You are here

Palestinian people have moral legal and moral right to resist Israeli occupation

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
mexika
Palestinian people have moral legal and moral right to resist Israeli occupation

Palestinian people have moral legal and moral right to resist Israeli occupation, he added.

‘If this can happen to Galloway, it can happen to anybody’

The incident has largely been ignored by UK’s senior politicians.

'Biggest in 30 years': Israel expropriates 400 hectares of W. Bank land

Palestinian people have moral legal and moral right to resist Israeli occupation, he added.

“Palestinian resistance has for almost 70 years been trying to restore their country to the map. It was wiped off the map and the Palestinian people scattered to the four corners of the Earth. Nobody would accept that. If foreigners come and steal your country, wipe it off the map and take your house and drive you out, you are going to struggle to return.”

===========================================================

Galloway, 60, was brutally beaten in Notting Hill, London last Friday allegedly for his views on the conflict in Gaza.

“It’s very painful to walk, to move, even to speak because I sustained a dislocated jaw, quite bad head injuries, and very badly cracked ribs,” he said.

He said the attack occurred during broad daylight, when he was in the street around 19:30.

“Unlucky for me, there weren’t many people around. Though, luckily for me as it turned out none of my small children were there to witness what happened next,” he said. “I was posing for a picture with two Moroccan gentlemen who have a business in the street. And whilst I was posing for that picture, out of nowhere – dressed in an Israeli Defense Force shirt, complete with logo – came a man charging at me, cursing and swearing and shouting support for Israel and opposition to my views on Israel. Then a torrent of punches and kicks [followed] – which is admitted in court today though he has pled not guilty to the charge that it was religiously aggravated.”

Gaza reconstruction will take 20 years, says UN-backed authority

Following a hearing, the case has been passed on to a higher court. “In any case, the Judge has referred it to much higher court because his sentencing parole was not sufficient. The man has been denied bail, so he will spend some weeks in prison before this matter comes back to court.”

Galloway described the attacker as “a pro-Israel fanatic.” “His Facebook that morning contained his words that he would like to cut my throat. A man who says he’d like to cut your throat and then dresses for the occasion in an Israel Defense Force t-shirt and ends up on the street near where you live, has probably a serious intention to do you harm.”

“It’s unprecedented in recent times. Britain is not really the kind of country where lawmakers, legislators, MPs are savagely attacked in this way – certainly not when they are six times elected, 27 years in parliament and having just turned 60.”
‘If this can happen to Galloway, it can happen to anybody’

The incident has largely been ignored by UK’s senior politicians.

Peter Oborne, a Conservative writer for the Conservative daily The Telegraph asked in his article on Monday why no senior politicians had condemned the assault on Galloway, the MP noted.

“It seems very strange. They are always telling us how much they hate violence and terrorism, how much they believe in the rule of law, free speech and democracy. But when it came to the attack on me their lips were sealed. This conservative columnist was making a point which is obvious: if this can happen to Galloway, it can happen to anybody.”

‘No weapons for Israel!’ Protest group pours fake blood in Belgium airport

Known for his harsh anti-Israeli stance, in early August Galloway went as far as to declare his constituency an “Israel-free zone.” The MP urged people not to buy Israeli goods or services and even to reject tourists.

Galloway pointed out that he separates the people from the regime. “Israel has nothing to do with Judaism. Many Jews are against what Israel is doing and most of the people supporting what Israel is doing are not Jews,” he said.

“The word Jew never crossed my lips, would never cross my lips. I don’t have a racist bone in my body. Soviet Union was a political construct, apartheid South Africa was a political construct, the Zionist apartheid state of Israel is a political construct. It has nothing to do with hating people, still less hating a religion.”

'Biggest in 30 years': Israel expropriates 400 hectares of W. Bank land

Palestinian people have moral legal and moral right to resist Israeli occupation, he added.

“Palestinian resistance has for almost 70 years been trying to restore their country to the map. It was wiped off the map and the Palestinian people scattered to the four corners of the Earth. Nobody would accept that. If foreigners come and steal your country, wipe it off the map and take your house and drive you out, you are going to struggle to return.”

http://rt.com/uk/184320-galloway-israel-gaza-mp/

pax
Galloway being beaten

could have been for ANY NUMBER OF REASONS.
he isn't a "senior uk politician"
he's an opposition backbencher who runs a one man party.
Galloway is one of the most deliberately divisive pricks in uk politics.
he's unelectable in Scotland after a series of Scandals including ripping off war on want for thousands and for being a shit stirring wanker.
nobody likes him....simple as that.
even his councillors from his own party resigned from that party to make it........Respect... the party of one..lol

nibs
Where have I read this before?
Pax wrote:

could have been for ANY NUMBER OF REASONS.
he isn't a "senior uk politician"
he's an opposition backbencher who runs a one man party.
Galloway is one of the most deliberately divisive pricks in uk politics.
he's unelectable in Scotland after a series of Scandals including ripping off war on want for thousands and for being a shit stirring wanker.
nobody likes him....simple as that.
even his councillors from his own party resigned from that party to make it........Respect... the party of one..lol

Are you spamming?

mike.smith
.

Divisive prick or not he's telling the truth re: Israel.

On another note, I just noticed this subforum "Zionism". How about just calling it "Jews"? I say this because even anti-zionist Jews like NYC'S Rabbi Weiss, leader of "Jews against Zionism" STILL believes a)the Talmud b)he's chosen and c) you are goyim cattle.

It's in their nature regardless of politics.

pax
nope not spamming, that's a

nope not spamming, that's a considered opinion on that anus Galloway after knowing of him since th 80's Nibs.
dunno how that could be construed as spamming tbh.
Also Mike.smith.... i think the board titles are fine and this sweeping generalization of "JEWS".... well we all know where that'll lead and that shit is bad enough atm.......

It's in their nature regardless of politics.

oh shit... it's already led there!
We have the zionist section to discuss , for example, What modern Israeli is doing ..and what historical shitness they have got up to.
you basically want a sub section to Jew Bash in...... quite lame when there are real things to debate about, things on a much grander scale helped along by.. Christian Zionists which outnumber the Jewish ones by a fair margin..... it's a much bigger topic than just a cheap assed Jew Bash

mike.smith
Hyper-tribalistic

Is it Jew bashing? Is that what Gilad Atzmon does? Is that what Nathaneal Kapner does? I almost never read those two speaking of "zionism", but I do read alot about Jewish Identity Politics which is another subject altogether.

They are without question hyper-tribalistic. Their influence is overwhelmingly disproportionate per capita, moreover, they insert their fellow tribesmen into positions of power at every opportunity.

Is that not a conspiracy? Perhaps concen now stands for Con-job Central?

pax
ho hum

Their influence is overwhelmingly disproportionate per capita

hmmm and how did it get that way.... well let's look at history...
You see, once upon a time it was frowned upon by the christian church to loan money for interest... a sin.. called usury.
So what happened is they "invited" or "imported" Jews to do this as there was no religious barrier from them doing so.
Thus at the invite of kings they came and loaned money.
then at times of financial tribulation they also made excellent scape goats to blame for all the ills of the world(or kingdom in those cases) and were then persecuted and chased out.
another little note... are YOU not being "hyper-tribalistic" yourself???
And isn't it also human nature to generally dwell and deal with your own "peer group" ,however that peer groups represents itself.. whether racial or religious..whatever.. it's a simple fact of human behaviour.

Perhaps concen now stands for Con-job Central?

nah it stands, as i see it, for BALANCED ,LOGICAL DEBATE... :)

krise
Invitation
Quote:

So what happened is they "invited" or "imported" Jews to do this...Thus at the invite of kings they came and loaned money

Now that claim would be worth an original source!

pax
krise wrote:
krise wrote:

Quote:
So what happened is they "invited" or "imported" Jews to do this...Thus at the invite of kings they came and loaned money

Now that claim would be worth an original source!

LOL it's well established historical fact... however
here's a linky or three
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England_%281066%E2%8...

Believing that their commercial skills and incoming capital would make England more prosperous, William I (William the Conqueror) invited a group of Jewish merchants from Rouen, in Normandy, to England in 1070.[2] However, Jews were not permitted to own land (as most gentiles were not allowed to own land) nor to participate in trades (except for medicine). They were limited primarily to money lending. As Catholic doctrine held that money lending for interest was the sin of usury, Jews dominated this activity.

http://www.oxfordjewishheritage.co.uk/english-jewish-heritage/68-english...

We do know that Jews from Rouen arrived at the invitation, if not the command, of William the Conqueror, to introduce an established network of credit and trading links between his new English lands and his French ones. The English and Northern French Jewish communities would remain connected by family ties, literature and rabbinical exchange throughout the period of English medieval Jewish settlement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Italy

The Jews suffered much from the relentless persecutions of the Avignon-based antipope Benedict XIII. They hailed his successor, Martin V, with delight. The synod convoked by the Jews at Bologna, and continued at Forlì, sent a deputation with costly gifts to the new pope, praying him to abolish the oppressive laws promulgated by Benedict and to grant the Jews those privileges which had been accorded them under previous popes. The deputation succeeded in its mission, but the period of grace was short; for Martin's successor, Eugenius IV, at first favorably disposed toward the Jews, ultimately reenacted all the restrictive laws issued by Benedict. In Italy, however, his bull was generally disregarded. The great centers, such as Venice, Florence, Genoa, and Pisa, realized that their commercial interests were of more importance than the affairs of the spiritual leaders of the Church; and accordingly the Jews, many of whom were bankers and leading merchants, found their condition better than ever before. It thus became easy for Jewish bankers to obtain permission to establish banks and to engage in monetary transactions. Indeed, in one instance even the Bishop of Mantua, in the name of the pope, accorded permission to the Jews to lend money at interest. All the banking negotiations of Tuscany were in the hands of a Jew, Jehiel of Pisa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking#Religious_restrictions_o...

In the middle of the 13th century, groups of Italian Christians, particularly the Cahorsins and Lombards, invented legal fictions to get around the ban on Christian usury;[154] for example, one method of effecting a loan with interest was to offer money without interest, but also require that the loan is insured against possible loss or injury, and/or delays in repayment (see contractum trinius).[154] The Christians effecting these legal fictions became known as the pope's usurers, and reduced the importance of the Jews to European monarchs;[154] later, in the Middle Ages, a distinction evolved between things that were consumable (such as food and fuel) and those that were not, with usury permitted on loans that involved the latter.[

good enough for you?

krise
sort of...

sort of...
so it was rather just ONE king who actually invited a couple of them into the country to do money lending... while in continental europe they already established their system of usuary unasked on their own... and just developed their importance over time, while turning the monarchs into debt slaves...
I guess that was my point!

pax
krise wrote:
krise wrote:

sort of...
so it was rather just ONE king who actually invited a couple of them into the country to do money lending... while in continental europe they already established their system of usuary unasked on their own... and just developed their importance over time, while turning the monarchs into debt slaves...
I guess that was my point!

i guess you missed the point they were invited BY Christian kings and princes.. thus they were invited to Italy.. as i also posted and all over Europe as is explained below.
here's something from a very balanced,neutral and factual site
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-fall/morality-of-moneyle...

Thus, on scriptural and moral grounds, Christianity opposed usury from the beginning. And it constantly reinforced its opposition with legal restrictions. In 325 a.d., the Council of Nicaea banned the practice among clerics. Under Charlemagne (768–814 a.d.), the Church extended the prohibition to laymen, defining usury simply as a transaction where more is asked than is given.10 In 1139, the second Lateran Council in Rome denounced usury as a form of theft, and required restitution from those who practiced it. In the 12th and 13th centuries, strategies that concealed usury were also condemned. The Council of Vienne in 1311 declared that any person who dared claim that there was no sin in the practice of usury be punished as a heretic.

There was, however, a loophole among all these pronouncements: the Bible’s double standard on usury. As we saw earlier, read one way, the Bible permits Jews to lend to non-Jews. This reading had positive consequences. For lengthy periods during the Dark and Middle Ages, both Church and civil authorities allowed Jews to practice usury. Many princes, who required substantial loans in order to pay bills and wage wars, allowed Jewish usurers in their states. Thus, European Jews, who had been barred from most professions and from ownership of land, found moneylending to be a profitable, albeit hazardous, profession.

Although Jews were legally permitted to lend to Christians—and although Christians saw some practical need to borrow from them and chose to do so—Christians resented this relationship. Jews appeared to be making money on the backs of Christians while engaging in an activity biblically prohibited to Christians on punishment of eternal damnation. Christians, accordingly, held these Jewish usurers in contempt. (Important roots of anti-Semitism lie in this biblically structured relationship.)

Opposition to Jewish usurers was often violent. In 1190, the Jews of York were massacred in an attack planned by members of the nobility who owed money to the Jews and sought to absolve the debt through violence.During this and many other attacks on Jewish communities, accounting records were destroyed and Jews were murdered. As European historian Joseph Patrick Byrne reports:

Money was the reason the Jews were killed, for had they been poor, and had not the lords of the land been indebted to them, they would not have been killed.” But the “lords” were not the only debtors: the working class and underclass apparently owed a great deal, and these violent pogroms gave them the opportunity to destroy records of debt as well as the creditors themselves."

krise
as much as I appreciate the

as much as I appreciate the story it still sounds to me rather like an "okay, while they're already here let's use their exception from the religious usury ban to raise some funds and make business", than a "hey, come on over and build up a system of usury in our country"... anyway...

pax
krise wrote:
krise wrote:

as much as I appreciate the story it still sounds to me rather like an "okay, while they're already here let's use their exception from the religious usury ban to raise some funds and make business", than a "hey, come on over and build up a system of usury in our country"... anyway...

erm.. it's not a "story" it's historical FACT. As much as i appreciate you might not like it.... it's the truth.

krise
now, all you're doing here is

now, all you're doing here is posing your INTERPRETATION of some (secondary) sources as a "historical fact"... I'm not even arguing with the content of the quotations you post, but only what you're trying to read in them so exclusively. A change in the legislation of the money policy is NOT an immigration call. F.e. jews have been in Italy since roman days, still you insist they have been "invited to Italy" in the 14th century (Benedict XIIII days), while your refering wiki-quote just states "accordingly the Jews, many of whom were bankers and leading merchants, found their condition better than ever before", implying that they've been there long before and already had established their banking system.
So better be carefull with your interpretations of "historical FACTS" and "the truth"... also with what you interpret quite airy into the posts of annotators here.

pax
LOL

you make me laugh at how much you want to push YOUR preconceptions.
I am not "interpreting" .. those are just the facts.
however fill your boots with your preconceptions and dny the facts... may you live long and happily in yer wee bubble :)

krise
contrary to you, I'm not

contrary to you, I'm not pushing anything as "truth" or "fact" here... I made no claims, I was just questioning yours and analysing your sources towards them... sad that you're not able to see this.

Log in or register to post comments