[VIDEOS] Jewish people against Zionism

[OMB]

1. (3) After the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, the National Assembly shall, to the exclusion of any other business, proceed to elect without debate one of its Muslim members to be the Prime Minister.

2. (2) A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim of not less than forty-five years of age and is qualified to be elected as member of the National Assembly.

Where, in the two clauses you referenced and I quoted, does it state that discrimination against minorities - based upon religion or anything pertaining to religious ideology - is both permitted and legal?

Why only muslim member be president?
Is it Racist or fascist or Bigotry or acceptable because blah blah blah or NOYB?

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Lenni Brenner

Lenni Brenner (born 1937) is an American Trotskyist writer. In the 1960s, Brenner was a prominent civil rights activist and a prominent opponent of the Vietnam War.

Brenner was born into an Orthodox Jewish family. He developed an interest in history from reading Hendrik Willem van Loon's The Story of Mankind which his brother had received as a bar mitzvah present

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenni_Brenner

Zionism in the Age of the Dictators
ISBN 978-0985890995

A review from Goodreads.com:

Brenner's historical analysis highlights how the Zionist movement sought to emulate other European white-supremacist and nationalist colonial movements and even sought to collaborate with anti-Semitic regimes (including Nazi Germany) if such collaboration would advance their colonialist ambitions.

As Brenner shows, this collusion represented a betrayal of the masses of rank-and-file Jews, who were primarily concerned with maintaining an organized fight against European fascism.

The Zionist movement actively sought to undermine the Jewish boycott against Nazi Germany. Zionists also tried to discourage anti-fascist rank-and-file Jews from traveling to Spain to fight against Franco during the Spanish Revolution. These accounts, and other information presented in this book, help the reader to understand that the Zionist movement and the colonial settler-state of Israel have no legitimate claim to anti-fascism or anti-racism, despite their continually frequent claims to the contrary.

Hey [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] I hope you follow this thread. ITT you have JEWISH people from Einstein to Emily Wilder (22 years old, Generation Z, born and bread Jewish) denouncing Zionist fascism. Note how even in 2021 Zionists are going after Jews who criticize their tyranny.

The similarity between Nazis and Zionists is apparent and only a fool would deny that.

A few weeks ago I posted that people who started funding of (in 1800s) Fascist Zionist movement and Terrorist groups like Irgun (present day IDF) are the same people who were funding evil Nazis and Hitler's quest from blood of poor European immigrant Jews (like my parents).

I hope we watch these video, research on these authors, read the books if you can and do not let yourself be fooled by fascism and supremacism of any class, creed, religion or ideology.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Why only muslim member be president?
Is it Racist or fascist or Bigotry or acceptable because blah blah blah or NOYB?

This thread's purpose is entirely different. I'm hijacking this comment the for sake of this malentended deviation from the opening post, let's see how Zionist laws in Israel discriminate Palestinians:

(note Zionists don't have a constitution, because of Israel's illegality and dictatorship like government):

Basic Law: Israel Lands
Prohibition of transfer
of ownership
1. The ownership of Israel lands, being the lands in Israel of the State,
the Development Authority or the Keren Kayemet Le-Israel, shall not be
transferred either by sale or in any other manner.
Permission by Law 2. Section 1 shall not apply to classes of lands and classes of
transactions determined for that purpose by Law.
Definition 3. In this Law, "lands" means land, houses, buildings and anything
permanently fixed to land.
DAVID BEN-GURION
Prime Minister
YITZCHAK BEN-ZVI
President of the State
*Passed by the Knesset on the 24th Tammuz, 5720 (19th July, 1960) and published in Sefer Ha-Chukkim
No. 312 of the 5th Av, 5720 (29th July, 1960), p. 56 ; the Bill and an Explanatory Note were published in
Hatza'ot Chok No. 413 of 5720, p. 34.

http://adalah.org/Public/files/Disc...se/English/06-Basic-Law-Israel-Lands-1960.pdf

Basically, Zionists have right to own everything. You can't own or transfer.

According to the Absentees’ Property Law (1950), Palestinian refugees expelled after November 29, 1947, are “absentees” and are denied any rights. Their land, houses/apartments, and bank accounts (movable and immovable property) were confiscated by the state.

Simultaneously, the Law of Return (1950) gave Jews from anywhere in the world the right to automatically become Israeli citizens.

In March 2018, Israel passed a law allowing the interior minister to revoke the residency rights of any Palestinian in Jerusalem on the grounds of a “breach of loyalty” to Israel.

The Ban on Family Unification prevents family unification when one spouse is an Israeli citizen and the other is a resident of the occupied territories.

Thousands of Palestinian families have been affected by the law, forced to split apart, move abroad, or live in Israel in fear of constant deportation.

This is what I found in a quick Google search.

The bigotry of some people is baffling to me. So we have Zionists terrorizing and dropping bombs on Schools/Hospitals, forcing millions of people to live like animals in a concentration camp but the debate somehow deviates to Pakistani constitution or what my Auntie Shabana cooked last Friday

You neo-Zionists have right to support Israel's apartheid, Nazi-like methodology and murder but own it like it is.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Lenni Brenner: Zionist Deals with Nazis and Fascists

In this interview Lenni Brenner provides a historical context and deals between Zionists and Nazis.

The man has documents, dates and physical evidence to back his words [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

Part I and II of the interview:

Spoiler

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

A must watch interview for everyone who has an interest in knowing about original history and motivations of Zionists and their financers:

Part III and IV of interview:

Spoiler

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

In the 3rd episode posted above Lenni Brenner talks about a commemorative medal struck by Nazi Germany to mark its Zionist alliance, with a Star-of-David on one side and a Swastika on the obverse. The importance of the Nazi-Zionist pact for Israel’s establishment is difficult to overstate.

https://artsandculture.google.com/a...rl-who-fled-nazi-germany/qQGm1j29x-bWPg?hl=en

 

[Itachi]

What is whitelisting?

The definition is already in the post you quoted.

 

[Technics 1210]

What is whitelisting?

Whitelisting is a set of exclusion rules that permit approved destinations such as IPs. It can be defined both incoming and outgoing.

(Itachi has it all wrong, no surprises).

 

[Itachi]

Whitelisting is a set of exclusion rules that permit approved destinations such as IPs. It can be defined both incoming and outgoing.

(Itachi has it all wrong, no surprises).

OK. I stand corrected.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Ilan Baruch and Alon Liel

It’s apartheid, say Israeli ambassadors to South Africa


8 June 2021 | Ilan Baruch and Alon Liel


Ilan Baruch served as Israeli Ambassador to South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe.

Dr. Alon Liel served as Israeli Ambassador to South Africa and as Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

During our careers in the foreign service, we both served as Israel’s ambassador to South Africa. In this position, we learned firsthand about the reality of apartheid and the horrors it inflicted. But more than that – the experience and understanding we gained in South Africa helped us to understand the reality at home.

For over half a century, Israel has ruled over the occupied Palestinian territories with a two-tiered legal system, in which, within the same tract of land in the West Bank, Israeli settlers live under Israeli civil law while Palestinians live under military law. The system is one of inherent inequality. In this context, Israel has worked to change both the geography and the demography of the West Bank through the construction of settlements, which are illegal under international law. Israel has advanced projects to connect these settlements to Israel proper through intensive investment in infrastructure development, and a vast network of highways and water and electricity infrastructure have turned the settlement enterprise into a comfortable version of suburbia. This has happened alongside the expropriation and takeover of massive amounts of Palestinian land, including Palestinian home evictions and demolitions. That is, settlements are built and expanded at the expense of Palestinian communities, which are forced onto smaller and smaller tracts of land.

This reality reminds us of a story that former Ambassador Avi Primor described in his autobiography about a trip that he took with then-Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon to South Africa in the early 1980s. During the visit, Sharon expressed great interest in South Africa’s bantustan project. Even a cursory look at the map of the West Bank leaves little doubt regarding where Sharon received his inspiration. The West Bank today consists of 165 “enclaves” – that is, Palestinian communities encircled by territory taken over by the settlement enterprise. In 2005, with the removal of settlements from Gaza and the beginning of the siege, Gaza became simply another enclave – a bloc of territory without autonomy, surrounded largely by Israel and thus effectively controlled by Israel as well.

The bantustans of South Africa under the apartheid regime and the map of the occupied Palestinian territories today are predicated on the same idea of concentrating the “undesirable” population in as small an area as possible, in a series of non-contiguous enclaves. By gradually driving these populations from their land and concentrating them into dense and fractured pockets, both South Africa then and Israel today worked to thwart political autonomy and true democracy.

This week, we mark the fifty-fifth year since the occupation of the West Bank began. It is clearer than ever that the occupation is not temporary, and there is not the political will in the Israeli government to bring about its end. Human Rights Watch recently concluded that Israel has crossed a threshold and its actions in the occupied territories now meet the legal definition of the crime of apartheid under international law. Israel is the sole sovereign power that operates in this land, and it systematically discriminates on the basis of nationality and ethnicity. Such a reality is, as we saw ourselves, apartheid. It is time for the world to recognize that what we saw in South Africa decades ago is happening in the occupied Palestinian territories too. And just as the world joined the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, it is time for the world to take decisive diplomatic action in our case as well and work towards building a future of equality, dignity, and security for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

Source: https://www.groundup.org.za/article/israeli-ambassadors-compare-israel-south-africa/

 

[Itachi]

Having been here on PP long enough, I can recognize the mindset and direction of certain posters.

[MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION] has made up his mind and this pseudo-intellectual desire for an “open discourse” is just an excuse to validate his “rigid” beliefs.

ofcourse. we all are here in pp to present different perspectives and via looking through eyes from others which could show you that you might/might not have considered all aspects in to consideration and you've been rigtht/wrong all the down the way. There's nothing wrong about it in my opinion. We all are here to learn and share after all.

 

[KingKhanWC]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1716208241175048547

Late King Faisal is spot on.

The media rarely talks or mentions Zionism, its the ideology which is the real issue not just in the holy land but has been in the world for over a century.

1. Zionist Organization (ZO) held in Basel on August 29–31, 1897
2. World War I (28 July 1914 ) - Zionist Jews made a deal with Britain , so USA forces would come to help them.

3. The Balfour Declaration, as it became known, was a letter sent on 2 November 1917 by the then Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to the Jewish community leader Lord Rothschild. The letter expressed support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish peop
4. World War 2 1939
5. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.


6. World War 3 - Date to be known - ???

People have no idea whats coming.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Religion is the mother of all evils. Blaming Jews is pointless.

 

[happydavy]

How can a Pakistani blame Zionism, when the underlying principle for both the nations is the same. Zionism called for a state for Jews and Pakistan was created because they wanted a state for muslims.

 

[Varun]

The media rarely talks or mentions Zionism, its the ideology which is the real issue not just in the holy land but has been in the world for over a century.

That's because "the media" and "the world community" in your head only refers to:

 

[DeadlyVenom]

How can a Pakistani blame Zionism, when the underlying principle for both the nations is the same. Zionism called for a state for Jews and Pakistan was created because they wanted a state for muslims.

Zionism calls for a state for any jewish person.

Pakistan was created for the Muslims of the subcontinent. They were already citizens of British India and this were stakeholders in the future post partition just as much as anyone else.

 

[KB]

How can a Pakistani blame Zionism, when the underlying principle for both the nations is the same. Zionism called for a state for Jews and Pakistan was created because they wanted a state for muslims.

Pointing to the similarities of two nations born out of land partitioned at about the same time - 1947 for Pakistan and 1948 for Israel - is not a recent idea. It has been suggested that as Zionism and Muslim separatism in India were rooted in religious nationalism, rather than ties of blood and soil, they had a particular ‘abstract’ or ‘ideological’ quality to it. In an interview in 1981 with The Economist a certain individual asserted:

“Pakistan is, like Israel, an ideological state. Take out the Judaism from Israel and it will fall like a house of cards. Take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse.”

This individual was in fact the military ruler of Pakistan at the time, none other than Zia-ul-Haq.

Yet this view is undermined, I think fatally, by three key differences. Firstly, blood and soil, history and geography, were hardly incidental to Zionism. Importance was given to the idea of the Jews as being descended from common biological descent. The land in Palestine was also considered by Zionists to be holy and rich with ‘historic’ memory.

In the case of Muslim nationalism in India, the idea of being united by ties of common biological descent was not and indeed could not be the basis of nationhood. Nor was the land that became Pakistan sacred or specially holy. It just happened to be the land where the Muslims were a majority.

The second key difference has already been mentioned by @DeadlyVenom. A majority of Muslims - indeed millions and millions of Muslims - already lived in the areas that eventually made up Pakistan. In this respect Pakistan cannot be compared to Israel at all.

Thirdly, whereas the ‘right of return’ is central to Zionism it is not a feature of Pakistani nationalism.

Therefore, I don’t see much value in seeking to find similarities at the level of nationalist ideology. But a comparison can be made in terms of how Muslim separatism and Zionism grew in strength in the inter-war period in the context of, I) the uncertainties that confronted minorities (not restricted to Jews and Indian Muslims) in the age of nationalism; ii) the feeling that law was insufficient as a guarantor of minority rights and that power was required.

What needs to be emphasised is how unsettling the rise of nationalism and representative institutions were to minorities. As Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper remind us in their book on Empire: “Throughout history, most people have lived in political units that did not pretend to represent a single people. Making state conform with nation is a recent phenomenon.”

Empires were of course hierarchical and exclusionary, but loyalty in the final analysis was owed to the ruler and the dynasty and not to an ethnicity. Whereas a state under empire “declares the non-equivalence of multiple populations,” the nation-state by contrast “proclaims the commonality of its people.”

Nationalists - in pursuit of assimilation and homogeneity - often displayed a discomfort with difference. In addition, with the rise of representative institutions, there was the threat of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as nineteenth century thinkers, Tocqueville and John Stuart Mills, had famously noted.

Mark Mazower in his brilliant book - The Dark Continent - demonstrates that the victors of World War I sought to deal with the problem of minorities through the force of international law and the League of Nations minority system. The idea was to keep minorities were they were, backed by legal guarantees and overseen by the League of Nations. The rise of Nazism and its obsession with biological racism put paid to this. As Mazower writes, there was “the virtual elimination of many minorities in eastern Europe – falling from 32 per cent to 3 per cent of the population in Poland, 33 per cent to 15 per cent in Czechoslovakia, from 28 per cent to 12 per cent in Romania. The German Volk was now more closely aligned with the boundaries of the (divided) German state; so, too, the Ukrainians. War, violence and massive social dislocation turned Versailles’s dreams of national homogeneity into realities.”

The League of Nations and its international law based approach to the minority problem had unravelled. This is the context for understanding the increasing anxiousness of minorities.

Adeel Hussain has argued that although we tend to view Jinnah as the consummate constitutional lawyer, in fact Jinnah during the 1930s turned away from the belief that the framework of law and legal guarantees could secure protection for the Muslim minority. In his Presidential Address at Lucknow in October 1937, he appealed not to law and justice but to power as the ultimate source of protection for a community:

“Honourable settlement can only be achieved between equals, and unless the two parties learn to respect and fear each other, there is no solid ground for any settlement. Offers of peace by the weaker party always mean confession of weakness, and an invitation to aggression. Appeals to patriotism, justice, and fair play, and for good will, fall flat. It does not require political wisdom to realise that all safeguards and settlements would be a scrap of paper, unless they are backed up by power. Politics means power, and not relying only on cries of justice or fair play or good will. Look at the nations of the world, and look at what is happening every day. See what has happened to Abyssinia; look at what is happening to China and Spain--and not to say of the tragedy of Palestine…”

Jinnah understood the spirit of the age. Mazower argues that what replaced the League of Nations approach to collective rights was an emphasis on individual human rights:

“As the post-war settlement in Europe would show, the main interest of the major powers was in limiting their obligations to minor states, and this meant that they too were happy to bury the League’s approach to collective rights. The result was that the United Nations’ eventual commitment to individual human rights was as much an expression of passivity as of resolve by the Allies. It was a means of avoiding problems, not of solving them. This fact helps us understand why so few of the wartime hopes for a reinvigoration of international law were to be realized.

Therefore if similarities are to be sought, it is perhaps more fruitful to find these through the prism of minority politics and minority concerns in the age of nationalism.

 

[RexRex]

Zionism calls for a state for any jewish person.

Pakistan was created for the Muslims of the subcontinent. They were already citizens of British India and this were stakeholders in the future post partition just as much as anyone else.

I don't see the difference here. He (@happydavy) asked what is it that makes the ideology of Zionism wrong but not the existence of Pakistan.

 

[sweep_shot]

I don't see the difference here. He (@happydavy) asked what is it that makes the ideology of Zionism wrong but not the existence of Pakistan.

There is something many Indians do not get.

Zionism is a secular project. It is not supported by religious Judaism. If you don't believe me, take a look at this:

In this video, the Rabbi clearly said that state of Israel violated 2 out of 10 commandments (do not kill and do not steal). Rabbi also said (check at 6 minutes and 59 seconds of the video), "If God sends us in exile, stay in exile".

There are many ultraorthodox Jews who are against Israel.

People who support Israel are generally the secular/cultural Jews (for example, European Jews who displaced the native Palestinians).

 

[RexRex]

There is something many Indians do not get.

Zionism is a secular project. It is not supported by religious Judaism. If you don't believe me, take a look at this:

In this video, the Rabbi clearly said that state of Israel violated 2 out of 10 commandments (do not kill and do not steal). Rabbi also said (check at 6 minutes and 59 seconds of the video), "If God sends us in exile, stay in exile".

There are many ultraorthodox Jews who are against Israel.

People who support Israel are generally the secular/cultural Jews (for example, European Jews who displaced the native Palestinians).

^ Another reply that has nothing to do with what I asked. Give me the specific differences from the establishment of Pakistan.

 

[sweep_shot]

^ Another reply that has nothing to do with what I asked. Give me the specific differences from the establishment of Pakistan.

The following map should answer your question. Pakistan didn't happen by stealing lands gradually like it was the case with Israel.

Also, Pakistanis are natives to the land of Pakistan. Modern day Israelis are primarily European Jews who migrated there post-WW2 (not natives to the land).

 

[RexRex]

The following map should answer your question. Pakistan didn't happen by stealing lands gradually like it was the case with Israel.

Also, Pakistanis are natives to the land of Pakistan. Modern day Israelis are primarily European Jews who migrated there post-WW2 (not natives to the land).

View attachment 138226

You are lying.

Modern day Israeilis are mix of native Sephardic Jews and European Jews who were immigrating since 1870s. ..they didn't conquer or steal the lands (like an invading army), they brought the land from Arab and Turkish landlords in that region after immigrating and created their own settlements. It was legally done. There is no such thing as 'natives' of the land. By that logic, Jews were original natives of that area from 2000 years ago.

Due to religious bigotry and antisemitism in the 1930s, the British/UN partitioned the area into two states just like the British partitioned the subcontinent into two states.

Muslims didn't want to live under one state Hindu rule -> so they got Pakistan
Jews didn't want to live under one state Muslim rule ->so they got Israel.

 

[sweep_shot]

You are lying.

Modern day Israeilis are mix of native Sephardic Jews and European Jews who were immigrating since 1870s. ..they didn't conquer or steal the lands (like an invading army), they brought the land from Arab and Turkish landlords in that region after immigrating and created their own settlements. It was legally done. There is no such thing as 'natives' of the land. By that logic, Jews were original natives of that area from 2000 years ago.

Due to religious bigotry and antisemitism in the 1930s, the British/UN partitioned the area into two states just like the British partitioned the subcontinent into two states.

Muslims didn't want to live under one state Hindu rule -> so they got Pakistan
Jews didn't want to live under one state Muslim rule ->so they got Israel.

It is not like that at all.

Indians don't generally understand the contexts and histories in that region. You are trying to understand from Indian lens. That's not how it works.

 

[sweep_shot]

You are lying.

Modern day Israeilis are mix of native Sephardic Jews and European Jews who were immigrating since 1870s. ..they didn't conquer or steal the lands (like an invading army), they brought the land from Arab and Turkish landlords in that region after immigrating and created their own settlements. It was legally done.

LOL. I had to genuinely laugh.

This comment alone is enough reason to not engage with you regarding this topic. If you think Israeli settlers are increasing lands "legally", I have to say you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[RexRex]

If you think Israeli settlers are increasing lands "legally", I have to say you don't know what you are talking about.

I was referring to pre-1948 events. Not what Netanyahu is doing today. You should read the post.

 

[RexRex]

It is not like that at all.

Indians don't generally understand the contexts and histories in that region. You are trying to understand from Indian lens. That's not how it works.

Yes, because it makes a lot of pakistanis uncomfortable when they are shown their hypocrisy of accepting a religious homeland for themselves but refuse to do so for Jews.

Some people would even call it antisemitism.

 

[SalimBhai]

Yes, because it makes a lot of pakistanis uncomfortable when they are shown their hypocrisy of accepting a religious homeland for themselves but refuse to do so for Jews.

Some people would even call it antisemitism.

The Pakistanis already lived on the land . They did it come from Australia to claim the land. That’s the big difference

 

[RexRex]

The Pakistanis already lived on the land . They did it come from Australia to claim the land. That’s the big difference

Nobody 'claimed' the lands. The Jews kept purchasing areas from Arab and Turk landlords.

That land did not belong to the Palestinians. It was Ottoman territory for 300 years and then changed hands to the British after World War 1.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Nobody 'claimed' the lands. The Jews kept purchasing areas from Arab and Turk landlords.

That land did not belong to the Palestinians. It was Ottoman territory for 300 years and then changed hands to the British after World War 1.

And how do you explain the settlers forcibly taking land for the last 80 years ?

 

[RexRex]

And how do you explain the settlers forcibly taking land for the last 80 years ?

80 years?! You mean the Netanyahu years ?

 

[SpiritOf1903]

80 years?! You mean the Netanyahu years ?

Israeli occupation has been a constant since its formation.

Furthermore, the butchery with the partition of India was nowhere near commensurate to the Muslim population.

 

[RexRex]

Israeli occupation has been a constant since its formation.

Since formation? Not true.

Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbours in two wars 1948 and 1967 from which they captured extra territory from the aggressors. That is the direct consequence of a war it did not start.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Since formation? Not true.

Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbours in two wars 1948 and 1967 from which they captured extra territory from the aggressors. That is the direct consequence of a war it did not start.

Sure, oracle

 

[Suleiman]

 

[daytrader]

Israeli poll finds 49pc support for holding off on Gaza invasion

Almost half of Israelis want to hold off on any invasion of Gaza, according to a poll, in what may indicate a dip in support for the planned next stage of the counter-offensive against Hamas holding some 200 hostages, Reuters reports.

Asked if the military should immediately escalate to a large-scale ground offensive, 29 per cent of Israelis agreed while 49pc said “it would be better to wait” and 22pc were undecided, the poll published in the Maariv newspaper said.

The daily said the results contrasted with its October 19 poll that found 65pc support for a major ground offensive.

DAWN