30 votes

The hatred for Non-Jews is Deeeeeeep in Israel.

This was interesting to watch...


http://youtu.be/dPxv4Aff3IA

Edit:

I just wanted to make my intentions clear about why I posted this video: to share information.

I realize that not all Israelis are this way and that the people in this video are comparable to hillbillies in the USA. I'm a fan of the Iran loves Israel movement on the internet (if you didn't know, now you know)

However I also realize a lot of our money and weaponry is going to this place and the video clearly displays politician(s) regurgitating the same hate speech.

Forget the sheeple of Israel for a moment and focus on what the politicians (their leaders) are saying in this video.

Should I not have posted this video?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Compare blame on Israel (and Jews) vs. Islam, and its atrocities

the U.N., radical Islam, and world socialism (NWO) are allied against Israel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MFA...

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Idiocy, Hypocrisy.....

More Israel (only) bashing. Big surprise.

The H-I-Fers just cannot think of anything else.

Do you know how Jews and Christians are treated in Muslim countries?

BTW, the posters on here saying that these Israeli Jews are being antagonistic towards Christians and Muslims, are wrong. They are only talking about Muslims. Christians in Israel are not a problem to Jews, as they are to Muslims. The Muslims, who say and do much worse towards Jews (and Christians) in their neighboring countries, are the ones being excluded in Israel.

Iran recently EXECUTED a Christian preacher, just for preaching Christianity! Where is the complaining about THAT, on DP?!

Muslim nations are Crucifying Christians, killing non-Muslims, torturing infidels... But boo-hoo, illegal immigrants are not allowed in the tiny nation of Israel.

Israel is NOT the USA. Stop bitching about Israel because it does not allow the same immigration and religious freedoms as America. They have to survive, ad they cannot if all these foreign Muslims try to emigrate there and de-populate the Jewish majority.

HOW MANY MUSLIM NATIONS that SURROUND ISRAEL do MUCH MUCH WORSE!!!???!!!

All of them!!!

Why no bitching about that on DP?!

Because the H-I-Fers and MUSLIM posters on DP, are hate-filled hypocrites who only focus on Israel, could care less about America or the liberty movement (Islam=Submission), and certainly NEVER focus this laser-beam attention on their own Islamic Theocracies.

Israel is lightyears ahead of ANY Muslim nation, as far as individual rights go.

As far as Racism, I don't know where radical Muslims, and neo-Nazis get off complaining about it.

Bwwwaahhhh!!! Now Down-vote me Biotches!

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Malala

I'm not getting it. Is there a ban? Is it just me? I told MN that I would like a debate on the issue and he told me that he was not interested in the topic, and I read on DP, MN was the Mayor and that was the law, and in Mod Box I found out through your post that neither of us could post om the thread we both refered ASKING mod box, what's this gotta do with peace, love and understanding?

I have an idea that you want people to know the truth, which I agree wuth you, but some folks can't handle the truth, they don't want to hear it, don't want to debate, they can spew hatred for weeks and more.. I know what I love and they know what they love and on this issue, we don't agree and we're not going to agree. If they think I will see vid that is going to change my understanding, they are incorrect.. and as the golden rule goes, I expect them to be as interested in my pro stuff as they are with their hate stuff.. so I ty to encourage what it good.

It's strange...

They want israel to be a homeland for jews only...but in all the anglo/saxon countries, you always see people of jewish decent leading the movements for mass immigration, "diversity" and promoting multi-culturalism.

It's like they want to preserve their group, but fracture everyone else. And if you're against them, they label you a racist hater.

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Muslims

First, This is hateful propaganda that doesn't need to be on this site.
Second, They don't want the Sudanese because they're muslim. Why would they want more and more muslim's in Israel? They're overrun. It's understandable the frustration but it's still the wrong way to go about it.

I have mixed feeling about this

I support not allowing refugees to walk into your country uninvited. I support laws against their working. I support not providing benefits to them, and support deportation. It doesn't matter what race. I think that's a lesson our own country can learn from.

I don't otherwise support what is best described as racist treatment of native populations of Palestinian Christians and Muslims, where their quarters and neighborhoods are systematically demolished, and populations pushed out. Those people are already part of the country. I don't think we should support Israel, but I'd leave them to do their own thing. Ironically most Christians in the US support Israel but don't realize what's been done to drive Christian in Israel out of their homes. It's sad.

If the Jews in Israel and the US had their way I think they would make economic slaves of all the non-Jews. We use law and the power of the press to prevent any one group that kind of power.

Excuse me?

"If the Jews in Israel and the US had their way I think they would make economic slaves of all the non-Jews."

So, you expect Jews to be tolerant when you are not?

Care to explain that sentence here a little bit more?

"I support laws against their working"

If two individuals want to enter into an employment agreement, why should the government have the right to interfere?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

just a sh*tty, sh*tty, dumb country

How the f*ck did people think a country for Jews, or for any other group, would be a good idea?!? I can't wait for this evil, racist experiment called Israel to end. Hopefully in my lifetime.

So how do you think it COULD end?

What solutions could there possibly be to "end" Israel?

Brilliant, ad hominem assessment...

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you are not Christian, or Jew.

Ever read the Bible? You lose. Israel wins. Tuff titty.

Your name should be Derp1.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Gotta support the Israelis on

Gotta support the Israelis on this one. Their country to do with as they please. The same also applies to every other country including us. It is mortally right to lend a helping hand to people in a tough spot, but no one has an obligation to open their doors to or support others. Charity is a moral act not a legal obligation. We may say they're immoral for not helping the refugees, but that's their right. What should be condemned is those who will support Israel's behavior here and condemn Americans who oppose open borders. There should be zero tolerance for double standards. The only way they can be maintained is by propaganda and suppressing reason.

Gotta disagree strongly

"Their country to do with as they please...There should be zero tolerance for double standards."

The natives of a country have the right to exclude immigrants from entering that country? And this applies if the immigrants are Africans and the natives are Jews, but what if the immigrants are Jews and the natives are Arabs? ...double standard indeed.

"no one has an obligation to open their doors"

An individual has the right to exclude others from the use of his property, but that is not analogous in any way to the government's alleged right to exclude immigrants. Since the government does not own the land within its jurisdiction, it does not have the right of exclusion which comes with ownership. A government which excludes immigrants is violating the rights both of the immigrants and of the natives who would like to do business with them.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

The natives of a country have

The natives of a country have the right to exclude immigrants from entering that country? And this applies if the immigrants are Africans and the natives are Jews, but what if the immigrants are Jews and the natives are Arabs? ...double standard indeed.

Yes, this applies to the Arabs who fought hard to keep Zionism from succeeding. They had the right to do so, they just didn't succeed. You seem to be confusing rights with realities, and further mixing in your personal opinion of which side is moral in a particular situation.

I am saying that I don't think there's anything wrong per se in a nation defining its membership and excluding the other 8 billion people from coming into its national space. That's called national sovereignty.

I'm not saying every group will succeed in this, or that some external authority should be the referee or enforced, or that this excludes us from making moral judgements on the behavior of other nations.

But I do not think borders are inherently immoral. For you to maintain that position, you would have to morally condemn Japan for not having open borders. If you are willing to carry that burden, of condemning all nations equally for defining citizenship and limiting entry, you would be consistent.

It would be a crazy comical position in my opinion, but not inconsistent. However, I think you're unable to carry that burden. You're condemning Israel and your own country, but I haven't seen any comments or posts from you calling for open borders worldwide and morally condemning all national sovereignty and all self determination in the world.

But you can remedy that failing by making a post condemning as evil and immoral all cultural, ethnic, and national groups that have any standards for membership or have any territorial claims they enforce. Please link to it here if you write such a post.

Response

"Yes, this applies to the Arabs who fought hard to keep Zionism from succeeding. They had the right to do so

Do you think the Israelis who currently want to exclude African immigrants agree with that? I think not, hence their hypocrisy. They do not believe in the right of a people to exclude immigrants, they believe in the right of THEIR people to exclude immigrants.

"mixing in your personal opinion of which side is moral in a particular situation."

I sympathize with individual Palestinians and Israelis whose rights have been violated over the course of this conflict, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for either side in general: "peoples" do not have rights.

"I don't think there's anything wrong per se in a nation defining its membership and excluding the other 8 billion people from coming into its national space. That's called national sovereignty."

A state is sovereign if its laws are enforced within its own jurisdiction - that's all that sovereignty entails. Restrictive immigration policy is not requisite for sovereignty.

"But I do not think borders are inherently immoral."

The basic function of a border is to define jurisdiction: one state has authority here, another state has authority over there. That function is not eliminated by a policy of free immigration. Being against immigration restriction does not mean being against borders.

"If you are willing to carry that burden, of condemning all nations equally for defining citizenship and limiting entry, you would be consistent."

First, no government anywhere has the right to restrict immigration; that is my position and I DO apply it consistently. Second, restricting citizenship is not the same as restricting immigration. The latter involves the government violating private property rights, the former does not. I am actually in favor of certain restrictions on citizenship.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

In that case you're just a

In that case you're just a crank detached from all reality.

So you believe in open borders in the United States?

Y/N?

Or are you being hypocritical?

Yes, I do

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Ask the American Indian about open borders.

If this position was valid, it would mean the Amish are wrong if they use any political or legal means of preserving their communal areas from external encroachment.

If me and a bunch of drag queens from San Francisco wanted to go live in Amish country, any collective activity to exclude us (boycotting our bids on their property, not selling to outsiders, resisting with force an illegal trespass, any use of collective force to repel the invaders, etc.) would be immoral.

You might argue that the Amish are pacifists, so none of this could apply, as they don't use force individually or collectively, and all their communal behavior is voluntaristic.

But the protection of the Amish civil rights extends from
the threat of force of the external, non Amish society against me and my band of violent drag queens. If no one was willing to use force to exclude us non Amish troublemakers, we could just overwhelm and destroy Amish society.

On the larger scale, it is the same with Israel, or any other country that has borders. It is to protect the cohesion of their culture and way of life. That's why parents have schools to educate their children, including the Amish - to pass on the norms of behavior, belief and culture they want to see preserved.

To deny people the right to do this, when the guaranteed outcome would often be their destruction as a coherent cultural entity, is more or less to support genocide.

Remember this. It was not governments and collectivists who displaced the American Indian. It was individuals and families settling on open land, who had a radically different culture, technology, economic ways of doing things.

Most of the actual conflict was not clear cut aggression one way or the other. Both sides felt they were defending themselves. There were no legal borders or property rights that strictly excluded the settlement and westward expansion.

It wasn't until much later, after individuals and families pioneered settlements westward, that the US army came in to mop up the remaining tribes. It was a fait accompli. What began as individual and family settlements that acted only in self defense became collective political entities once they achieved majority status. They then used collective political power to establish their new cultural, legal and economic norms.

The American Indian is a pretty good poster boy for not supporting open borders.

Response

"If me and a bunch of drag queens from San Francisco wanted to go live in Amish country, any collective activity to exclude us (boycotting our bids on their property, not selling to outsiders, resisting with force an illegal trespass, any use of collective force to repel the invaders, etc.) would be immoral."

An individual has the right to defend his property, and to do business or not do business with anyone he pleases, and to cooperate with others to organize collective security operations or boycotts, but no one has the right to FORCE any individual to participate in such collective security operation against his will (e.g. force him not to employ foreigners) - yet that is exactly what national immigration policies do. Hence those policies are illegitimate.

"If no one was willing to use force to exclude us non Amish troublemakers, we could just overwhelm and destroy Amish society."

Suppose 90% of the Amish community wants nothing to do with foreigners. They would be perfectly within their rights to forcibly deny foreigners access to their lands, to refuse to sell land to foreigners, and to boycott foreign workers and businesses. But they DO NOT have the right to force the other 10% of the community to do the same. If those 10% want to allow foreigners onto their property, want to sell their land to foreigners, want to employ foreign workers, etc, they are within their rights to do so, regardless of what their neighbors think.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Most of the actual conflict

Most of the actual conflict was not clear cut aggression one way or the other. Both sides felt they were defending themselves. There were no legal borders or property rights that strictly excluded the settlement and westward expansion.

You also seem to have mis-understood the classical liberal or the libertarian definition of private property. A paper document is not necessary to own property. Laws don't have to be written or legal (as understood by modern court/justice system). Most cultures followed a natural law based on customs and traditions. Convincing yourself that since there was no constitution in native America means that there were no laws is bullshit. The definition of private property goes like -
Private Property: Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him. This ownership of "originally appropriated" places and goods by a person implies his right to use and transform these places and goods in any way he sees fit, provided only that he does not change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person. In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated by, in John Locke's phrase, 'mixing one's labor' with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary – contractual – transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.

The native-Americans were clearly the owners of the land. The colonists not only aggressed upon their land but also confiscated their abundant gold. The colonists were clearly violent aggressors and not peaceful immigrants, confused about property rights, as you claim them to be.

Wow, so now you put the blame

Wow, so now you put the blame of colonization of America and other parts of the world by the British onto the colonized tribes? So you ignore the aggressor and criminalize the actual victims.

I am not well read on the American colonization, but I know about how the British colonized India. It was the monopoly company - The British East India Company - setup by the British Government that looted and killed the locals to setup their business and ushered in an Industrial Revolution in England. Colonists didn't kill the local tribes for self-defense, they were mostly the first aggressors.

You seem to have a wrong notion that mass immigration will lead to cultural disintegration of the local people. This is false and actually the local people's culture is enriched by the infusion of a variety of cultural values.

Taking India as an example again, to begin with there are various claims that a majority of today's Indians were mass immigrants from Central Asia and Eurasia (aka Aryans). Then we have documented history of small immigration by Greeks, Huns, Scythians and lots of Persians. When Babar (after betrayed by his own uncles in Kabul) conquered Delhi and established the Mughal dynasty, he brought the bloodline of Turks and Mongols into India. But Islam had already spread into much of NW India even before the Mughals or the Muslims invaded. And Christianity didn't come to India with the British, but rather we have Christians in India from 2000 years. St.Thomas, one of the 12 apostles of Christ, is buried in my home-town in India. Jews have been part of Kerala (Southern India) for the last 800-900 years. Peaceful immigration is mostly good for the economy and cultural tolerance.

But only when people play into the political games of the elites, racism raises its ugly head.

Individual muslims, or hindus or amish wishing to live next to people of the same tribe and not wishing to sell their private property to outsiders is perfectly moral and ethical. When a non-physical entity called the State does the same in the name of its citizens, it is nothing but bloody politics.

This is incredibly naive.

This is incredibly naive. People behave politically, act in groups, use force to achieve group objectives. That being the case, other groups have to use the same methods to defend themselves. If Israel had open borders, they would become a minority quickly. Even if the transition was entirely peaceful, the political consequence would then not be peaceful. If Japan opened its borders to the rest of Asia, the Japanese would be outnumbered in short order. That could occur entirely peacefully, but the political consequences would then be unavoidable, and we have every reason to assume would involve force and political methods. Wealth redistribution, land expropriation, change in laws and customs.

Nations control their membership to retain the customs of law, economic policies, mores and behavioral norms, etc., which they prefer. Your belief is frankly moronic and based on an imaginary conception of human nature. You limit your support of borders to individually owned property. If this is how a national behaved, it would basically mean any group that acted collectively could just trample over the rights and property of the people who acted solely as individuals. Only if everyone acted only as individuals would this work. If that was a realistic possibility of human behavior, I thin k we would have witnessed it somewhere by now. Yet we don't. Even the most liberal, pacifistic and peaceable countries maintain restrictions on entry to outsiders and have some level of military to secure themselves from attack.

Demographic changes can cause political changes (of course)

But you're focusing exclusively on immigration-induced changes in the ethnic balance, and assuming they must always be for the worse. Have you considered the possibility that ethnic changes brought about by immigration might be beneficial? Why would you assume that the native population is always superior to the immigrant population? Moreover, you're ignoring all other types of demographic change: religious, cultural, ideological, class, age. Such changes are happening all the time and have nothing to do with immigration. Yet these demographic changes could also cause political changes, and they could be for the worse. So should we resist them? Should governments make laws to prevent these demographic changes as well? Censorship, establishment of religion, enforced morality, control of reproduction and breeding? If restrictive immigration policy is justified by the need to manage demographic change, then it seems all of those other policies could likewise be justified by the need "to retain the customs of law, economic policies, mores and behavioral norms, etc., which they prefer." Certainly that is not the kind of world I want to live in...

P.S. You might also ask yourself whether such policies would more likely reflect the preferences of the "nation" ...or of the politicians. ;-)

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Gotta Support? Not if, they

Gotta Support? Not if, they are crying victim and manipulating American and World foreign policy through false-flag attacks and banking deals.

Yeah, gotta support apartheid

Yeah, gotta support apartheid don't we, Bill?

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

If we define apartheid as any

If we define apartheid as any separation on any basis between any groups of people, then all nations with borders practice apartheid. Of course, that's not what apartheid means, so you're just muddying the waters. You tend to do this because you aren't able to construct good arguments.

Of course I'm talking about

Of course I'm talking about how the Israelis treat 'others'. If it were any other country there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Muddying the waters? That's your forte, Bill.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

But this case is about

But this case is about refugees trying to come into a country and has nothing to do with how Israel treats native Palestinians. You're dragging in red herrings.

No. I'm talking in general

No. I'm talking in general how they treat others. There is a deep rooted racism among many Israelis. I think the video speaks for itself. Sorry if you're unable to grasp that simple idea but, I'm not surprised.
There is also a great deal of the same attitude in other nations as well. Israel isn't alone in this but, this particular video, and the topic of this OP is Israel's policy and the general public's attitude on African refugees.

Now get your Foreman grill out and have some herring.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan