Capiche?

A Piece for Peace

Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:12:38 GMT

Some Zionists say that God gave them the land of Palestine.
But apparently God saw there would be problems caused by this and She tried to prevent those problems.

She did this through the prophet Ezekial in Chapter 47, versus 22 and 23:

22: And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.  23: And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord GOD.

If the Zionists had not taken this inheritance away from these strangers, the Palestinians, Israel might have avoided 60 years of war and terrorism.

Also Jesus prophesied that Jerusalem would not see him again until they said, "blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord."

Luke 13, versus 34 and 35

"34": O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!   "35": Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
This one is more difficult to interpret, in my opinion. But it appears to describe an event which has not yet happened. So whatever it means to say blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord, it looks like the Israelis have not done it and they probably should.

Apparently blessing the one who comes in the name of the Lord does not include taking away the inheritance of the Palestinians in a most brutal and bloody way, through the use of terrorist acts committed by Zionist militias. This Zionist terrorism has been documented by Benny Morris, an esteemed historian and Zionist himself.

Apparently blessing the one who comes in the Lord's name does not include the continued building of settlements in the West Bank or the continued bulldozing of Palestinian homes and sometimes bulldozing the Palestinians themselves or sometimes bulldozing American peace protesters like Rachel Corrie.

Apparently it did not include the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure in Lebanon or the election of ArielSharon, the terrorist of Sabra and Shatilla.
Of course the Israelis sent flyers to the Lebanese civilians before they bombed them, warning them that the bombs were coming. Israelis have been getting warnings from the Palestinian terrorists for 60 years. Osama bin Laden warned the United States in 1995 or 1996 by declaring war on us.

There is something the Israelis need to do before they will see Jesus again. Maybe though they don't want to see him again. Maybe blessing the one coming in the Lord's name is not really a good thing.

Maybe the Israelis feel that blessing that one--whoever he/she might be--is tantamount to becoming Christians and they want to remain Jewish.

I don't think it means becoming a Christian because, well, for example, many American Christians appear to pretty much support everything Israel does. So Israeli Jews are pretty much the same as the American Christians already.

So perhaps conversion has already happened. And yet Jesus has not returned to Jerusalem. He has not been seen there again as far as we know.

So religious conversion must not be the same as blessing the one who comes in God's name.

So then what is it?

Hmmmmm?

I really don't know. Sorry. It's one of those mysteries of the Bible.

But if I put the scriptures I quoted before together, what do we come up with?

Ezekial 47, versus 22 and 23 + Luke 13, versus 34 and 35 = ?

I think the sum of this equation is the Palestinians getting their land back, or perhaps, getting paid reparations for their stolen land, their stolen inheritance. While Ezekial 47 refers to the strangers/Palestinians, Luke 13 refers to Jesus and Jesus is all about repentance and repair. Hence, the Israelis must repent by giving back what they have barbarically stolen.

But now you may ask, why do you add those two scriptures together in the first place?

...................................?

Ok, I had to take some time to think about the answer to that. But now I think I've got it.

Both scriptures are about ethnic cleansing. Ezekial has to do with telling the Jews not to ethnically cleanse the strangers among them, a scripture which the Zionists ignored.

The quote from Luke 13 mentions Jesus talking about Jerusalem becoming desolate. This was actually a prophecy. Not long after Jesus was crucified, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and ethnically cleansed the Jews out of Israel. The Romans then renamed Israel, dubbing it Palestine. It was this ethnic cleansing which resulted in the diaspora of the Jews.

And that diaspora eventually resulted in the Holocaust. The Holocaust resulted in the unscriptural ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which the Palestinians refer to as the Tragedy.

It's amazing how all these things fit together. Like a puzzle. Perhaps it would not be too presumptuous of me to say that this article is a small piece in that puzzle. A piece for peace.

Addendum to Commandment 3

Mon, 26 May 2008 18:54:16 GMT

Help the poor to help themselves.

Addendum to Commandment 2

Sun, 25 May 2008 19:53:35 GMT

The oppressed also includes blacks, minorities, people of color, gays, the disabled and people with different religious beliefs. Give them all equal rights.

New Commandments

Sun, 25 May 2008 19:46:59 GMT

New Commandments
Here are some more commandments that we can ignore:

1. Heal the sick. All over the world. Not just America.

2. Free the oppressed. In Tibet, Burma, Palestine, America and all over the world. Free women too. Give them equal rights.

3. Help the poor. All over the world and in America too.

4. Protect the unborn.

5. Take care of the earth. All of God's art.

6. Have mercy on all. Including prisoners and criminals. No more torture or inhumane treatment of any kind. No capital punishment. We are all murderers and criminals. For example, most Americans killed 600,000 Iraqis over a lie.

7. Do justice to all. Including the weak and powerless. Including the victims of crime.

8. Try to be fair. Find the correct balance between mercy and justice.

9. Try to find the correct balance. In all things.

10. Be nonviolent. Violence should be the very last resort. Currently it is not and never has been. Maybe it was a last resort in World War II. But it was the harsh reparations after World War I that eventually led to World War II. Follow the examples of Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Aung Sung Su Chi and Corozone Aquino.

Independence Day?

Wed, 14 May 2008 05:16:22 GMT

Is Israel really independent?

It depends on the United States for $3-5 billion a year. It depends on the vast majority of Jewish voters in New York and Florida to keep getting that money.

Israel's economy depends on it's security and it's security depends on the Palestinians and how angry they feel about the pogrom committed against them in 1948, and the more gradual pogrom against them over the last 60 years.

And the Israelis are dependent upon the hatred exhibited by the Jewish settlers. Polls show that most Israelis want to abandon the settlements if it will bring peace and security. But the settlers are intransigent and apparently they have a lot of influence on the Israeli government since the settlements are not only not decreasing, they are still increasing.

The settlers also are the force behind various Israeli terrorist groups that you don't hear much or anything about in the US corporate media; groups such as Kahane Chai, the Jewish Defense League, Kach and the Committee for Safe Streets.

Israel is very much dependent on our corporate media to keep the American taxpayers ignorant about these terrorist groups, and ignorant about the terrorist groups that were instrumental in the formation of Israel in 1948; terrorist groups such as the Stern Gang and the Irgun. Some would also include the Haganah which was a much larger militia than the Stern and Irgun gangsters.

I believe it was Haganah that planned the bombing and sinking of a boat full of Jewish civilians who were trying to leave Palestine. I guess the terrorists wanted to make the point that ALL Jews need to stick together in Palestine, IN ISRAEL. At that time it was called Palestine.

Apparently there were some leaders in Haganah who were against the bombing of this civilian vessel. But there are also some Muslim terrorists who are against targeting Iraqi civilian collaborators.

In those pre-Israel days, Zionists were dependent on terrorists like these because they did not have US tanks and F-15s as they do now. In fact, to this day, Israel must face the reality that their creation could not have happened without Zionist terrorists. Israel would not be a Jewish state without these terrorists ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from Palestine.

The Israelis are dependent on this negative legacy. They have to cover it up and deny it and rationalize it.

An abuser cannot be trully emotionally independent until he or she makes amends to their victim. The abuser must do this in order to forgive themselves. Until repentence this ugly mark hangs around the neck of the abuser. It creates an inner, self-directed, subconscious hostility that the abuser cannot get free from.

It also creates a negative karma that haunts the abuser. When things go wrong, deep inside the abuser wonders if the negative happening is a result of their negative actions. This self-doubt can cause the abuser to make poor decisions, like Israel's decision to bomb civilians in Lebanon.

Unrepentence inhibits the spiritual growth of an individual and a nation.

But from a less abstract perspective, there are hawks in Israel I suspect who would like to be less dependent on money from America. They realize this money inhibits Israeli policy. For example, if Israel kills too many Palestinian children the money from America might be cut off. Although America does not often tell Israel what to do there have been times when American presidents have stood up to the Israeli lobby. Like when the first and wiser President Bush told Israel to slow down the building of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. And I think Israel had to comply with his wishes, at least to a certain extent.

And now the current, not wise President Bush realizes finally that he needs to make a peace deal between Israel and Palestine if he wants to save his legacy and his failed occupation of Iraq. This puts further contraints on Israel whether they admit it or not.

The Israeli hawks hate this predicament they are in. A state at war has to have a lot of money. And Israel has always been a state in a state of war. And it always will be until it practices the art of repentence, something which does not look very likely at this point.
Which means it will probably never be independent of American taxpayers. It will always be a welfare state. Are welfare recipients independent?

The early Zionists helped bring about the Balfour Declaration which led to the eventual creation of Israel and the theft of Palestinian land. But the intentions of the Zionists were good. They believed Israel would become an independent state, a lighthouse that would show the world that Jews are not evil and in this way end anti-semitism. There was one very wealthy Zionist (whose name I don't recall at this time) who demanded that they put some wording in the declaration that respected the rights of the Palestinians. They did put somethinglike that in there and then the Zionists ignored it once they set foot on Palestinian soil. This one wealthy and righteous Zionist was prophetic. For the terrible way the Zionists have treated the Palestinians has worked against the stated and positive goal of the early Zionists.

Instead of decreasing anti-semitism, the state of Israel--the welfare state of Israel--has actually increased anti-semitism, in my opinion. The one thing that decreased anti-semitism was the Holocaust unfortunately.

A mature and independent people, a grown-up nation, would have used that empathy created by the Holocaust to do good and positive things, to bring good out of evil.

It is my hope that Israel will some day grow up and do just that. I am not holding my breath though.

Bitter/Religion/Guns

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:26:29 GMT

Obama says that small town America hates people who are different. They cling to their guns and religion.

Hmmmmm?

Bit of a generalization there. And even if it is true, was it a wise thing for a presidential candidate to say. I don't think so. I guess we'll see on April 22.

Also, Wikipedia describes Rashid Khalidi as Obama's friend. Obama may even have raised money for Khalidi's charity.

Wikipedia says Khalidi used to work for the Palestine National Authority. So Khalidi may actually have worked for Yassir Arafat.

Khalidi has said a few interesting things too. Like he implied that Ariel Sharon was a terrorist. Or he made both negative and positive comments about Arafat, his supposed former employer.

Khalidi explained that Israel didn't like to talk to Arafat because he was a terrorist.

"But I could say the same about Sharon," said Khalidi.

Indeed, I feel Khalidi is correct but I suspect most American voters would not feel that way, especially those "pro-Israel voters from New York and Florida."

"Pro-Israel voters from New York and Florida" is a quote from Tony McPeek, a foreign policy advisor for Obama. McPeek's statement was "we don't have peace in the Middle East because of those pro-Israel voters from New York and Florida."

I agree with McPeek too but as Mrs. Obama stated, America is basically "ignorant." So most voters would not agree with McPeek, especially those crucial pro-Israel voters.

I agree with McPeek, Mrs. Obama and Khalidi.

But I'm not running for president.

Capiche?

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:19:41 GMT

Perhaps the Son of Man has already come. Perhaps he's still here. Nobody saw him come. Or they saw him but didn't realize it was him.

On 911 the Son of Man came. We didn't recognize him but perhaps that was him.

Why would the Son of Man come that way? Does he not like America?

No, he doesn't, not the way America currently is.

It might also be said that the Son of Man came in the clouds of Katrina. Why did the Son of Man bring so much destruction to us?

Construction cannot happen without destruction.

One might argue that the Son of Man is doing to us what we do to other countries.

New Orleans became a lake of fire literally. But it also has become a fire politically underneath the backside of President Bush. Does the Son of Man not like President Bush?

No, he doesn't.

The Son of Man is doing to Bush what Bush did to Saddam: regime change.

But what about the collateral damage?

Collateral damage does not seem to concern us in Iraq.

The Son of Man goes by the Golden Rule: Do unto America what America does to others.

You don't like that?

Most Iraqis don't like it either.

In Iraq I hear that when we kill the wrong people we allow their loved ones to file for some money, some reparations.

Americans can file their grievances with God. She'll get around to it when she can. Like FEMA.

So we now really do have a New World Order. Not the same one Bush Sr. was talking about.

You cannot bribe your way out of this New World Order. You can't bomb your way out of it. You can't hire a good PR firm to BS your way out of it. A great law firm can't sidestep it either. You can't lie your way out of it like Lewis Libby allegedly tried to do.

But there are four ways you can get on the Son of Man's good side:

1. Help the oppressed. The oppressed would be people like black people in the US, like gays, like women, like Palestinians under the occupation of Israel; and end the occupations of Palestine and Iraq, and pay for whatever damages that resulted from those occupations and from the ending of those occupations.

2. Help the poor. The poor would be like blacks in Africa, and poor whites and blacks in America, and poor Latinos. The Son of Man is not at all impressed with the chump change you've given so far.

3. Help Mother Nature. Like you could sign Kyoto and follow it.

4. Protect the unborn. Make abortion illegal, but pay an adequate amount of welfare to support those babies you force into the world.

If you stick to these four principals you ought to be alright. If not, you better buy some very good hurricane insurance.

And to avoid having to get very good earthquake insurance, elect Hillary to the White House and put the Congress back in the hands of the Dems. Give Dems control of the state governments too.

You got it: the Son of Man doesn't like most Repubs. He does like McCain however.

Does this regime change seem unfair to you? Well, you'll just have to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.

Son of Man bumper sticker: "Vote Dem or Die." Also: "Vote Hillary or Die."

Capiche?

Two Bad Choices

Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:31:04 GMT

There are many troops and their loved ones who hope that the Dem victory means that the troops will be coming home from Iraq soon.

I'm afraid that this is not the case. Iraq is a black hole from which we cannot extract ourselves. I suppose if the oil in the Middle East
would dry up overnight, the troops could come home tomorrow or within a week or two. That's the main reason why we can't leave, I think.
When we leave, the civil war will get much worse and may spread into a regional war which would involve Saudi Arabia and Iran. This could
cause gas prices to go up to $10 a gallon or worse.

I heard Rep. Charlie Rangel on the radio. He is one of the most anti-war congresspersons. But he said that the Dem Congress will not cut
off the funds for the war in Iraq.

I think control of the purse strings is the only leverage Congress has to get the troops home.

Of course, this is discouraging. But who should we blame. Should we blame the cowardly, spineless Dems? I suppose partially.
Should we blame the president who got our loved ones in this position and is only now going through the motions of appearing to get them
out of it? He certainly should get most of the blame since he is the commander in chief. Should we blame Rummy? Yes. So far he is the
only one to be held somewhat accountable by having to resign. Perhaps international courts may someday hold Rummy more accountable but I seriously
doubt it.

In fact, one Repub Senator says the Bush policy in Iraq may even be "criminal."

So is there anyone else to blame?

Yes, the American people. Most Americans are against the war in Iraq NOW, but 70% supported the invasion of Iraq before we went in.
We were certainly misled by the president, his staff and the corporate media on the issue of WMD, but anyone who knows anything about Jesus
and the ten commandments knows that it's wrong to kill. Certainly we should have known that it's wrong to START a war. Certainly we should
have learned from the lesson of Vietnam. Even Pope John Paul II told us "if you go to Iraq, you go without God."

Now most Americans have changed their minds about Iraq because there are Americans in those body bags. If there were only sand blacks
in those bags this war in Iraq would still be popular.

Apparently most Americans are not enough against the Iraq war, otherwise there would be more hope of our loved ones coming home.

The American people are the boss of both the president and the Congress. As long as they sit on the fence, their employees will
do likewise.

I suspect We the People have mixed feelings. We want to get out of Iraq, but we don't want to pay $10 a gallon gas. Also we don't want to
be completely humiliated. We don't want to accept how wrong we were to support the war in Iraq in the first place. We don't want to cut and run.

Withdrawal from Iraq will also give Al Qaeda even more bases in Iraq than they probably already have. This would make it a little
easier for them to attack us perhaps. It would give them more oil to buy weapons.

Our withdrawal from Iraq would help Al Qaeda and Iran. Of course, our occupation of Iraq is helping Al Qaeda and Iran. Bush's CIA says the
occupation of Iraq has increased terrorism. Richard Clarke says the war on Iraq has been a disaster for the war on terror.

I suppose the main concern of the American people is that withdrawal will lead to higher gas prices. I think they know they are
are going to be attacked again by Al Qaeda whether we stay in Iraq or not.

So to have any hope of bringing the troops home we will need to get the Boss--We the People--off the fence.

I think the best way to do that, or the best way to maybe quicken the process, is for the troops, veterans and their loved ones to speak out
publicly against the war in Iraq. I know this is hard to do because of possible retribution by the Pentagon.

Along with speaking out, the war itself will cause Americans to become more and more anti-war every day. The body bags and the
maimings and future terror attacks on American soil and various other related plagues are designed to gradually persuade the American people
that pre-emptive war or preventive war is not an appropriate solution and that the only logical thing to do is to withdraw from Iraq ASAP. The
plagues are meant to show Americans that the lesser of two evils is to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

It is unfortunate that the troops and their loved ones must suffer in order for ignorant Americans to be educated. But once the current
commander in chief ordered troops into Iraq based on a lie, once he crossed the Rubicon, there was no way to avoid an eventual disaster.

The only choice we have left is between two disasters, with one being worse than the other. Perhaps the only thing differentiating
the two alternate disasters is with the lesser disaster there will be fewer American soldiers in body bags and fewer of them maimed.

It is a sad choice. But perhaps in the long term the Boss will learn not to let a commander in chief take war and our beloved troops
so lightly.

Don't Wait for the Check

Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:17:38 GMT

War hero Representative John Murtha provided us with the solution to the moral dilemma of whether to leave Iraq now or later. Eventually we will leave. Eventually we had to leave Nam too. In that case, it is too bad that we didn't leave sooner rather than later.

As the Midas muffler man says in the commercial: "You can pay me now...or you can pay me later."

Murtha gives the best argument I've heard for leaving Iraq now. He was being interviewed on CNN:

"Representative Murtha, the president argues that if we leave Iraq now it will be taken over by Al Qaeda. Do you agree?"

"Well, when have they been right about something? They were wrong about WMD. Then they wanted to spread democracy to Iraq. They were wrong about the number of troops.

"If they were never right before, why would they be correct now about the future of Iraq.

"If--and I emphasize IF--we could have solved these problems in Iraq before, we didn't do it and now it's too late. It's too late for the US to solve these problems. We can't solve them.

"Only the Iraqi people themselves can solve them and make Iraq stable, and eventually they will."

I believe that pretty much closes the debate on when to leave Iraq. We should leave NOW or as soon as logistically possible. Perhaps if we don't leave now our troops will never be able to leave Iraq....ALIVE or UNMAIMED.

In other words, the check is NOT in the mail, so let's quit waiting for it.

Truth Isn't Anti-Semitic

Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:34:47 GMT

Praise Jimmy Carter.

He's the only one telling the truth about Israel and Palestine. Well, the only one in the establishment telling the truth.

And, naturally, the establishment has turned on him. The Dems even had John Conyers attack him in order to distance themselves from Carter's balanced viewpoint.

Neither Dems or Repubs have the spine to say anything even remotely critical of Israel.

The title of Carter's book says it all: "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."

Once the pro-Israeli forces get over themselves and the fact that anyone had the audacity to tell the truth, once they stop implying that Carter is anti-semitic, once they have to accept Carter's freedom and democracy, they will then try to refute what he said instead of saying he should not have said it.

I suppose when that time comes, if it comes, the pro-Israeli forces will say that Israel is not apartheid, that they even allow their Arab minority citizens to vote, something blacks in South Africa were not allowed to do under white rule.

Of course, one reason blacks in South Africa were not allowed to vote is because they were the majority. Israel can allow their minority Arabs to vote because they are the minority. Indeed, Israel ensures they continue to be a minority by not allowing Palestinian refugees to have their land back. This was the land that the Zionist terrorists brutally stole from the Palestinians, according to Benny Morris, a Zionist historian.

Another Zionist, Ami Isseroff, describes this brutality: At Deir Yassin, members of the Stern Gang and Irgun, Jewish terrorists, executed their prisoners and shot and killed old men, women and children at close range. Their purpose was to create terror among the Palestinian villages and a mass exodus which would transform Jews from the minority to the majority in Palestine. And Deir Yassin and many other such massacres and terrorist attacks did make this transformation/pogrom a success.

Perhaps the Jewish terrorists had learned how to do such pogroms from the Europeans who did it to them.

The Palestinians refer to this pogrom as "The Tragedy" or Al Nakba.

Over and over again the US corporate media tells us about the Holocaust. But they have never told us about the Tragedy.

Indeed the Tragedy continues to this very day with implementation of apartheid by the Israeli state.

Not only are Palestinian refugees not allowed to return to their land in Israel, but they are not even allowed to return to the Palestine territory, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinians fight back and seek justice the only way they can, with the only weapon they have, themselves. Suicide bombers.

On the rare occasion when a suicide bomber strikes Israel, the US corporate media dramatizes it. But Israeli soldiers are killing Palestinian civilians and militants quite frequently and this does not seem to get the same kind of dramatic coverage from our corporate media. I think that is because it's only sand blacks who are being killed.

Of course, the Palestinians also have those rockets that can barely hit the side of a barn it seems. It seems as if very few Israelis have been killed or maimed by these futile rocket attacks. But that is all the Palestinians have to fight back with; rockets and their own bodies.

Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers hide in their tanks, choppers and F-16s, killing Palestinian civilians and militants in abundance with relatively no risk to themselves.

But our corporate media says that the Palestinians are the terrorists.

I don't think Israelis are tortured legally in Israeli prisons as are Palestinians. The Israelis are only supposed to torture "ticking time bombs." But I hear that in practice this barbarism extends even to illegal Palestinian immigrants who were just trying to find jobs in Israel. I heard this from an Israeli soldier on the net who now identifies himself as one of those soldiers protesting the occupation of Palestine. Hence, the prison system of Israel is also part of this apartheid system.

Another form of apartheid is the Israeli land purchase system: the Jewish state owns 92% of Israel's land and sells it to no one. I think they lease it but they don't sell it.

Hence, the Jewish people control 92% of the land. I'm sure the Israelis would never allow their Arab citizens to control 92% of Israel's land. This is how Israel codifies their apartheid. But they tell the world that neither Arabs or Jews can buy 92% of the land. This makes them sound fair and equitable and not like an apartheid state, even though they are an apartheid state.

The reason for this farcical public relations is because America gives Israel $3 to $5 billion a year and they don't want us to feel too guilty about giving so much cash to an apartheid state.

Indeed, when apartheid was the law in South Africa, Israel was one of the few countries which had good relations with South Africa. South Africa's racist separation did not pose any problems for the moral conscience of apartheid Israel.

The theft of Palestinian land continues to this day with the building of settlements, roads to those settlements, military checkpoints on those roads and to protect those settlements, and the brutality of the Israeli army/terrorists.

I don't think Jewish citizens of Israel have to worry about their land being gobbled up by Israeli policies like the ones I just mentioned.

President Carter also points out that the Israelis' wall-fence has been built totally on Palestinian land and only separates Palestinians from Palestinians. That wall was not used to gobble up Jewish homes or land and it was not used to separate Jews from Jews. There is also some question as to whether that wall-fence will provide Israelis with the security it was supposedly built for.

There is also some question as to whether the Israeli army goes after Jewish terrorists the same way it goes after Palestinian terrorists. I don't recall the Israeli army killing Jewish civilians while going after Jewish terrorists like Kahane Chai, Gush Emunim, the Jewish Defense League and the Committee for Safe Streets.

I saw one film by an Egyptian woman where an Israeli tank fired a shell into a Palestinian apartment building. I don't know for sure but it appeared as if the tank did this without provocation in broad daylight. I surely have never seen an Israeli tank fire a shell into an apartment building full of Jews.

In the same film I saw a Jewish sniper firing ostensibly at Palestinian civilians. The Israeli army then didn't seek to protect the Palestinian civilians by blowing up the sniper's entire neighborhood. Again, different solutions for different civilians, apartheid.

The Egyptian woman's film also had her telling us about an incident. She didn't film the actual event because it took place years ago:

A young, foolish Palestinian teenager decided to refuse to let Israeli soldiers into his family's home. The Israeli soldiers did not take kindly to this and decided to punish the teenager for his insolence by beating him so badly that he no longer can have children.

The main point of the Egyptian woman's film was not political. It was about a Palestinian man living in America who decided to go back to Palestine to get a wife. He then brought his new bride with him backto America.

The man was that teenager beaten by the Israeli soldiers. His new wife knew that he could not have children but she still married him. I think the man was 45 at the time of the film.

Anyway, my point is that I don't think the Israeli soldiers would similarly punish a Jewish teenager. In fact, you had young Jews dropping what may have been acid on Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip. But it looked as if the Israeli soldiers maintained their professionalism throughout that entire affair. I don't think they used excessive force, beating Jewish teenagers into impedance. So this would be another demonstration of apartheid.

Anyway, this all adds up to the fact that saying Israel is apartheid is not anti-semitic. It is the truth.

The truth is not anti-semitic.