NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Sabotaging_Israels_Red_Star_of_David.asp

What do you guys think?

Unfair... not much to say.

we need more jewish countries.

anyone wanna convert?

I would need a more objective and reliable source for that. It is on a Jewish website. They are obviously opinionated, and they do not have a reputation to give it credence either.

I would need a more objective and reliable source for that. It is on a Jewish website. They are obviously opinionated, and they do not have a reputation to give it credence either.

I agree! If I ever see one jew getting beat up by two or three klanists or arabs, I'd also ask myself why he's yelling "help! help!" all the time. The other ones are totally not opinionated, and they're more numerous. Dictature of the masses! After all you can't trust jews!

/not that any farking moron wouldn't notice the irony.
//sri lanka has refused Israel's humanitarian aid
///criticize NGA's all you want while your ass is on a comfy couch

Someone is confusing Israel and the semites.

just cause its on a website doesn't mean its true.

example

http://www.holyobserver.com/detail.php?isu=v02i06&art=student

Thats all rubbish.

Theres no chance in hell that the red-cross is anti semetic, everything that happens involving the jews is anti-semetism these days :sniper:

Someone is confusing Israel and the semites.

Someone needs to read the definition of anti-semite and the origin of the word before posting would-be snide quips.

Anti-Semetic is not the word I would use.
The only country that is jewish is Israel and if they want to put the star of david on the red cross flag or other things of the RC that opperate in Israel then do it.
The arabs use the half moon why cant you use your star?
People really should stop calling everything that does not go the way the jews want anti-semetic, I mean their are christians that live in Israel but the star of david is on the Israeli flag, is that anti-christian?

I'm sure there are other politics going on that neither party will come out and say. Everybody likes to spin facts so that they fit there way of thinking. Most polls are even done that way.

Today a poll found that 75% of the population prefer tomatos over steak.

question: which would you prefer on a salad? Tomatos or Steak

Thats why its harder and harder to find quotes in a story from the other side. Very few things in this world are fair.

Someone needs to read the definition of anti-semite and the origin of the word before posting would-be snide quips.The Nazis are usually described as anti-semitic. The nazis existed before the creation of Israel. In a sense, they contributed in its creation.
anti-Israel does not mean anti-semite.

The Nazis are usually described as anti-semitic. The nazis existed before the creation of Israel. In a sense, they contributed in its creation.
anti-Israel does not mean anti-semite.

Zionists existed before the nazis. Now, you also have to read some history if you care to educate yourself.

If being anti-Israel is not being anti-semite, then that means denying the right to a safe state for jews, and finding them so much cuter when they live in polish ghettoes instead of eating palestinian babies and building walls is also not antisemitic.
That means that denying the right for the one jewish democratic state to exist, but not denying the right for any muslim, christian, buddhist-what-have-you or secular dictature to exist is also not antisemitic.

/going to answer "no state has a right to exist, land should be free" ? piss off. Dissolve your own government first.
//going to answer "jews keep complaining for just about anything and nothing" ? piss off again. Stop calling the city where 9/11 happened "jew york" first.

Someone needs to read the definition of anti-semite and the origin of the word before posting would-be snide quips.
an·ti-Sem·ite (nt-smt, nt-)
n.

One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

Someone is confusing Israel and the semites

Psylos was correct … being anti Israel is not necessarily being anti-Semitic (not saying it is good either but you said to look up the definition … so I did )

Zionists existed before the nazis. Now, you also have to read some history if you care to educate yourself.

If being anti-Israel is not being anti-semite, then that means denying the right to a safe state for jews, and finding them so much cuter when they live in polish ghettoes instead of eating palestinian babies and building walls is also not antisemitic.



Uh. There aren't ghettos for Jews anywhere anymore. Actually their are more Jews in the US than in Israel, and believe it or not most people like them here.

As for criticizing Israel being anti semetic what a load of crap, I mean talk about a rogue state! Israel already got way more palestinian land then the UN gave them after the 1948 war, to act as if they don't build scores of settlments in the West Bank, and deny the Palestinians a just state, Israel will be destroyed is quite ridiculous considering their massive nuclear stockpile.

Calling people anti semite for criticizing Israel is such tired worn out tactic.

Discriminating against a strictly charitable organization because of religion is just plain wrong. Meanwhile the red crescent is accepted and they have been known to shuttle terrorists and weapons in the safety of their ambulances. There is no justice.

/going to answer "no state has a right to exist, land should be free" ? piss off. Dissolve your own government first.Wrong I was going to answer "no religious state and no racist state".
Hitler was a fool. He wanted to have an aryan state and he was a fool.
Zionism is foolish. Ben Gurion was a fool. A jewish state is foolish. Ossama ben laden is a fool. A muslim state is foolish. I'm not anti-semite but I can tell when someone is out of his mind, be him a christian, a jew, an aryan or a muslim.

I would need a more objective and reliable source for that. It is on a Jewish website. They are obviously opinionated, and they do not have a reputation to give it credence either.
Yeah, we know those greedy jews always lie, right. :rolleyes:

Yeah, we know those greedy jews always lie, right. :rolleyes:
To be fair I doubt the objectiveness of the story too … but not enough to say it is debunked no but unless you know the source could be as bad as democracynow or some of the other silly sort of sites (they are getting better at disguising joke sites … and some people have such silly views it is hard to believe they are serious)

Zionists existed before the nazis. Now, you also have to read some history if you care to educate yourself.

If being anti-Israel is not being anti-semite, then that means denying the right to a safe state for jews, and finding them so much cuter when they live in polish ghettoes instead of eating palestinian babies and building walls is also not antisemitic.
That means that denying the right for the one jewish democratic state to exist, but not denying the right for any muslim, christian, buddhist-what-have-you or secular dictature to exist is also not antisemitic.

/going to answer "no state has a right to exist, land should be free" ? piss off. Dissolve your own government first.
//going to answer "jews keep complaining for just about anything and nothing" ? piss off again. Stop calling the city where 9/11 happened "jew york" first.

What about the answer "there are Jews who are anti-Zionist"?

First - I don't doubt for a second that this site is earnest. I'm sure they are very aggreived, and feel very sorely treated.

That, however, is not the same as being unbiased, or true.

Why is 'my' local Red Cross a 'red cross'? I'm not a christian, it means nothing to me... should they be able to refuse aid to me, due to my 'godless heathen' status? The Red Cross was, for a long time, pretty much a solitary player. At some point, sufficient Muslims felt motivated to form their own version of the Red Cross, and, when it became convenient - the two formed a kind of merger.

Nobody is stopping Israel from forming an agency within their own borders, and giving it a Red Star flag - or helping people under that banner. But - the Red Cross 'owns the franchise', if you will - and they DO get to choose which symbols they wish to utilise... and, to be honest, if you want to help MOST people, you need to identify either christian or islamic symbolism (since Atheists don't subscribe to ANY religious affiliation... so are equally welcoming or suspicious of either symbol).

The thing about the Cross and the Crescent, is that they are effectively, the corporate 'Logo' of aid - and diluting that logo only adds to confusion.

And, speaking to the 'Anti-Semitism' debate - Which is the ONLY 'race' that has ever carried out a successful Anti-Semitic genocide? Anti-Semitism is being 'against the children of Shem'... and, if you want to see Anti-Semitism documented in exquisite detail, try reading the Book of Joshua.

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Sabotaging_Israels_Red_Star_of_David.asp

What do you guys think?
Looks like descrimination to me. :(

The article says "To qualify as "charitable," an organization must devote its resources to charitable activities carried on by itself. The CCRA decided the purchase of bulletproof vests was not charitable. MDA said its ambulances service very dangerous areas, often assisting people subjected to terrorist attacks and equipment to protect the injured, as well as the drivers, is needed. The CCRA demanded at least 10 instances of the locations where the ambulances had to encounter terrorist bullets. The Court noted this demand was "unduly sarcastic."

I find this passage very interesting. The Red Cross/Red Crescent don't recognize the purchase of bullet proof vests to be part of charitable work. The Israeli MDA point out that they go into very dangerous territory.

But the article didn't point out that Red Cross/Red Crescent also work in very dangerous conditions (suicide bombers have specifically attacked Red Cross agencies in the past, and aid workers of all stripes have been kidnapped and held hostage in the past). I'm actually a little surprised that Red Cross/Red Crescent don't have bullet proof vests when working in some areas. However, I would like to point out that CCRA is just holding the MDA to the same standards they have before accepting MDA as part of their organization. Any other umbrella organization would behave the same way (ie: expect all potential members to meet the standards of the organization).

And when the CCRA asked the MDA to list circumstances where they operated under terrorist fire (to prove the need for bullet proof jackets), MDA didn't provide any examples; they just called CCRA 'sarcastic'. The CCRA didn't deny that Israel has its share of terrorist incidents, what they were asking about was the likelihood of MDA coming under fire. And the MDA didn't provide any stats on the issue.

But I admit that I'm biased. I volunteer with the Red Cross and regularly donate money to the organization. I think it's one of the best things going, so hearing them get dissed annoys me a great deal.

Well, the Red Cross dislike religion… they do great stuff, but they are overly politically correct. Does that make this less likely?

MDA is a charity. Whatever you say it helps people, and that can't be wrong. It's sick that people are prepared to let civillians die just because they don't agree with the government.

MDA is a charity. Whatever you say it helps people, and that can't be wrong. It's sick that people are prepared to let civillians die just because they don't agree with the government.

Yes, but there are a lot of charitable NGOs that aren't part of the Red Cross/Red Crescent organization. No one is saying that the MDA is not a charity (that I've noticed) - the Red Cross/Red Crescent simply feels that the MDA does not meet their organizations regulatory standards for membership at this time.

Okay, no matter how or what you define this discrimination as...

The Red Cross/Crescent won't let the Jewish/Israeli humanitarian aid in the club purely because it's Jewish/Israeli.

Does anyone here think that's fair?

The article says "To qualify as "charitable," an organization must devote its resources to charitable activities carried on by itself. The CCRA decided the purchase of bulletproof vests was not charitable. MDA said its ambulances service very dangerous areas, often assisting people subjected to terrorist attacks and equipment to protect the injured, as well as the drivers, is needed. The CCRA demanded at least 10 instances of the locations where the ambulances had to encounter terrorist bullets. The Court noted this demand was "unduly sarcastic."

I find this passage very interesting. The Red Cross/Red Crescent don't recognize the purchase of bullet proof vests to be part of charitable work. The Israeli MDA point out that they go into very dangerous territory.

But the article didn't point out that Red Cross/Red Crescent also work in very dangerous conditions (suicide bombers have specifically attacked Red Cross agencies in the past, and aid workers of all stripes have been kidnapped and held hostage in the past). I'm actually a little surprised that Red Cross/Red Crescent don't have bullet proof vests when working in some areas. However, I would like to point out that CCRA is just holding the MDA to the same standards they have before accepting MDA as part of their organization. Any other umbrella organization would behave the same way (ie: expect all potential members to meet the standards of the organization).

And when the CCRA asked the MDA to list circumstances where they operated under terrorist fire (to prove the need for bullet proof jackets), MDA didn't provide any examples; they just called CCRA 'sarcastic'. The CCRA didn't deny that Israel has its share of terrorist incidents, what they were asking about was the likelihood of MDA coming under fire. And the MDA didn't provide any stats on the issue.

But I admit that I'm biased. I volunteer with the Red Cross and regularly donate money to the organization. I think it's one of the best things going, so hearing them get dissed annoys me a great deal.

Wait, the crescent had to undergo the same thing before they joined? Do you have any evidence?

The MDA has been around for 52 years. How come only now the red cross is starting to go through the process to recognize it?

First - I don't doubt for a second that this site is earnest. I'm sure they are very aggreived, and feel very sorely treated.

That, however, is not the same as being unbiased, or true.

Why is 'my' local Red Cross a 'red cross'? I'm not a christian, it means nothing to me... should they be able to refuse aid to me, due to my 'godless heathen' status? The Red Cross was, for a long time, pretty much a solitary player. At some point, sufficient Muslims felt motivated to form their own version of the Red Cross, and, when it became convenient - the two formed a kind of merger.

Nobody is stopping Israel from forming an agency within their own borders, and giving it a Red Star flag - or helping people under that banner. But - the Red Cross 'owns the franchise', if you will - and they DO get to choose which symbols they wish to utilise... and, to be honest, if you want to help MOST people, you need to identify either christian or islamic symbolism (since Atheists don't subscribe to ANY religious affiliation... so are equally welcoming or suspicious of either symbol).

The thing about the Cross and the Crescent, is that they are effectively, the corporate 'Logo' of aid - and diluting that logo only adds to confusion.

And, speaking to the 'Anti-Semitism' debate - Which is the ONLY 'race' that has ever carried out a successful Anti-Semitic genocide? Anti-Semitism is being 'against the children of Shem'... and, if you want to see Anti-Semitism documented in exquisite detail, try reading the Book of Joshua.

But WHY won't doesn't the red cross like the "logo" of MDA?

Wrong I was going to answer "no religious state and no racist state".
Hitler was a fool. He wanted to have an aryan state and he was a fool.
Zionism is foolish. Ben Gurion was a fool. A jewish state is foolish. Ossama ben laden is a fool. A muslim state is foolish. I'm not anti-semite but I can tell when someone is out of his mind, be him a christian, a jew, an aryan or a muslim.

There is a HUGE difference. Europe was a Christian continent for years. The Pope has Vatican city. Most of the Middle East is governed by sharia, or Islamic Law and most are "Muslim" nations.

So why can't Jews have a strip of land the size of New Jersey after hundreds of examples of genocide against this culture?

Or would we rather repeat the same ordeals Jews have gone through a couple thousand years? Nearly everywhere the Jews have gone, they have been kicked out. You obviously don't want us in your countries, so why does it bother you if we have a state of our own?

Unfair... not much to say.

we need more jewish countries.

anyone wanna convert?

I have an idea. A country for Ashkenazis in the middle of poland and germany. That way semites stay in Israel where they belong, and Ashkenazis where they belong.

Okay, no matter how or what you define this discrimination as...

The Red Cross/Crescent won't let the Jewish/Israeli humanitarian aid in the club purely because it's Jewish/Israeli.

Does anyone here think that's fair?

That's not what the article said.

Wait, the crescent had to undergo the same thing before they joined? Do you have any evidence?

The MDA has been around for 52 years. How come only now the red cross is starting to go through the process to recognize it?

Because now is when the MDA asked to join the Red Cross Organization. As I said before, there are hundreds of charitible NGOs in the world. Most of them are NOT members of the Red Cross organization.

Hi, i'm a jew, and I think most jews are cry babys. Like with gibson's movie. IT wouldn't have earned so much money if jews hadn't made free publicity for gibson.

Anyway, this is to all ashkenazis:

Let's Get the hell out of Israel. We're not semites. I think we should buy some land of poland/germany and speak yiddish like as it used to be. That way semites (jews or not) stay in Israel, and Ashkenazis get their own peace.

But WHY won't doesn't the red cross like the "logo" of MDA?

Well, let's analyse that.

If you drive an ambulance, for example, under Red Cross Auspices... you get to fly the Red Cross flag. That is a protection... your logo is your assurance of immunity. The Red Crescent is a familiar enough symbol to acheive the same amnesty.... because the Cross and the Crescent are (arguably) THE MOST recognised religious 'icons'.

You start messing with that mix, you start gettin people confused... and some of those people are the people with guns... the ones you don't WANT confused. You just want them not to shoot at you while you do your humanitarian best.

So - if it is about HUMANITARIAN issues - then Israel should 'suck it up' and ride under the Cross or the Crescent... the same as I would have to, if I signed up to ride with the Red Cross.

But - what it SEEMS like, is that Israel is making a political issue here... they are claiming discrimination - but NOWHERE does that article support that assertion.


Other point... imagine for a secong that you own the Coke company.

Somebody comes and asks you if they can sell coke in their ethnic restaurant. You say that's fine. They then inform you that, although they want to sell your beverage, they want to put it in a different can - or maybe they have 'redesigned' the Coke logo to reflect THEIR preferences.

Shouldn't you have the RIGHT to protect YOUR franchise? YOUR logo?

If you then refused that restaurant the right to sell your beverage, is that Racism?

Well, let's analyse that.

If you drive an ambulance, for example, under Red Cross Auspices... you get to fly the Red Cross flag. That is a protection... your logo is your assurance of immunity. The Red Crescent is a familiar enough symbol to acheive the same amnesty.... because the Cross and the Crescent are (arguably) THE MOST recognised religious 'icons'.

You start messing with that mix, you start gettin people confused... and some of those people are the people with guns... the ones you don't WANT confused. You just want them not to shoot at you while you do your humanitarian best.

So - if it is about HUMANITARIAN issues - then Israel should 'suck it up' and ride under the Cross or the Crescent... the same as I would have to, if I signed up to ride with the Red Cross.

But - what it SEEMS like, is that Israel is making a political issue here... they are claiming discrimination - but NOWHERE does that article support that assertion.


Other point... imagine for a secong that you own the Coke company.

Somebody comes and asks you if they can sell coke in their ethnic restaurant. You say that's fine. They then inform you that, although they want to sell your beverage, they want to put it in a different can - or maybe they have 'redesigned' the Coke logo to reflect THEIR preferences.

Shouldn't you have the RIGHT to protect YOUR franchise? YOUR logo?

If you then refused that restaurant the right to sell your beverage, is that Racism?

Saying that a star of david isn't very recognisable is a weak argument.

Saying that a star of david isn't very recognisable is a weak argument.
Recognizable as a symbol of Judaism not of the red cross (also not really associated with disaster relief association)

The red cross would be more worried about people recognizing it as a symbol of relief in a disaster

Okay, no matter how or what you define this discrimination as...

The Red Cross/Crescent won't let the Jewish/Israeli humanitarian aid in the club purely because it's Jewish/Israeli.

Does anyone here think that's fair?


Actually although they didn't mention it in the article I would guess the reason the Red Cross/Red Crescent isn't letting in the red star of david or whatever is because they are pissed about the incident a few months ago where the IDF made a big fuss over a video showing a red crescent member carrying what allegedly was a Qassam rocket. The claim didn't exactly make sense because the man was visibly carrying the metal object with only one hand with great ease and a Qassam rocket weighs like 100 lbs. and cannot be carried with one hand, which supported the man's story that it was a fold out stretcher which made sense because he was an ambulance driver.

By claiming without good facts that the Red Crescent is carrying weapons in their ambulances the IDF is encouraging its trigger-happy soldiers to blow away Red Crescent workers. I am guessing they are holding out until Israel issues a genuine and sincere public to apology to the Red Crescent.

Other than that I think they should allow the Red Star of David into the club.

Recognizable as a symbol of Judaism not of the red cross (also not really associated with disaster relief association)

The red cross would be more worried about people recognizing it as a symbol of relief in a disaster

Actually, the res Star of David is an internationally recognized huminitarian aid symbol that is protected by the Geneva convention. It might not be as recognizable to civilians, but it would be regognizable to professional soldiers and guerillas which is what matters in a conflict zone.

Goddamn it i think the redcross should be aloud to do whatever with the logo cuz its the red CROSS! not the red star of david.

Oh this kid i know pointed out something interesting: How come the jews are persecuted so much through out history? They must be pissing alot of people of.....

That was not meant to be anti-jewish (semetie means 1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples therefore i dont use that term)

Zionists existed before the nazis. Now, you also have to read some history if you care to educate yourself.

If being anti-Israel is not being anti-semite, then that means denying the right to a safe state for jews, and finding them so much cuter when they live in polish ghettoes instead of eating palestinian babies and building walls is also not antisemitic.
That means that denying the right for the one jewish democratic state to exist, but not denying the right for any muslim, christian, buddhist-what-have-you or secular dictature to exist is also not antisemitic.

/going to answer "no state has a right to exist, land should be free" ? piss off. Dissolve your own government first.
//going to answer "jews keep complaining for just about anything and nothing" ? piss off again. Stop calling the city where 9/11 happened "jew york" first.


You know, denying the Palestinians the land they had before the Israeli's came is also anti-semetic?

Since...

Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

Semite is the root, and it's compounded with "anti", which means against whatever the root is.
And from the above quote, you can see that a Semite is "1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples", which means anyone from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Palestine, Lebenon, Syria, as well as decendants of Hebrews.
Thus, the Israeli seizure of Palestinian land is anti-semitic.


Oh, and for the article, I just wanna point something out.
I'm sure they had reasons for what they did, probably listed above.
But would you accecpt the Red Pentacle if a bunch of Wiccans decided to do the same thing? Do you think the Red Cross society would?
Well, I doubt they would, based simply on numbers.
There are less jews in the world then Christians and Muslims, and that means they tend to get more support.

Of course, I don't think numbers should be a good reason for that.

Saying that a star of david isn't very recognisable is a weak argument.

First: Did you do post graduate work in "missing the point"?

Second: I didn't say the star of david isn't recognisable, did I? I said it isn't a recognised symbol of the RED CROSS... and adding more symbols to their list of possible aliases, is adding the risk of confusion.

And, I don't know about you... If I was about to enter a warzone, under an amnesty, to do purely humanitarian work - I really REALLY don't want the guys with guns confused.