Further (and, hopefully, final) correction is needed.
No – it is not a historical fact that the Jews demanded the death of Christ. The only "evidence" thats supports this position is a two-thousand year old text that postulates a virgin birth, a man living inside a whale, musical instruments bringing down a fortified city and a man turning water into wine. Most rational human beings (or should I say irreligious) don't regard this as credible evidence. The fact that you support and promote this "fact" – one that has been the basis of religious persecution for two millennium though, pointedly, not of Romans – indicates how easily modern Europeans morph from anti-Semites to anti-Zionists.

Mary: Can't make sense of any of this. Let me try though… the narrative says "that happened". According to the narrative Jews demanded it and Romans carried it out. That narrative is one of the most popular in Western culture, so let's just pretend that the narrative would be what we are examining. If this is so and Jews can look at it and say, "according to the narrative that is so popular it's happened and the Sanhedrin did it, not me" we'd be already ahead of the game. Italians say, "according to this incredibly popular narrative, it's happened, Romans did it, not me", and we don't get all hot under the collar when someone talks about it.

Mo Fl: I have already protested to my own Government on the subject of Gitmo and a lot more besides. I am actively involved in a number of causes that support international human rights. If you're looking for a domestic situation to protest, look no further than racial intolerance or the treatment of Romanys in your own country but, in my experience, "anti-Zionists" care very little for human rights violations that don't involve Jews.

Mary: what a load of bullshit! If you protest to your govt, good for you. But the stuff about the Roms is highly exaggerated in the media because Americans LOVE to point the finger, this is a fact! There is violence against Italians by Romanians and Roms that has arrived at a very dramatic point, also, exploited by the mass media. Look… if we have a murder a day, it gets on the news, you guys have a thousand a day, don't you, can't put them ALL on the news, can you? But, I'm digressing. I just think it very entertaining that you are a know it all about the situation here! Don't talk either about how much anti-Zionists "don't care" about human rights. I founded http://www.tlaxcala.es... take a look and see how much we care!

Mo: And your last paragraph has made my initial point again. You didn't ban the "yoni" – (nice language, BTW)

Mary: that's his name, what can I say?

- for propaganda but for obscenity and an ad-hominem attack . You state you censor anything you regard as "propaganda".

Mary: I did NOT say I censor anyting that I regard as propaganda… some gets through for argument's sake or not. Propaganda is not welcome and most of the time we don't allow it up. That is a choice because it is boring for everyone to debate propaganda.

MO: This could mean anything that would counter your position – I have no idea as, by your own admission, you have not provided an example .

Mary: if you just glance at other posts besides your own, you will see a LOT that does not fit my position. I don't have time to read it all, some I don't even read, but open the moderation page and if it skims acceptable, it's there. I am not a policewoman, and I can't spend all my time moderating comments. Don't take it as if it is such an important thing. You don't like it, comment elsewhere or take what is there.

MO: Yet, you assert that democratic nations should be forced to listen to a homophobe who executes citizens for their sexual orientation.

Mary: forced to listen? Well if they go to a forum, they go because they should listen. If they won't send someone who will. Simple, really. I don't ask them to marry him or have him run for office in the USA.

Mo: Do you honestly think that outside of your misguided circles and the circle-jerk of demagogues in Durban that Iran has any credibility on the subject of human rights??

Mary: what's your point? If you read his speech, you can see what he says. If not, then shut up.

MO: At least PLO Ambassador Ibrahim Khraishi recognizes that the Durban speech, which was delivered for the Iranian domestic audience, does nothing to further the Palestinian cause.

Mary… and with that?

Further (and, hopefully, final) correction is needed.
No – it is not a historical fact that the Jews demanded the death of Christ. The only "evidence" thats supports this position is a two-thousand year old text that postulates a virgin birth, a man living inside a whale, musical instruments bringing down a fortified city and a man turning water into wine. Most rational human beings (or should I say irreligious) don't regard this as credible evidence. The fact that you support and promote this "fact" – one that has been the basis of religious persecution for two millennium though, pointedly, not of Romans – indicates how easily modern Europeans morph from anti-Semites to anti-Zionists.

I have already protested to my own Government on the subject of Gitmo and a lot more besides. I am actively involved in a number of causes that support international human rights. If you're looking for a domestic situation to protest, look no further than racial intolerance or the treatment of Romanys in your own country but, in my experience, "anti-Zionists" care very little for human rights violations that don't involve Jews.

And your last paragraph has made my initial point again. You didn't ban the "yoni" – (nice language, BTW) – for propaganda but for obscenity and an ad-hominem attack . You state you censor anything you regard as "propaganda". This could mean anything that would counter your position – I have no idea as, by your own admission, you have not provided an example . Yet, you assert that democratic nations should be forced to listen to a homophobe who executes citizens for their sexual orientation. Do you honestly think that outside of your misguided circles and the circle-jerk of demagogues in Durban that Iran has any credibility on the subject of human rights??
At least PLO Ambassador Ibrahim Khraishi recognizes that the Durban speech, which was delivered for the Iranian domestic audience, does nothing to further the Palestinian cause.

English is my first language, and I understood the text and the subtext. You're the confused one because you (seemed to) talk about collective guilt and that Christ killer stuff.
any normal person would say, Yes… it is a historical fact that Jews demanded Christ be killed. So? I didn't do it personally. The Italians have already gotten there, not feeling any collective guilt about actually nailing the iron through flesh and hoisting a person until death. Romans did those things, not only to Christ, but to many. Italians carry no collective guilt NOR would we get offended if someone tried to say it to us… we'd say, Please get a grip on yourself and focus on the present.

Even bad people sometimes say or do good things. Even good people sometimes say or do bad things. That you go on about the bad things of Ahmadinejad (as if you care… why not start with Guantanamo and the other things that your own govt does before you start to preach) just shows that you try to point the finger elsewhere. Again, this is PTT not BhutanTT.

Yes, the yoni was racist, sexist, islamophobic and definitely zionist, as well as being obscene and ignorant. So? I would say that he did not put up propaganda. I didn't ban him for Zionism, but for the rest. But that the Zionism of Living In Tel Aviv would probably go hand in hand with the rest of it.

While I appreciate that English is probably not your first language, you might consider a reading comprehension class. I've already conceded that your name-calling poster was a Zionist. My point is that this behavior is not exclusive to Zionists or definitive of it. You seem to struggle with the difference. I was of the understanding that Zionism was defined as Jewish Nationalism or, at least, that's according to most accepted definitions.

I notice that you skip right over the equivalence of Romans being persecuted for Christ's death and the persecution of the Jews for the same. Good move. Given that the Roman Church was more than responsible for the instigation of much of it, staying on that subject really is a losing proposition. Or did I just miss the anti-Roman pogroms of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? Perhaps Alaric sacked Rome as revenge for the Crucifixion?

As for it (the crucifixion of Christ) being a historical anecdote, whereas you might think so, I prefer more reliable evidence than a book that offers a virgin birth and a man living inside a whale as 'historical anecdotes'.

But then, and here is the canard, I'm an atheist who rejects religious interference in government of all stripes and not just when it suits me. So keep sipping your Chianti and give respectability and credibility to a homophobic, religious-based Nationalist who would drag gay and women's rights back a thousand years because he happens to oppose other religious-based Nationalists that you have a demonstrably greater historical antipathy towards.

Fortunately, the only people who count for anything when it comes to policy, the US government, are far too astute to be used in such a pathetic charade as Durban. They leave it to the impotent to express their indignation. Priceless!

And what a joke! you believe more the "narrative" than the facts. Italians descend from the Romans and from other Italic peoples. They have every right to claim their lineage and if they were nuts, they could also claim to have been personally accountable for everything the Romans did and get fired up when people talk about it, but they aren't that crazy yet!

There is no "invention" of a Roman people, you can't convert to it, or decide you want to be part. It's geographically located. Thus, Italians DO identify our history as descending from the Romans and we DO identify that this is ours, good, bad or ugly. We don't go nuts that the killing of someone that Christians call their God is something that happened in Jerusalem and it was done materially by the Romans upon request of the Jewish Priests. Where is the Freudian slip? Please tell me, because in your trying to act clever, you make no sense. I said what i meant. You can call it a crime if you want, or a misdeed, if you know your entymology, it qualifies. It's an act of faith for some. For me, it is an anecdote to historical data, like billions of others.

Now, I have to go to sleep and tomorrow will be too busy to fuss with your diversion. If anyone feels like they wouldn't be wasting their time, Flaming Mo is all yours. Ciao.

There is no equivalence between the identification of Italians as Christ-killers and Jews as such. Firstly, modern Italians are not identified with the Roman state of two-thousand years ago and no-one has ever accused Italians of being "Christ-Killers" and used the connection of the Romans to the death of Christ to persecute them for the best part of two thousand years so, of course, they don't care or get 'fired up'. But then, I presume, that you were more than aware of the connotations when you made your argument? Interesting that you classify it as a historical "misdeed" – your freudian slip is indeed showing.

I confuse nothing. If an Israeli is busy expressing all that pathological hatred and wishing that pro Palestine people are burned to death, well, call it what you want. I call it Israeli racism.

besides… it is interesting that you are trying very hard to flame here. Ask yourself why that's so important to you. I see canards, but for the sake of banter, those who get all warped and twisted if someone says that Jews were complicit in the killing of Jesus should get a grip. We Italians realise the Romans helped out and we don't get fired up and deny it. I don't have to answer for historical misdeeds and if Jews take the bait, then that says a lot about them. They should try to focus on the present.

The fact that you confuse the two yet allow posts regarding "Satanists" and "bad Jews who killed Christ" tells me more than I need to know about your lack of appreciation for the difference between "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Semitic" behavior. No wonder you supported President A's rhetoric but anti-Semites tend to make strange bed-fellows, don't they?

Flaming Mo, that post was not published for reasons of obscenity alone, can't you see there is also racism and hatred towards a religion, not to mention the death wish towards me. I would say it's not even that far from Zionism. Would anyone but a Zionist have that kind of thing to say?

At any rate, it came from Israel, and I get a handful of these delightful things each day, most of them from the place where they point the finger to look elsewhere for racism.

In case you haven't noticed, calls to look at Bhutan, Congo, etc, are not really appropriate here. We are in a site called Palestine Think Tank and we are interested mainly in Palestine. Who is occuping Palestine? Not the Congolese, but the Israelis. Think about that.

As to the difference between different opinion and propaganda, i am sure you know it. we sometimes let some propaganda through, but try not to make a habit of it, because the propaganda is there to just make us waste our time. There are many moderate sites you can go on, like MePeace, IPeace, where they love light zionists, because they are zionists. You would be happier commenting there, i think.

While the site reserves the right to remove posts for obscenity as the example that you have cited clearly demonstrates, it also reserves the right to censor comments it regards as "Zionist propaganda" – tantamount to any political opinion that it might disagree with. The fundamental right that Waxman demands that the UK support is woefully missing both on this site and in the state-controlled puppet presses of the regimes that lecture us on democracy and racism. That you miss this little irony is not altogether unsurprising given the moral relativism shown by the misguided westerners that support these homicidal regimes. It allows them to sip their Claret and demand prosecution of israelis and Serbians and conveniently ignore genocide and brutal oppression elsewhere .
As a matter of record, I have little time for Zionists and their state but I would compare their record on human rights to the likes of Sudan, Congo, China, Nigeria , Bhutan, Burma and a whole host of other third world
dictatorships I could name where racism and persecution of minorities is both ingrained and endemic. Perhaps you missed the xenophobic riots in the host nation that resulted in citizens from neighbors being 'necklaced'? Or the destruction of precious pre-Islamic artifacts by the previous government of Afghanistan? Still, why protest abut a theocrat hanging teenage boys for their sexual preferences or torturing student dissenters when we can applaud his anti-US and Israeli screed to demonstrate our support for poor, put-upon brown people?
It really is too pathetic to be laughable…..

nope, the most racist state of them all was not there.
Can you please tell us if the laws in Israel are not in any way racially discriminatory?
Isn't it a bit amazing that even Palestinian Arabs with Israeli citizenship are expected to be happy to live in "the Jewish State" and are considered a fifth column when not worse.

Hey, let me show you one of the comments up here that I didn't allow through, comes from Tel Aviv (I added the asterisks)
to "protect" this idiot, I'm leaving a few numbers out of the IP. and changing the mail. I'd say there's a racist attitude there, if not purely pathological.

zoni
zoni_bit@xxxxxx.com | 84.228.94.xxx

you can all go f**k yourself
you f**king beaches!!!
arab lover
f**k you
f**k mohamad
f**k all of yo pro palastine fuckers
i wish you all death by burn
lozers that dont know shit!!!

From Noa, the Hasbara Queen and Islamphobe prepares for Battle!, 2009/04/26 at 12:45 PM
2009

Durban II (like its predecessor) offers the spotlight to the most despotic and racist regimes on the planet while blatantly ignoring their own intolerance.

The only disappointment is that the western nations legitimize this conference by their participation as a result of their own racist attitudes – the belief that third world regimes like Iran should not be held to the same standards of humanity and accountability that we hold more 'civilized' societies. That the intellectually bereft posters on this site applaud a lecture given by a regime that executes its citizens for their sexual orientation is beyond laughable

I anticipate this post being removed as "Zionist propaganda"

Benjamin H. Freedman, Jewish Historian – Researcher – Scholar.
From "Common Sense", p. 2-1-53 and 5-1-59

"Christians have been duped by the unholiest hoax in all history, by so-called Jews. This is considered their most effective weapon."

"This 'big lie' technique is brainwashing United States Christians into believing that Jesus Christ was "King of the Jews", in the sense that so-called 'Jews' today call themselves 'Jews'. This reference was first made in English translations of the Old and New Testaments, centuries before the so-called Jews highjacked the word 'Jew' in the 18th century A.D. to palm themselves off on the Christian world as having a kinship with Jesus Christ. This alleged kinship comes from the myth of their common ancestry with the so-called 'Jews' of the Holy Land in the Old Testament history, a fiction based on fable."

"American Christians little suspect they are being brainwashed twenty-four hours of every day over television and radio, by newspapers and magazines, by motion pictures and plays, by books, by political leaders in office and seeking office, by religious leaders in their pulpits and outside their churches, by leaders in the field of education inside and outside their curricular activities, and by all leaders in business, professions and finance, whose economic security demands that they curry the favor of so-called "Jews" of historic Khazar ancestry. Unsuspecting Christians are subjected to this barrage from sources they have little reason to suspect. Incontestable facts supply the unchallengeable proof of the historic accuracy that so-called "Jews" throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turko-Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia, according to history, who battled their way in bloody wars about the 1st century B.C. into eastern Europe where they set up their Khazar kingdom. For some mysterious reason the history of the Khazar kingdom is conspicuous by its absence from history courses in the schools and colleges.

"The historic existence of the Khazar kingdom of so-called "Jews", their rise and fall, the permanent disappearance of the Khazar kingdom as a nation from the map of Europe, and how King Bulan and the Khazar nation in about 740 A.D. became so-called "Jews" by conversion, were concealed from American Christians by censorship imposed by so-called "Jews", of historic Khazar ancestry, upon all U.S.A. media of mass communications directed by them. Then in 1945 this author gave nation-wide publicity to his many years intensive research into the "facts of life" concerning Khazars. The disclosures were sensational and very effective but apparently angered so-called "Jews" who have continued to vent their spleen upon this author since then solely for that reason. Since 1946 they have conducted a vicious smear campaign against him, seeking thus to further conceal these facts, for obvious reasons. What have they to fear from the truth?

"In an original 1903 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia in New York's Public Library, and in the Library of Congress, Volume IV, pages 1 to 5 inclusive, appears a most comprehensive history of the Khazars. Also in the New York Public Library are 327 books by the world's greatest historians and other sources of reference, in addition to the Jewish Encyclopedia, dealing with Khazar history, and written between the 3rd A.D. and 20th centuries by contemporaries of the Khazars and by modern historians on that subject."

Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew.

During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".
Who was the First Jew?
John Standring

We know that Saul was the first king of Israel and that John was the first man called Baptist, but who was the first Jew? Neither Adam, Seth or Noah are called Jew. Nor were Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Moses was not called a Jew and neither were Saul, David or Solomon called Jew. In fact you will not find the word Jew in the first eleven books of the Bible. The first time Jews are mentioned in the Bible, is in II Kings 16:6 (and then only in translations revised in the eighteenth century) where we find Israel was at war with the Jews and drave the Jews from Elath. Isn't it interesting that we can read over five hundred pages of the Bible before we find a Jew anywhere, yet those who call themselves Jew today claim the first five books of the bible and call it their Torah. Do you not find it rather strange that those who claim to have written the first five books of the Bible and call themselves Jew, can't find the word Jew written anywhere in the book they call their own bible, and claim to have written? Jesus Christ tells John in Revelation 2:9 "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN". We know that God changed the name of Abram to Abraham in Genesis 17:5, and that He changed the name of Jacob to Israel in Genesis 32:28, but nowhere in the Bible do we find where God changed the name of Israel to Jew! There is therefore no authority by which those who say they are Jews can claim to be Israel!

By the time of Jesus the word Edom or Edomite had been translated by Greek and Latin into Ioudaios and Iudaeus meaning a Judean or person living in Judea. The original King James version of the Bible, 1611, translated Idumaean-Judean into Iewes. It wasn't until the revised editions of the King James Bible, that the word Jew appeared. The word Jew does not mean Israel or Israelite! We must conclude therefore that the first "Jews" were Canaanite-Edomite-Hittite. It is certain, according to the Bible, that Jews are not Israel. jesusjew.htm

the Obama Administration is at least a little less prone to kissin Israeli butt than the previous administration:

"….Much depends on the Obama administration. In political and strategic terms, probably only the US has the leverage to force a rethink of Israeli policy. But will Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, be willing to confront America’s most crucial ally in the Middle East?

Mr Obama has already signalled a shift of emphasis in relations with Israel by appointing George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy. An experienced troubleshooter and mediator, he has few friends on the Israeli right, which remembers the tough language on settlements in his 2001 report.

Mr Mitchell is due in Israel today for his first meetings with the new government, closely watched by Palestinians and Arabs. Mr Obama, however, has already set the tone of what he would like to see emerge from the talks. “Let me be clear. The US strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security,” the president said in his speech in Turkey this month . “That is a goal that I will actively pursue as president.”"

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/29e69964-277c-11de-9b77-00144feabdc0.html

Great links, thanks.

Vanquish israel from the face of the earth. The holodeck event has been found to be a sham uncloaked recently with stories made up by bad little jews joining the big top circus of lies. There are good jews and there are lying jews that killed jesus and again sided with Hitler if you wanna go there. Seems the killers are in control for the time. My occult sources tell me its a holy war and israel must not be allowed to continue. Save the planet, condemn israel.

I thought paxmann thoroughly loped both shoes at gooderham. Job well done BBC.

For more in depth details on this period:

Zionism in the Age of the Dictators: A Reappraisal
by Lenni Brenner

Available at

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/

51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis
by Lenni Brenner

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html

For more general information:

http://www.nkusa.org/
http://www.ameu.org/

Hope these links are handy.

J. Woodward-Partridge
Arlington, Texas USA