Protocols is clearly beloved of anti-Semites and an anti-semitic piece of work (duh!?) - and I've always maintained that I don't agree with the conspiracy theorists that say it is a genuine document.
Thanks for clarifying,
You're welcome.
A quote from the convenant of Hamas for exmplae:
Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.
Well, they'll have to back up their views with concrete examples of what particular actions match what is written in the fictional Protocols.
I don't think it works both ways - when Israel carries out crimes/actions that bear some resemblance to what is in the Protocols, it does not make the actions 'fictional' because it is predicted in the Protocols. I'd also ask who the 'they' is in this quote - if it is 'Zionists', then the label 'anti-Zionist' applies definitely.
[
No. 1 Hezbollah isn't anti-Semitic because they don't hate Judaism, just fight against Israeli agression (and have won their military engagements/objectives in previous encounters). Ergo, photos of their salute show that those who give the salute aren't necessarily anti-Semitic - your theory has therefore been disproven by empirical evidence.
Yes, like I said, you donot consider a nazi salute anti-semitic.
Well, when someone who is not anti-Semitic gives a roman salute - I say it refutes your argument that all who give the salute are anti-Semitic. You've expressed a belief that can be tested, I've tested it and I've rejected it based on the findings.
Simple principle - if a belief can be tested empirically, then we should test it. If experiment shows the belief is wrong - reject the belief.
I've no issue with people expressing their beliefs - and you have a cherished belief that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic, I have just checked out the evidence and reached a different conclusion.
[
No 2. Saying that the Holocaust occured, was carried out by the Nazis but was contributed to by secular Nazis is an interesting point of view, but no I don't agree with you that this is tantamount to 'denial' of the Holocaust.
I am sorry, no idea what you are saying here.
You called Weiss a 'Holocaust Denier' - yet he is a relgious Jew whose grandparents were killed in Auschwitz and who says clearly that the Nazis did indeed commit the Holocaust. Yet, just because he attributes some blame for the Nazi actions on Zionists - he now becomes magically transformed into a 'denier'.
I don't agree with this definition.
The natural conclusion is that I also don't agree that someone who has this belief is an anti-Semite - he doesn't deny that Jews were killed by Nazis and he's clearly a Jew himself. I don't therefore agree with you that he is an anti-Semite BECAUSE he thinks Zionists aided the Nazis. (He may well be a religous nutter, but I wouldn't call him a jew-hating jew)
[
At the end of the day, you have re-defined 'Holocaust Denial' and 'anti-Semitism' to include people who criticise Israel (the state) or Zionism (the secular philosophy) but don't deny that the Holocaust happened when Nazis killed Jews and they DON'T hate Jews, but hate Zionism.
No, I donot include who critize Israel and Zionism as holocaust deniers.
You have made a very good impression of a person who does. In fact, your defintions seem to have been designed specifically to include those who criticise Israel and yet aren't anti-Judaism.
But, I'd rather not label you - I'll let your explanations of your beliefs stand for themselves.
Cheers,
Shafique