U.S. to Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14870675
Ter wrote:What a shame that Yasser Youre-a-fart refused to sign the peace agreement.
Look where the Arabs are now.
They wanted everything and got nothing.
The Mohammedans will never agree to a Jewish State, in whatever size or shape.


The Arabs got what they deserve,or rather,they lost what they had through picking a fight with Israel,which they lost.

I call that 'justice', did the Palestinian Arabs think there was not a price to pay?

"The Mohammedans will never agree to a Jewish State, in whatever size or shape".[/quote]

CORRECT, which is why ISRAEL will NEVER accept the dumb idea of a 'two-state' solution,neither will they accept or recognize any 'Palestinian State' in a piece of land occupied by confirmed TERRORIST, whose objective is to, 'wipe Israel off the face of the Earth', just let them try,it will be an act of 'self destruction'.

They are TERRORIST, not group of citizens or 'government' of a neighbouring territory derclares war on it's neighbour, loses that war,expects to escape paying the price for that act, in this case losing territory.

The Palestinians cannot expect sympathy on the world stage to reverse those losses, the UN is the bastard of it's parents(also bastards)the so-called, 'League of nations', the UN can condemn Israel all it likes,the UN is a hypocritical' deeply prejudicial, left-wing, anti-Israeli organisation with no rational credibility whatsoever.

One only has to look back at the Bosnian conflict to see that the UN has no 'authority' at all, not least any 'moral' authority.

Israel, like America, will do what it has to do, if anyone doesn't like it, that's too bad, Israel owes the world NOTHING, it will do what it needs to,in order to both protect itself, it's citizens & will exact harm on those that seek to harm Israel.
#14870828
An interesting opinion piece by Israeli author and journalist, Ofri Ilany

"Many liberal Jews are shocked by the alliance of Israel’s right-wing government with evangelicals, who aspire to Jesus’ return and the Christianization of the Jews. But the State of Israel would not have been established without the support of Christian Zionists."

@Potemkin



Zionism isn’t just a Jewish national movement - it's a global ideology espoused and funded by Christians

Trump's Jerusalem declaration exposes the true essence of Zionism

Image

A placard hanged by American Evangelical Christians during Trump visit in Jerusalem, May 2017.

By Ofri Ilany
Published 20:38 13.12.17

President Donald Trump’s declaration recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is considered, quite justly, a significant achievement for Israeli diplomacy. But more than that, it’s the result of a particularly successful campaign by evangelical Christians in the United States. As much as it was a gift to Israel, the proclamation was even more of a gift from Trump to his pious voters in the Bible Belt of the American South and Midwest. Five-hundred years after the Reformation, Trump has presented his Protestant supporters with a bonanza: In Washington he founded the Zionist-Protestant kingdom of Jerusalem.
The president’s declaration is one of the peaks of the Protestant mission to realize the vision of the “return to Zion” – with the aid of the Jews. But this story has earlier chapters. True, Martin Luther himself did not attach importance to returning to the Holy Land. He argued that Christian believers should read symbolically the Hebrew Bible verses concerning Zion or to Mount Zion.

“For by Zion, we are not to understand the wood and stones of Zion, but those who inhabit Zion,” Luther wrote, adding, “For if you understand by Zion the material Zion, it is all over with us gentiles, because we do not possess this mountain now, it is in the hands of the wicked Hagarenes [descendants of Hagar, namely the Muslims]” (translation by Rev. Henry Cole, 1826). From Luther’s perspective, the earthly Jerusalem held no true importance. But his call to return to the Scriptures nonetheless led ultimately to Protestant interest in the Holy Land, and in the Jews’ return to it. To achieve this, all that was needed was to expel the “Hagarenes.”

When Gen. Edmund Allenby conquered Jerusalem 100 years ago, in December 1917, the London newspapers celebrated the British Empire’s historical achievement. Journalists and public figures emphasized repeatedly that, for the first time since the fall of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, the holy city was once more in Christian hands. Allenby’s military campaign was dubbed the “Last Crusade,” and accounts of his soldiers characterized them as “Crusaders in khaki.” Britain viewed Palestine as a strategic territory on the way to India, but at the same time attributed historical and theological meaning to the mandate it was given there, and to the Balfour Declaration. The medieval image of the Crusades was intermingled with a biblical fantasy about the return of the Jews to the land of the patriarchs. Protestants were in power in the Holy Land for the first time, and they were to fulfill their powerful faith in the form of the Jews’ return to the setting of the Bible.

Protestant Britain was differentiated from France and other Catholic and Eastern Orthodox nations by its close affinity to the Bible. The Catholic Church was opposed to the Jewish people’s return to its land – that would constitute a revolt against the punishment inflicted on the Jews for rejecting Jesus. For the Protestant nations, in contrast, what they called the Old Testament played an important role in their foreign policy. The first British attempts to bring the Jews back to their land stemmed from Christian faith. Lord Shaftesbury, a 19th-century British politician and reformer, wanted the Jews to return in order to fulfill the Pauline prophecy and hasten the Second Coming of the Christian messiah. As an interim goal, he established an Anglican bishopric in Jerusalem, in order to found an “Anglican Israel” in the Holy Land.

Arthur James Balfour, too, was a pious reader of the Bible and an ardent admirer of Judaism. The Bible, more than imperial politics, drove his policy as foreign secretary. In her 2015 book “The Global History of the Balfour Declaration: Declared Nation,” Maryanne Rhett asserts that His Majesty’s Government was quick to express support for the Zionist movement out of fear that the German emperor would preempt it, and thereby seize the role of Protestant patron of the Jewish people. This is a historical irony: In another constellation, the Germans might have declared the Jews’ right to a national home, and streets in Israeli cities would now be named for the Emperor Wilhelm.

Many liberal Jews are shocked by the alliance of Israel’s right-wing government with evangelicals, who aspire to Jesus’ return and the Christianization of the Jews. But the State of Israel would not have been established without the support of Christian Zionists. Of course, British policy was not guided solely by the desire to realize biblical prophecy. Political and economic considerations also played a part, and some of them were actually detrimental to the Zionist movement. In fact, during the Mandatory period, the British leadership gradually disengaged from its Crusader-evangelist mission. But within a few decades, the Protestant presidents of the United States took on for their country the role of the people that chooses to confer its patronage on the chosen people. Like many of their country, many presidents had imbibed philo-Semitism with their mother’s milk. Bill Clinton described this explicitly, when he related how his priest in Arkansas had made him vow never to abandon Israel.

‘Land of dialogue’
Of the whole gamut of responses to Trump’s declaration, one is of special interest: that of Pope Francis. Like his predecessors, Francis, too, occasionally expresses concern about the infringement of the Palestinians’ rights or violent flare-ups in the region. However, his reaction to the president’s speech bore an additional layer, related to the status of the Holy Land. “The Holy Land is for us Christians the land par excellence of dialogue between God and mankind,” he stated, and called on all sides to respect the status quo in Jerusalem.

The Vatican, of course, has claims of its own in the Holy Land. Exactly 800 years ago, in 1217, even before the fall of the Crusader Kingdom, the pope granted the Franciscan order custodianship of the land. The Franciscans are also entrusted with the task of preserving the status quo that exists between the Christian communities in the country’s holy places. Consequently, any change in the status of Jerusalem is fraught with theological implications.

In the end, the Crusaders who came to the East in the Fourth Crusade, at the beginning of the 13th century, fought against the Byzantine kingdom and the Eastern church. They burned and looted Constantinople (in 1204), an act for which the Greek Orthodox Church has not forgiven the Catholic Church to this day. However, in light of Trump’s Protestant crusade, it is the Catholic Church that feels threatened.

What’s unmistakable is that Trump’s declaration exposed the true essence of the Zionist project in 2017. Zionism today is far more than a Jewish national movement. It’s a worldwide ideology, closely intertwined with two trends: Christian fundamentalism and the war against Islam. The Jews are, all told, allies in that war; in practice, what maintains the Zionist kingdom in the Holy Land is the active support of tens of millions of pious Christians. They are the true landlords. And, as such, they determine the rent.

https://www.haaretz.com/misc/iphone-art ... m-1.828845
#14870840
skinster wrote:Ter, you are quite the baby with some of the language you use.


:lol: Right.

Arafat had nothing worth signing to, he refused to give as much of Palestine as the greedy zionists demanded in the deal. I believe he was happy to settle with about 20% of Palestine, rather than the 45% that was offered in the Balfour Agreement, but the zionists wouldn't allow it and Arafat refused to sell his people out.


Walt and Mearsheimer have a similar take on that.
#14870845
@skinster
@starman2003

I am not taking the credit for coming up with the name Yessir Yourafart instead of Yasser Arafat, it was first coined by Mr Reinhold Aman in his publication "Maledicta".
Arafat was an Egyptian Arab who suddenly called himself "Palestinian", a new name for some Arabs squatting in the area....
He was not only corrupt, he was also a liar who got caught trying to import weapons by sea whilst holding peace talks.

Skinster, those "kids" you often show in the tweets you post would not be in trouble if they would not throw rocks. They would better do their homework and stay home with their sixteen brothers and sisters. Israel should practice zero tolerance when the Arabs come out to throw rocks and shoot their catapults.
#14870859
starman2003 wrote:
Walt and Mearsheimer have a similar take on that.


The great gospel

Straight from the horse mouth

Arafat's aid Al-Quds Al-Arabi Editor-in-Chief Abd Al-Bari Atwan, reveals: When the Oslo Accords were signed, I went to visit [Arafat] in Tunis. It was around July, before he went to Gaza. I said to him: We disagree. I do not support this agreement. He took me outside and told me: By Allah, I will drive them crazy. By Allah, I will turn this agreement into a curse for them. By Allah, perhaps not in my lifetime, but you will live to see the Israelis flee from Palestine. Have a little patience. I entrust this with you. Don't mention this to anyone. Always remember this. Sometimes, when I would criticize him strongly, he would say to me: Do you remember the promise I made, Abd Al-Bari?' That is why I knew that it was he who founded and armed the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, in order to redress the balance with the historic mistake of the Oslo Accords. (Aired on ANB TV on February 16, 2006)




Arafat explained to a South African crowd in 1994 that the Oslo agreement was merely a tactical ruse in the larger battle to destroy the Jewish state ― a modern version of the Muslim prophet Mohammed's trickery against the ancient tribe of Quraysh. "This agreement - I am not considering it any more than the agreement which was signed between our prophet Mohammad and Quraish. And you remember that the Caliph Omar rejected this agreement and considered it "Sulha Dania" [a despicable truce]. But Muhammad accepted it, and we are accepting now this peace accord."




The great Taqiyya (deception) master

In an interview with BBC Arabic last week, newly translated by media watchdog group MEMRI, Muhammad Al-Daya said that Arafat “would condemn the bombing in his own special way, saying: ‘I am against the killing of civilians.’ But that wasn’t true.”

These lies were in no way opposed to Islamic law, Al-Daya continued.

“Islam allows you to lie in three cases: In order to reconcile two people,” he said. “If your wife is ugly, you are allowed to tell her she is the most beautiful woman alive. The third case is politics. You are allowed to lie in politics.”





No wonder Taqiyya propagandists hate Memri
#14870880
noir wrote:The great gospel


A work of distinguished scholarship. :)

Straight from the horse mouth


Straight from the corner of the horse's mouth. Naturally Israeli propagandists seized upon some of Arafat's statements. When George Will once did the same thing, Zbigniew Brezizinski (a foreign policy pro as opposed to a journalist) patiently explained that someone like Arafat, who had certain radical constituents, often had to talk "out of the corner of his mouth" to maintain the backing of such constituents, when in effect he was just manipulating them.
Many other examples of this can be cited. A Saudi official once told Palestinians Saudi Arabia would go to war to free Jerusalem...yeah right. Needless to say, he was just manipulating the Palestinians; telling them what they wanted to hear to keep them quiet.
Even Sadat did this. In a private talk, he spun a tale for Arafat. Around early 1975 an Egyptian official told the Palestinians that Egypt "would, in stages, first eliminate the aggression of 1967, then 1956, then 1948..." Nobody in government took this seriously.
#14870893
noir wrote:An interesting opinion piece by Israeli author and journalist, Ofri Ilany

"Many liberal Jews are shocked by the alliance of Israel’s right-wing government with evangelicals, who aspire to Jesus’ return and the Christianization of the Jews. But the State of Israel would not have been established without the support of Christian Zionists."


Yes, it's discussed in this podcast.


starman2003 wrote:Walt and Mearsheimer have a similar take on that.


I said 20% but it was actually 22% of Palestine that Arafat was willing to settle with. But the zionists who were originally offered a majority of the land - 55% in 1948 - felt that 78% of Palestine wasn't enough, but Arafat wouldn't budge. The fact remains that zionists want all of Palestine and this is why ethnic-cleansing continues to this day.

Here are more details of that myth of a generous offer.

starman2003 wrote:A work of distinguished scholarship. :)


Yes it was. :up:

Ter wrote:.
Skinster, those "kids" you often show in the tweets you post would not be in trouble if they would not throw rocks. They would better do their homework and stay home with their sixteen brothers and sisters. Israel should practice zero tolerance when the Arabs come out to throw rocks and shoot their catapults.


I don't know why you're putting kids in scare quotes, as if they stop being children Noemon Edit:
Rule 2
. Palestinians can throw rocks or should be able to shoot the IDF in the face on their own land (although they're not allowed to carry guns, only the occupiers are). And if you think Palestinians can just jolly along with a normal life, you're beyond ignorant to what life is like for Palestinians who live under military occupation and blockade.

As for the tweets you mentioned, here are some recent pictures and videos of what the fascist IDF do in Palestine:












this one is more for the lulz:






























#14870899
@skinster
Wow, 22 (twenty two) re-tweets in one post.
Well played.
We are all in awe with the Paliwood productions: babies, blood, children, bad bad Israelis, and so on.
Except for some insults, you post no real content, you need others to talk for you.
Nobody is interested in your re-tweets.
Have a nice day.
#14870901
Stop with the videos and dead baby pictures already. Nobody is watching them and few people are believing them. Besides. They are irrelevant. If you keep it up I will answer each of your posts with suicide bomber pictures by the dozen.
#14870923
Children threw rocks and caused a fatal accident sometime ago.
Since then the IDF is authorised to use live ammunition on the rock throwers.

Posting pictures of crying children no longer has the effect it had years ago.
Especially since people like you approve of killing Israeli civilians and many videos were proven to be fake.

I understand your fervour for the Arab cause since you were born and lived in Pakistan.
You were taken out of Pakistan but nobody can get Pakistan out of you.
#14870932
Ter wrote:Posting pictures of crying children no longer has the effect it had years ago.
Especially since people like you approve of killing Israeli civilians and many videos were proven to be fake.


Israeli soldiers aren't civilians.

And you haven't proven any of the videos I posted are fake. They're obviously not fake, this shit is routine, a daily reality for the children of Palestine. So much so that even American politicians are starting to do something about it.


And in the UK:



As for posting videos of this Israeli brutality towards Palestinians and their children, of course they're not going to have any effect on heartless zionists, but they're not for you. They're for others, to learn the reality of the situation. But even to you, they're effective, since you're crying about me posting them because it hurts you feeleys.

Ben White made a tweet about your ilk.



Gary Linekar, a famous footballer and one of the highest paid people working for the BBC, a few days ago called out the brutal treatment by the IDF on Palestinian children. Tons of zionists attacked him but he would not back down from his position of supporting Palestinian human rights. People aren't scared to call out the horrors of zionism anymore. Get used to it.

Here, educate yourself on what takes place. This is Abby's report back after a recent trip to Palestine.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 50

Muscovite’s Slaughter of Indigenous People in Alas[…]

You Zionists just can't stop lying can you. It wa[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's prom[…]

No, it doesn't. The US also wants to see Hamas top[…]