be able to call Israel if they want, but for many centuries, they were happy to call themselves Palestinians and lived peacefully & relatively happily with their ethnic brothers, the Islamic & Christian palestinians.

It is a misnomer to call Islamic semites "arabs", as only people of the arabian peninsula and parts of northern africa are ethnically arabic. The semites, like the Syrians, are a distinct ethnicity and many Islamic Palestinians do not originate from the Arabian peninsula or africa. Some were even Sephardic Jews until they converted later on in history. In point of fact, many non-semitic (religious) jews are ethnic arabs or blacks out of territory surrounding Palestine.

It would seem then, that the zionist dream of the creation of a jewish state has added yet another area of confusion to the mix…the racial/political jew. These are people who may or may not have one or more of ethnic, historical, or religious ties to the holy land. The early ones (like Herzl) were atheists who wanted a state to call their own, and based their claim to it on quite probably erroneous "racial" jewishness based on (religious) jewish family histories.

Herzl was a politically nationalistic socialist who dreamed of founding a secular, racially homogenous state. He did not see jewishness in religious terms (being an atheist), and (for practical reasons) considered jews to be ethnically homogenous (which, being a group based on a religion, they are not). Nevertheless, since Jews had historically been persecuted in europe, It probably gave him a handy political "lever" to lump the different ethnicities behind one religion into one "race" called "The Chosen People." Being an atheist, it probably even tickled his funny bone to think that they were chosen by him to become the State of Israel.

I'm sure even Herzl would be a bit disappointed by the religious extremism of many jews in modern-day Israel, who now justify its existence and many atrocities against their semitic brothers (with a true historical, ethnic and secular claim to the same land, who lived on that land all along) on a mythical history of the area based on their religion.

The aforementioned should bring us a bit up-to-date on the history of the holy land and provide us with a perspective to look more objectively at what has happened to the people of the region since the zionist political maneuvering and later terrorism culminated in Israel's declaration of statehood. With this behind us, I will now move on to the critique of Horowitz's video that I promised.

Without resorting to an ad hominem attack on David Horowitz, I feel I must note at the outset that there is a strong possibility of bias in his video that must be watched for.

Right off the bat, Horowitz asserts that the zionists stealing palestine and expelling its people from their cities, villages ands & houses when they established Israel is a collection of false claims. His "refutation is as follows:

1) There was no Arab State or nation called "Palestine" in the Middle East in 1948 or before.
While this is true, he neglects to mention that Palestine had been a creation of Rome (and a province(?) called Syria/Palestine, which encompassed Judea as a part of it) and a province of the later ottoman empire, taken over under the British Mandate after WWI…It WAS a political entity and part of what might be called arab/semitic land people by arabs and native semites of all the major religions.

2) There was no Palestinian nation to steal.
A nation is defined as "a Community or race of people with shared culture, traditions, history, and (usually) language, whether scattered or confined to one country." Given that definition, we find that Palestine was in fact composed of primarily arab and semitic nations, further divided into yet more "nations" along the religious lines of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It was composed of people descended from Canaanites, which can be divided into nations such as the Phoenecians, Philistines, Ammonites, Amorites, etc. At what point can a Palestinian say he's a "Palestinian national" instead of say a semitic christian descended from a Phoenecian/Hebrew bloodline? In other words, the zionists didn't want to steal a Palestinian nation, they wanted the land called palestine, to spite the rather inconvenient truth that there were peoples with legitimate claim to that land who had been living there for thousands of years.

3) There was no palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria etc. in the Ottoman empire.
Blatantly false. To say that is the equivalent of saying there was no Germany in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or no Palestine under the Roman Empire.

4) They were all created out of the ruins of the turkish empire by the europeans.
Incorrect. Syria and Palestine only had their borders redrawn. they at least already existed.

5) The jews lived in palestine continuously for 3700 years.
False. The Jews didn't exist that far back. The Canaanites they descended from did, but a number of other non-jewish nations can claim the same heritage.

6) The Jews were a majority of the population of Jerusalem since the 19th century.
True, but deceptively so, since the 19th century started in 1801 and ended in 1900. It was only since 1896 that Jerusalem had a consistent plurality of Jews. It would have been less deceptive to say "since the late 1800's."

I won't touch the Holocaust stuff in his video, as his assertions are the "official truth" (legislated dogma that by law, cannot be disputed) in many jurisdictions. I will note however, that official truths (dogmas) have historically contained many lies for the sake of consistency of belief (the Catholic pre-Copernican universe running on epicycles around a central Earth being a good example, etc.)

Horowitz asserts that Churchill (unfairly?) gave 80 percent of the palestine mandate to the arabs and implies that the remaining 20% should rightly have been the Jewish homeland promised in the Balfour Declaration.He overlooks that what became Jordan was historically arab land in the first place, and that the Palestine Mandate was not the same territory as historical Palestine. He asserts that the 1948 division broke what was left into two parts, one for arabs and one for Jews. This is again inaccurate for the reason that not all Palestinians were arabs, many were semites and many of them were even jewish. It seems that from Horowitz's perspective anyone not jewish is an arab. While I suppose it might be in keeping with the zionist line that all non-jewish semites must be arabs, we know that is factually incorrect.

This is getting time consuming; I'm not even a third of the way through the video. If desired, I could proceed with my critique some other time, but I think this will have to do for now. It looks to me like Horowitz is more zionist/propagandist than scholar.Before I launch into my critique, we are going to need some definitions:

Semite: "a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semite

Arab: "a member of the Semitic people of the Arabian Peninsula"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arab?show=0&t=1354467417

Hebrew: "a member of or descendant from one of a group of northern Semitic peoples including the Israelites"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hebrew

Jew:
1) "a member of the tribe of Judah"
2) "a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d."
3) "a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people"
4) "one whose religion is Judaism"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jew

Ashkenazi:"a member of one of the two great divisions of Jews comprising the eastern European Yiddish-speaking Jews"

Sephardim: "a member of the occidental branch of European Jews settling in Spain and Portugal and later in the Balkans, the Levant, England, the Netherlands, and the Americas; also : one of their descendants"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sephardi?show=0&t=1354468000

Zionism: (too complicated…read the link)
http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_definitions.htm
(the important thing to take way from the definition is that zionism, being a political thing, has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity, and consequently, anti-zionism is not anti-semitism or anti Jew)

There is a bit of confusion between what is called "oriental jews" and the definition for the Sephardi. Basically, the sephardi defined by the dictionary form a subset of the oriental jews by virtue of the fact that many oriental jews never migrated to Spain after the Moorish conquest. For the purposes of my comment, it is sufficient to call the oriental jews "sephardim", as they have the same ethnic origins.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/jew-oriental.htm

It appears then that what we'd call "ethnic jews" originated from ONE of the twelve tribes of Israel mentioned in the bible (a terribly unreliable source of information that conflicts in many places with historical and archeaological fact), which carved Judah out of Canaan (the "promised" land). Judaism as a religion had not yet taken shape (see "religion" on this page…in fact read the whole page for a more accurate historical perspective):

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

If we take the worship of Yahweh as a marker for the beginning of Judaism, we'll see that Judaism was a religion in flux as a competitor to other Hebrew religions in Judah. Paying attention to the dates and the known archaeology, we can see that the legendary "Kingdom of David" pre-dated Judaism and only consisted of a small portion of the "promised Land"…In fact recent archaeology suggests that it consisted only of two cities about 70 miles apart. This is a far cry from what is called "Eretz Israel" a myth propagated by nationalistic priests of a religious nation recently stomped on by Rome, who exaggerated the "empire" of their greatest King David to epic proportions (A small territory in Canaan wouldn't befit the scion of an almighty God like Yahweh?)

It seems fair to say that if territory of the State of Israel is to be based on the history of the religion of Judaism (as actual recorded history and not biblical legends) that claim to much more than a small portion of Palestine is erroneous at best, since claim to part of the "promised land" must be shared with other semitic, non-judaic peoples of the day like the Samaritans, Ammonites, Philistines, etc.

Contrary to popular myth, the Romans didn't expel all the jews after their last rebellion around 132 CE. Many remained and became what we now call the Sephardim. These are the only Canaanites who might have a historical, ethnic and religious claim to some land which they SHOULD be able to call Israel if they want, but for many centuries, they were happy to call themselves Palestinians and lived peacefully & relatively happily with their ethnic brothers, the Islamic & Christian palestinians.

It is a misnomer to call Islamic semites "arabs", as only people of the arabian peninsula and parts of northern africa are ethnically arabic. The semites, like the Syrians, are a distinct ethnicity and many Islamic Palestinians do not originate from the Arabian peninsula or africa. Some were even Sephardic Jews until they converted later on in history. In point of fact, many non-semitic (religious) jews are ethnic arabs or blacks out of territory surrounding Palestine.

It would seem then, that the zionist dream of the creation of a jewish state has added yet another area of confusion to the mix…the racial/political jew. These are people who may or may not have one or more of ethnic, historical, or religious ties to the holy land. The early ones (like Herzl) were atheists who wanted a state to call their own, and based their claim to it on quite probably erroneous "racial" jewishness based on (religious) jewish family histories.

Herzl was a politically nationalistic socialist who dreamed of founding a secular, racially homogenous state. He did not see jewishness in religious terms (being an atheist), and (for practical reasons) considered jews to be ethnically homogenous (which, being a group based on a religion, they are not). Nevertheless, since Jews had historically been persecuted in europe, It probably gave him a handy political "lever" to lump the different ethnicities behind one religion into one "race" called "The Chosen People." Being an atheist, it probably even tickled his funny bone to think that they were chosen by him to become the State of Israel.

I'm sure even Herzl would be a bit disappointed by the religious extremism of many jews in modern-day Israel, who now justify its existence and many atrocities against their semitic brothers (with a true historical, ethnic and secular claim to the same land, who lived on that land all along) on a mythical history of the area based on their religion.

The aforementioned should bring us a bit up-to-date on the history of the holy land and provide us with a perspective to look more objectively at what has happened to the people of the region since the zionist political maneuvering and later terrorism culminated in Israel's declaration of statehood. With this behind us, I will now move on to the critique of Horowitz's video that I promised.

Without resorting to an ad hominem attack on David Horowitz, I feel I must note at the outset that there is a strong possibility of bias in his video that must be watched for.

Right off the bat, Horowitz asserts that the zionists stealing palestine and expelling its people from their cities, villages ands & houses when they established Israel is a collection of false claims. His "refutation is as follows:

1) There was no Arab State or nation called "Palestine" in the Middle East in 1948 or before.
While this is true, he neglects to mention that Palestine had been a creation of Rome (and a province(?) called Syria/Palestine, which encompassed Judea as a part of it) and a province of the later ottoman empire, taken over under the British Mandate after WWI…It WAS a political entity and part of what might be called arab/semitic land people by arabs and native semites of all the major religions.

2) There was no Palestinian nation to steal.
A nation is defined as "a Community or race of people with shared culture, traditions, history, and (usually) language, whether scattered or confined to one country." Given that definition, we find that Palestine was in fact composed of primarily arab and semitic nations, further divided into yet more "nations" along the religious lines of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It was composed of people descended from Canaanites, which can be divided into nations such as the Phoenecians, Philistines, Ammonites, Amorites, etc. At what point can a Palestinian say he's a "Palestinian national" instead of say a semitic christian descended from a Phoenecian/Hebrew bloodline? In other words, the zionists didn't want to steal a Palestinian nation, they wanted the land called palestine, to spite the rather inconvenient truth that there were peoples with legitimate claim to that land who had been living there for thousands of years.

3) There was no palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria etc. in the Ottoman empire.
Blatantly false. To say that is the equivalent of saying there was no Germany in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or no Palestine under the Roman Empire.

4) They were all created out of the ruins of the turkish empire by the europeans.
Incorrect. Syria and Palestine only had their borders redrawn. they at least already existed.

5) The jews lived in palestine continuously for 3700 years.
False. The Jews didn't exist that far back. The Canaanites they descended from did, but a number of other non-jewish nations can claim the same heritage.

6) The Jews were a majority of the population of Jerusalem since the 19th century.
True, but deceptively so, since the 19th century started in 1801 and ended in 1900. It was only since 1896 that Jerusalem had a consistent plurality of Jews. It would have been less deceptive to say "since the late 1800's."

I won't touch the Holocaust stuff in his video, as his assertions are the "official truth" (legislated dogma that by law, cannot be disputed) in many jurisdictions. I will note however, that official truths (dogmas) have historically contained many lies for the sake of consistency of belief (the Catholic pre-Copernican universe running on epicycles around a central Earth being a good example, etc.)

Horowitz asserts that Churchill (unfairly?) gave 80 percent of the palestine mandate to the arabs and implies that the remaining 20% should rightly have been the Jewish homeland promised in the Balfour Declaration.He overlooks that what became Jordan was historically arab land in the first place, and that the Palestine Mandate was not the same territory as historical Palestine. He asserts that the 1948 division broke what was left into two parts, one for arabs and one for Jews. This is again inaccurate for the reason that not all Palestinians were arabs, many were semites and many of them were even jewish. It seems that from Horowitz's perspective anyone not jewish is an arab. While I suppose it might be in keeping with the zionist line that all non-jewish semites must be arabs, we know that is factually incorrect.

This is getting time consuming; I'm not even a third of the way through the video. If desired, I could proceed with my critique some other time, but I think this will have to do for now. It looks to me like Horowitz is more zionist/propagandist than scholar.

*whew*...after all that, I need a drink!

Well, we can see where this is going.

Here is how it should really be seen:

1) There was no Arab State or nation called "Palestine" in the Middle East in 1948 or before.

This is true.

2) There was no Palestinian nation to steal.

We find that Palestine was in fact composed of primarily Arab nations with all religions present Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

3) There was no Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria etc. in the Ottoman empire.

Right there was only the Ottoman empire. The point is that there
was never any independent entity called Palestine.

4) They were all created out of the ruins of the Turkish empire.

Yep. Palestine did not exist as a separate part of the Turkish
empire.

5) The Jews lived in in the region called Israel continuously for 3700 years.

The Canaanites they descended from did and the Jews of course. There were never any other native states there.

6) The Jews were a majority of the population of Jerusalem since the 19th century.

True.

I won't touch the Holocaust stuff in his video, as his assertions are the "official truth". OK.

Horowitz asserts that Churchill unfairly gave 80 percent of the Palestine mandate to the Arabs and implies that the remaining 20% should rightly have been the Jewish homeland promised in the Balfour Declaration. He asserts that the 1948 division broke what was left into two parts, one for Arabs and one for Jews.

This is accurate. The point of the division in 1948 was to have
two states created, Arab and Jewish to live peacefully side by side
and the Jews accepted this but the Arabs did not and instead
attacked the Jews immediately with all the military might they could
muster from all sides. Of course the history is that the Arabs were
defeated and the state of Israel was refounded in 1948.

I do appreciate the sincerity of the response and the effort to
clarify the point of view, definitions and the effort to avoid
a simple ad hominem rejection.

As far as the origin and meaning of the name "Palestine", the
Wiki is a reasonable place to start:

Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn; Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina) is a conventional name, among others, for the geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The region is also known as the Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el),[7] the Holy Land and the Southern Levant,[8] and historically has been known by other names including Canaan, Southern Syria and Outremer.

The boundaries of the region have changed throughout history, and were last defined in modern times by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum of 16 September 1922, during the mandate period.[9] Today, the region comprises the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories.[10]

I like this little gem:

JustDukkyMkII, that was a great post, but your work and time is wasted on these guys.

Waaahhhh!!! Trolling again, I see.

I guess that's as far as you read eh?

Your above post betrays you as biased in favour of Zionist Israel. (what a surprise!)

I deliberately left a couple of untruths in there for you to "catch" me on to see if you were at least reading the post. Since you didn't pick up on them, either you didn't bother to read it, or are not as educated in middle-eastern ancient history as you'd like to think. Which is it?

germany was not part of the austro hungarian empire

haha

True, it didn't exist as a nation until 1871.

Keep trying...you found a bit, but not the funniest one.

Your free will "ignore" button has failed you again I see..

I see "Philistia" is missing from the list. It was Emperor Hadrian's intention to incorporate Philistia with Judea by calling the whole works Philistia, in honor of the Jews' hated enemies the Philistines, who lived next door on the Mediterranean coast. "Palestine" is derived from that.

I'll understand that to be a 'yes', shall I?

I just love this piece.

"...assertions are the "official truth" (legislated dogma that by law, cannot be disputed) in many jurisdictions."

Please, refresh my memory. Is this paraphrasing Weckert, Grubach, Butz or Hoffman? Maybe Irving or Faurisson? I have seen it before.

That is not completely accurate, is it? While they ought to be independent as abstracts, they often merge. Please note the following:

There is a dangerous confluence between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, though the two concepts are not always identical. Anti-Zionism is often used to conceal hatred of Jews. Anti-Semitic views can be easily distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel.

1.Consider the source. Is the speaker someone with a history of anti-Jewish attitudes?

2.Critics who habitually single out Israel for condemnation while ignoring far worse actions by other countries (especially other Middle Eastern countries) are anti-Semitic.

3.Likening Israel to Nazi Germany, or to traditional anti-Jewish stereotypical behavior is another sure sign of Jew-baiting.

4.Attacks on the merits of Israel's existence rather than individual government policies are anti-Semitic.

When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Dr. Martin Luther King responded: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.”

(From Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Socialism of Fools—The Left, the Jews and Israel,” Encounter, (December 1969), p. 24.)

While I don't cite this work to demonise the left, I have noted the link in more than a few individuals.

[urlhttp://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2733944.html

Professor Kenneth L. Marcus, former staff director at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, identifies four main views on the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, at least in North America:
1.anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic in its essence and in most, if not all, of its manifestations;
2.anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are both analytically and historically distinct, but the two ideologies have merged since 1948;
3.anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism remain distinct, but anti-Zionism occasionally crosses the line into "outright anti-Semitism", while anti-Semitism often pollutes anti-Zionist discourse;
4.anti-Zionism is analytically distinct from anti-Semitism, but much apparent criticism of Israel or Zionism is in fact a thinly veiled expression of anti-Semitism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/29/comment

So, it is clear that anti-Zionism can be an expression of anti-Semitism, as can Holocaust denial.

To define anti-Semitism:

The definition of anti-Semitism has been the focus of innumerable discussions and studies. While there is no universally accepted definition, there is a generally clear understanding of what the term encompasses.

For the purposes of this report, anti-Semitism is considered to be hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity. An important issue is the distinction between legitimate criticism of policies and practices of the State of Israel, and commentary that assumes an anti-Semitic character. The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue.

Global anti-Semitism in recent years has had four main sources:


Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice that has pervaded Europe and some countries in other parts of the world for centuries. This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world.
Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism.
Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq.
Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/40258.htm

actually,Philistia was the Region of Gaza,so the PA is Illegal and Hamas,sitting in Gaza has what the "Palestinians" legally have coming to them!

It is disturbing to say the least.

Dukky, do you really believe that the official history of the
Holocaust is as incorrect as the idea that our solar system
revolved around the Earth?

Are you a Holocaust denier?

Actually, Zionism is inherently religious. Zionism is defined as
the return of members of a specific religion - Jews - to return
to their ancestral homeland state. How could Zionism possibly have nothing
to do with religion?



Zionism is based in part on prayers said daily by Jews which ask
God to speed a return to the land of Israel.