Darth Wong's Israel bashing

[C.S.Strowbridge]

This posts are getting long and I've got RL to attend to, (school work I put off during the holidays and such.)

Do you want to take this to One on One debate at the end of January? I should be done my final by then and could put more time into it. See if you could get me in an Imperial Smackdown (tm)?

[Darth Wong]

OK, forget every other point and just answer me on the LAW OF RETURN, then. "Jew" has two definitions: a race and a religion. If there is no such thing as a Jewish race, then explain the LAW OF RETURN. Somehow try to do this without admitting that Israel is racist.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Justify this claim. How does a person who converts to Judaism tomorrow have a "common history" with every other Jew?

They all have a connection to a man called Abraham. It's not much, but that's cause Jews are a diverse group.

For the second time, shared ancestry is just a code-word for race.

Not shared ancestory, shared history. No genetics involved.

Yes, it would be racist to assume Africans have dark skin, unless Egypt, Lybia, etc. just got voted out of Africa.

Their skin is not dark? Odd, it looks dark. Are there Europeans with darker skin than some of the lighter-skinned Africans? Yes. Does this change the fact that Africans generally have darker skin than Europeans? No. Is it racist to point this out? No; you are over-defining racism in order to suit your purposes.

Generalities are one thing, assuming those generalities apply to all is racism. Or agism, sexism, etc. depending on the groups in question.

No one is generalizing based on the label;

You do when you say Jews = Judaism.

No, I say that Jews can either subscribe to the Jewish religion or belong to the Jewish race. What part of this are you too stupid to understand even after many repetitions?

There isn't a Jewish religion any more than there's a American Religion. And when you judge Jews based on Judaism it's wrong.

Your alternate definition is completely butchered by the existence of the Israeli "Law of Return" as well as the possibility of membership on purely religious grounds.

And mariage, ancestory, place or resedence during 1948. Little more complex than just religion.

And if you get married to a Jew you become a Jew. That's not how white supremists view things.

And the Israelis are not happy about that provision being used to allow Palestinians to gain citizenship. Click here.

Sounds an aweful lot like Green Card mariages. Same checks happen here.

Two other points from that article.

1.) Less than half of the Jews immigrating into Israel follow Judaism.
2.) Those Jews that worry about the lack of 'real Jews' are racist. I have no problem with calling them that.

Moreover, the point remains that in the Occupied Territories, your ancestry determines your rights. That is racist. Deal with it.

It has less to do with your ancestory than it has with mordern day acts. People within Israel who share the same ancestory are not treated the same. Not racist, but political.

BEING JEWISH != FOLLOWING JUDAISM!

No, that is one of two definitions of "Jewish". Why do you find this so goddamned incomprehensible?

Being Albertan = Being Canadain.
You are Canadian.
Therefore, you are Albertan.

I said it before; you insist that a term with two definitions is nullified if neither definition is all-inclusive; this is simply moronic.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that cause neither term is all-inclusive, that they should not be treated as all-inclusive.

Jew != Judaism.
Jews are not a race.

More feeble strawman claims. Any group which allows automatic membership based on distant ancestry is racial. Deal with it.

So being British is Racial?

My wife does not get automatic British citizenship for having British ancestry. There is no British Law of Return, unlike the Israeli Jewish Law of Return, which guarantees automatic citizenship for anyone of Jewish ancestry.

Jew != Israeli

yet people like you refuse to admit that Israel is just as racist for having its "Law of Return",

No, it's not racist. Cause it's not based on race. It is discriminatory and wrong.

particularly when Palestinians who have lived in Israeli-held "Occupited Territory" for their entire lives have no hope of citizenship,

That has less to do with race than with the Political Limbo that Palestine has been in since it was first sort of formed. Was Palestine ever a country?

and the government even wants to close the marriage "loophole".

First off all, they don't want to close it, but they are setting up a intelligence division to do background checks on applicants. I'm sure that happens here, but for less of a security reason.

Secondly, they found someone who may or may not have used this 'loophole' to carry out a suicide bombing. (He had ID, and that was motivation for the crackdown but there was no mention of how he got it.)

Racial means physical characteristics that seperate memembers of one race from another. ... So I guess the British are a seperate race, you know, with the teeth and all.

No, "racial" is an ancestral condition. Physical differences are easily blurred; for example, my eyelids have a Caucasian structure rather than an Asian structure (there's a difference), yet I don't get upset when someone says I'm of Asian descent. Race has to do with ancestry.

No, ancestry has to do with ancestry.

Race: a human population sharing certain common hereditary physical features.

Now, if you ancestry has common hereditary physical features, then it is also a race. (White, Black, Asian, etc.) If it doesn't (British, German, etc.) then it is not a race.

Except you can't change your ethnicity, you can become Jewish.

Of course, since "Jewish" can also refer to their religion. How many times do I have to say this? How does it justify racial apartheid in the Occupied Territories?

It's not racial.
Arabs are treated differently by Israelis based more on political boundries than race.

Arabs in Palestine aren't treated the same as Israeli settlers. And Israeli settlers don't blow up Israeli buses and cafes. So that's not surprising.

Actually, yes. I believe your hatred of religion is so great (and completely valid) that you see the religious aspect to this debate and stop there. You don't dig deeper to see if there's more to it than that.

Name one post in which I said that religion was the sole and entire cause of the problem.

Did you or did you not say that Religion is the only way to explain the location of Israel?

Races are sub-groups defined by ancestry, and the Jews are defined as such in the Israeli "Law of Return".

Race is defined by genetics. Ethniticity can be defined by:

Common ancestry
Common geography
Common culture
Common language
Common religion
Common just about anything.

BTW, just to emphasize, I feel the Law of Return is discriminary.

If you think that's racist, THEN BLAME THE FUCKING ISRAELIS, NOT ME. My whole fucking point is that Israel is racist for giving Jews special rights in the Occupied Territories, and it doesn't fucking matter how you dance around this point.

Cause they are considered Israeli Citizens, while the Arabs living there are not. They are considered Israeli citizens cause they were either Israeli citizens who moved there or born of Israeli citizens.

Except you can be Jewish and be any race, and you can be Jewish and follow any Religion. That's a pretty wide definition of race and religion.

What part of "term with two definitions" are you too dense to understand?

The part where you use either one as all-inclusive when they are clearly not.

That long-winded diatribe proved that your definition of Race included American. So American isn't a nationality any more, but a race.

No it doesn't, since there is no "American" religion except for guns, and no common ancestry. Anyone born in American territory is an American citizen. But people born in Israel's Occupied Territories are not automatically Israelis.

That's cause it's not Israel. It's more like an Israeli Colony than part of Israel. Also, Since the majority don't want to be part of Israel, it seems silly to grant them citizenship.

Your endless strawman distortions are obvious and pathetic. Should I start calling you "Strawbridge?"

No, come up with something wittier.

Sure, first I prove there is no aparthied. Apartheid is defined as racial segregation. Since being Jewish is not a Race and Arabs (who should not be defined as a race either) are not segregated in Israel then an aparthied does not exist. No racial segregation means no aparthied. There is segregation, but it's not based on race.

More shell-games. I said "occupied territories", you rebutted by replacing that with "Israel", which is your buzzword for "the geographical portions of Israeli territory in which the racial apartheid policy is not maintained for reasons of maintaining public appearances".

While you say it's a PR move, you offer no proof. You just hope I'll ignore the other possible causes or the lack of rights, like the hundred of deas Israelis.

Then why are the Palestinians being treated the way they are if not race? Perhaps it's Religion? Well, no. Since there are Muslims (and Christians) in Isreal, and neither Israel of Palestine follow religious laws. So that can't be it either. That is not to say Religion doesn't play a role, it does. But it can't be the defining reason.

Right, so people are fighting over the "holy sites" in Jerusalem for no particular reason

Did you not read the last sentence?

"That is not to say Religion doesn't play a role, it does. But it can't be the defining reason."

So maybe it has to do with the hundreds of dead Jews killed in riots from 1919 to 1939. Or maybe it has something to do with the hundred of dead Jews killed in suicide bombing in less than a decade. Or maybe it has something to do with oil. Or maybe I'm just being cynical with that last one.

Cart before the horse; those Jews (and Arabs) were killed for something; you can't simply say that the reason for the killing was the killing.

I'm not. I'm saying the Arabs were killing Jews cause they are a convienent scapegoat (and have been for centuries in many, many places.) Arabs continue killing Jews cause the people in power need to blame the Jews to stay in power.

The Jews kill the Arabs mostly out of retaliation. And the occasional fuckwits like Dr. Goldstein.

1.) Being Jewish doesn't not mean following Judaism anymore than being American means being Christian.

It is one of two definitions.

Folloing Judaism means you are Jewish.
Being Jewish doesn't mean you follow Judaism.

Being Albertan mean you are Canadian.
Being Canadian doesn't mean you are Albertan.

And you would never say someone's nationality is Albertan.

2.) Being Jewish isn't part of a seperate race any more than being American is part of a seperate race.

Then explain the Israeli "Law of Return".

Do you want me to explain why it's discriminatory or why it's in place?

3.) When someone says they are Jewish you can't assume anything about their Race, Religion, etc. For example, I'm not Jewish, I don't know any Jews in my family. However, Religiously speaking I have more in common with Woody Allen then I do with my own fucking Parents.

You can assume that they are either Jewish by family or by religion. Your atempt to distort Boolean "OR" into "AND" is not my problem, Strawbridge.

And you treating either one as all-inclusive isn't mine.

4.) While the common history of the Jews can be absolutely tiny, it is stronger than Religion ties between Judaism and Atheism.

"Common history" being a codeword for ancestry, ie- race.

Except you can become Jewish and you can stop being Jewish. It' more of a culture than a race. And culture has nothing to do with genetics.

5.) Really, it would be more proper to call pre-1948 Jews a Nationality without a Nation. Now, it's more of a common culture, but there's too much variation within the, 'Jewish Culture' for that too be true as well.

A "nationality" defined by ancestry, which is yet another code-word for race.

You're fucking joking. Canadian is a nationality, it's not a fucking race.

Nationality has to do with what nation you associate with, not what race.

My Nationality is Canadian, my ancestry is Viking, and my race is White.

6.) The location of Israel is based on many factors, Religion being one of them. Historical claims is another, and since there have always been Jews in the area, it's not a 2000 year old claim but a continuous claim.

Living in the area as a minority and having control of it are two different things. It is a two thousand year old land claim.

They've always claimed it was theirs, and they've always had people there. And they started to repopulate it more than a century ago.

Also, by 1948, there was a significant population of Jews in the area.

Less than 10%.

What area are you refering to?

And most other areas with large Jewish population were less than hospitable to the Jews, so there was going to be a fight no matter what.

Right, so you might as well choose the worst one

I think Germany was a little harsher to the Jews than the Middle East.

So it's better to choose an area where they had some connection and a less trained opponent.

And this "connection" is religious.

And history. It's the one place on Earth where there have been Jews since there have been Jews. (Archeaologists don't believe the whole exodus story. That was invented later on.)

I have challenged you repeatedly to explain Jerusalem.

That particular site is largely religious, partly cultural and historical. But right now, I'd say it's mostly political. Neither side can give it up without looking like they caved.

Three words, Strawbridge: LAW OF RETURN. Explain this and then get back to me.

It's a discriminatory policy based on false assumptions. It's also not the only way to get Israeli citizenship. Close, but not quite.

[Darth Wong]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Endless repetition of strawman distortions and evasion tactics, I've had it. Answer me this, sophistic hatfucker: if you insist that it is impossible for any discrimination involving Jews and Arabs to be racial because "there is no Jewish race", then by your assclown logic, the Jewish Holocaust in WW2 was not racist either. Is that what you believe?

And if Israel's formation was not religiously motivated, explain the shocking coincidence that they just HAPPENED to choose the precise borders of their Biblical lands for their desired territories. You are taking a tribal religion which IS a form of primitive "history" and saying that it's history rather than religion, hence it is not religious. More sophistry.

If you answer nothing else, answer the two above points.

For the second time, shared ancestry is just a code-word for race.

Not shared ancestory, shared history. No genetics involved.

Bullshit. Tell that to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories whose shared history with the Israelis avails them nothing, gets them no rights, and doesn't even allow them full access to drinking water.

Generalities are one thing, assuming those generalities apply to all is racism. Or agism, sexism, etc. depending on the groups in question.

Where did I make any statements about physical characteristics of "all" Jews, Strawbridge?

There isn't a Jewish religion any more than there's a American Religion. And when you judge Jews based on Judaism it's wrong.

More straw. I'm judging Israelis based on Israeli government actions, for which its citizens are responsible in a democracy.

And mariage, ancestory, place or resedence during 1948. Little more complex than just religion.

Doesn't change the fact that their intense need to control Jerusalem is obviously religious. There is no other special reason to hang onto that place other than religion. You can ignore this point a thousand times, I'll keep bringing it up.

Sounds an aweful lot like Green Card mariages. Same checks happen here.

Except that if your great grandfather was a Canadian and you've been living in Yugoslavia for the last three generations, you can't waltz into Canada and get automatic citizenship. That was why the "Right of Blood" in Germany was declared racist and abolished, and that is why the "Law of Return" in Israel is racist, even though they refuse to abolish it.

1.) Less than half of the Jews immigrating into Israel follow Judaism.

How do they know that they are Jews, if not shared ancestry?

2.) Those Jews that worry about the lack of 'real Jews' are racist. I have no problem with calling them that.

Then you should have no problem with my criticism of Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, yet you do.

Moreover, the point remains that in the Occupied Territories, your ancestry determines your rights. That is racist. Deal with it.

It has less to do with your ancestory than it has with mordern day acts. People within Israel who share the same ancestory are not treated the same. Not racist, but political.

Bullshit; do the Israelis inquire about the political leanings of a man they decide to hold at gunpoint at one of their checkpoints before they humiliate him and destroy his cargo (hence livelihood) for fun? You can deny Israeli racism all you like, and you can put different labels on it if you like (eg- nationalism), but you could have done the same goddamned thing with the Nazis. It doesn't change the fact that the end-effect of all this bullshit is to tie rights to ancestry in the Occupied Territories.

BEING JEWISH != FOLLOWING JUDAISM!

No, that is one of two definitions of "Jewish". Why do you find this so goddamned incomprehensible?

Being Albertan = Being Canadain.
You are Canadian.
Therefore, you are Albertan.

More straw. As I said before, you confuse "OR" with "AND", and you're obviously too stupid to recognize that my earlier post pre-emptively refuted this strawman before you even posted it.

<snip more repetitions of idiotic strawman argument that I think a Jew must be both ethnic and religious Jew instead of EITHER ethnic OR religious Jew>

yet people like you refuse to admit that Israel is just as racist for having its "Law of Return",

No, it's not racist. Cause it's not based on race. It is discriminatory and wrong.

You have defined race to mean nothing. Even a profoundly racist law like Israel's "Law of Return" is not "based on race" according to you, even though it is explicitly defined by ancestral origins. Thanks for proving my point; you will say anything to avoid admitting that Israel is a racist state. In effect, you have made it impossible to define ANY group as a race, even for the purpose of identifying racism. Does this mean it was not racist for the Nazis to slaughter the Jews in WW2 because the Jews are not a race?

That has less to do with race than with the Political Limbo that Palestine has been in since it was first sort of formed. Was Palestine ever a country?

Irrelevant. Today, people in the Occupied Territories have their rights defined by their ancestry. That is racist, despite all of your pathetic evasion attempts.

First off all, they don't want to close it, but they are setting up a intelligence division to do background checks on applicants. I'm sure that happens here, but for less of a security reason.

Secondly, they found someone who may or may not have used this 'loophole' to carry out a suicide bombing. (He had ID, and that was motivation for the crackdown but there was no mention of how he got it.)

But according to you, Arabs aren't a race, so there's no reason to cast particular suspicion on any ethnicity just because of what this guy did.

Race: a human population sharing certain common hereditary physical features.

According to Merriam-Webster:

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

Sorry, but the Jews are a race. Stop fucking evading the point. Israel discriminates against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Your pathetic rebuttal is to say that Palestinians do not technically exist as a race, so it is impossible to be racist against them. Do you realize what a pathetic, nitpicking assclown you make yourself look like with this argument?

<snip more repetition>

Arabs in Palestine aren't treated the same as Israeli settlers. And Israeli settlers don't blow up Israeli buses and cafes. So that's not surprising.

Ah, so they are being held responsible for the actions of others who happen to share their ethnicity. And you think this is OK. Gotcha. You and David Duke should get along; his attitudes on blacks and crime would fit right in with your attitudes on Arabs and terrorism.

Name one post in which I said that religion was the sole and entire cause of the problem.

Did you or did you not say that Religion is the only way to explain the location of Israel?

Yes. However, I was not aware that the choice of location was the entirety of the problems they're having now. The ruthless treatment of Arabs in the last 50 years may have also been a tiny contributing factor, Mr. Smart-ass

Race is defined by genetics.

You just said that race is NOT defined by ancestry, now you say it's defined by genetics? How much do you know about human biology, Strawbridge?

BTW, just to emphasize, I feel the Law of Return is discriminary.

But not racist, since you have defined "race" so narrowly that nobody in the world belongs to any race. All to avoid admitting that Israel is racist.

Cause they are considered Israeli Citizens, while the Arabs living there are not.

That's the whole fucking point! They're not considered citizens even though they were born in Israeli territory! THAT'S RACIST!!

The part where you use either one as all-inclusive when they are clearly not.

More straw, Strawbridge.

No it doesn't, since there is no "American" religion except for guns, and no common ancestry. Anyone born in American territory is an American citizen. But people born in Israel's Occupied Territories are not automatically Israelis.

That's cause it's not Israel. It's more like an Israeli Colony than part of Israel. Also, Since the majority don't want to be part of Israel, it seems silly to grant them citizenship.

Right, that's why there's this wave of Palestinians trying to get Israeli citizenship and the government is trying to crack down on it And thanks for confirming my expectations that you would try to act as though Israel is not responsible for the apartheid policies of the Occupied Territories. This "colony" defense is the most absurd yet; if Israel is a colonialist power now, it is still responsible for the way it treats its colonies.

While you say it's a PR move, you offer no proof. You just hope I'll ignore the other possible causes or the lack of rights, like the hundred of deas Israelis.

"Causes?" So if a person of Arab descent does something bad, it's OK to discriminate against his race? Nice thinking; again, I think you should really talk to David Duke so you can share your ideas about how it's OK to discriminate against a race if a lot of people who happen to belong to that race commit violence; it would play perfectly into his vision of punishing all blacks for the actions of the few.

Right, so people are fighting over the "holy sites" in Jerusalem for no particular reason

Did you not read the last sentence?

"That is not to say Religion doesn't play a role, it does. But it can't be the defining reason."

Then give another reason to put such value on Jerusalem. If it isn't the defining reason, you'd better provide the defining reason.

I'm not. I'm saying the Arabs were killing Jews cause they are a convienent scapegoat (and have been for centuries in many, many places.) Arabs continue killing Jews cause the people in power need to blame the Jews to stay in power.

Ah, of course, there's no other conceivable reason why Palestinians would hate Israelis after the last 50 years

The Jews kill the Arabs mostly out of retaliation. And the occasional fuckwits like Dr. Goldstein.

You're amazing; you're so completely one-sided that I'm surprised you can walk straight. I have no problem admitting that Palestinian terrorism is wrong, but you justify every incident of Israeli state terror with knee-jerk rationalizations, feeble evasions, and pure sophistry like your pathetic claim that it's impossible to discriminate against ethnic Palestinians because they don't exist.

Folloing Judaism means you are Jewish.
Being Jewish doesn't mean you follow Judaism.

Being Albertan mean you are Canadian.
Being Canadian doesn't mean you are Albertan.

You love repetition, don't you? Were you born under a fucking stupid star or something? Following Judaism is one way to be considered Jewish. Being Jewish by descent is another way to be considered Jewish. The two groups are not 100% coincident, therefore membership in one does not necessarily mean membership in another. Must I break out the mathematical concept of subsets in order to explain to you how fucking idiotic you are being?

Then explain the Israeli "Law of Return".

Do you want me to explain why it's discriminatory or why it's in place?

Explain how it can be regarded as a non-racist law when it defines specific privileges enjoyed by a particular race. And stop bullshitting on the definition of race; either buy a dictionary or go to http://www.m-w.com before you waste any more time trying to change the meaning of the word.

You can assume that they are either Jewish by family or by religion. Your atempt to distort Boolean "OR" into "AND" is not my problem, Strawbridge.

And you treating either one as all-inclusive isn't mine.

Read the sentence again, Strawbridge. Do you know what "OR" means?

Except you can become Jewish and you can stop being Jewish. It' more of a culture than a race. And culture has nothing to do with genetics.

Actually, according to the Law of Return, it is impossible for an ethnic Jew to stop being Jewish. And since we are discussing Israeli racism, your attempts to claim that the very recognition of Jews as a race is racist would merely reinforce my claim that the state of Israel is, in fact, racist.

A "nationality" defined by ancestry, which is yet another code-word for race.

You're fucking joking. Canadian is a nationality, it's not a fucking race.

Read the sentence again, dumb-ass. I said "defined by ancestry". "Canadian" is not defined by ancestry; it is defined by geography, as in birthplace.

Living in the area as a minority and having control of it are two different things. It is a two thousand year old land claim.

They've always claimed it was theirs, and they've always had people there. And they started to repopulate it more than a century ago.

Yes, they've CLAIMED it was theirs for two thousand years. Doesn't mean it actually was, and a legitimate land claim is not based on what you think you deserve.

I think Germany was a little harsher to the Jews than the Middle East.

Of course it was. It was also smashed into rubble, and was in no condition to contest them. And what about all of the other options I mentioned?

And history. It's the one place on Earth where there have been Jews since there have been Jews. (Archeaologists don't believe the whole exodus story. That was invented later on.)

I reiterate: ancient land claim. And you are deliberately taking a tribal religion which is largely a form of shared history and pretending that it is NOT religion; it is history. Sorry, but Judaism is the Jewish society's way of preserving its ancient beliefs and history; to separate the history of Judaism from the religion of Judaism is mere sophistry on your part, as they are intimately connected.

That particular site is largely religious, partly cultural and historical. But right now, I'd say it's mostly political. Neither side can give it up without looking like they caved.

And all of the religious wackos who think it's so damned important don't exist, right?

In summary:

1. You define race so narrowly that by your logic, the Nazi Holocaust was not racist.
2. You take religiously motivated actions and decide that because there are all manner of political and cultural ramifications, they are not religious after all, and any religious connections are mere coincidence or at most, insignificant minor issues.
3. You treat the occupied territories as if Israel is not responsible for their conduct there.
4. You excuse racial discrimination on the basis of the laughable notion that it's impossible for the Israelis to be racist if you don't recognize the victims of their discrimination as a race.
5. You excuse all Israeli treatment of Palestinians by saying that "they" are terrorists, while simultaneously screaming that by merely recognizing them as a race, I am engaging in racist "generalizations" (the irony of this probably escapes you).
6. You act as though there was literally no other place on Earth easier to colonize than that particular piece of land, and as proof, you offer up Germany, as if the Nazis were still in control and no other possibility existed. Do you believe no one will see through that?
7. You ignore the dictionary definition of "race"
8. You do not understand simple set/subset logic. If A and B are both subsets of C, you assume that A=B=C

Frankly, I don't know how you can manage to maintain this mountain of bullshit in your head without an aneurysm.

[tharkûn]

Tharkun, you have failed to show why Palestine was a good choice.
Again I ask where else do you have:
1. A large prexisting Jewish community?
2. Where else do you have the backing of a world power?
3. Where else do you have ease of transportation?

Bloody go through the motions of the zionist congresses, Palestine was NOT the only choice it was thought to be better for numerous reasons, of which religion is only a minor part.

You have failed to explain why they were so gung-ho to seize control of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem has been Jewish majority since before WWI.

These decisions make perfect sense in light of religious fanaticism, but no sense without it.
I never said there was NO religious fantacism, however the driving force behind Israel is 1890's - 1920's politics. There was nowhere else in 1890 that would be less brutal. North America was already claimed, partitioned, and Jewish efforts to establish a homeland there failed. Africa had a history of violence with settlement. Asia had wonderful wars over colonialism and the Pacific is utterly unrealistic. South America was promising (which is why it was the Herzl's first choice, but we won't let little details like that intrude), but again zionistic efforts met with dismal failure. Hell bloody read Herzl, not only did the founder of Modern Zionism advocate settling in Uganda ... at one point he advocated that all Jews "convert" to Catholicism for the material benifits.

Straight up the religious fanatics of the 19th century century OPPOSED zionism and settlement in Palestine. Agudath Israel was a collection of observant Jews lead by highly religious who ADAMENTLY opposed zionism and the creation of a Jewish state. Some even nicer fundies, Neturei Karta, decided that Agudath was not working hard enough against the secular zionists; they rallied around Rabbi Amram Blau and fought zionism on the grounds that is was "infamy and blasphemy" for establishing Israel before the coming of the Messiah.

Go read arguements from the time the decision was made. The religious fanatics OPPOSED the establishment of Israel. The proponents were secular, minimally religious, or outright antireligious.

There is direct evidence stating that the religious fanatics opposed zionism. There is direct evidence stating that the zionists were not fixated upon Palestine. There is some nebulous theory that:
a. Palestine was a bad choice to try to settle (in 1890).
b. The only reason such choice would be made is religion.

Sorry I'll take direct evidence over some tenious connection.

Coyote provided numerous examples of the hostility toward Israelis in that area even before the nation was formed, and you have referenced that yourself (funny how that information mysteriously evapourates from your brain when you want to "prove" that the choice of that particular piece of geography has nothing to do with religion).
Sigh Mike read the frikking dates. The decision to settle Israel was made in the 1890's. AT THAT TIME there was minimal anti-Jewish activities. Yes there was discrimination against Jews, yes they had to pay more for their land, etc. all of that was NOTHING in comparison to single pogrom. Weigh that against the Dreyfus affair and other signs of emerging European anti-semitism and it is NOTHING.

Arab hostility to Jews doesn't begin in earnest till Balfour in 1917. After that a steady escalation in Arab discontent and hostility is witnessed.

But of course, I'm the one being unreasonable, right? They just coincidentally chose that particular piece of land out of all the lands on Earth, with no religious motivation whatsoever. There's no connection at all, and anyone who notices this odd coincidence of religious history and geographical choice is just making things up, right?
No it was chosen because there was a large Jewish community already present. It was chosen because the Ottomans had been very accomodating to Jews through the past century (Montfoiry having notable success). Thus some jews began settling in Palestine in the 19th century. When Balfour rolls around the Palestine project gets the stamp of approval from the world's reigning power (or at least the second greatest power). The religious connection is a HISTORICAL one. Yes some religious people had religious motives, these are the extreme minority. Numerous ardent atheists supported a Jewish state in Palestine.

If Palestine is such a bad choice, where is a better one in 1890?

[tharkûn]

Tharkun, you have failed to show why Palestine was a good choice.
Again I ask where else do you have:
1. A large prexisting Jewish community?
2. Where else do you have the backing of a world power?
3. Where else do you have ease of transportation?

Bloody go through the motions of the zionist congresses, Palestine was NOT the only choice it was thought to be better for numerous reasons, of which religion is only a minor part.

You have failed to explain why they were so gung-ho to seize control of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem has been Jewish majority since before WWI.

These decisions make perfect sense in light of religious fanaticism, but no sense without it.
I never said there was NO religious fantacism, however the driving force behind Israel is 1890's - 1920's politics. There was nowhere else in 1890 that would be less brutal. North America was already claimed, partitioned, and Jewish efforts to establish a homeland there failed. Africa had a history of violence with settlement. Asia had wonderful wars over colonialism and the Pacific is utterly unrealistic. South America was promising (which is why it was the Herzl's first choice, but we won't let little details like that intrude), but again zionistic efforts met with dismal failure. Hell bloody read Herzl, not only did the founder of Modern Zionism advocate settling in Uganda ... at one point he advocated that all Jews "convert" to Catholicism for the material benifits.

Straight up the religious fanatics of the 19th century century OPPOSED zionism and settlement in Palestine. Agudath Israel was a collection of observant Jews lead by highly religious who ADAMENTLY opposed zionism and the creation of a Jewish state. Some even nicer fundies, Neturei Karta, decided that Agudath was not working hard enough against the secular zionists; they rallied around Rabbi Amram Blau and fought zionism on the grounds that is was "infamy and blasphemy" for establishing Israel before the coming of the Messiah.

Go read arguements from the time the decision was made. The religious fanatics OPPOSED the establishment of Israel. The proponents were secular, minimally religious, or outright antireligious.

There is direct evidence stating that the religious fanatics opposed zionism. There is direct evidence stating that the zionists were not fixated upon Palestine. There is some nebulous theory that:
a. Palestine was a bad choice to try to settle (in 1890).
b. The only reason such choice would be made is religion.

Sorry I'll take direct evidence over some tenious connection.

Coyote provided numerous examples of the hostility toward Israelis in that area even before the nation was formed, and you have referenced that yourself (funny how that information mysteriously evapourates from your brain when you want to "prove" that the choice of that particular piece of geography has nothing to do with religion).
Sigh Mike read the frikking dates. The decision to settle Israel was made in the 1890's. AT THAT TIME there was minimal anti-Jewish activities. Yes there was discrimination against Jews, yes they had to pay more for their land, etc. all of that was NOTHING in comparison to single pogrom. Weigh that against the Dreyfus affair and other signs of emerging European anti-semitism and it is NOTHING.

Arab hostility to Jews doesn't begin in earnest till Balfour in 1917. After that a steady escalation in Arab discontent and hostility is witnessed.

But of course, I'm the one being unreasonable, right? They just coincidentally chose that particular piece of land out of all the lands on Earth, with no religious motivation whatsoever. There's no connection at all, and anyone who notices this odd coincidence of religious history and geographical choice is just making things up, right?
No it was chosen because there was a large Jewish community already present. It was chosen because the Ottomans had been very accomodating to Jews through the past century (Montfoiry having notable success). Thus some jews began settling in Palestine in the 19th century. When Balfour rolls around the Palestine project gets the stamp of approval from the world's reigning power (or at least the second greatest power). The religious connection is a HISTORICAL one. Yes some religious people had religious motives, these are the extreme minority. Numerous ardent atheists supported a Jewish state in Palestine.

If Palestine is such a bad choice, where is a better one in 1890?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

OK, forget every other point and just answer me on the LAW OF RETURN, then. "Jew" has two definitions: a race and a religion. If there is no such thing as a Jewish race, then explain the LAW OF RETURN. Somehow try to do this without admitting that Israel is racist.

The Law of Return's goal is to turn Israel into a safehaven for Jews who may be persecuted around the world. The evidence of this is for, example, in Ethiopia, where black Jews were airlifted out by Israel when they suffered from persecution during violence there, to Israel, where they are now citizens. Considering the history of persecution of Jews around the world, the validity of a desire to return to a secure, Jewish-majority State is assumed, rather than the necessity of proving it.

[Darth Wong]

The Law of Return's goal is to turn Israel into a safehaven for Jews who may be persecuted around the world.

Yes, that is its stated goal. Its result is racist, however. It's bad that Jews are persecuted anywhere. It's also bad that Jews persecute others.

The evidence of this is for, example, in Ethiopia, where black Jews were airlifted out by Israel when they suffered from persecution during violence there, to Israel, where they are now citizens. Considering the history of persecution of Jews around the world, the validity of a desire to return to a secure, Jewish-majority State is assumed, rather than the necessity of proving it.

The policy of maintaining Israel as a Jewish-majority state is, in and of itself, racist. If David Duke said that America must remain a white-majority nation, people would not hesitate to label him racist, but when Israel says it, it's OK!

Why not move to America, where they are protected from persecution by law? Why must they respond to persecution by creating a state where they get to be the persecutors?

PS. My post was in response to Strawbridge's bizarre assertion that Jews are neither race or religion, when they are in fact either race or religion.

[Peregrin Toker]

The links are there for your own viewing. Make of them what you will.

Hmm... two contradicting sources. I'll think about it.

What does this have to do with the West Bank? Regardless, What do you call 400,000 refugees going off to live in refugee camps? Did they just ask really nicely and they left?

If the palestinians had accepted the 1947 UN Resolution, not a single palestinian would be a refugee today. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.

Operative word- fled. As in they were fleeing from something. The IDF. It's also patently absurd to suggest that because someone occupies New South Wales, that's alright, because I can still go live in Queensland.

After Jordan attacked Israel, 325.000 Arabs fled. But these Arabs were Jordanian citizens who.... oh wait, I'm repeating myself. By the way, roughly sixty thousand were allowed to return later. And many of them would anyway be better off living under Arab rule.

That link is the kind of blatant lying and half-truths I expect from such a propaganda site. Israel's policies in the West Bank are in direct violation of the 4th Geneva Convention, which Israel voluntarily signed.

Israel's use of deportation does not violate the Geneva Convention. The purpose of the Geneva Convention was to prevent organized slave labour, and Israel doesn't use slave labour. If they are, they must be quite good at keeping it secret.

No it's just an example that Arab schools get crap-all funding when they need it most.

Since I don't have any sources on these, I don't argue with you about that.

Then we agree that it should stop?

Don't assume that I defend any Israeli atrocities no matter how blatant. I read that an Israeli assault helicopter's gunner once shot down a civilian for target practice during a night-time raid.... and I never condoned it.

Do compare the conditions of the nice Jewish settlements to the majority of the populaiton, and in particular the distribution of resources.

Hmmm... the Jewish Virtual Library appears to incredibly silent on this subject. I could inform you that it's a myth that Israel prevents arabs from buying land, but I'm afraid that's a red herring.

WTF are you talking about? I repeat: why does the fact that your 'ancestors' living there in 'ancient times' confer the right to seize the land of the inhabitants who are there right now? You do know that such 'historic rights' are utter bullshit, don't you?

Utter bullshit?? If you had been a member of a persecuted minority driven from your homeland and find your family and friends unaccepted everywhere - including your homeland - wouldn't you do somethingto get it back??

What kind of fantasy land do you have to be in to assume that 400,000 people went off to refugee camps of their own free will? Believe it or not Jews didn't rock up on boats, go house to house buying land, and then got all nice and settled in. They were removed, without monetary compensation, through clearing operations such as this one:

http://www.deiryassin.org/

Deir Yassin was evacuated and the citizens were warned. And contrary to the revisionist history and anti-Jewish propaganda you have been reading, Deir Yassin wasn't 100% populated by innocent people who were being mercilessly gunned down by evil mass-murderers. In fact, the residents attacked the Irgun on sight. By the way, the residents of Irgun were joined in battle by Iraqi troops.

Fewer Irgun than Arabs died, but that does not make it a massacre.

By the way, it is not documented that any women were raped.

Just four days after the reports from Deir Yassin were published, an Arab force ambushed a Jewish convoy on the way to Hadassah Hospital, killing 77 Jews, including doctors, nurses, patients, and the director of the hospital. Another 23 people were injured. This massacre attracted little attention and is never mentioned by those who are quick to bring up Deir Yassin.

As for the uncultivated land claim, do you seriously expect anyone to believe that there was a lot of uncultivated land just waiting to be used in the middle of a tiny portion of the Middle East that has been populated since antiquity, and that it's presence allowed the creation of the state of Israel with little disruption?

Originally, the Jews just took a little part of it. However, xenophobic reactionaries among the Palestinians would not tolerate the presence of foreigners - so what did they do?? Attack the Jews.

I'm not interested in the surrounding Arab countries. Being better than those shitholes is not hard. I expect far more than that from the supposed 'only democracy in the region' and the nation that gets billions of dollars a year in military aid.

The Israeli do get aid from the US, but most of the Israeli economic aid goes to pay off debts.

BTW, what's wrong with giving military aid to another country, especially one surrounded by enemies??
BTW#2 American military aid to Israel is not that one-sided. They didn't provide the Israeli with military aircraft until 1966, for example, and in 1965 a tank sale to Israel was actually offset by a similar sale to Jordan. US and France - Israel's only arms suppliers - also imposed a military sale embargo on Israel during the 6-day war, while the Soviet Union continued selling weapons to the various Arab nations.

[Peregrin Toker]

On what grounds do you brutalize or murder 10-year old rock-throwing kids for the actions of some other person?

Not to bugger you, but the rocks thrown at Israeli troops aren't pebbles, they're bricks - and getting hit by a brick hurts. If somebody threw a brick at you, wouldn't you feel inclined to retaliate??

[Admiral Piett]

Not to bugger you, but the rocks thrown at Israeli troops aren't pebbles, they're bricks - and getting hit by a brick hurts. If somebody threw a brick at you, wouldn't you feel inclined to retaliate??

This is the reason for which the police officials in the western countries are
supposed to shoot rocks throwing protestors under every circumstance,right?
Besides where this story about throwing bricks come from? I have never seen them throwing bricks in the TV.And I doubt that one child would be able to throw a brick very far.Stones yes, bricks no.

Note
There are some situations where shooting protestors may be justified,as last option.But you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that children have been shot only in those circumstances.

[HemlockGrey]

Not to bugger you, but the rocks thrown at Israeli troops aren't pebbles, they're bricks - and getting hit by a brick hurts. If somebody threw a brick at you, wouldn't you feel inclined to retaliate??

Bricks do not hurt much if you're behind a tank.

[Darth Wong]

Not to bugger you, but the rocks thrown at Israeli troops aren't pebbles, they're bricks - and getting hit by a brick hurts. If somebody threw a brick at you, wouldn't you feel inclined to retaliate??

Yes, by throwing a brick at him. I would not shoot him in the head, especially if he's a 10 year old. In fact, if I did what a typical Israeli soldier does in that situation, I would go to jail. Shouldn't that tell you something?

[Andrew J.]

I would just like to make a comment about the definition of "Jew", even if that has wrapped up a page back.

If someone is a Jew, that means that he follows the religion of Judaism. Anyone of any race can be a Jew.

Most Hebrews are Jews, but it is wrong to call Hebrews "Jews" or refer to them as "the Jewish race" because a Hebrew is not necessarily a Jew.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Endless repetition of strawman distortions and evasion tactics, I've had it. Answer me this, sophistic hatfucker: if you insist that it is impossible for any discrimination involving Jews and Arabs to be racial because "there is no Jewish race", then by your assclown logic, the Jewish Holocaust in WW2 was not racist either. Is that what you believe?

No, being Jewish isn't a race. However, a lot of racist people believe it is. This includes some Jews, so don't bother bringing that up.

You see, when I say calling Jews a race is wrong, bringing up the opinions of anti-semites doesn't help your cause. They hate Jews, so they must seperate them as much as possible from themselves, for if Jews are just like them, why hate them?

So, Jews are not a race, but the Nazis declared them such in order to help justify killing them. If they were not a race, you could 'convert' them. And that doesn't necessarily mean religious. It could also mean cultural.

And if Israel's formation was not religiously motivated, explain the shocking coincidence that they just HAPPENED to choose the precise borders of their Biblical lands for their desired territories. You are taking a tribal religion which IS a form of primitive "history" and saying that it's history rather than religion, hence it is not religious. More sophistry.

It is not entirely Religiously motivated. Well, it is in your mind, cause in your mind everything boils down to religion or genetics.

Name one other place on Earth that had continuous Jews settlement for the last 2000 years.

You also claim they should not have gone where they were persucuted. So name one place on Earth where the Jews were not persecuted?

For the second time, shared ancestry is just a code-word for race.

Not shared ancestory, shared history. No genetics involved.

Bullshit. Tell that to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories whose shared history with the Israelis avails them nothing, gets them no rights, and doesn't even allow them full access to drinking water.[/quote]

Tell that to the Arabs who live in Israel but who have no rights and can' tget fresh water ... Oh, that's right. They do have full rights.

So maybe it's not about race, or creed or any other bullshit reason you need to blame the Jews. Maybe it's about the fact that Palestinians are killing Israelis and the Israelis. Maybe they deserve this treatment cause they're terrorists. Ok, maybe not all of them, but they sure as fuck aren't doing engough to stop the terrorists.

Generalities are one thing, assuming those generalities apply to all is racism. Or agism, sexism, etc. depending on the groups in question.

Where did I make any statements about physical characteristics of "all" Jews, Strawbridge?

I never claimed you did make any statements about physical characteristics. I guess that makes your claim the Strawman.

There isn't a Jewish religion any more than there's a American Religion. And when you judge Jews based on Judaism it's wrong.

More straw. I'm judging Israelis based on Israeli government actions, for which its citizens are responsible in a democracy.

And mariage, ancestory, place or resedence during 1948. Little more complex than just religion.

Doesn't change the fact that their intense need to control Jerusalem is obviously religious.

Then why to the Palestinians want it? It's never even mentioned in the Koran. It has no actual connection to Islam?

It's a polictical standoff. Neither side can give it up without looking weak. Similar reasons to the whole Berlin Airlift of the Cold War. Berlin had no importance outside the politcal realm.

Sounds an aweful lot like Green Card mariages. Same checks happen here.

Except that if your great grandfather was a Canadian and you've been living in Yugoslavia for the last three generations, you can't waltz into Canada and get automatic citizenship. That was why the "Right of Blood" in Germany was declared racist and abolished, and that is why the "Law of Return" in Israel is racist, even though they refuse to abolish it.

It's not technically racists, cause German isn't a race, it's a Nationality. So it would be Nationism. As opposed to Patriotism, which is similar, but not discriminatory.

Anywho, there's a reason why they want to limit immigration to Jews. Cause it seems every time Jews lose contorl over their government they tend to get killed in large numbers. And don't say, 'It doesn't happen any more. Not in this day and age.' Cause it happened this year, in Canada. Some skinhead beat to death a Jew, just for being Jewish.

1.) Less than half of the Jews immigrating into Israel follow Judaism.

How do they know that they are Jews, if not shared ancestry?

Marriage for one.

2.) Those Jews that worry about the lack of 'real Jews' are racist. I have no problem with calling them that.

Then you should have no problem with my criticism of Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, yet you do.

Cause it's not based on race.

Arab Treatment by Israel:

In Israel: Full Rights
In OT: No rights

Since the Arabs in Israel are not racial different then the Arabs in the OT, we can deduce that their difference in treatment is not racial motivated.

Arab Treatment of Israel:

In Israel: Productive members of society.
In OT: Average one terrorist attack every 10 day, and that's just the successful ones.

Hmm, I think we've just discovered the root cause. But wait, maybe it's the other way arround. Maybe the Arabs in the OT are killing Jews cause of the way Israel treats them? Let us look, shall we.

Arab Treatment in the OT and the net result:

Under Egyptian and Jordanian Rule: Treated Like Crap - Result: Dead Jews.
Under Israeli Rule: Treated Like Crap - Result: Dead Jews.
Pre-Israel when they were in power: Treated like the ruling class - Result: Dead Jews.


You know, looking at this evidence, one might suspect that the Arabs just hate Jews. That would explain why they (almost) all had arms deals with Nazi Germany in WWII. Why they even send high ranking goivernment officials to ask Hilter to expland his Final Solution into the Middle East.

'But that was 50 years ago! Times have changed.' In 2002, Egyptian TV ran a show about "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." Egyptian, Saudi, and IIRC, Syrian newspapers have all published stories about Blood Libel, calling Jews murderers and cannibals. Cannibals, for god's sake. These aren't rational people.




Anywho, so what does this have to do with the Palestinians? Terrorist attacks against Israel mostly come from Palestine. Some of these are being training, recruited, supplied, etc. from their neighbours. These same neighbours who have a history of hating Jews, a history that extends to this day. So, at best, the Palestinians are being used a pawns by their Arabs neighbours to kill Jews. At worst, they are willing accomplices to that goal.

And don't say it's not all of the Palestinians. Not all Germans supported the war, but that didn't stop the Allies from fighting back and bombing Hamburg.

Moreover, the point remains that in the Occupied Territories, your ancestry determines your rights. That is racist. Deal with it.

It has less to do with your ancestory than it has with mordern day acts. People within Israel who share the same ancestory are not treated the same. Not racist, but political.

Bullshit; do the Israelis inquire about the political leanings of a man they decide to hold at gunpoint at one of their checkpoints before they humiliate him and destroy his cargo (hence livelihood) for fun?

Do they do that to Arabs living in Israel who share the same, 'race?' No. So it can't be racist.

BTW, I'd love to see you prove they do it for fun. Go on, try it.

BEING JEWISH != FOLLOWING JUDAISM!

No, that is one of two definitions of "Jewish". Why do you find this so goddamned incomprehensible?

Being Albertan = Being Canadain.
You are Canadian.
Therefore, you are Albertan.

More straw. As I said before, you confuse "OR" with "AND", and you're obviously too stupid to recognize that my earlier post pre-emptively refuted this strawman before you even posted it.[/quote]

And when you use Judaism when it is not accurate, but Jew is, you imply it's an AND situation.

yet people like you refuse to admit that Israel is just as racist for having its "Law of Return",

No, it's not racist. Cause it's not based on race. It is discriminatory and wrong.

You have defined race to mean nothing.[/quote]

No, I have let biology define race for what it is. Not for what I need to label Jews racist.

Also not, I did call it discriminatory and wrong. Are you so hung up on terms that that is not enough?

That has less to do with race than with the Political Limbo that Palestine has been in since it was first sort of formed. Was Palestine ever a country?

Irrelevant. Today, people in the Occupied Territories have their rights defined by their ancestry. That is racist, despite all of your pathetic evasion attempts.[/quote]

Yet people in Israel, who don't blow up busses, have different rights than people in the OT who share their ancestry. Maybe it has more to do with the buses than it has to do with ancestry. Are you willing to even look at that possibility?

First off all, they don't want to close it, but they are setting up a intelligence division to do background checks on applicants. I'm sure that happens here, but for less of a security reason.

Secondly, they found someone who may or may not have used this 'loophole' to carry out a suicide bombing. (He had ID, and that was motivation for the crackdown but there was no mention of how he got it.)

But according to you, Arabs aren't a race, so there's no reason to cast particular suspicion on any ethnicity just because of what this guy did.

No, but they are a culture. A culture that includes a pretty ingrained hatred of Jews.

Race: a human population sharing certain common hereditary physical features.

According to Merriam-Webster:

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

Yeah, and that's common usage, not the biological term.

And since you're so gunho about common useage, I guess you don't mind if we all prononce it Nu - Cu - Lar.

Israel discriminates against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

Yeah, they do. But not based on race, but based on the fact that they tend to blow up Israeli busses.

Your pathetic rebuttal is to say that Palestinians do not technically exist as a race, so it is impossible to be racist against them. Do you realize what a pathetic, nitpicking assclown you make yourself look like with this argument?

No, but I do realize it's a strawman.

Palestinans in the OT are no different than the ones in Israel.
They act different towards Israel.
They are treated different.

Gee, it must be cause they are Palestinians that they are treated like shit. There could be no other possible reason.

Arabs in Palestine aren't treated the same as Israeli settlers. And Israeli settlers don't blow up Israeli buses and cafes. So that's not surprising.

Ah, so they are being held responsible for the actions of others who happen to share their ethnicity.[/quote]

They are being held responsible for the action of the people in charge. The people they put in charge. Big fucking surprise.

Name one post in which I said that religion was the sole and entire cause of the problem.

Did you or did you not say that Religion is the only way to explain the location of Israel?

Yes. However, I was not aware that the choice of location was the entirety of the problems they're having now. The ruthless treatment of Arabs in the last 50 years may have also been a tiny contributing factor, Mr. Smart-ass

Really? So fucking explain the treatment the Jews got the 50 FUCKING YEARS BEFORE THAT! Or the 100 years before that, or the 100 years before those 100 years ...

Are you really that stupid? Do you really think the Arabs just started killing Jews May 14, 1948. Do you have no sense of history? Have

Race is defined by genetics.

You just said that race is NOT defined by ancestry, now you say it's defined by genetics? How much do you know about human biology, Strawbridge?

Race = PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES!
Jews and Arabs might have different ancestries, but they are genetically identical. Got it?

BTW, just to emphasize, I feel the Law of Return is discriminary.

But not racist, since you have defined "race" so narrowly that nobody in the world belongs to any race.[/quote]

Fuck you. There are such things are races. White, Asian, Black, etc. But German, British, Jew are not races.

[quiote]All to avoid admitting that Israel is racist.[/quote]

No, all to add some accuracy to this debate.

Cause they are considered Israeli Citizens, while the Arabs living there are not.

That's the whole fucking point! They're not considered citizens even though they were born in Israeli territory! THAT'S RACIST!!

Israel colony, not Israel. Israelis are treated the same, regardless of which side of the polictical border they live on. Arabs are treated different not based on them being different, but based on where they live. Arabs in Israel are full citizens. Arabs in the OT blow up buses and are therefore considered the enemy.

No it doesn't, since there is no "American" religion except for guns, and no common ancestry. Anyone born in American territory is an American citizen. But people born in Israel's Occupied Territories are not automatically Israelis.

That's cause it's not Israel. It's more like an Israeli Colony than part of Israel. Also, Since the majority don't want to be part of Israel, it seems silly to grant them citizenship.

Right, that's why there's this wave of Palestinians trying to get Israeli citizenship and the government is trying to crack down on it

LEARN TO READ YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

There was only 100,000 in 7 fucking years. Moron.

Oh no, look at that flood of Palestinians. I've killed more people in GTA3. Loser.

Colony crap.

Thanks for confirming you can't read.

While you say it's a PR move, you offer no proof. You just hope I'll ignore the other possible causes or the lack of rights, like the hundred of deas Israelis.

"Causes?" So if a person of Arab descent does something bad, it's OK to discriminate against his race?

If the people in power do something bad the common folk are going to suffer. It's the way of the world, perhaps you should try living it in.

Right, so people are fighting over the "holy sites" in Jerusalem for no particular reason

Did you not read the last sentence?

"That is not to say Religion doesn't play a role, it does. But it can't be the defining reason."

Then give another reason to put such value on Jerusalem. If it isn't the defining reason, you'd better provide the defining reason.[/quote]

Policitical. The same reason for spending billions on the Berlin Airlift. It's a rallying point. Losing it would make it look like you caved and would be politcally unpopular.

I'm not. I'm saying the Arabs were killing Jews cause they are a convienent scapegoat (and have been for centuries in many, many places.) Arabs continue killing Jews cause the people in power need to blame the Jews to stay in power.

Ah, of course, there's no other conceivable reason why Palestinians would hate Israelis after the last 50 years

Fuck you, shitface. Are you that goddamn stupid that you think the Arabs just started killing Jews for that last 50 years? If so, buy a gun and kill yourself. You need to die.

You love repetition, don't you?

It's love it more if you'd understand the first time.

You can't use Judaism and Jew interchangeably, anymore than you can use Watt and Joule interchangeably. You've done so in the past.

Then explain the Israeli "Law of Return".

Do you want me to explain why it's discriminatory or why it's in place?

Explain how it can be regarded as a non-racist law

I've called it discriminatory and wrong. What more do you fucking want? Just cause I don't use the improper term, 'Racist' doesn't change the fact that I don't like the law.

You can assume that they are either Jewish by family or by religion. Your atempt to distort Boolean "OR" into "AND" is not my problem, Strawbridge.

And you treating either one as all-inclusive isn't mine.

Read the sentence again, Strawbridge.[/quote]

You know, I wasn't kidding when I said come up with something wittier. This is getting to MKSheppard levels of stupid.

Do you know what "OR" means?

And when you use them interchangeably you mean "AND."

Except you can become Jewish and you can stop being Jewish. It' more of a culture than a race. And culture has nothing to do with genetics.

Actually, according to the Law of Return, it is impossible for an ethnic Jew to stop being Jewish.

Actually it is. You can renounce you Jewiness ... Ok, that is so wrong of a term, but you know what I mean. I don't recall how, but it is possible.

And since we are discussing Israeli racism, your attempts to claim that the very recognition of Jews as a race is racist would merely reinforce my claim that the state of Israel is, in fact, racist.

Yeah, in that way they are. But the Palestinians think the same way. So do probably more than 90% of the population of Earth.

But this brings up two important points:

1.) Just cause they are racist here, doens't mean they are discriminating against Palestinians based on the mere fact that Palestinians are Palestinian. (Wharever the fuck that might be.)

2.) Just cause the Israelis are racist doens't make the Palestinians the victims. It both sides are motivated by racial hate, then you can't point to either one and shout, 'victim' without looking at other factors.

Living in the area as a minority and having control of it are two different things. It is a two thousand year old land claim.

They've always claimed it was theirs, and they've always had people there. And they started to repopulate it more than a century ago.

Yes, they've CLAIMED it was theirs for two thousand years. Doesn't mean it actually was, and a legitimate land claim is not based on what you think you deserve.

I think Germany was a little harsher to the Jews than the Middle East.

Of course it was. It was also smashed into rubble, and was in no condition to contest them.

However, and I'm just guessing here, it might hold a negative connatation to the Jews. Perhaps the only worse place, emotionally speaking, would be on the actual Concentration Camp Sites.

BTW, while the Government was destroyed, the people could still blame the Jews and kill them.

And what about all of the other options I mentioned?

Quite frankly, I don't remember any others. Could you repost / link to them?

And history. It's the one place on Earth where there have been Jews since there have been Jews. (Archeaologists don't believe the whole exodus story. That was invented later on.)

I reiterate: ancient land claim.

Better than no land claim.

[/quote]as they are intimately connected.[/quote]

No any more. Atheist Jews can still celebrate the history of the Jews without celebrating Judaism.

That particular site is largely religious, partly cultural and historical. But right now, I'd say it's mostly political. Neither side can give it up without looking like they caved.

And all of the religious wackos who think it's so damned important don't exist, right?

Hmm, here I thought I mentioned it was largely religious. Must be my mistake.

In summary:

1. You define race so narrowly that by your logic, the Nazi Holocaust was not racist.
   
   Defined it based on biology, not common usage. Biologically speaking, there are very few races: White, Black, Asian, I think there's New World Aboriginals (but that might be seperated into North and South America), Middle Eastern - North Arfican - Indian (don't know the term), Ocieanic (???.)
   
   So if you hate blacks you are racist. But if you hate Germans you are not. It's just as wrong as hating blacks (and for the love of fuck, please read that again) but it is not racist.
2. You take religiously motivated actions and decide that because there are all manner of political and cultural ramifications, they are not religious after all, and any religious connections are mere coincidence or at most, insignificant minor issues
   
   Again, I have said there are religious motives. I'm just saying they are not as important as you think they are.
3. You treat the occupied territories as if Israel is not responsible for their conduct there.
   
   I did not say that. I said it's not Israel, so the Israeli citizenship of those living there should not be treated the same. I think that's pretty obvious.
   
   Secondly, the treatment of Palestinians in the OT was the same, or maybe even worse, when the Arabs were in control. So blaming Israeli intent for their current situation is not warrented. It's more complex that, 'Israeli Oppression.'
4. You excuse racial discrimination on the basis of the laughable notion that it's impossible for the Israelis to be racist if you don't recognize the victims of their discrimination as a race.
   
   No, I showed that people you declare to be the same race are treated different based on where they live, and their behaviour towards Israel. Since the correlation between 'race' and treatment pales between the correlation between behavior and treatment, I concluded that race doens't have as much to do with it as you think.
5. You excuse all Israeli treatment of Palestinians by saying that "they" are terrorists, while simultaneously screaming that by merely recognizing them as a race, I am engaging in racist "generalizations" (the irony of this probably escapes you).
   
   "They" doesn't mean race, anymore than saying, 'you' to a Black man means you are refering to the whole race. Since this point is based on your misinterpretation of my words, no other comment is needed.
6. You act as though there was literally no other place on Earth easier to colonize than that particular piece of land, and as proof, you offer up Germany, as if the Nazis were still in control and no other possibility existed. Do you believe no one will see through that?
   
   No, I said that Israel was the best place based on several factors.
   
   Also, the Nazis didn't create German Anti-Semetism, they fed on it. Get rid of the Nazis and the people will still be Ant-Semetic. And I couldn't remember any of the other places you mentioned, so I couldn't comment,
7. You ignore the dictionary definition of "race"
   
   And used the Biological definition instead.
8. You do not understand simple set/subset logic. If A and B are both subsets of C, you assume that A=B=C
   
   And when the terms are missused as interchangeable it implies A=B=C.
   
   Granted, perhaps you did that accidentally and this huge long debate defining what a Jew is and what it really means to be racist is a waste.

Frankly, I don't know how you can manage to maintain this mountain of bullshit in your head without an aneurysm.[/quote]

I used the biological definition for race.
I used the correct, perhaps a little too anal definition of Racist.
I said discrimination was bad, even if it's not based on race.
I said religion plays a part, but not as much as you think.
I said that the treatment by Israel of the various groups depends more on their behavior than on Race / Religion or whatever.
I said that the treatment of Israel by the various groups depends less on their behavior than on Race / Religion or whatever.

Anything else?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Not to bugger you, but the rocks thrown at Israeli troops aren't pebbles, they're bricks - and getting hit by a brick hurts. If somebody threw a brick at you, wouldn't you feel inclined to retaliate??

This is the reason for which the police officials in the western countries are
supposed to shoot rocks throwing protestors under every circumstance,right?

The Israelis don't. They do use Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets when they're on Riot Patrol. But, when they are going into a combat zone, they must use live ammo.

Besides where this story about throwing bricks come from? I have never seen them throwing bricks in the TV.And I doubt that one child would be able to throw a brick very far.Stones yes, bricks no.

I saw on TV where they were tearing bricks out of a house to throw at soldiers. Think of the symbolism: Destroying your own home to fight the enemy.

Anywho, these aren't all kids. The crowds might have some kids in them, but the ages vary all the way up to adults. A crowd of 15 year olds could easliy kill with bricks.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Not to bugger you, but the rocks thrown at Israeli troops aren't pebbles, they're bricks - and getting hit by a brick hurts. If somebody threw a brick at you, wouldn't you feel inclined to retaliate??

Yes, by throwing a brick at him. I would not shoot him in the head, especially if he's a 10 year old. In fact, if I did what a typical Israeli soldier does in that situation, I would go to jail. Shouldn't that tell you something?

How many 10 year olds die that way? Seriously, can you give me a breakdown on the ages of the dead? Can you tell me if they were the intented target, or was it the 17 year old with a gun?

BTW, if there were dozens of kids throwing bricks and such, you could legally kill them to defend you life and property.

[Darth Wong]

Strawbridge, I have better things to do than pick my way through a fucking uber-repetitive post that takes a minute just to scroll through, so I'm going to avoid the Darkstar Deja Vu and skip to the summary at the end.

Defined it based on biology, not common usage.

So you admit that you're deliberately using an inapplicable definition of "race" in order to falsely accuse me of being racist, since racism is a sociological term, not a biological term. I will await your concession.

Again, I have said there are religious motives. I'm just saying they are not as important as you think they are.

And how important do I think they are, in your opinion? When someone says "root cause", do you assume that means "only cause"?

I did not say that. I said it's not Israel, so the Israeli citizenship of those living there should not be treated the same. I think that's pretty obvious.

Then explain why ethnic Jews in the Occupied Territories have Israeli citizenship.

Secondly, the treatment of Palestinians in the OT was the same, or maybe even worse, when the Arabs were in control. So blaming Israeli intent for their current situation is not warrented. It's more complex that, 'Israeli Oppression.'

Please provide sources for your claim that they shot and killed a hundred people a year, wounded many more, blew up buildings and infrastructure on a regular basis if they suspected criminals might live there, bulldozed peoples' homes by the thousands, set up checkpoints everywhere and beat/shot/humiliated people there, and denied full access to necessities such as running water.

No, I showed that people you declare to be the same race are treated different based on where they live, and their behaviour towards Israel. Since the correlation between 'race' and treatment pales between the correlation between behavior and treatment, I concluded that race doens't have as much to do with it as you think.

Then explain why ethnic Jews in the Occupied Territories have full citizenship rights in Israel while ethnic Palestinians don't. I have repeatedly pointed this out, and you act as though it isn't true. For the umpteenth time, in the Occupied Territories, your rights are defined by your race. The situation is better, though still not 100% equal, in the rest of Israel, but that hardly excuses the existence of an apartheid ghetto in a country which the USA proudly supports with billions of dollars of aid every year.

"They" doesn't mean race, anymore than saying, 'you' to a Black man means you are refering to the whole race.

It does when you assign group responsibility to the Palestinian people by saying that "they" are terrorists. You accuse others of being racists by nitpicking semantics while blithely making hasty generalizations about entire ethnicities.

No, I said that Israel was the best place based on several factors.

Like what? Bad geography, bad resources, their water supply is controlled by their enemies, the people there hate them (funny how you say that when you try to claim that the Arabs "started the violence" but suddenly change your mind when trying to claim that they had no reason not go there in the first place), the military/tactical situation is lousy (the Golan Heights, for example).

By the Israelis' own claims, they NEEDED to annex neighbouring territory outside of their UN mandate in order to get a defensible border. You call this "the best place?"

Also, the Nazis didn't create German Anti-Semetism, they fed on it. Get rid of the Nazis and the people will still be Ant-Semetic. And I couldn't remember any of the other places you mentioned, so I couldn't comment,

Any sparsely populated area with defensible borders would have been better.

You do not understand simple set/subset logic. If A and B are both subsets of C, you assume that A=B=C

And when the terms are missused as interchangeable it implies A=B=C.

More straw, Strawbridge. Since C is the set ("Jewish") and A and B are the subsets ("Ethnic Jewish" and "Religious Jewish"), find me an example of where I stated that ethnic Jews and religious Jews are the same thing.

Granted, perhaps you did that accidentally and this huge long debate defining what a Jew is and what it really means to be racist is a waste.

It's a waste of time, but I certainly did not say what you accused me of. You simply fail to recognize the concept of sets and subsets; you act as though using the name of the set C represents an implicit claim that subset A = subset B.

You may think you've defended yourself to be something other than a sophistic hatfucker, but you've admitted that your whole criticism is based on nitpicking of word definitions. You're probably the only person who doesn't realize that this is exactly the sort of thing sophistic hatfuckers do.

[Darth Wong]

How many 10 year olds die that way? Seriously, can you give me a breakdown on the ages of the dead? Can you tell me if they were the intented target, or was it the 17 year old with a gun?

I could provide the same UN sources I provided before in another thread, but what's the point? Israel knee-jerk apologists ignore the UN because it's part of the Giant Arab Conspiracy of Lies.

BTW, if there were dozens of kids throwing bricks and such, you could legally kill them to defend you life and property.

Only if you could legitimately show that you had reason to believe your life was in imminent danger. If you were in a tank, you would not be able to show that and you would be found guilty of murder. BTW, not all of the world is Texas; you can't shoot people to defend property. You can only shoot them to defend your life or the lives of others. Consult a lawyer and find out for yourself.

[Malecoda]

I'm not even gg to pretend I'm qualified or engrossed enough in this to comment on the debate itself, but this is a glaring oversimplification which I can't let slide:

Strowb: Policitical. The same reason for spending billions on the Berlin Airlift. It's a rallying point. Losing it would make it look like you caved and would be politcally unpopular.

Nevermind that "policitically unpopular" could be much, much worse than "politically unpopular", but it wasn't simply a rallying point, it was a dying city that was being prevented by the Russians from surviving the winter and we actually flew for a real cause, up to the point where the Russians began shooting at our planes. If it were strictly political, we could have yielded, just as we later did with Laos and Cambodia and eventually Vietnam. Likewise, if we were as concerned with looking weak as you seem to think (we had just won World War 2! We had the strength and money and time and will to be altruistic, and as the victors, we were not too concerned with "looking weak"), then for political reasons we would have shot back. But by then the winter was over and Berlin was somewhat better off than it was before. We had a good reason for being there, beyond showing Russia who's boss.

[Vympel]

If the palestinians had accepted the 1947 UN Resolution, not a single palestinian would be a refugee today. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.

Nice evasion- you continue to pretend that the Jews just rocked up nicely and started settling in, and the Arabs just got up and left of their own free will. Utterly ridiculous. In regards to the UN resolution, since when does something being legal make it right?

After Jordan attacked Israel, 325.000 Arabs fled. But these Arabs were Jordanian citizens who.... oh wait, I'm repeating myself. By the way, roughly sixty thousand were allowed to return later. And many of them would anyway be better off living under Arab rule.

I REPEAT: because I'm an Australian citizen does that make it alright when I'm kicked off my own fucking land to go live in another part of Australia so some settler cunt can move in on MY land?! Who the hell are you to say where the fuck I'm going to be better off?!

Israel's use of deportation does not violate the Geneva Convention. The purpose of the Geneva Convention was to prevent organized slave labour, and Israel doesn't use slave labour. If they are, they must be quite good at keeping it secret.

Israel does pursue policies in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention: http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/reso ... lagues.htm

Hmmm... the Jewish Virtual Library appears to incredibly silent on this subject. I could inform you that it's a myth that Israel prevents arabs from buying land, but I'm afraid that's a red herring.

I'm not talking about that. You do know that any Palestinian who couldn't produce title to his own land (after fleeing) upon their return had their land confiscated and declared Israeli land, yes? At the very least, they should be compensated.

Utter bullshit?? If you had been a member of a persecuted minority driven from your homeland and find your family and friends unaccepted everywhere - including your homeland - wouldn't you do somethingto get it back??

That SOMETHING would not include atrocities and deportations, combined with discrimination and lots of nice Jewish settlements connected by Jew-only roads.

Why was it necessary for this new state to be established in Palestine- the single most absolutely terrible place to put it? Religion. The entire conflict over there is driven by religious bullshit.

Deir Yassin was evacuated and the citizens were warned. And contrary to the revisionist history and anti-Jewish propaganda you have been reading, Deir Yassin wasn't 100% populated by innocent people who were being mercilessly gunned down by evil mass-murderers. In fact, the residents attacked the Irgun on sight. By the way, the residents of Irgun were joined in battle by Iraqi troops.

Fewer Irgun than Arabs died, but that does not make it a massacre.

By the way, it is not documented that any women were raped.

Just four days after the reports from Deir Yassin were published, an Arab force ambushed a Jewish convoy on the way to Hadassah Hospital, killing 77 Jews, including doctors, nurses, patients, and the director of the hospital. Another 23 people were injured. This massacre attracted little attention and is never mentioned by those who are quick to bring up Deir Yassin.

Source please.

Originally, the Jews just took a little part of it. However, xenophobic reactionaries among the Palestinians would not tolerate the presence of foreigners - so what did they do?? Attack the Jews.

Ah of course. It was all the evil Palestinians fault.

The Israeli do get aid from the US, but most of the Israeli economic aid goes to pay off debts.

What you think they actually pay for their weapons?

BTW, what's wrong with giving military aid to another country, especially one surrounded by enemies??

It's wrong when the nation doesn't deserve it and has not a single motivation to reform it's policies.

BTW#2 American military aid to Israel is not that one-sided. They didn't provide the Israeli with military aircraft until 1966, for example, and in 1965 a tank sale to Israel was actually offset by a similar sale to Jordan. US and France - Israel's only arms suppliers - also imposed a military sale embargo on Israel during the 6-day war, while the Soviet Union continued selling weapons to the various Arab nations.

Pointless nitpick. The situation 30 years ago before the 6-day war means nothing compared to right now, when the US virtually throws weaponry at Israel like it's a garage sale, no strings attached. Compare this to Germany, which has held up numerous arms programs in Israel that use German components because of human rights violations- the same as what they do to other notorious scumball nations like Turkey.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

the same as what they do to other notorious scumball nations like Turkey.

Turkey is hardly a scumball nation. It has fought a very hard and long war against a serious rebellion by certain dissidents in the southeast who happen to have a good propaganda system with the Liberal Left, probably because they were funded by the Soviets during the Cold War.

Of course, I am a Turkophile and somewhat biased in that regard.

In commenting once more on Israel:

Under the Geneva Convention of '49, someone in territory occupied by a belligerent, who is not in uniform or wearing some sort of identifying marker, differentiating them from the civilian populace, and who is using a weapon against an enemy soldier, can be summarily executed. There's no age limitation against this.

Considering that rocks have traditionally been military weapons, there's legally nothing wrong with the Israeli response to rock throwing being wholesale slaughter of the rock-throwers.

[Admiral Piett]

Considering that rocks have traditionally been military weapons, there's legally nothing wrong with the Israeli response to rock throwing being wholesale slaughter of the rock-throwers.

Sure,as everyone knows rocks are currently issued as standard anti infantry and antitank weapons in any serious army of the world.
Marina,we are not in the stone age anymore,in case you missed that.

[Vympel]

In commenting once more on Israel:

Under the Geneva Convention of '49, someone in territory occupied by a belligerent, who is not in uniform or wearing some sort of identifying marker, differentiating them from the civilian populace, and who is using a weapon against an enemy soldier, can be summarily executed. There's no age limitation against this.

Considering that rocks have traditionally been military weapons, there's legally nothing wrong with the Israeli response to rock throwing being wholesale slaughter of the rock-throwers.

I'm sorry you'd be extremely hard-pressed to argue that incoming rocks are a lethal weapon to soldiers with assault rifles. How many Israeli soldiers are felled in glorious battle by terrorist toddlers throwing rocks per year?

[Falcon]

In commenting once more on Israel:

Under the Geneva Convention of '49, someone in territory occupied by a belligerent, who is not in uniform or wearing some sort of identifying marker, differentiating them from the civilian populace, and who is using a weapon against an enemy soldier, can be summarily executed. There's no age limitation against this.

Considering that rocks have traditionally been military weapons, there's legally nothing wrong with the Israeli response to rock throwing being wholesale slaughter of the rock-throwers.

I'm sorry you'd be extremely hard-pressed to argue that incoming rocks are a lethal weapon to soldiers with assault rifles. How many Israeli soldiers are felled in glorious battle by terrorist toddlers throwing rocks per year?

Maybe the Israeli soldiers should be issued rocks to throw back?