NationStates Jolt Archive

I am sure many of you are familiar with the relentless calamity in the middle east. Particularly the calamity between Israel and Palestine. I, for one, am tired of only hearing one side of the story, Israel's. Upon researching the issue, I found that Israel has killed almost three times as many innocent Palestinian civilians as they have "dangerous criminals." This is ridiculous, one such massacre was the destruction of a children's hospital. I am REAL SURE that dangerous criminals are going to be hiding in a Palestinian Children's hospital! On the other hand, Palestinians haven't been pacifists either. I am not anti-semitic, and I am not anti-arabic, I am anti-war. The mess in the middle east is futile. Please feel free to voice your opinion.

Israel existing is good. But did we have to throw them into the Middle East? Jeez, after World War II it was like throwing the Jews out of the frying pan and into the fire. Surely Quebec would have been safer...but NOOOOOO, they HAD to live in their damn holy land. Of course, if not for all these religious hangups, the Muslims wouldn't give a damn if the Jews lived in the Middle East, so the hell with it.

The United Nations should have given the Jewish people Germany! Doesn't that make sense? They were persecuted, and victimized, they should have been given Germany.

This is ridiculous, one such massacre was the destruction of a children's hospital. I am REAL SURE that dangerous criminals are going to be hiding in a Palestinian Children's hospital!
first, a link
second, you would be VERY surprised to what depths the terrorists sink. Hiding behind innocents is a speciality of theirs. So is inflating the number of dead, so be very careful about your source.

I would gladly provide a link. However, my source was a BBC broadcast.

Israel, as it is now, is a bad thing. They are too hotheaded and willing to fight in a region that doesn't like or want them. Plus, they play the game of brinkmanship too often. If anything, they are a danger. But, getting a slightly smarter government in there, preferably them doing it in the next election, would probably solve this.

I would gladly provide a link. However, my source was a BBC broadcast.

Ever try their website?

Israel, bad, I believe. Not that I have anything against the average Israeli, but with the benefit of decades of hindsight, it seems to me that the creation of the state was a mistake. But perhaps few people could have predicted the strategic headache it would present half a century hence.

Looks like we're stuck with it. The least the international community can do with their creation now is to curb its worst excesses and prevent it from starting WW3.

I would gladly provide a link. However, my source was a BBC broadcast.
BBC, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The most biased western news agency. Try Sky News next time, they're slightly better.

Israel existing is good. But did we have to throw them into the Middle East? Jeez, after World War II it was like throwing the Jews out of the frying pan and into the fire. Surely Quebec would have been safer...but NOOOOOO, they HAD to live in their damn holy land. Of course, if not for all these religious hangups, the Muslims wouldn't give a damn if the Jews lived in the Middle East, so the hell with it.

No one "threw" the jews into palastine they all went there volentarily. And no I do not think israel existing is a good thing. Its bad for palastinians, Its bad for America(we gave away so much money to israels "rightious" cause) and its bad for the region of the middle east(which wasnt in so much of a mess until the state of israel was formed) I feel more sympathetic to the palastinians simply because they never had any choice in the matter(their homeland was occupied and stolen by a large group of misplaced europeons who claim to be gods "chosen" who want to return to their "holy" land) I do know that many israeli civilians die due to terrorist attacks but the deaths would never occur if their ancestors never occupied palastine in the first place in 1947 therefore im hardpressed to feel any sorrow for them at this point. Also the israeli regime is extremely one sided and doesnt comply with the UN http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm

prevent it from starting WW3.
America will start WW3 by declaring war on ANY other Muslim nation. Muslims V Christians+Jews will be WW3, and America and Britain will start it.

First off, I am way too tired to search for an obscure link on the BBC website, if you want to find it be my guest.

Second, we need to establish a legitimate Palestinian state. If Israel continually exercises their "an eye for an eye" mentality, the US should immediately rescind their funding. I would also tell the Palestinians that if they continually accost Israel, they will be embargoed...EASY.

BBC, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The most biased western news agency. Try Sky News next time, they're slightly better.

Nah. Fox and CNN have them tied, if not beating BBC entirely. Both are being annoying sock puppets at this time.

No one "threw" the jews into palastine they all went there volentarily. And no I do not think israel existing is a good thing. Its bad for palastinians, Its bad for America(we gave away so much money to israels "rightious" cause) and its bad for the region of the middle east(which wasnt in so much of a mess until the state of israel was formed) I feel more sympathetic to the palastinians simply because they never had any choice in the matter(their homeland was occupied and stolen by a large group of misplaced europeons who claim to be gods "chosen" who want to return to their "holy" land) I do know that many israeli civilians die due to terrorist attacks but the deaths would never occur if their ancestors never occupied palastine in the first place in 1947 therefore im hardpressed to feel any sorrow for them at this point. Also the israeli regime is extremely one sided and doesnt comply with the UN http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm
where do I start.
1) The UN proposals were mainly, "condemned" or other such stuff that Israel weren't expected to do anything with.
2) Israel stopped listening to the UN after they decided that Zionism is racism:rolleyes:
3) The rest of the proposals were "pull out of lebanon" "don't enter gaza" never one to the Syrians or Lebanese saying "stop attacking Israel", and if there were, you think they'd jump to attention and run to the negotiating table?
4) Palestine, never existed. But the UN gave us the land which was under a British mandate at the time. It was UN land to give and they gave it.
5) So you think that if the Palestinians were given control of all of Israel, the Middle East would be a calm and quiet place? May I remind you that Arafats dying and there is no clear successor. Once he dies, all hell will break loose. The neighbouring countries would attack, anarchy would reign, and Israel would be blamed.

Nah. Fox and CNN have them tied, if not beating BBC entirely. Both are being annoying sock puppets at this time.
CNN actually surprised me when they aired a program "Impact of Terror" and that brought them up a lot of notches in my book. Fox may beat them but, probably a close call.

America will start WW3 by declaring war on ANY other Muslim nation. Muslims V Christians+Jews will be WW3, and America and Britain will start it.

Every jewish person that speaks of this topic always has to bring christians into the mix. Why in the world should christian blood be spilled in order to protect israels foreign interests. If the israelis have a problem with another middle eastern country then they should settle it THEMSELVES. WW3 certainly wont be started to protect israel. Christians on the other hand should do whatever they can to not fight muslims and instead make them friends of ours so that in the future christian and islamic blood wont have to be spilled on account of israel...

Israel existing is a good thing, but as they're not using those bits with the Palestinians in, why don't they let them have them? No Israeli can live there without getting killed, only Palestinians occupy it, it seems to me the only reason the Israelis are hanging on to the land is for bragging rights. No-one's managed to explain to me yet why the Israelis couldn't just give the Palestinians their own state and let them get on with it.

Sure, the Israelis need a place to live and, being of Jewish descent, it's my job to insist it should be there ;), but I draw the line at agreeing with them over the issue of holding onto land they can't use just to piss off the Palestinians and cause death left, right and center as a result.

Israel: good.
This thread: irrelevent.

Every jewish person that speaks of this topic always has to bring christians into the mix. Why in the world should christian blood be spilled in order to protect israels foreign interests. If the israelis have a problem with another middle eastern country then they should settle it THEMSELVES. WW3 certainly wont be started to protect israel. Christians on the other hand should do whatever they can to not fight muslims and instead make them friends of ours so that in the future christian and islamic blood wont have to be spilled on account of israel...
do you even look at other posts before you type? or think about what you're going to say?
I didn't say, America will start WW3 to save Israel, if i'd had to give a reason it would be America will start WW3 for cheaper oil.
Iraq was nothing to do with Israel, or we would have sent troops to help out. When Iraq actually had WMD, we were the ones who blew up their reactor, with no help from the west.
So Christians should do whatever they can to not fight Muslims and we should...? :rolleyes:
If the Muslims left us in peace, no blood would be spilt. We gave away a space 2X the size of Israel today for peace with Egypt. We offered the Palestinians 97% of the territories and they rejected.
I refuse to believe that you even have the smallest idea what is ACTUALLY going on in the Middle East today.

The reason why the United States protects Israel has nothing to do with Oil nor peace i believe.

As I recall, Theres a scripture in the bible that says that any nation that supports Israel will be rewarded and those that dont will be perished all this stuff ( Im not into bible but thats the true motive im sure) If anyone here knows the bible good ( which I doubt ) if they will remember a part in there describing the protection of Israel then people will see the tru motive of the US ( which is 80 percent christians ), Middile east has NOTHING to do with oil.
the US is capable of being self reliant if oil drils ran out in the middileeast. since America does reserve 40 percent of its oil on its own land.

EUrope tho has no oil resources so europe might be in trouble :S

Worse case predictions that is!!!!!!

However as always some one will reply that Im wrong. I could be or could not be , but Im sure they will say they are 100 percent that its about oil, kinda like sheep. bahhhh! bahhh!

Left = Democrat = Liberal = Socialist = Socialism = Communism ( The Government Controls People )

Right = Republican = Republic = Self Reliance ( The People Controls Government )


Hrmmm ...

I'm a leftist liberal populist democrat who is extremely self reliant (grow own food, tailor own clothes, repair own house, repair own vehicle/farm equipment, lives off the land), believes in the Republic, I would never dream of imposing my will or my spiritual beliefs upon others, and I welcome anyone and everyone into my home (communist ... as in commune-like) for food or a warm bed ...

Where do I fit into your little black and white scheme of things?

who Really Cares?

eh, this is just more of the black/white good/evil stereotyping that liberals complain about all the time, but are guilty of pulling off constantly.

do you even look at other posts before you type? or think about what you're going to say?
I didn't say, America will start WW3 to save Israel, if i'd had to give a reason it would be America will start WW3 for cheaper oil.
Iraq was nothing to do with Israel, or we would have sent troops to help out. When Iraq actually had WMD, we were the ones who blew up their reactor, with no help from the west.
So Christians should do whatever they can to not fight Muslims and we should...? :rolleyes:
If the Muslims left us in peace, no blood would be spilt. We gave away a space 2X the size of Israel today for peace with Egypt. We offered the Palestinians 97% of the territories and they rejected.
I refuse to believe that you even have the smallest idea what is ACTUALLY going on in the Middle East today.

If you want to talk about wmd lets mention the fact that the israeli regime(which is smaller then new jersey) has over 200 nuclear weapons of mass destruction. And people wonder why arab nations are trying to get wmds of their own. Can you really blame Iran when its much smaller neighbor has the ability to completley wipe it out in a matter of minutes? If you dont want arab nations to start building wmds of their own then scrap yours first...

who Really Cares?

Everyone who likes not having exploding idiots from other countries that somehow manage to outsmart the best military minds we throw at them. That's who.

who Really Cares?


Israelis might.

Hrmmm ...

I'm a leftist liberal populist democrat who is extremely self reliant (grow own food, tailor own clothes, repair own house, repair own vehicle/farm equipment, lives off the land), believes in the Republic, I would never dream of imposing my will or my spiritual beliefs upon others, and I welcome anyone and everyone into my home (communist ... as in commune-like) for food or a warm bed ...

Where do I fit into your little black and white scheme of things?


that was something that I copied and pasted into the wrong browser ( since it had nothing to do with the subject ) I edited what i really meant to say above. What i said about all this liberl and right wing crap was for another topic on another site! But since you replied about it tho......

How could you be a leftist liberal? isnt a leftist a liberal? owell dang, I really didnt mean to post that here. my bad.

Also alot of these forum sites have the same layout.

that was something that I copied and pasted into the wrong browser ( since it had nothing to do with the subject ) I edited what i really meant to say above.


Lol ..... I've done that before.

How could you be a leftist liberal? isnt a leftist a liberal?

I double it up for emphasis. I am an extremely hard-core liberal, hands down the most liberal on this forum, so I say "leftist liberal".

The United Nations should have given the Jewish people Germany! Doesn't that make sense? They were persecuted, and victimized, they should have been given Germany.
Yeah that would have been a lot fairer, maybe not all of Germany but a nice little chunk. The creation of Israel in the middle east really was the brittish's fault though, for allowing massive immigration into Palestine which was under their control which happened in the decades before the holocaust.

To answer the OP's question, I find such simplistic formulations as "Good or bad" particularly problematic.

Israel is a real country, with real problems. With few exceptions, no country in history has ever been entirely "good or bad", particularly depending on from what perspective one chooses to judge the morality of its actions.

I, for one, am tired of only hearing one side of the story, Israel's.

I am tired of hearing both sides bitch about how they are endlessly persecuted by the media. Everyone has their own biases and sensibilities. If you're pro-X, you'll say the media is against you. Pro-Ys say the same thing.

If you're only hearing one side, it's your own fault for not looking harder.

Upon researching the issue, I found that Israel has killed almost three times as many innocent Palestinian civilians as they have "dangerous criminals."

And what source did you use to reach this conclusion?

This is ridiculous, one such massacre was the destruction of a children's hospital. I am REAL SURE that dangerous criminals are going to be hiding in a Palestinian Children's hospital!

First, it has been documented that Palestinian fighters tend to use their surroundings to their advantage, including ambulances. This obviously does not excuse any "massacre", assuming one took place- I can't seem to find a link to the story, if you could substantiate it, I'd appreciate it.

On the other hand, Palestinians haven't been pacifists either.

...Please feel free to voice your opinion.

My opinion is that atrocities are being comitted by both sides, and that both sides need to be held accountable for what they do. At present, both governments allow significant numbers of their populations to get away with some really atrocious things, and the fact that it is relatively impossible for anyone to arrive at an agreed set of facts only further complicates things, particularly since the press and notable personalities of both groups seem to love spreading rumors and hyperbole.

I am in favor of dismantling settlements. I am in favor of a security wall being built- on the Green Line. I am in favor of negotiations. I am in favor of reforming the PA. I am in favor of cracking down on Palestinian extremists as well as Israelis. I am in favor of properly punishing IDF soldiers who cross the lines of acceptibility. I am in favor of speaking up against bullshit when I see it, by apologists and ideologues on either side. (Although I tend to identify more with Israel than Palestine.)

I am in favor of both sides turning away from the waste of lives and potential that have characterized the region for over 70 years.

...I have no idea how to make these things come to pass.

No one "threw" the jews into palastine they all went there volentarily.

Depends on how you want to look at it. Many of those who went to Palestine went because their lives were miserable- first in Russia where they had no rights, then in Germany and Poland where they lost their families, property, and were basically unwelcome when they wanted to go back, then finally after Israel's creation, when many Arab countries made life impossible for Jews living there, encouraging/forcing them to immigrate.

So, how voluntary is that, per se?

I do not think israel existing is a good thing. Its bad for palastinians

Not that much worse than their own corrupt leaders and an apathetic Arab world.

Its bad for America(we gave away so much money to israels "rightious" cause)

A lot of the money given away we get back, when Israel buys weapons from us.

its bad for the region of the middle east(which wasnt in so much of a mess until the state of israel was formed)

That's absurd. Go read a history book. The Middle East was spectacularly fucked up by centuries of European colonialism, not the establishment of Israel. You're confusing one of the side-effects for the main cause.

On a more practical note, please explain how Israel is "messing up" the larger region.

I feel more sympathetic to the palastinians simply because they never had any choice in the matter(their homeland was occupied and stolen

Their "homeland" was occupied long before 1948. The Palestinians were landless peasants living on land owned by absentee Ottoman landlords. A fair chunk of the land was legally bought pre-war by Jewish immigrants from the actual land-owners. Palestinians tenants were then evicted. Was it a NICE thing to do? Not particularly. But it was legal, and it's standard practice all over the world.

Reg. the stolen- 1947 partition plan. The Palestinians could have had a state. The Zionists got shafted on the deal, but they accepted anyway. The Palestinians didn't, and then attacked Israel. Got their butts kicked and lost the land. The Palestinians were victims of stupid and stubborn leaders.

by a large group of misplaced europeons who claim to be gods "chosen" who want to return to their "holy" land)

Do some reading. You clearly know little about the Chosen-ness concept or the various ideological strains making up modern Zionism.

I do know that many israeli civilians die due to terrorist attacks but the deaths would never occur if their ancestors never occupied palastine in the first place in 1947

Your ignorance is quite astounding.

1- Modern Zionist immigration started in 1880.
2- "Palestine" was not "occupied" until 1967.
3- This is an asinine argument. So American Indians are allowed to kill whites, since their deaths "would never occur if their ancestors never occupied America in the first place"? You are attempting to defend murder with a phenomenally stupid and ill-defined rationale. Feel free to try again.

therefore im hardpressed to feel any sorrow for them at this point

Right. Any Israeli that doesn't move is a legitimate target. Including children. That's real "moral" of you. :rolleyes:

Also the israeli regime is extremely one sided

What the hell does that even mean? What government ISN'T one-sided?

Why in the world should christian blood be spilled in order to protect israels foreign interests.

The answer depends on who you ask. Fundies like Pat Robertson would say it's because Israel's existence will bring the Rapture.

If the israelis have a problem with another middle eastern country then they should settle it THEMSELVES.

Hasn't that generally be the case?

Israel existing is a good thing, but as they're not using those bits with the Palestinians in, why don't they let them have them?

The big problems are water rights and settlements.

No Israeli can live there without getting killed, only Palestinians occupy it, it seems to me the only reason the Israelis are hanging on to the land is for bragging rights. No-one's managed to explain to me yet why the Israelis couldn't just give the Palestinians their own state and let them get on with it.

1- Because Israel faces a huge fight over evacuating the 200,000-plus settlers living on the West Bank and Gaza (although if it could annex some of the larger settlements close to the Green Line in exchange for territorial swaps, that might help).

2- Because there's a large proportion of the Palestinian population who continually say they won't be satisfied with a state just in WB&G, that they want ALL of "Pre-state Palestine", which basically turns into a war for Israel's existence. Add the fact that these factions are quite popular and largely unopposed by the PLO/PA.

3- There is a great deal of distrust (some of it well-deserved) that even the "moderate" PA will actually settle for a state in WB&G, and will crack down and stop terrorism against Israel. In which case, the Palestinian state becomes a mere "stepping-stone", instead of a final ending to the conflict. It also then becomes a "stronghold of terrorism".

Both parties in the US justify our support of Israel by stating it's the only democracy in the region. But how can it be a democracy when it doesn't allow the right of return to Palestinians?

What does the right of return for Refugees have to do with democracy?

It's like apartheid South Africa. Only certain people were allowed to vote, or allowed to call themselves South African. Millions were excluded from the ballot by race or ethnicity to ensure the whites were allowed to choose their own government. In Israel's case, replace "whites" with "Jews".

Except that about 1/6th of Israel's population are non-Jewish Arabs, with full citizenship and voting rights (although they do suffer discrimination- somewhat similar to the US c. 1960s with blacks).

The fact that the Palestinians are not Israeli citizens has little to do with the right of return. They are separate issues. And your apartheid comparison doesn't stand up because there are over 1.5 million Israeli Arabs. It's not an issue of ethnicity, but rather of national status.

The creation of Israel in the middle east really was the brittish's fault though, for allowing massive immigration into Palestine which was under their control which happened in the decades before the holocaust.

It was the British's fault because they occupied the land after WWI and tried to play both sides against each other, rather than actually trying to get them to coexist. The Zionist claim was not illegitimate, and there was no inherent reason two states couldn't have been peacefully established.

And the British really weren't that helpful regarding "allowing massive immigration into Palestine"- particularly since they restricted the quota down to a few thousand in the late 30s, just in time to fuck over millions of Jews. (This is one reason the British became targetted by pre-state Jewish militias.)

Had it not been for the British quota (along with many other countries), many people could have been saved. Their blood is on their hands just as much as it is on the ones who actually did the killing.

Left = Democrat = Liberal = Socialist = Socialism = Communism ( The Government Controls People )

Right = Republican = Republic = Self Reliance ( The People Controls Government )

Even if this were true, that x = y, which it isnt, communism is where the people control the government. Republic is where the Government controls the people, but the people are represented.

Continuing with the OT, in a true communist state (which has never existed) the government is the people. The Soviet Union had a badly-managed commusit economy with a cruel far-right wing totalitarian dictatorship.

As for Israel? I really can't take sides, but I don't like the fact that my tax dollars get sent to the Israeli government. I don't like what Zionism has become (basically you support Israel, or you're Hitler) but to be fair I can't feel sorry for Palestinian terrorists who kill innocent Israelis and hide amongst innocent Palestinians.

If the israelis have a problem with another middle eastern country then they should settle it THEMSELVES.

They are, and they have. But without US being in the way, I doubt if Egypt or lots of other arab nations would still be around.

And all you people who say that the US doesn't get anything from Israel and just ditch them etc... Merkava IV, Israeli MBT, used by America. America uses these very often and they're among the best MBT's in the world. And the Uzi, also used widely by the US army.

Sanctaphrax, you're obsessed with the Israel topic.. I suppose I'm obsessed with the American election, but at least my obsession ends tomorrow..lol

Sanctaphrax, you're obsessed with the Israel topic.. I suppose I'm obsessed with the American election, but at least my obsession ends tomorrow..lol
I AM from Israel. Besides, there haven't been too many people showing their support. Generally its me QahJoh and a few others.

I AM from Israel. Besides, there haven't been too many people showing their support. Generally its me QahJoh and a few others.

Well that's mostly because of the political actions of the Israeli government over the years. It's not about Jewish people. It's about the Israeli government, which has basically lost support from the entire world save the United States. That's about the only country that I can think of that supports Israel based on their actions over the years. Namely the oppression of the Palestinian people. Too bad both sides just couldn't get some political leaders who were actually interested in peace. Sadly, I see no end in sight any time soon.

To answer the OP's question, I find such simplistic formulations as "Good or bad" particularly problematic.

Israel is a real country, with real problems. With few exceptions, no country in history has ever been entirely "good or bad", particularly depending on from what perspective one chooses to judge the morality of its actions.



I am tired of hearing both sides bitch about how they are endlessly persecuted by the media. Everyone has their own biases and sensibilities. If you're pro-X, you'll say the media is against you. Pro-Ys say the same thing.

If you're only hearing one side, it's your own fault for not looking harder.



And what source did you use to reach this conclusion?



First, it has been documented that Palestinian fighters tend to use their surroundings to their advantage, including ambulances. This obviously does not excuse any "massacre", assuming one took place- I can't seem to find a link to the story, if you could substantiate it, I'd appreciate it.



My opinion is that atrocities are being comitted by both sides, and that both sides need to be held accountable for what they do. At present, both governments allow significant numbers of their populations to get away with some really atrocious things, and the fact that it is relatively impossible for anyone to arrive at an agreed set of facts only further complicates things, particularly since the press and notable personalities of both groups seem to love spreading rumors and hyperbole.

I am in favor of dismantling settlements. I am in favor of a security wall being built- on the Green Line. I am in favor of negotiations. I am in favor of reforming the PA. I am in favor of cracking down on Palestinian extremists as well as Israelis. I am in favor of properly punishing IDF soldiers who cross the lines of acceptibility. I am in favor of speaking up against bullshit when I see it, by apologists and ideologues on either side. (Although I tend to identify more with Israel than Palestine.)

I am in favor of both sides turning away from the waste of lives and potential that have characterized the region for over 70 years.

...I have no idea how to make these things come to pass.



Depends on how you want to look at it. Many of those who went to Palestine went because their lives were miserable- first in Russia where they had no rights, then in Germany and Poland where they lost their families, property, and were basically unwelcome when they wanted to go back, then finally after Israel's creation, when many Arab countries made life impossible for Jews living there, encouraging/forcing them to immigrate.

So, how voluntary is that, per se?



Not that much worse than their own corrupt leaders and an apathetic Arab world.



A lot of the money given away we get back, when Israel buys weapons from us.



That's absurd. Go read a history book. The Middle East was spectacularly fucked up by centuries of European colonialism, not the establishment of Israel. You're confusing one of the side-effects for the main cause.

On a more practical note, please explain how Israel is "messing up" the larger region.



Their "homeland" was occupied long before 1948. The Palestinians were landless peasants living on land owned by absentee Ottoman landlords. A fair chunk of the land was legally bought pre-war by Jewish immigrants from the actual land-owners. Palestinians tenants were then evicted. Was it a NICE thing to do? Not particularly. But it was legal, and it's standard practice all over the world.

Reg. the stolen- 1947 partition plan. The Palestinians could have had a state. The Zionists got shafted on the deal, but they accepted anyway. The Palestinians didn't, and then attacked Israel. Got their butts kicked and lost the land. The Palestinians were victims of stupid and stubborn leaders.



Do some reading. You clearly know little about the Chosen-ness concept or the various ideological strains making up modern Zionism.



Your ignorance is quite astounding.

1- Modern Zionist immigration started in 1880.
2- "Palestine" was not "occupied" until 1967.
3- This is an asinine argument. So American Indians are allowed to kill whites, since their deaths "would never occur if their ancestors never occupied America in the first place"? You are attempting to defend murder with a phenomenally stupid and ill-defined rationale. Feel free to try again.



Right. Any Israeli that doesn't move is a legitimate target. Including children. That's real "moral" of you. :rolleyes:



What the hell does that even mean? What government ISN'T one-sided?



The answer depends on who you ask. Fundies like Pat Robertson would say it's because Israel's existence will bring the Rapture.



Hasn't that generally be the case?



The big problems are water rights and settlements.



1- Because Israel faces a huge fight over evacuating the 200,000-plus settlers living on the West Bank and Gaza (although if it could annex some of the larger settlements close to the Green Line in exchange for territorial swaps, that might help).

2- Because there's a large proportion of the Palestinian population who continually say they won't be satisfied with a state just in WB&G, that they want ALL of "Pre-state Palestine", which basically turns into a war for Israel's existence. Add the fact that these factions are quite popular and largely unopposed by the PLO/PA.

3- There is a great deal of distrust (some of it well-deserved) that even the "moderate" PA will actually settle for a state in WB&G, and will crack down and stop terrorism against Israel. In which case, the Palestinian state becomes a mere "stepping-stone", instead of a final ending to the conflict. It also then becomes a "stronghold of terrorism".



What does the right of return for Refugees have to do with democracy?



Except that about 1/6th of Israel's population are non-Jewish Arabs, with full citizenship and voting rights (although they do suffer discrimination- somewhat similar to the US c. 1960s with blacks).

The fact that the Palestinians are not Israeli citizens has little to do with the right of return. They are separate issues. And your apartheid comparison doesn't stand up because there are over 1.5 million Israeli Arabs. It's not an issue of ethnicity, but rather of national status.



It was the British's fault because they occupied the land after WWI and tried to play both sides against each other, rather than actually trying to get them to coexist. The Zionist claim was not illegitimate, and there was no inherent reason two states couldn't have been peacefully established.

And the British really weren't that helpful regarding "allowing massive immigration into Palestine"- particularly since they restricted the quota down to a few thousand in the late 30s, just in time to fuck over millions of Jews. (This is one reason the British became targetted by pre-state Jewish militias.)

Had it not been for the British quota (along with many other countries), many people could have been saved. Their blood is on their hands just as much as it is on the ones who actually did the killing.


Israel never handled anything solely by itself. At first the Czech Republic and Great Britain helped it and now the US helps it in every aspect other then directly going in and fighting the battle for them. America provides israel with the most advanced weaponry as well as the best training in short without America israel wouldnt last 5 years.

I never said zionism started in 1947 I stated that the israeli regime officially gained recognition form the UN declaring it a new jewish state.

It doesnt matter how you think the arab leadership is worse the fact is palastine was populated with mostly muslims for about 1700 years and it should go back to that state.

I know the middle east wasnt perfect before israel but the early 1900s saw great improvements between the muslim and christian relations(Britain did afterall contribute to and help the arab uprising defeat the ottoman empire in WW1) after this things seemed to be more stable until your people just had to start their return to the "holy" land after the israeli regime was established the arab nations didnt see this as a jewish threat rather they saw it as a western threat again putting christians at odds against the muslims. Israel started a chain reaction which led to the creation of terrorist groups such as the hamas and al quida and since America helps this regime out we are targeted as well. September 11th occured simply because our American government blindly supports the israeli government and thus has become a target for islamic militants worldwide.

The contribution the American government makes to the israelis far outweighes what the israelis give in return. Israel is known for manufacturing weapons that at times falls into the hands of gangsters, thugs, and criminals worldwide(the uzi and night hawk especially) and I cannot see how this is a good contribution.

A good solution to this problem would be let jerusalem be international territory guarded by the UN forces. Most of Palastine should be returned to the palastinians. And perhaps the jews can have a small section in northern palastine where they wont be harmed.

Edit- This is Right Wing America using my friends comp

I'll tag this right now.. there's a lot to reply to.. a lot..

I am sure many of you are familiar with the relentless calamity in the middle east. Particularly the calamity between Israel and Palestine. I, for one, am tired of only hearing one side of the story, Israel's. Upon researching the issue, I found that Israel has killed almost three times as many innocent Palestinian civilians as they have "dangerous criminals." This is ridiculous, one such massacre was the destruction of a children's hospital. I am REAL SURE that dangerous criminals are going to be hiding in a Palestinian Children's hospital! On the other hand, Palestinians haven't been pacifists either. I am not anti-semitic, and I am not anti-arabic, I am anti-war. The mess in the middle east is futile. Please feel free to voice your opinion.

So you're "REAL SURE" that dangerous criminals will not hide in their own people's childrens' hospital? How very innocent of you. I bet you think they wouldn't hole up in one of the most sacred religious sites of Christianity either? (they did, in the Church of the Nativity.) I suppose they wouldn't send someone with a bomb under his coat into a crowded family restaurant filled with children and even babies? (Sbarro on Jaffa road, to name only one. I have eaten there, and whenever I went it was always filled with families.) I suppose you are real sure that they wouldn't fire at soldiers while standing behind a row of children? (all through the first months of Intifada II.) I guess you just can't believe that they would push their way into Palestinian houses to fire from their windows at jewish towns next door, only to run away when the IDF comes and prepares to fire? (all the fucking time.) And they certainly wouldn't be so low as to teach their children to attack soldiers with "minor" deadly weapons so they can become martyrs and go straight to Heaven? No, not them. (that's what Intifada IS!) And certainly they don't teach their adolescent young "men" to blow themselves up amidst Israelis, even schoolchildren, for a free ticket to 72 virgins. Preposterous! (the last four decades as a minimum.)

Dude... the people you are talking about are TERRORISTS. They have absolutely no regard for human life, much less the life of even the tiniest and most innocent Jew, and they certainly have no regard for the noncombatant Palestinians they live among, other than as human shields, cannon fodder, and the family members of potential recruits.

Sharon is indeed a war criminal. So is Bush. We (USA) should not have gone to Iraq the way we did, and we probably could have won more hearts and minds in Afghanistan if we'd really cared as much as Bush pretended to. (Nice article in an old "Newsweek" about how the 82nd(?) Airborne conducted house to house searches ... even going into a home that the Green Berets had just made friends of and humiliating them by searching their women with male troops.) We shouldn't be using depleted uranium, and as much as we try to limit civilian casualties (we DO try, btw), we could probably be doing more.

But you know what? We actually ARE the "good guys". Believe it or don't. We ARE better than Saddam, we ARE better than Al Queida, we ARE better than the Taliban, and we ARE better than the God-DAMNED terroristic murderers of Hammas. THEY hide behind THEIR OWN civilians and fire at us and then they call US (Israel, and to the US, their "Iraqi" cousins) monsters for shooting back. They almost killed my wife, a woman who once sympathized with their cause, for the crime of trying to buy groceries.

By luck she was asked if she had anything smaller than a 100 shekel note (~$25 then). As she was rumaging a SATANIC MURDERING BLASPHEMING FALSE MUSLIM WHORE stood in the doorway, where she would have been, and blew herself up, killing two others.

It sucks that war kills civilians. Guess what? It always has. It kills more when "warriors" hide among them and fire from crowds of them. Israel targets terrorists and snipers who hide among civilians, and civilians die with them. Hammas targets civilians.

In my opinion the U.S. helped Britain and France establish the state of Israel out of holocaust guilt and our religious beliefs. We had no right to simply take over a region and assign it to the Jews.
It's apparent that the friends of the Palestinians in the area will not give up any of their land for a Palestinian state. It would be in the best interest of and benefit to the U.S. to give a state to the Jewish people of their choosing from one of our fifty.
Our countries, Israel and the U.S. are very compatible. We would both have the advantage of having the two most powerful militaries in the world defending each other and great compatiblity tradewise and culturewise. However the Israelis would have to give Israel to the Palestinians.

In my opinion the U.S. helped Britain and France establish the state of Israel out of holocaust guilt and our religious beliefs. We had no right to simply take over a region and assign it to the Jews.
It's apparent that the friends of the Palestinians in the area will not give up any of their land for a Palestinian state. It would be in the best interest of and benefit to the U.S. to give a state to the Jewish people of their choosing from one of our fifty.
Our countries, Israel and the U.S. are very compatible. We would both have the advantage of having the two most powerful militaries in the world defending each other and great compatiblity tradewise and culturewise. However the Israelis would have to give Israel to the Palestinians.
Or you could give a state to the Palestinians, then they could burn your flag with greater ease and celebrate the murder of your civilians in more space and get better TV coverage.

QahJoh - that was a great post - I'd say I agree with most everything you said!

Sanctaphrax - you seem to have a particularly one-sided view of the situation. Sounds like you have a much more direct connection to the situation than most of us, so that can certainly be forgiven. I did want to respond to a few things you said though... :)

Israel destroyed Iraq's reactor with no help from the West? Israel has been getting $$$$$$$ from the US for a long time, and probably (I don't know for sure if this is true) attacked Iraq with US-built/designed equipment.

The Palestinians were offered 97% of the territories, yes - but you neglect to mention that the other 3% was the most sacred to them.

Right or wrong, the Palestinians feel that the land they lived on for generations was wrongly taken from them and given to the state of Israel. Israel certainly didn't help things by "encouraging" the Palestinians to leave - and not allowing them to return.

I also feel the need to point out that Israel is fighting this battle with the highly trained, highly equipped IDF. The Palestinian side has no army, and is forced to fight back in unconventional ways. Targeting civilians is wrong, and a horrible, horrible tragedy - but how else are they to fight back against (what they feel is) oppression?

Neither side is as innocent as they'd like to believe, but things will never get better until both sides realize: "oh shit...we're basically stuck here, and we're going to have to share this land." Will that ever happen? I dunno...but I doubt it... :(

The reason why the United States protects Israel has nothing to do with Oil nor peace i believe.

As I recall, Theres a scripture in the bible that says that any nation that supports Israel will be rewarded and those that dont will be perished all this stuff ( Im not into bible but thats the true motive im sure) If anyone here knows the bible good ( which I doubt ) if they will remember a part in there describing the protection of Israel then people will see the tru motive of the US ( which is 80 percent christians ), Middile east has NOTHING to do with oil.
the US is capable of being self reliant if oil drils ran out in the middileeast. since America does reserve 40 percent of its oil on its own land.

EUrope tho has no oil resources so europe might be in trouble :S

Worse case predictions that is!!!!!!

However as always some one will reply that Im wrong. I could be or could not be , but Im sure they will say they are 100 percent that its about oil, kinda like sheep. bahhhh! bahhh!

The scriptures refering to protecting Isreal are taken by many to mean plainly protecting Gods People, and Gods people are those of any nation any where who lives within the guidelines of Gods Laws and the law of Christ - to LOVE. It is my personal belief that the scriptures you may point out are not in reference to a nation created by the United Nations organization and a state that in itself, simply in merit of the name and region, really has nothing to do with God. As the apostle Peter said, "I percieve for a fact, that in every nation, the man that works out what is righteous is acceptable to God."

True Christians everywhere are sympathetic to not just Isreali's working towards peace and not allowing people to turn them towards hating thier brothers but people everywhere who Hope for something better - who hope for peace.

Now I have a question - where were Isreali's before the nation of Isreal was set aside by the UN. And who owned the land before it was givin to the Isreali's after WWII?

BBC, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The most biased western news agency. Try Sky News next time, they're slightly better.


Euh, it was on all other "biased western agencies" in Europe to. Guess that your Sky News is not biased because it only reflects the views of the extreme right zionists and does ot tell the truth at all.

Euh, it was on all other "biased western agencies" in Europe to. Guess that your Sky News is not biased because it only reflects the views of the extreme right zionists and does ot tell the truth at all.

The kindler, gentler, side of flame. :D

I don't think that WW3 will be all about oil. Oil will play a large part, since demand will keep increasing and supply is holiding steady for now. I think that religion will play the major role, but for Israel, the biggest issue will be survival.

Hmm, this may sound really childish and possibly stupid, but hear me out. How about bringing the two leaders together (after Arafat gets well again, if he does) and make them promise only to speak the truth, using their religion's strongest oaths? Use their own religions to trap them, then ask each leader what would end the attacks from both sides, and negotiate from there. It might be interesting to watch this on television. If one leader lies, then the people of their religion watching will know, and can carry out their own punishment of the 'oathbreaker.'

We've seen plenty of 'reality' shows. Who'd want to watch Survivor when you can watch Middle East Live? :D

The 3% of the territories (well, no... actually annexed parts according to Israel) that are the most sacred to the Palestinians are also the most sacred to the Jews. Why? Because their history is held as sacred in the Tenach (OT), a book sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, the latter two of which splintered off of Judaism. Their sacredness comes FROM Judaism.

Suppose the Crusaders had managed to keep Jerusalem, and suppose they had decided to build a cathedral on the site of the Temple (THE most sacred site in Judaism), and declared it one of the holiest sites of Christianity. Now, suppose that 100s of years later they lost that land to the Jews after having attacked them and tried to destroy them. What would you say? I don't know. What would I say? "Boo-fucking-hoo!"

No right to the Land? Jews lived ALL OVER the Middle East under the Ottomons. Guess what happened? The Ottomons lost WW I. There were Jews in Iraq. Where'd they go? There were Jews in Iran. Where'd they go? There were Jews in Syria. Where'd they go? There were Jews in Lybia. Where'd they go? There were Jews in Egypt. Where'd they go?

They fled for their lives when the Ottomon Empire fell, and hate-filled arabic neighbours came and attacked them, killed them, raped them, burned them out, and nationalized all their real properties. They ended up in their anscestoral homeland and made a stand. The "Muslims" (blasphemers, actually) around them no longer had the Turks to answer to, and would not share any part of "their" land with Jews, who remind them that "Dad liked Isaac best". That's why they refused to agree to ANY division of the Land, and that's why they are still crying "push them into the sea!" to this day.

Jews lived in the Middle East for centuries and when the UK and the LoN started dividing the lands up, and when the Jews were being driven out of every other place there, they had a right to Israel. And every bit of land they have taken since then has been in defence. So boo-fucking-hoo.

[snip]

Now I have a question - where were Isreali's before the nation of Isreal was set aside by the UN. And who owned the land before it was givin to the Isreali's after WWII?

That, is the heart of the dispute... CNN has a surprisingly candid overview of the history of the land there. Try here:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/mideast/stories/overview/

Euh, it was on all other "biased western agencies" in Europe to. Guess that your Sky News is not biased because it only reflects the views of the extreme right zionists and does ot tell the truth at all.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Sky News, extreme right HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA cough HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAH!
I said "slightly better" not "right wing Zionists", yet another person who likes to hear himself speak but feels himself above reading other peoples posts to the end. So you think i'm an "extreme right zionist"? You couldn't be more wrong, i'm centre-left. But nice try anyway.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Sky News, extreme right HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA cough HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAH!
I said "slightly better" not "right wing Zionists", yet another person who likes to hear himself speak but feels himself above reading other peoples posts to the end. So you think i'm an "extreme right zionist"? You couldn't be more wrong, i'm centre-left. But nice try anyway.

You're center-left?? :eek:

I wonder what the extreme right-wing zionists are preaching, then.

You're center-left?? :eek:

I wonder what the extreme right-wing zionists are preaching, then.
kill all arabs, throw them out of Israel, everyone become religious etc... not very nice people. I do however debate slightly more right-wing than intended and I apologise.

I wonder what the extreme right-wing zionists are preaching, then.
It may surprise you to know that the extreme-right are in fact anti-Zionist. The State of Israel cannot exist until the messiah arrives according to them.

Novel idea I know, but here goes............
Doesnt matter who is good or bad, right or wrong.
What matters is that the issue is between 2 factions, over a small geographical area. How bout the rest of the world (Pointed glare at the USA) keeps its nose out of other countries business, and just let them get on with it? And before anyone else says "World war 3" either side using nuclear weapons would be suicidal...the geographical area is to small, they would kill themselves with the fallout. Add to this the fact that that they would risk destroying the holy city, and they just wont do it. Other countries cant stop a fight that has been going on in one form or another since the middle ages, all they can do is make themselves targets by butting in where they arent needed. As for oil, we dont need it now, havent needed it for a long time, and if you want to know the answer, look at Cuba and a lot of south american countries where cars have been easily modified to run on alcohol, a renewable, clean fuel. And yes there are vegatable based lubricants that can be used in place of oil.

kill all arabs, throw them out of Israel, everyone become religious etc... not very nice people. I do however debate slightly more right-wing than intended and I apologise.

It only seems "right" because the "proper" "left" position these days is to blame Israel for what happens when terrorists hide behind their own children.

Good? No, not really.


Bad? Well, maybe.


Ugly? Definitely.


Where's Ennio Moricone when I need him?

The 3% of the territories (well, no... actually annexed parts according to Israel) that are the most sacred to the Palestinians are also the most sacred to the Jews. Why? Because their history is held as sacred in the Tenach (OT), a book sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, the latter two of which splintered off of Judaism. Their sacredness comes FROM Judaism.

Suppose the Crusaders had managed to keep Jerusalem, and suppose they had decided to build a cathedral on the site of the Temple (THE most sacred site in Judaism), and declared it one of the holiest sites of Christianity. Now, suppose that 100s of years later they lost that land to the Jews after having attacked them and tried to destroy them. What would you say? I don't know. What would I say? "Boo-fucking-hoo!"

No right to the Land? Jews lived ALL OVER the Middle East under the Ottomons. Guess what happened? The Ottomons lost WW I. There were Jews in Iraq. Where'd they go? There were Jews in Iran. Where'd they go? There were Jews in Syria. Where'd they go? There were Jews in Lybia. Where'd they go? There were Jews in Egypt. Where'd they go?

They fled for their lives when the Ottomon Empire fell, and hate-filled arabic neighbours came and attacked them, killed them, raped them, burned them out, and nationalized all their real properties. They ended up in their anscestoral homeland and made a stand. The "Muslims" (blasphemers, actually) around them no longer had the Turks to answer to, and would not share any part of "their" land with Jews, who remind them that "Dad liked Isaac best". That's why they refused to agree to ANY division of the Land, and that's why they are still crying "push them into the sea!" to this day.

Jews lived in the Middle East for centuries and when the UK and the LoN started dividing the lands up, and when the Jews were being driven out of every other place there, they had a right to Israel. And every bit of land they have taken since then has been in defence. So boo-fucking-hoo.

I think this might be the only subject I've seen where I actually have the opposite view to you!

Every 'race' has lived everywhere, in greater or lesser numbers, for as long as there has been the movement of populations. The only difference here is that the Jews have continued a pattern of blaming ALL aggression on one cause... you kill us because we are Jews. Well, after the birth of Islam - there were actually only two religions tolerated within the boundaries of Moslem belief.. Judaism and Christianity - because the early Islamic church considered them to be 'brothers' in faith... since all three worship the same god, and hold the same texts as sacred. It wasn't until the betrayal of Islam by their christian 'brethren' that Islam began to turn against christianity, and Judaism.

Most 'races' have migrated around the world, and often, they get wiped out by whoever they meet, in the interests of keeping the 'foreigner' out. The Jews have just kept better tally, and have blamed it all on persecution of their specific belief... which is, of course, wrong - since they have been persecuted for being different, the same as EVERY other visitor 'race' everwhere, ever.

And to state that Israel is a 'defensive' stand against the oppression of the Middle East is to ignore so many facts.

One: There was already a 'people' living there, which the LoN evicted to GIVE a land to 'Israel'.

Two: The west enforced the relocation of the 'natives'. This was not a 'stand' to hold territory, this was the SEIZURE of territory.

Three: The disputed territories are beyond the agrees borders of Israel. The state invaded nearby territory to expand their borders. Whether or not they were invaded does not justify their seizure of land.

Four: The 'holy land' only 'belongs' to the Jews because they carried out a policy of genocide. The Old Testament clearly illustrates the systematic murder and kidnapping with which the nascent 'Israel' wiped out the entire native population of the area.

Five: Most of the Jews in Israel are not actually Jews. They are of Eastern European descent, from the mass conversion of the Kazars to Judaism. And, since you can only truly be a Jew by being BORN a Jew, those people have no true legitimate claim to the name. So - the west invaded the middle-east, enforced the relocations of natives, and handed the land over to people who use the same name as the people who might have once lived there.

The United Nations should have given the Jewish people Germany! Doesn't that make sense? They were persecuted, and victimized, they should have been given Germany.

If the United Nation was drunk 24/7 and taking a lot of substances they might have considered this. But considering Germany had (and lived up to) the potential to house the world third of fourth largest economy, wouldn't letting oh say...the Germans control of their nation after ww2 be a good idea? The country was already destroyed and the people had nowhere to go so putting Jews into that situation would be the eq0ivalent of saying “alright boys, now that’s over, lets have so more genocide".

Now that I am done carving that, I’ll respond to the original article that asks if Israel is a good or bad nation. The answer is defiantly bad, but who cares? They outsmart their opponents at every turn; they can conquer any nation around them as a moments notice, and their not going anywhere. Get used to them because they won't go away.

Israel: Not good, not bad, but DANGEROUS.

I can't help but sympathize with Israel. They are surrounded by enemies and Europe is pressuring them as well, so their only ally is basically the US which is half a world away. Do I agree with everything they do? No. However, I am usually inclined to sympathize with them because of this.

I can't help but sympathize with Israel. They are surrounded by enemies and Europe is pressuring them as well, so their only ally is basically the US which is half a world away. Do I agree with everything they do? No. However, I am usually inclined to sympathize with them because of this.

So are you sympathetic with Cuba, then? They're in the same predicament you've outlined vis-a-vis Israel.

It doesnt matter how you think the arab leadership is worse the fact is palastine was populated with mostly muslims for about 1700 years and it should go back to that state.


I have three responses to that:

1) The first census of Jerusalem was taken in 1844, while the region was still under Ottoman rule and before Zionism, Jewish migration, or any of the other factors attributed to the modern Jewish presence were even thought of. The population at that time consisted of 7120 Jews, 5760 Muslims, and 3390 Christians. Do the math, Arab Muslims were a bit over 1/3 of the population. The whole mindset that there were no Jews in Palestine before Zionism is a popular myth easily dispelled by anyone who does even a cursory reading of the regions history.

2) A very large percentage of the Jews in Israel actually came from other parts of the Middle East. There used to be massive populations of Jews in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and some of the other Middle Eastern countries, but were chased OUT of their homes and INTO Israel by those governments. Where do you propose those Jews go?

3) Your statement is blatantly racist and should be abhorrent to most people. Replace "Palestine" and "Muslims" with any other group, and you should see the idiocy of your statement:

"Ireland was populated with mostly Catholics for about 1700 years and it should go back to that state."

"Denmark was populated with mostly whites for about 1700 years and it should go back to that state."

"Germany was populated with mostly aryans for about 1700 years and it should go back to that state."

Racism is racism, and we're either equals or we're not. Nobody should be banned from living ANYWHERE based on their religion alone.

first, a link
second, you would be VERY surprised to what depths the terrorists sink. Hiding behind innocents is a speciality of theirs. So is inflating the number of dead, so be very careful about your source.

Yes! What most people don't know, or don't want to know, is that terrorists hide behind innocents because

a) They don't think the opposition would dare come near with innocents around

or

b) If innocents did get killed it would be the fault of the nation dropping the bombs and not those who PUT them in danger.

While Israel may not be pristine (what country is?) at least they don't preach hate in their schoolbooks and hide behind innocents.

I think this might be the only subject I've seen where I actually have the opposite view to you!

Pobody's nerfect. :)

Every 'race' has lived everywhere, in greater or lesser numbers, for as long as there has been the movement of populations. The only difference here is that the Jews have continued a pattern of blaming ALL aggression on one cause... you kill us because we are Jews. Well, after the birth of Islam - there were actually only two religions tolerated within the boundaries of Moslem belief.. Judaism and Christianity - because the early Islamic church considered them to be 'brothers' in faith... since all three worship the same god, and hold the same texts as sacred. It wasn't until the betrayal of Islam by their christian 'brethren' that Islam began to turn against christianity, and Judaism.

Most 'races' have migrated around the world, and often, they get wiped out by whoever they meet, in the interests of keeping the 'foreigner' out. The Jews have just kept better tally, and have blamed it all on persecution of their specific belief... which is, of course, wrong - since they have been persecuted for being different, the same as EVERY other visitor 'race' everwhere, ever.

No other race, aside from the Roma, has suffered such consistent vilification and persecution throughout history. In the Jew's case this has a lot to do with Replacement Theology, a belief shared by many "Christians" as well as an arguable majority of "Muslims". This is the belief that G-d's eternal covenent with the people of Israel is not so eternal, but even though He has said that no matter what they have done, He will always welcome them, or their children, back if they repent, He has in fact taken the status of "chosen people" from then and given it to others, either Christians or Muslims, depending on who holds this view. This belief at its roots holds that G-d is a liar.

The early islamic "church" held that Jews and Chrostians were Muslims' brothers because THE Q'RAN MANDATES THAT THEY BE REGARDED AS SUCH. So, like Replacement Theology, any "muslim" religious teaching that so much as permits waging war against Jews, in particular war of aggression, is heretical and anti-islamic.

You suggest that betrayal by Christians turned Muslims against Jews. I suppose that betrayal by Muslims turned Christians against Jews? Betrayed by Christians, they decided to throw out the Q'ran and write their own anti-Israel dogma. There was no justification.

All races have indeed suffered racism. But of them all only two, the Jews and the Roma, have suffered repeated concentrated efforts to absolutely exterminate them. Before you call them "whiners" you might consider that these two races stand out from all the rest for having spent centuries wandering with no homelands. Without Israel, the Jews would still be wandering.

And to state that Israel is a 'defensive' stand against the oppression of the Middle East is to ignore so many facts.

One: There was already a 'people' living there, which the LoN evicted to GIVE a land to 'Israel'.

Two: The west enforced the relocation of the 'natives'. This was not a 'stand' to hold territory, this was the SEIZURE of territory.

Wrong. There were Jordanians and Jews there together, roughly half and half, and half (well, 40%) of the Land was all that the LoN was proposing giving to become Israel in their final proposal. And the LoN did not evict anyone. The Arabs pressured them into doing nothing but talk, until finally the Jews themselves declared Israel to be an independent state, after having faced continual murderous efforts by Arabs to eliminate them from all corners of the Middle East.

Three: The disputed territories are beyond the agrees borders of Israel. The state invaded nearby territory to expand their borders. Whether or not they were invaded does not justify their seizure of land.

Yes it does. If you attack me, and I win, then you lose. For millenia that was the way of the world, no matter who started it. The loser was conquered. Only in the 20th century did world governmental organizations start to try another way, and guess who was their test case, under the pressure of arab states who to this day do not recognize any borders for the state of Israel?

Really, what "agreed borders of Israel"? Their initially established borders, that the arab states have never recognized? The post-War of Independence borders, that Israel's enemies agreed to in the peace treaty, but thereafter consistently tried to violate? The agreed upon borders today, when Israel still does not exist on arab maps?

Four: The 'holy land' only 'belongs' to the Jews because they carried out a policy of genocide. The Old Testament clearly illustrates the systematic murder and kidnapping with which the nascent 'Israel' wiped out the entire native population of the area.

Good for you, you got one right. You neglect, however, that Islam and Christianity, two religions that claim a stake in the Holy Land, would never have existed if not for that bit of history. So Islam, Judaism's own daughter, will use this ancient genocide to justify killing off all the Jews, or at least running them out of all corners of the Middle East, where, as I mentioned, they held properties all over under the Ottomons.

Five: Most of the Jews in Israel are not actually Jews. They are of Eastern European descent, from the mass conversion of the Kazars to Judaism. And, since you can only truly be a Jew by being BORN a Jew, those people have no true legitimate claim to the name. So - the west invaded the middle-east, enforced the relocations of natives, and handed the land over to people who use the same name as the people who might have once lived there.

Oh so you're student of Autraelite? It's a wonder to me that this is the first major disagreement you can recall us having. Well, for the record, that version of "history" is full of shit, if only on the complete lack of biblical evidence for the way he and his kind say such inheritence works. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says or even suggests that you can never be a Jew unless you were born a Jew. Instead, there are rules for conversion. Ever read it?

Here is a link to my challenge for Christian Identity (Replacement Theology) posters:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357296

Maybe you can answer the questions that I have posed to Austraelite? Because he has consistently proven unable to to the satisfaction of anyone but himself and his fellow heretics. Where in the Bible are converts considered to be false Jews? Where does it say that there has to be a minimum percentage of Israelite blood for a Jew to be a true Jew? Where is the proof that all european Jews, or even just all Ashkanazi, are totally or predominantly descended from the Khazars? I am still waiting for anyone who can answer even one of those questions. Hey, maybe you'll get lucky! Or miraculously informed!

*LOL* He even went so far that he was getting tired of "this kind of argument", and then proceeded to start yet another "Jews aren't Hebrews! :eek: " thread. I guess what he was tired of was being asked to back up his shit.

I am sure many of you are familiar with the relentless calamity in the middle east. Particularly the calamity between Israel and Palestine. I, for one, am tired of only hearing one side of the story, Israel's. Upon researching the issue, I found that Israel has killed almost three times as many innocent Palestinian civilians as they have "dangerous criminals." This is ridiculous, one such massacre was the destruction of a children's hospital. I am REAL SURE that dangerous criminals are going to be hiding in a Palestinian Children's hospital! On the other hand, Palestinians haven't been pacifists either. I am not anti-semitic, and I am not anti-arabic, I am anti-war. The mess in the middle east is futile. Please feel free to voice your opinion.
When you reasearch, your lieing, causing you just took it off some website, i can make a website and say Americans are killing innocent iraqs and such forth, you are a little kid, dont understand the issue at hand, Israel is a good place, you call the suicde bombers good? has Israel every done that? the answer is simple no, im sick of little kids like you just going on a random website, and say that Israel did this bad, try not going on a nazi website to do ur resarch, when israel has killed innocents, it was an accident at trying to get a terrioist, u dont live in israel i have many freinds there, jewish and non-jewish and one died from a suicde bombers so just stfu if u dont know what ur talking about.

posted by Grave_n_idle
Quote:
Five: Most of the Jews in Israel are not actually Jews. They are of Eastern European descent, from the mass conversion of the Kazars to Judaism. And, since you can only truly be a Jew by being BORN a Jew, those people have no true legitimate claim to the name. So - the west invaded the middle-east, enforced the relocations of natives, and handed the land over to people who use the same name as the people who might have once lived there.

Are you serious!? Did you ever reads the bible cause I have and thats the biggest peice of Bullsh!t I have ever heard, in fact it says in the bible that if you convert to judiasm it is just like you were born a jew, look up your facts retard boy, cause i gurrente i can get alot more things that you said that were bullshit, you frickin anti-semite, and the jews have been perscuted for being jewish, ever heard of the spanish inquisition, read about it, in spain they made Jews and only Jews leave or else they were killed. WW2 jews were put into concentration camps and killed there are you telling me that isnt be prescuted for being jewish? because if you are then you must seriously know nothing in what u are talking about. gg no re, start actually looking up ur facts

Originally Posted by Stansburg
It doesnt matter how you think the arab leadership is worse the fact is palastine was populated with mostly muslims for about 1700 years and it should go back to that state.

If ur gonna go by that who was there first Jews or Arabs? and which religion came first Judism or muslim? yea, start checking ur facts big boy, the onyl ppl agaisnt Israel are anti-semties but to scared to come out and say it, why do u care so much for israel its so small not even the size of New jersey, smaller, and the arabs have everything around it which is much bigger, where can the jews go if there was no israel? no where cause any country can just make a rule and kick the jews out, and then good-bye all jews in the world, the UN gave the state of Israel to the jews end of disscusion, only retard nazis say what the arabs are doing are right and the jews are wrong, espically when the jews never did a suicde bombing, and the arabs have, if you knew someone who went to israel and died from a sucide bomb ur opinion on this would change in a second.

posted by Grave_n_idle
Quote:
Five: Most of the Jews in Israel are not actually Jews. They are of Eastern European descent, from the mass conversion of the Kazars to Judaism. And, since you can only truly be a Jew by being BORN a Jew, those people have no true legitimate claim to the name. So - the west invaded the middle-east, enforced the relocations of natives, and handed the land over to people who use the same name as the people who might have once lived there.

Are you serious!? Did you ever reads the bible cause I have and thats the biggest peice of Bullsh!t I have ever heard, in fact it says in the bible that if you convert to judiasm it is just like you were born a jew, look up your facts retard boy, cause i gurrente i can get alot more things that you said that were bullshit, you frickin anti-semite, and the jews have been perscuted for being jewish, ever heard of the spanish inquisition, read about it, in spain they made Jews and only Jews leave or else they were killed. WW2 jews were put into concentration camps and killed there are you telling me that isnt be prescuted for being jewish? because if you are then you must seriously know nothing in what u are talking about. gg no re, start actually looking up ur facts

Accuracy:9
Coherencey:5
Maturity:1
Civility:1

coherency 5?
slightly generous don't you think, unless you meant -5? :)

coherency 5?
slightly generous don't you think, unless you meant -5? :)

Well, I understood what s/he meant, at least. ;)

Pobody's nerfect. :)
No other race, aside from the Roma, has suffered such consistent vilification and persecution throughout history. In the Jew's case this has a lot to do with Replacement Theology, a belief shared by many "Christians" as well as an arguable majority of "Muslims". This is the belief that G-d's eternal covenent with the people of Israel is not so eternal, but even though He has said that no matter what they have done, He will always welcome them, or their children, back if they repent, He has in fact taken the status of "chosen people" from then and given it to others, either Christians or Muslims, depending on who holds this view. This belief at its roots holds that G-d is a liar.

The early islamic "church" held that Jews and Chrostians were Muslims' brothers because THE Q'RAN MANDATES THAT THEY BE REGARDED AS SUCH. So, like Replacement Theology, any "muslim" religious teaching that so much as permits waging war against Jews, in particular war of aggression, is heretical and anti-islamic.


But there is still the same 'out' here as is used by the Moslem for war against Moslem... which was also, obviously forbidden.... which was the claim that the OTHER side are already heretical. Thus, factions of Islam may fight each other, because each believes the other to be a heretical sect, and that Allah is on 'their' side... whichever side that is. Similarly, since the Crusades, etc. the Jews and Christians CLEARLY aren't the 'brothers' referred to in the Q'ran, so they aren't protected by scriptural teaching... in fact, many moslems unfortunately consider the average christian to be far worse than a heretic, they consider them to be 'corrupted' - hence the talk of 'jihad'.


You suggest that betrayal by Christians turned Muslims against Jews. I suppose that betrayal by Muslims turned Christians against Jews? Betrayed by Christians, they decided to throw out the Q'ran and write their own anti-Israel dogma. There was no justification.


I suspect that the christian faith was 'born' turned against the Jews, since it is written in their scripture that their 'saviour' was murdered by the Jews. The truth of that claim is irrelevant, what matters is the consequence. Example: the religious 'Passion Plays' that thrived in Europe for so long were eventually banned in many places, because their portrayal of the Jewish betrayal of Jesus consistently lead to unrest. e.g. More anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid, but their is a history in the city of Lincoln (UK) about the rounding up of Jews and stoning them, after presentation of Passion Plays. Note: areas of Austria/Hungary etc. continued showing Passion Plays right up until the start of the last century... so that environment is the environment in which Hitler was born. It isn't much of a stretch to assume that Hitler's anti-Jewish stance was influenced by his upbringing.


All races have indeed suffered racism. But of them all only two, the Jews and the Roma, have suffered repeated concentrated efforts to absolutely exterminate them. Before you call them "whiners" you might consider that these two races stand out from all the rest for having spent centuries wandering with no homelands. Without Israel, the Jews would still be wandering.


That is exactly it. In a nutshell. People are a territorial creature. They don't like interlopers. You have communities that take that as a way of life - they are going to get the result of that. To wander the world, staying in other people's territory is to INVITE repercussion... to then chronicle that as a 'history of persecution' is blind, to say the least.

Note: as I point out later in this post, I am of both 'Jewish' and 'Romani' stock... I have nothing against the wandering lifestyle... but I can easily see WHY they open themselves up to 'resistance' from 'Natives'.

Look at the current problems that certain areas of the UK are having with 'Travellers' at the moment... problems ranging from taxes to healthcare... and THOSE travellers ARE native.


Wrong. There were Jordanians and Jews there together, roughly half and half, and half (well, 40%) of the Land was all that the LoN was proposing giving to become Israel in their final proposal. And the LoN did not evict anyone. The Arabs pressured them into doing nothing but talk, until finally the Jews themselves declared Israel to be an independent state, after having faced continual murderous efforts by Arabs to eliminate them from all corners of the Middle East.

Yes it does. If you attack me, and I win, then you lose. For millenia that was the way of the world, no matter who started it. The loser was conquered. Only in the 20th century did world governmental organizations start to try another way, and guess who was their test case, under the pressure of arab states who to this day do not recognize any borders for the state of Israel?

Really, what "agreed borders of Israel"? Their initially established borders, that the arab states have never recognized? The post-War of Independence borders, that Israel's enemies agreed to in the peace treaty, but thereafter consistently tried to violate? The agreed upon borders today, when Israel still does not exist on arab maps?


The agreed borders I mentioned are those that the initial creation of the state defined. Israel has continuously expanded from it's nascent state, occupying other territory, invading other sovereign nations with astounding regularity - example: the 'action' against Arafat two years ago where Israel drove armour and artillery into the very heart of another nation to 'isolate' another nation's legitimate leader.

And just being on the losing side isn't automatically a mechanism for territorial loss... Gerrmany 'lost' the second world war, but the Allies didn't just jump in there and claim it as part of America/France/England/Russia.

If your argument is territorial PROTECTION from aggressive capture of land, it is close to hypocrisy to CLAIM territory with aggression as part of your 'defence'.


Good for you, you got one right. You neglect, however, that Islam and Christianity, two religions that claim a stake in the Holy Land, would never have existed if not for that bit of history. So Islam, Judaism's own daughter, will use this ancient genocide to justify killing off all the Jews, or at least running them out of all corners of the Middle East, where, as I mentioned, they held properties all over under the Ottomons.


The thing is, I don't think that the Hebrew extermination of the natives was a good thing. I think that a genocide is a genocide, no matter who does it - and I certainly don't think it should be rewarded with gifts of land. I am not concerned that christianity and islam have their roots in the Hebrews, where their occupation of territory is by the sword, I approve of it just as little as the original Hebrew occupation. Conversion is a different matter, perhaps - but exterminating people of a different faction (race, religion, ideology, hair-colour) is a distasteful practice, in my opinion.

There WAS a balance in the area, uneasy or no, but there was balance. The creation of a state of Israel effectively created a 'puppet' state for western control - and the attempt to make this area a 'ethnically' pure area only serves to increase the resistance to this artifact state.

For an example, look at Cuba... which is still not truly recognised as a state by the US, primarily because of a difference in ideology... and Cuba is a thorn in the US side, while not actually even being in the US... the creation of Israel 'forced' a western-influenced, heretical wedge into the geography of the region... and has to be a large contributing factor in the current mid-east unrests.


Oh so you're student of Autraelite? It's a wonder to me that this is the first major disagreement you can recall us having.

Maybe you can answer the questions that I have posed to Austraelite? Because he has consistently proven unable to to the satisfaction of anyone but himself and his fellow heretics. Where in the Bible are converts considered to be false Jews? Where does it say that there has to be a minimum percentage of Israelite blood for a Jew to be a true Jew? Where is the proof that all european Jews, or even just all Ashkanazi, are totally or predominantly descended from the Khazars? I am still waiting for anyone who can answer even one of those questions. Hey, maybe you'll get lucky! Or miraculously informed!


I'm not a big fan of Austraelite, no - I have argued against him on a number of these related topics. I have to say that my evidence is anecdotal, but from what I consider a fairly reliable source - in that my grandfather was Jewish (a 'pure' Jew, if you will), who was ostracised for marrying a non-Jew, and who was told that none of his children would be Jewish, because the mother wasn't a Jew. So - my mother, while having 'Jewish blood', was never recognised as a Jew, and neither are any of her offspring, including myself, obviously.

(As a matter of interest - to me, anyway - my paternal grandmother was Rom, and that side of the family had no difficulties recognising our 'Romani' blood).

I'm not saying that Jews aren't Hebrews. What I'm saying is that, most of the people calling themselves Jews in todays world have no 'blood' connection to the origins of Jewishness.

Hey - maybe it's just the teachings of the Jews I knew... maybe other Jews outside of the East End of London do things differently, but, back then and there, the way my grandfather acted was an example of the rule, not the exception.

cause i gurrente i can get alot more things that you said that were bullshit, you frickin anti-semite, and the jews have been perscuted for being jewish, ever heard of the spanish inquisition, read about it, in spain they made Jews and only Jews leave or else they were killed. WW2 jews were put into concentration camps and killed there are you telling me that isnt be prescuted for being jewish? because if you are then you must seriously know nothing in what u are talking about.

Typical.. Disagreement with Israel = blatant anti-semitism..

I suggest you retreat to the rock you just came out from under.

And the accuracy of this post deserves a -10, if possible.. Only Jews were persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition? Only Jews were subjected to "re-location" during WWII? And your calling him an anti-semite just proves how superficial, and just plain idiotic your statements are.

BBC, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The most biased western news agency. Try Sky News next time, they're slightly better.

yeah because anything owned by murdoch isn't biased....

posted by Grave_n_idle
Quote:
Five: Most of the Jews in Israel are not actually Jews. They are of Eastern European descent, from the mass conversion of the Kazars to Judaism. And, since you can only truly be a Jew by being BORN a Jew, those people have no true legitimate claim to the name. So - the west invaded the middle-east, enforced the relocations of natives, and handed the land over to people who use the same name as the people who might have once lived there.

Are you serious!? Did you ever reads the bible cause I have and thats the biggest peice of Bullsh!t I have ever heard, in fact it says in the bible that if you convert to judiasm it is just like you were born a jew, look up your facts retard boy, cause i gurrente i can get alot more things that you said that were bullshit, you frickin anti-semite, and the jews have been perscuted for being jewish, ever heard of the spanish inquisition, read about it, in spain they made Jews and only Jews leave or else they were killed. WW2 jews were put into concentration camps and killed there are you telling me that isnt be prescuted for being jewish? because if you are then you must seriously know nothing in what u are talking about. gg no re, start actually looking up ur facts

Yes. I have read the bible, and I have to point out that it doesn't matter what it says in the scripture... that doesn't always affect how people will act.

Surely the taking of lives is argued against in the Bible? And yet christian history is littered with corpses, of 'witches', of 'heretics', of 'non-believers'.

I am not a 'retard-boy', whatever one is... I assume you mean I had to be held back a grade? The bible is, at best, a contradictory source - and people have a history of taking just what they want from their holy books. Flaming me doesn't make your argument any stronger. I have based what I discuss here on the environment in which I was raised - first-person evidence, a primary source. You are using a text written two thousand years ago as your evidence for what people DO and THINK now. Who has the better evidence?

I am not an anti-semite. You are not even using the term correctly. Currently, the US is waging an 'anti-semitic' war... in that, it is 'against' the 'Shemites'... the Jews/Hebrews were not the ONLY Semitic people.

I am not actually anti-anyone. I have witnessed prejudices which I have so far reported, I am 'against' genocide, I am against 'enforced relocations', I am against 'invasions of sovereign nations'.

I think that the Hebrews did a bad thing in the genocide in Canaan.
I think the Allies after world war 2, did a bad thing in the enforcement of a state in someone else's territory.
I think that the US is currently doing a bad thing in their invasion of Iraq.

None of those beliefs makes me anti-semitic, my friend.

Also - re: spanish inquisition, and concentration camps... you really think those issues were about being Jewish? Evidence is against you, I'm afraid... those issues were about being DIFFERENT. The Spanish Inquisition most certainly did not draw the line at the exile of the Jews... not even in Spain. They had a far more bloody history than just one act of enforced exile, and the Jews were far from their only 'victims'.

Concentration camps, on the other hand... yes, it does seem that Hitler had issues with Jews... his stump-speeches certainly carried an anti-jewish flavour... but, once again, Jews were certainly not the ONLY persons condemned. Economic pressure in Germany turned heads towards the wealthy, and especially the wealthy outsiders... a large number of which were Jewish. Hitler himself was probably poisoned against the Jews by his upbringing in Austria, which still allowed Passion Plays.

So - yes, there was action against Jews in Nazi Germany. But, also, against other ethnicities, and other sections of the population. Try looking into the concept of Eugenics, look at the design of the 'master-race', and make the connection as to who was going to be allowed to remain in Germany's New World Order... the Jews are not the only people to be persecuted under Hitler's rule. Concentration camps were full of Poles, Romani, the disabled, political opponents of Nazism, etc.

Perhaps you would like to start looking up YOUR facts?

I'd just like to point out that when the UN was voting for Isreal they offered that there would be 2 nations in that area. The Jews agreed but the Palestinians didn't and flung themselves into a war which they lost.

Typical.. Disagreement with Israel = blatant anti-semitism..

I suggest you retreat to the rock you just came out from under.

And the accuracy of this post deserves a -10, if possible.. Only Jews were persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition? Only Jews were subjected to "re-location" during WWII? And your calling him an anti-semite just proves how superficial, and just plain idiotic your statements are.

Thank you.

It seems that it is impossible to discuss how Israel might have been a less than perfect strategic decision, without the label of 'anti-semitism' being thrown around... and, of course, used incorrectly... as in this episode.

In terms of the 'Accuracy' of the post... I agree, the accuracy of the majority of the post was shocking... but, I thing Druthulu was referring to my honourable opponents position on the BIBLICAL precedent for jewish conversion. Unfortunately - that would be both irrelevant (since I wasn't talking about what was written two thousand years ago, I was talking about what people actually DO, now), and atypical of the post... since the Biblical content may be the ONLY fact that FT got even close to right.

I totally agree with you that a 'Accuracy = 9' score is far from justified.

Unfortunately... a topic like this means tempers will get frayed. People have a habit of letting hot-blood override a cool-mind.

Also I'm a Jew today and on my father side we can trace our family back to Canaan.

Also I'm a Jew today and on my father side we can trace our family back to Canaan.

You're a Jew today? What were you yesterday?!

Also I'm a Jew today and on my father side we can trace our family back to Canaan.

The place? You can trace your lineage to the geography of Canaan? How is this relevant? Are you saying your family were originally Canaanites? Or, are you saying you can trace your family tree back to the slaughter and rape of the Hebrew war of genocide in Canaan?

Either way... I would actually be fascinated to see it... most people I know who are interested in geneology can get a few generations back with ABSOLUTE certainty, and maybe 500-600 years back with relative assuredness. Can you show us how you bridge that gap - from a few hundred years to a couple of thousand?

Without isreal would the west of even looked at the middle east for the last 50 years? I doubt it and in all probability wouldn't of bothered assisting those groups who were fighting the USSR expansion into places like afghanistan etc... Without Isreal existing most of the middle east would be russian provinces and the religeous debates would be fairly pointless as any such groups would of been clamped down on.

Israel and Palestine are equally wrong, and equally beneith contempt for their childish behavior. they represent the most pathetic, cowardly, immature, and disgusting sides of human nature, and i have no respect for either side. i would love it if our government would get out of the Middle East and stop trying all these peace-keeping measures, so they could kill each other more quickly and be done with it.

Look at you people, you're trying to blame Israelis for the genocide in Canaan!
Australians are therefore evil.
America is DEFINITELY evil.
Italians are evil, I mean, look at what the romans did.


The land there was UN land, which was given to the British. The British agreed, as did the UN to give Israel that land.

Kellarly, at what point did I say that BBC was the ONLY biased news agency?

Grave_n_idle, Arafat is legitimate, so was Saddam Hussein, why did America go to Iraq then? And also, if you read up on a bit of history, you'll realise that every time we took land it was due to them attacking first. Arafat got a peace prize for the Oslo treaty, he then proceeded to break every single rule that he'd laid out. He still won't recognize the State of Israel, despite promising to do so.

Look at you people, you're trying to blame Israelis for the genocide in Canaan!
Australians are therefore evil.
America is DEFINITELY evil.
Italians are evil, I mean, look at what the romans did.


The land there was UN land, which was given to the British. The British agreed, as did the UN to give Israel that land.

Kellarly, at what point did I say that BBC was the ONLY biased news agency?

Grave_n_idle, Arafat is legitimate, so was Saddam Hussein, why did America go to Iraq then? And also, if you read up on a bit of history, you'll realise that every time we took land it was due to them attacking first. Arafat got a peace prize for the Oslo treaty, he then proceeded to break every single rule that he'd laid out. He still won't recognize the State of Israel, despite promising to do so.

If the people of Israel ARE the people of Canaan, a few thousand years ago, then they have SOME legitimate claim to the land (although not as much of a legitimate claim as the poor buggers they butchered to TAKE the land back then). If that is the case, then they are descended from genocidal zealots, still following the teachings of genocidal zealots, and are claiming the territory of genocidal zealots.

If they are NOT the descendants of the people who conquered Canaan, then they have NO legitimate claim to the territory, although they are absolved of the blood-on-the-hands associated with the taking of the territory in antiquity.

Also - I know Arafat is legitimate. That is what I said. Hussein was also legitimate (whether or not he was a cold-blooded, murdering psycho is a different issue). I am saying that the Israelly actions directly against Arafat are wrong BECAUSE he is legitimate. Similarly, the occupation by the US and it's allies, currently underway in Iraq is wrong, because Hussein was legitimate.

Just because you don't LIKE someone else's ideology, doesn't make it right to drive tanks into their houses. You notice that the US isn't invading China for human rights violation. Why not? Because they would get the floor mopped with their camoflaged faces... 'human rights' apparently is only an issue when the practitioner is smaller than you.

Israel has the backing of the US, they have the financial sponsorship of the US, they are armed by the US. Israel's incursions into the middle-east are suffered by the middle-east because the US back's up it's little drunken buddy, even when he is picking fights with every other guy in the bar.

The same mentality put troops in Iraq. The same mentality is going to put troops in Iran, if Bush is re-elected.

Ah, I digress...

Sorry, you realise that Israel uses their own tanks (Merkava IV, one of the best MBT's around) and guns (Uzi anyone?). Americans overestimate themselves.

If the people of Israel ARE the people of Canaan, a few thousand years ago, then they have SOME legitimate claim to the land (although not as much of a legitimate claim as the poor buggers they butchered to TAKE the land back then). If that is the case, then they are descended from genocidal zealots, still following the teachings of genocidal zealots, and are claiming the territory of genocidal zealots.

If they are NOT the descendants of the people who conquered Canaan, then they have NO legitimate claim to the territory, although they are absolved of the blood-on-the-hands associated with the taking of the territory in antiquity.

Also - I know Arafat is legitimate. That is what I said. Hussein was also legitimate (whether or not he was a cold-blooded, murdering psycho is a different issue). I am saying that the Israelly actions directly against Arafat are wrong BECAUSE he is legitimate. Similarly, the occupation by the US and it's allies, currently underway in Iraq is wrong, because Hussein was legitimate.

Just because you don't LIKE someone else's ideology, doesn't make it right to drive tanks into their houses. You notice that the US isn't invading China for human rights violation. Why not? Because they would get the floor mopped with their camoflaged faces... 'human rights' apparently is only an issue when the practitioner is smaller than you.

Israel has the backing of the US, they have the financial sponsorship of the US, they are armed by the US. Israel's incursions into the middle-east are suffered by the middle-east because the US back's up it's little drunken buddy, even when he is picking fights with every other guy in the bar.

The same mentality put troops in Iraq. The same mentality is going to put troops in Iran, if Bush is re-elected.

Ah, I digress...Neither Israelis nor Israelites are/were the original inhabitants of the Levant. Both groups came as foreign land grabbers to the land. And even if the Israelites had been rightfully living in the region, that would NOT constitute any legitimacy to modern claims.

Nor can the genocide thousands of years ago be used legitimately in debate about Israel today.

Sorry, you realise that Israel uses their own tanks (Merkava IV, one of the best MBT's around) and guns (Uzi anyone?).


Uh-huh... and who pays for the Israeli budget? Try looking at last years war budget as drawn up by the Bush administration, that allocated something like 18 billion dollars of war-budget to Israel, who are not even involved in the Afghanistan or Iraq conflicts.

And all those helicopter gunships that have been launching air-to-surface strikes on civillians, domestic targets, and politicians... they were made in Israel, were they?


Americans overestimate themselves.
I'm sure they do. Relevance?

Nor can the genocide thousands of years ago be used legitimately in debate about Israel today.

How not? If the whole issue of Israel's right to the land HINGES on the fact that they were there before?

Surely, if that is THEIR argument, then the converse argument (that they weren't there FIRST, and were, in fact, a genocidal aggressor) must also be a salient point?

i hate Israel those back stabbing sons of ******. after the united states bends over back wards for the them attack a American vessel in international waters...killling many many people....they say they didn't know but we were flying holiday colors(think the big ones and a car dealership)

And all those helicopter gunships that have been launching air-to-surface strikes on civillians, domestic targets, and politicians... they were made in Israel, were they?


I'm sure they do. Relevance?
politicians? You probably refer to Rantisi and Yassin. The leaders of Hamas? Who have killed hundreds of Jews and Israelis? The 2 "civilians" who died with Yassin were probably his bodyguards. We aren't the ones who attacked a pool hall full of teenagers, killing 16. Or a Sbarro pizzeria killing 19 people and tearing whole families apart. Americans think that Israel would collapse without them. We have proved ourselves more times than any other nation.

i hate Israel those back stabbing sons of ******. after the united states bends over back wards for the them attack a American vessel in international waters...killling many many people....they say they didn't know but we were flying holiday colors(think the big ones and a car dealership)
sorry?
This is news to me. Do you mean the USS Cole which was attacked by Al-Qaeda, the radical Islamic terrorist group? If not, please find me a source, this intrigues me.

no the ship liberty I'm pretty sure it was the USS liberty a spy ship viewing what was going on in the war Israel had with Egypt and all them. i will find a source hold on for a min

http://www.ussliberty.org/ there ya go

politicians? You probably refer to Rantisi and Yassin. The leaders of Hamas? Who have killed hundreds of Jews and Israelis? The 2 "civilians" who died with Yassin were probably his bodyguards. We aren't the ones who attacked a pool hall full of teenagers, killing 16. Or a Sbarro pizzeria killing 19 people and tearing whole families apart. Americans think that Israel would collapse without them. We have proved ourselves more times than any other nation.Israel has been tearing whole families apart since 1948, still counting. Thus the Arabs have every moral right to blow up those who oppress them and take their land.

Neoma - Hush. They don't know about that.. They shouldn't.. Their government doesn't want them to.. ;)

Oh wait.. wasn't that "accidental", even though it has been confirmed that the ship was flying an American flag??

http://www.ussliberty.org/

Is this in the 70's?

it was not accidental...they attacked them with jets and gun boats like a motor boat with a machine gun....there is no way they could not have seen the holiday colors....even in a jet its to big not to see the red white and blue

At 0800 hrs, 8 June, 1967, eight Israeli recon flights flew over 'Liberty,' which was flying a large American flag. At 1400 hrs, waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III fighter-bombers repeatedly attacked the American vessel with rockets, napalm, and cannon. The air attacks lasted 20 minutes, concentrating on the ship's electronic antennas and dishes. The 'Liberty' was left afire, listing sharply. Eight of her crew lay dead, a hundred seriously wounded, including the captain, Commander William McGonagle.

At 1424 hrs, three Israeli torpedo boats attacked, raking the burning 'Liberty' with 20mm and 40mm shells. At 1431hrs an Israeli torpedo hit the 'Liberty' midship, precisely where the signals intelligence systems were located. Twenty-five more Americans died.

Israeli gunboats circled the wounded 'Liberty,' firing at crewmen trying to fight the fires. At 1515, the crew were ordered to abandon ship. The Israeli warships closed and poured machine gun fire into the crowded life rafts, sinking two. As American sailors were being massacred in cold blood, a rescue mission by US Sixth Fleet carrier aircraft was mysteriously aborted on orders from the White House.

In contrast to American outrage over North Korea's assault on the intelligence ship 'Pueblo,' Iraq's mistaken missile strike on the USS 'Stark,' last fall's bombing of the USS 'Cole' in Aden, and the recent US-China air incident, the savaging of 'Liberty' was quickly hushed up by President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.

The White House and Congress immediately accepted Israel's explanation and let the matter drop. Israel later paid a token reparation of US $6 million. There were reports two Israeli pilots who had refused to attack 'Liberty' were jailed for 18 years.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html

One of the main questions regarding this attack is whether or not the Israeli attackers knew that they were attacking an American ship. The Israelis have claimed that they misidentified the Liberty for the Egyptian horse carrier El Quseir, but it has been reported that the USS liberty flew an American flag and was distinctly marked with US markings. It is also known that slow moving recon plans flew over the USS Liberty numerous times. Is there any doubt in your mind that the Israeli military knew that they were attacking an American ship?

There is no doubt in my mind that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate. Israel has claimed that it was a mistake and that they were firing upon an arab horse freighter. The El Quesir was the name of the Arab ship. It was tied up and not sea worthy during the Six Day War, and the Israelis knew this.

As for our Flag. All American ships fly the flag. Ours was flying until the Israelis shot it down and within seconds another was put up. It was our holiday Ensign, sized 9 feet by 13 feet.

As for the slow moving aircraft. Planes started flying over us and checking us out at 5:30am and did so 9 to 13 times until the attack at 2:00PM. There is no doubt in my mind that they knew who they were attacking.


It has been reported that the USS Saratago, responding to a SOS from the Liberty, launched jets to help the Liberty approximately 15 minutes into the Israeli attack. Why were the jets recalled? One could say that this act left American sailors to be murdered by an enemy force?


A message from the USS Liberty got to the USS Saratoga 9 minutes into the attack. The USS Saratoga launched a flight of fighters immediately and they were called back. This happened three different times throughout the attack. Robert MacNamara called them back twice, and President Johnson called them back once, saying his thoughts were not for the USS Liberty. He did not want to embarrass his ally Israel. That act did leave us to get murdered, and what it actually is called is abandonment.

http://www.rense.com/general26/ally.htm

Right or wrong, good or bad, Israel does nothing to the Palestinians that other countries in the region do to the various minorities and 'hated tribes' that live within them. While I wouldn't condone (and would rebuke) many of their actions, it is a bit hypocritical for the rest of the ME to do so.

They're kind of caught in a damned if you do... position. They are so hated in their region that if they don't act strong, they face determined and well armed enemies from without, but if they don't restructure their treatment of palestinians, they face determined and well armed enemies from within.

Sucks to be them (and the palestinians). I don't see it ending any time soon.

Greenmanbry, stop it with the condescending attitude ok? I live most of my years in England and never heard of this. Here's a few quotes that interest me.

"The Court found that as of the date it made its findings, the evidence then available to it did not clearly establish hostile intent."
So they were cleared by the court?

"when Israel deliberately attacked the USS LIBERTY"
So these people are obviously viewing this very objectively.

"Israeli reconnaissance planes flew overhead for hours. Pilots and ship's crew waved to each other. Then, inexplicably, unmarked Israeli aircraft began attacking the ship."
So how do you know that they were Israeli if they were unmarked?

"Two aircraft carriers in the Med responded by launching fighter aircraft. They were recalled by the White House."
So, America, who could have stopped this attack, did nothing? They sound really bothered about the men on board. You should blame them.

"The Israeli's told us 24 hours before that we had a ship called the Liberty, and if we didn't move it they would sink it. Unfortunately, the ship was not moved"
Now this is interesting, Israel told the Americans to move their SPY ship away, and America refused. Unfortunately indeed. I had no idea that American ships were so slow that they couldn't move a metre in 24 hours.

"We know that Israel has controlled the American congress for years"
This must be Tenete Traditiones friends. White supremists, all the same, and identifiable as soon as they open their mouths.

"Cristol is a past-master at twisting words, bending the truth, taking statements out of context -- his book is full of these!"
Someone publishes a book that they don't like because it doesn't show their side and suddenly he's a master at twisting words etc...

however...
"Jim Ennes, an officer on the bridge of the LIBERTY during the attack has written an excellent book Assault on the Liberty which tells the story"
Now this person, he's a genius. He told it from an objective viewpoint and backed up everything they say so it must be right.

and this, true objective journalism.
"A newly-released companion book to the "Dead in the Water" video described above is now available. The book is written by Peter Hounam, who investigated and researched the material for the video."
Peter Hounam, heard of him? They even dared write about him.
"Peter Hounam is the journalist that worked with Mordechai Vanunu in blowing the whistle on Israel's nuclear production some 20 years ago."
This guy, along with Vanunu is EXTREMELY Anti-Israel.

"After ten official US investigations (including five congressional
investigations), there was never any evidence that the attack was made with knowledge that the target was a US ship."
The LVA has disputed the truth of this statement for years. We know it is untrue."
So obviously you know better than the congress, 5 times, and better than the other official investigations, 5 times as well!

"http://www.ussliberty.org/g/samosamo.gif"
they claim that the El-Quesir is a quarter the size of the liberty, anyone got a calculator that can come to that conclusion? It seems to be slightly over half-size of the Liberty to me!

I need go no further, but I will at some point.

politicians? You probably refer to Rantisi and Yassin. The leaders of Hamas? Who have killed hundreds of Jews and Israelis? The 2 "civilians" who died with Yassin were probably his bodyguards. We aren't the ones who attacked a pool hall full of teenagers, killing 16. Or a Sbarro pizzeria killing 19 people and tearing whole families apart. Americans think that Israel would collapse without them. We have proved ourselves more times than any other nation.

We? One assumes, therefore, that you are from the sunny state of Israel? Perhaps your view of the matter may be influenced slightly? A little less than utterly subjective?

By civillians, I was referring to the first of the anti-Hamas strikes, which killed children, bodyguards, and one man in a wheelchair. Helicopter gunships to take out cripples? Couldn't they just have taken the wheels off his chair? Seven killed and seventeen wounded... hardly a moral high-ground.

"Israeli helicopters fired three missile as Yassin, his bodyguards and dozens of others left a mosque in Gaza City at daybreak Monday. Yassin, a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair, and seven others were killed, including several bodyguards. Seventeen people were wounded.

Only a charred metal seat and a twisted wheel were left of his wheelchair and a blood-soaked brown shoe lay in the street. "Two or three people were lying next to him on the ground. One was legless," said taxi driver Yousef Haddad, who had rushed out of a nearby grocery when the missiles shook the Sabra neighborhood."
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-03222004-268744.html

"Reports from the scene said Sheikh Yassin was being pushed in his wheelchair when he was directly hit by a missile.

Two bodyguards and one of Sheikh Yassin's sons were reported to be among those killed. At least 15 people were wounded. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3556099.stm


I don't know about Americans, but much of the rest of the world thinks that Israel would collapse without the US. Much of the rest of the world notices that the middle-east nations have yet to try to erase Israel from the region (except for some half hearted incursions half a century ago), and that the US budget is the only thing that has stopped Israel from bankrupting itself a hundred times over. The economy of Israel would in no way support the kind of extended military actions that Israel continues with, without the aid of the US bankers.

Proved themselves how? Yes, they can knock down refugee camps with tanks and bulldozers. Yes, just like the US, they can use airstrikes as an anti-personnel weapon (using atom-bombs to swat mosquitoes...). Yes, they can build illegal fortifications in the sovereign territories of other nations.

You realise, of course, that the Palestinians think THEY are right, too? You realise they count the dead, just as Israel does?

Yes. I have read the bible, and I have to point out that it doesn't matter what it says in the scripture... that doesn't always affect how people will act.

Surely the taking of lives is argued against in the Bible? And yet christian history is littered with corpses, of 'witches', of 'heretics', of 'non-believers'.

I am not a 'retard-boy', whatever one is... I assume you mean I had to be held back a grade? The bible is, at best, a contradictory source - and people have a history of taking just what they want from their holy books. Flaming me doesn't make your argument any stronger. I have based what I discuss here on the environment in which I was raised - first-person evidence, a primary source. You are using a text written two thousand years ago as your evidence for what people DO and THINK now. Who has the better evidence?

I am not an anti-semite. You are not even using the term correctly. Currently, the US is waging an 'anti-semitic' war... in that, it is 'against' the 'Shemites'... the Jews/Hebrews were not the ONLY Semitic people.

I am not actually anti-anyone. I have witnessed prejudices which I have so far reported, I am 'against' genocide, I am against 'enforced relocations', I am against 'invasions of sovereign nations'.

I think that the Hebrews did a bad thing in the genocide in Canaan.
I think the Allies after world war 2, did a bad thing in the enforcement of a state in someone else's territory.
I think that the US is currently doing a bad thing in their invasion of Iraq.

None of those beliefs makes me anti-semitic, my friend.

Also - re: spanish inquisition, and concentration camps... you really think those issues were about being Jewish? Evidence is against you, I'm afraid... those issues were about being DIFFERENT. The Spanish Inquisition most certainly did not draw the line at the exile of the Jews... not even in Spain. They had a far more bloody history than just one act of enforced exile, and the Jews were far from their only 'victims'.

Concentration camps, on the other hand... yes, it does seem that Hitler had issues with Jews... his stump-speeches certainly carried an anti-jewish flavour... but, once again, Jews were certainly not the ONLY persons condemned. Economic pressure in Germany turned heads towards the wealthy, and especially the wealthy outsiders... a large number of which were Jewish. Hitler himself was probably poisoned against the Jews by his upbringing in Austria, which still allowed Passion Plays.

So - yes, there was action against Jews in Nazi Germany. But, also, against other ethnicities, and other sections of the population. Try looking into the concept of Eugenics, look at the design of the 'master-race', and make the connection as to who was going to be allowed to remain in Germany's New World Order... the Jews are not the only people to be persecuted under Hitler's rule. Concentration camps were full of Poles, Romani, the disabled, political opponents of Nazism, etc.

Perhaps you would like to start looking up YOUR facts?
Wow you know alot about bullsh!ting don't you, you obvoisly have no clue what the spanish inquistion was do you? cause it was onyl against jews and no one else. And it doesnt matter what the scriputes say? wtf are you talking about ur arugment before was about how the scripts say you arent a jew unless born a jew, so nice way in changing ur argument there huh? The genocide of canaan do you even know what ur talking about? Your first hand experiences? what are you like 16, yea real experinces there, have you ever even been to Israel? don't argue until you go.

We? One assumes, therefore, that you are from the sunny state of Israel? Perhaps your view of the matter may be influenced slightly? A little less than utterly subjective?
You realise, of course, that the Palestinians think THEY are right, too? You realise they count the dead, just as Israel does?
Yes, they just have maths problems then.
You didn't know that i'm from Israel? It really is no secret. Also, it only gives me first-hand knowledge. Your entire debate is based on the views of the BBC.
And what does the fact that he was in a wheelchair have to do with anything? I'd find the fact that he authorised the killings of hundreds of Jews slightly more relevant.

Typical.. Disagreement with Israel = blatant anti-semitism..

I suggest you retreat to the rock you just came out from under.

And the accuracy of this post deserves a -10, if possible.. Only Jews were persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition? Only Jews were subjected to "re-location" during WWII? And your calling him an anti-semite just proves how superficial, and just plain idiotic your statements are.Besdies the fact i didnt say it was only jews in ww2 but they killed jews for being jews is what i said, read next time jackass, and do u even know what the spanish inquistion is? go to israel and then argue with me fuckin 12 year old douche.

Besdies the fact i didnt say it was only jews in ww2 but they killed jews for being jews is what i said, read next time jackass, and do u even know what the spanish inquistion is? go to israel and then argue with me fuckin 12 year old douche.
that is really unneccesary, I suggest you delete that post. Nobody is going to believe a post worded that badly anyway, and the insults could get you deleted.

Israel, since it was established through war that subjugated the native inhabitants and inflammed hatred of the people in the area, is a bad thing.

They should have done decades of diplomacy in order to move in. The economic boost this would have created would have been great for the region and said region would be safe.

Since war was the path taken, Israel will fall someday. It will be centuries before they even entertain the idea of another Israel, that is if Jews still exit by then.

Since war was the path taken, Israel will fall someday. It will be centuries before they even entertain the idea of another Israel, that is if Jews still exit by then.
Is that a threat? If so, you'd better watch your next words very carefully, I suggest thinking about them once or twice before posting them. I have no patience for a person telling me that one day we'll all be killed and we'll fall. Did you know that a nation called United White Front got deleted for threatening to kill the first Black President of the US? That isn't even known who. A threat against an entire nation...

Wow you know alot about bullsh!ting don't you, you obvoisly have no clue what the spanish inquistion was do you? cause it was onyl against jews and no one else. And it doesnt matter what the scriputes say? wtf are you talking about ur arugment before was about how the scripts say you arent a jew unless born a jew, so nice way in changing ur argument there huh? The genocide of canaan do you even know what ur talking about? Your first hand experiences? what are you like 16, yea real experinces there, have you ever even been to Israel? don't argue until you go.

"Bullsh!ting" (sic) ??? I really DO suggest you try reading around the subject just a little. The Spanish Inquistion may have had a penchant for the persecution of their heretical older-brother faith, but that is most assuredly not ALL they did.

It doesn't matter what scripture says. The scriptures in question are thousands of years old, and have no relevance to the thinking or actions of many people - even Jews - at this time. Also - I suggest you re-read my posts, and your posts. I didn't claim that scripture said you had to be born a Jew... I said: "Five: Most of the Jews in Israel are not actually Jews. They are of Eastern European descent, from the mass conversion of the Kazars to Judaism. And, since you can only truly be a Jew by being BORN a Jew, those people have no true legitimate claim to the name.

Which is the version I was told by my Jewish grandfather, and the version i saw demonstrated in the Jewish community near where I lived.

The genocide of Canaan. Why does this give you a problem? It is clearly delineated in Hebrew and Christian scripture. Why do you raise issue with this?

How would my age affect my experience? You misjudge it by about 50 percent, but I think that is far from relevant. I also don't see why i need to go to Israel to understand the connotations of scripture, or to view objectively the atrocities reported by the (more respectable) media.

I haven't 'changed my arguments'. I also haven't sunk to the level of flaming that you seem to be plumbing. kindly refrain, and if you have some evidence that shows where I am wrong, please post it?

Is that a threat? If so, you'd better watch your next words very carefully, I suggest thinking about them once or twice before posting them. I have no patience for a person telling me that one day we'll all be killed and we'll fall. Did you know that a nation called United White Front got deleted for threatening to kill the first Black President of the US? That isn't even known who. A threat against an entire nation...

I don't think this was meant as a threat... more as a restatement of the principle as dictated by Jesus:

Mathhew 26:52 "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword".

If Israel is a state formed in blood, then it's eventual destiny seems likely to be the same.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Besdies the fact i didnt say it was only jews in ww2 but they killed jews for being jews is what i said, read next time jackass, and do u even know what the spanish inquistion is? go to israel and then argue with me fuckin 12 year old douche.

Yes, I do know what the Spanish inquisition was. But I do not think that you do. And I do not need to go to Israel. Hundreds, if not thousands, of arguments can be made to counter any claim of "moral superiority" Israel desperately tries to establish.

As for the rest of your post, I won't bother replying or reporting it to the mods, for that matter.. I do not wish to entertain the ramblings of people like you,

Now, I will respond to Sanctaphrax.. Although we disagree with practically every aspect of this conflict, he has mastered the basic rules of debate, and I know I can discuss this thing with him in a civilized manner:


Greenmanbry, stop it with the condescending attitude ok? I live most of my years in England and never heard of this.

I know.. it is really outrageous that people in the West, particularily Americans, who were the victims in this conflict, do not know about the story of the USS Liberty, but continue to use that of the USS Cole to fuel the war on terrorism.

"The Court found that as of the date it made its findings, the evidence then available to it did not clearly establish hostile intent."
So they were cleared by the court?

The evidence then available.. I would surely count the recent confessions made by American sailors as evidence of hostile intent.

"when Israel deliberately attacked the USS LIBERTY"
So these people are obviously viewing this very objectively.

Well, that is their conclusion based on their evidence..

"Israeli reconnaissance planes flew overhead for hours. Pilots and ship's crew waved to each other. Then, inexplicably, unmarked Israeli aircraft began attacking the ship."
So how do you know that they were Israeli if they were unmarked?

The attack aircraft were the ones that were unmarked. Besides, the recon. aircraft were flying slowly.. so slow in fact that the PILOTS were visible, let alone the aircraft type/make, which would have been something Israeli or American.. something the Arab states did not obviously have..

"Two aircraft carriers in the Med responded by launching fighter aircraft. They were recalled by the White House."
So, America, who could have stopped this attack, did nothing? They sound really bothered about the men on board. You should blame them.

Did you bother to read the article? They launched aircraft to rescue the Liberty THREE TIMES.. they were recalled all three times, twice by McNamara, once by LBJ.. I assume you know who LBJ is.. the commander-in-chief of that country at that time??

"The Israeli's told us 24 hours before that we had a ship called the Liberty, and if we didn't move it they would sink it. Unfortunately, the ship was not moved"
Now this is interesting, Israel told the Americans to move their SPY ship away, and America refused. Unfortunately indeed. I had no idea that American ships were so slow that they couldn't move a metre in 24 hours.

I can not counter this argument. Simply because I do not know if this was due to a lack of communications or America not taking Israel seriously. Still, they were allies during that war.

"We know that Israel has controlled the American congress for years"
This must be Tenete Traditiones friends. White supremists, all the same, and identifiable as soon as they open their mouths.

Point taken. But you say the same thing about Arafat, don't you? Controlling the UN.. blah blah..

The two quotes here are off-topic. I was talking about the article itself, not publications made by other people to document the issue. I was referring to the actual crippling of the USS Liberty..

"http://www.ussliberty.org/g/samosamo.gif"
they claim that the El-Quesir is a quarter the size of the liberty, anyone got a calculator that can come to that conclusion? It seems to be slightly over half-size of the Liberty to me!

I have always admired Israel's accuracy and detail when it comes to intelligence-gathering. Are you telling me that the HORSE-CARRIER looks anything like the Liberty?? And what about the sailors who waved to the pilots? Where they the horses? How about the dishes and antennas and spying apparatus? Used to feed the horses? Come on, man! Besides, that picture gives an indication of length only. We need three-dimensional images before we come up with a ratio to compare their proportions.

Cant we all just get along.Read some Noam Chomsky for more on this particular subject.

"Two aircraft carriers in the Med responded by launching fighter aircraft. They were recalled by the White House."
So, America, who could have stopped this attack, did nothing? They sound really bothered about the men on board. You should blame them.

Oh oh.. here's the quote I was looking for:

"He said that he wanted somebody to know that we weren't forgotten... attempts HAD been made to come to our assistance. He said that he had launched a flight of aircraft to come to our assistance, and he had then called Washington. Secretary McNamara came on the line and ordered the recall of the aircraft, which he did. Concurrently, he said that since he suspected that they were afraid that there might have been nuclear weapons on board he reconfigured another flight of aircraft... strictly conventional weaponry... and re-launched it. After the second launch, he again called Washington to let them know what was going on. Again, Secretary McNamara ordered the aircraft recalled. Not understanding why, he requested confirmation of the order, and the next higher in command came on to confirm that ...President Johnson... with the instructions that the aircraft were to be returned, that he would not have his allies embarrassed, he didn't care who was killed or what was done to the ship...words to that effect. With that, Admiral Geis swore me to secrecy for his lifetime. I had been silent up until I found out from Admiral Moorer that Admiral Geis had passed away."

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/lewis_ra.htm


And here's the comparison of the two ships for you:

Israel claims the USS Liberty was mistaken for the out-of-service Egyptian horse carrier El Quseir - can you spot the difference?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/selquseir2.jpg
Quesir

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/sliberty2.jpg
Liberty

According to a 1981 NSA report on the incident, the El Quseir "was approximately one-quarter of the Liberty's tonnage, about one-half its length, and offered a radically different silhouette."

Yes, they just have maths problems then.
You didn't know that i'm from Israel? It really is no secret. Also, it only gives me first-hand knowledge. Your entire debate is based on the views of the BBC.
And what does the fact that he was in a wheelchair have to do with anything? I'd find the fact that he authorised the killings of hundreds of Jews slightly more relevant.

I didn't know you were from Israel, that is true... and it is no secret which country I am from... but, do you know?

My entire debate hasn't been based on the BBC, parts of it are drawn from sources as reliable as the BBC, parts of it from other media sources (I'm pretty sure I posted an article from a Philadelphia-based news source), and some of it from first-hand evidence. There are several issues being discussed here, and some of them I have more 'close' evidence for than others.

The thing about the wheelchair is simple. How much of a run-around can a guy in a wheelchair, that has to be pushed from venue to venue REALLY give? Is helicopter airstrikes REALLY the necessary level of force for dealing with quadriplegics?

And, yes, perhaps you are right... maybe the fact that he personally authorised the killings of hundreds of Jews is more relevant. But then, so has Ariel Sharon authorised the killings of hundreds of Palestinians... so, would that justify Palestine (if some wealthy nation provided them with missiles and helicopters, financial support and backing...) organising rocket-attacks on Sharon?

I don't think this was meant as a threat... more as a restatement of the principle as dictated by Jesus:

Mathhew 26:52 "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword".

If Israel is a state formed in blood, then it's eventual destiny seems likely to be the same.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Youre not mistaken.

Thats my point, the highest up in America ordered the planes to be recalled! Obviously, if it was Israel then I will accept that we need to take a big % of the blame, but America ordered their own planes back, showing that they didn't care about the sailors. Therefore some of the blame should rest with them.
Thank you for the compliment by the way. We do seem to be the only ones consistently posting who have mastered it.

Is helicopter airstrikes REALLY the necessary level of force for dealing with quadriplegics?
organising rocket-attacks on Sharon?
Yes, he has bodyguards who would shoot an Israeli as soon as look at him. A heli-strike was the only sure way to kill him. He's already evaded strikes twice. Also, he spent a long time in an Israeli jail. He was 80something when he got released out of pity, they figured that he didn't have many years left. He lived for longer than they'd ever anticipated.

Neither Israelis nor Israelites are/were the original inhabitants of the Levant. Both groups came as foreign land grabbers to the land. And even if the Israelites had been rightfully living in the region, that would NOT constitute any legitimacy to modern claims.

No, Abraham bought the land from the Aramites, its original owners of record. When the Hebrews returned from Egypt they found squatters there, practicing such things as human sacrifice. Yes, that part is not well detailed in the Bible, but ask an archeologist. The Canaanites as well as the Moabites and Ammorites and as well as the pre-Hebrews of Akkadia practiced human sacrifice. Reason enough to kill those squatters? G-d said so, but we are far more civilized now (than G-D??? :eek: ) Was the fact that they came into an abandoned land enough reason? I wouldn't think so.

BTW you might not like the Bible as history, but it's what we got.

And guess what? There is no counting all the racial groups that were totally whiped off of the face of the Earth during the Bronze Age. Israel actually kept a record, so they get the shit end of the stick.



Grave, I will respond to your response after I have slept. But in the mean time... in between time... where is the proof of this "all 'Jews' are really Khazars" position? I have yet to be told what it is. The "scholar" who came up with it was somehow of the idea that the Khazars were Hamites, not Shemites, which is what they were (Khazars <-- Turks <-- Tartars <-- Mongols <-- Shemites). So this entire "theory" is based on sloppy work by an idiot.

And for the record, the Khazars were legitimate converts, not unconverted intermarriers. So your grandfather's tale is simply not germain. Jews are Jews, coverts to Judaism are Jews, so even if someone can show me proof (DNA, family trees, birth records, etc.) to show that all or most Jews, or european Jews, or even ashkanazi Jews are totally or even predominantly khazar, which no one has yet done anyway, that means nothing to the ludicrous idea that they are somehow not Jews.

Austrealite seems to think it matters in terms of the Davidic lineage, and yes, in a small part, it does. The Messiah of the Seed of David must be a totally paternal descendent of David (whom he seems to forget was 25% Canaanite). But all that is needed is 1 part Jew (David himself) and 2^n - 1 parts anything else, as long as that one part comes down soley through the males. And, to satisfy the Talmudic Jews (virtually all of them), the mothers would have to have converted. But we're talking bloodlines here, and for racial heritage in terms of messianic purposes, that is enough.



Tip of the iceberg, but you're still wrong! ;) And I still must sleep. I will disect the rest of your wrongitude later.

Shalom.

Yes, he has bodyguards who would shoot an Israeli as soon as look at him. A heli-strike was the only sure way to kill him. He's already evaded strikes twice. Also, he spent a long time in an Israeli jail. He was 80something when he got released out of pity, they figured that he didn't have many years left. He lived for longer than they'd ever anticipated.

He has no bodyguards now... unless those killed with him accompanied him to wherever he went next...

And, surely, a heli-strike wasn't the 'only sure way to kill him', since he had already survived airstrike attack on September 6th, 2003, when Israel dropped a quarter-ton bomb on the building he was in.

Further... Yassin never tried to hide his path. It was well known fact that he was wheeled to and from the mosque every day - so why not arrest him again? But, of course, here's the problem. There was no evidence, was there? The only thing he was charged with the first time was authorising the killing of a grand total of TWO Israelis - both soldiers.

And, of course... even the Israeli regime were not entirely convinced of the wisdom of the strikes. Avraham Poraz said that he believed the helicopter strike would "foster further hate and more attacks", and Shimon Peres stated "I do not believe that we can eliminate terrorism by assassinating leaders. It was a misguided decision."

So - we have a charismatic leader, possibly not exemplary of his 'people', but claiming to be acting in the best interests of his nation, and who authorised killings in that interest...

assassinated, in gross-overkill fashion, by

ANOTHER charismatic leader, also not exemplary of his 'people', also claiming to be acting in the best interests of his nation, and ALSO sanctioning killings in that interest...

Yes, he has bodyguards who would shoot an Israeli as soon as look at him. A heli-strike was the only sure way to kill him. He's already evaded strikes twice. Also, he spent a long time in an Israeli jail. He was 80something when he got released out of pity, they figured that he didn't have many years left. He lived for longer than they'd ever anticipated.

Not really out of pity. He was an old, paralyzed man. The soldiers were sick and tired of dragging him to the bathroom every few hours. That's probably why they released him.

No, Abraham bought the land from the Aramites, its original owners of record. When the Hebrews returned from Egypt they found squatters there, practicing such things as human sacrifice. Yes, that part is not well detailed in the Bible, but ask an archeologist. The Canaanites as well as the Moabites and Ammorites and as well as the pre-Hebrews of Akkadia practiced human sacrifice. Reason enough to kill those squatters? G-d said so, but we are far more civilized now (than G-D??? :eek: ) Was the fact that they came into an abandoned land enough reason? I wouldn't think so.

BTW you might not like the Bible as history, but it's what we got.


But where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that the Hebrews 'owned' Canaan? Aslo - the Hebrews themselves were not above a little sacrifice, now, were they? And some of the biblical stories definitely hint at a history of human sacrifice amongst the Hebrews. Cain sacrifices a human to his god to appease him, since he did not accept the previous sacrifice. In response to this better sacrifice, Cain is rendered immortal. Jesus is 'sacrificed' upon an altar of wood, and, in response, is made immortal.

I do not like the bible as a history. And it is far from all we have... it is just the only text that spends much time discussing the beliefs and prejudices of the Hebrews... which doesn't necessarily make it an accurate or reliable historical text.


Grave, I will respond to your response after I have slept. But in the mean time... in between time... where is the proof of this "all 'Jews' are really Khazars" position? I have yet to be told what it is. The "scholar" who came up with it was somehow of the idea that the Khazars were Hamites, not Shemites, which is what they were (Khazars <-- Turks <-- Tartars <-- Mongols <-- Shemites). So this entire "theory" is based on sloppy work by an idiot.

And for the record, the Khazars were legitimate converts, not unconverted intermarriers. So your grandfather's tale is simply not germain. Jews are Jews, coverts to Judaism are Jews, so even if someone can show me proof (DNA, family trees, birth records, etc.) to show that all or most Jews, or european Jews, or even ashkanazi Jews are totally or even predominantly khazar, which no one has yet done anyway, that means nothing to the ludicrous idea that they are somehow not Jews.


At the risk of using a somewhat superficial approach... there are certain appearance characteristics that are common in certain genetic heritages. Some of these characteristics enable people to make a semi-educated guess about what MAY have been the ancestry of a certain ethnic grouping. Examples might include being able to tell that a blonde, blue-eyed, pale-skinned female MAY have origins in Northern European stock... or that the ruddy-skinned, red haired, green-eyed male may have some Celtic 'blood'. Similarly, if an ethnic grouping leans closer toward a slavic tilt than towards an 'arabic' tilt, it can probably be assumed that that grouping MAY have a different heritage to the other grouping that they are SAID to resemble.

And I don't really think it matters, anyway. If certain groupings insist that the line is passed only through the mother, that you have to be born a jew, that you are only jewish if you are from the 'pure' stock - then that is a very factor in what is 'going on' in the world. Maybe they are collectively wrong? Maybe it is unfair or wrong?

My grandfather told a story (and belonged to a community that told that story) about a belief about what is true. Thus - that viewpoint is 'germain' in terms of what is perceived by some people... and they certainly believed that they were right. They ARE Jews, and they say that those other people are not Jews... how does one argue against it?


Tip of the iceberg, but you're still wrong! ;) And I still must sleep. I will disect the rest of your wrongitude later.

Shalom.

Kudos for deliberate and planned use of the word 'wrongitude'.

Peace.

He has no bodyguards now... unless those killed with him accompanied him to wherever he went next...

And, surely, a heli-strike wasn't the 'only sure way to kill him', since he had already survived airstrike attack on September 6th, 2003, when Israel dropped a quarter-ton bomb on the building he was in.

Further... Yassin never tried to hide his path. It was well known fact that he was wheeled to and from the mosque every day - so why not arrest him again? But, of course, here's the problem. There was no evidence, was there? The only thing he was charged with the first time was authorising the killing of a grand total of TWO Israelis - both soldiers.

Shimon Peres stated "I do not believe that we can eliminate terrorism by assassinating leaders. It was a misguided decision."
You mean hell?

Yeah, he sure was a resiliant bugger.

It's well known that he was the spiritual leader of Hamas, Israeli intel is the best in the world. There was plenty of evidence against him.

Shimon Peres, is a Avoda politician (Labour) and so is very left-wing. It's like a Kerry quote for something that Bush did.

You may have noticed that I don't respond to the posts dealing with Canaan and ancient times and religion etc... this is because my knowledge is somewhat limited on the subject.

This is ridiculous, one such massacre was the destruction of a children's hospital. I am REAL SURE that dangerous criminals are going to be hiding in a Palestinian Children's hospital!
You'd be surprised where they would hide to avoid getting killed. At least the Isarelis don't target civilians, the Palestinians make a point to target civilians. There's been a war in Israel for a looooooong time now, very long (in case the "o"s didnt give it away). They're always going to be fighting over something. The only difference I see is that the Israelis seem to take the high road: only targetting terrorist leaders and factions. The Palestinians seem to target discos, resteraunts, and buses.

Now bear in mind that there will be civilian casualties no matter what we do, but at least the Israelis didn't mean to. There is no immediate solution for the war in the middle east, but I know who's side I'm on.

Perhaps you would like to start looking up YOUR facts?

This coming from somebody who's swallowed the "all Jews are Khazars" argument hook, line, and bullshit?

BTW, your grandfather's case doesn't constitute a reliable proof here. The issue is not that he was marrying someone of different "blood", but rather that the spouse was not Jewish. Had she converted, there would have been no issue, at least from a religious (as opposed to a cultural) standpoint.

The issue of "your children won't be Jewish" is, again, due to the mother not being Jewish- but had she converted, the children would be. Blood is not a factor.

If certain groupings insist that the line is passed only through the mother, that you have to be born a jew, that you are only jewish if you are from the 'pure' stock

The first belief is a part of Jewish law. The second and third statements are not. Judaism teaches the Messiah will be descended from King David- who was descended from Ruth, a CONVERT. So David, Solomon, and Messiah will all be of "un-pure" stock. I don't see anyone challenging their Jewishness.

My grandfather told a story (and belonged to a community that told that story)

It sounds like this story was distorted at some point. There is also likely a conflation of CULTURAL attitudes about "marrying out" of the group with religious ones: while there is a religious means of joining the community, the cultural "conversion" would likely be more difficult, possibly impossible, depending on beliefs and attitudes held by the family or community.

There would certainly likely be some people within a family group who might not accept the converted spouse. This is particularly true of communities that existed decades earlier, at times when MOST PEOPLE were more insular than they are today. (Think of an inter-racial couple getting married in the 1930s.)

That said, as I pointed out above, the cultural and religious tracks are not necessarily synonymous. In some ways, the religious one could be argued to be LESS strict or inflexible than the cultural.

They ARE Jews, and they say that those other people are not Jews... how does one argue against it?

Through a variety of means... the first step is establishing exactly what arguments they are using to make the claim to a person's non-Jewish status. I am unconvinced your rendition of their arguments is accurate.

Wow you know alot about bullsh!ting don't you, you obvoisly have no clue what the spanish inquistion was do you? cause it was onyl against jews and no one else.

That's inaccurate. The Inquisition targetted anyone suspected of "heresy" against the Catholic church, including Jews, but also, say, "Witches", and other religious dissenters.

Wow you know alot about bullsh!ting don't you, you obvoisly have no clue what the spanish inquistion was do you? cause it was onyl against jews and no one else.

Thanks for completely overlooking the Unitarians (labelled 'Anti-Trinitarians' by the Church) who were slaughtered during the Inquisition. That makes me feel good, knowing an uninformed revisionist pinhead such as yourself can, with one blithe remark, dismiss their very real pain and suffering along with all the other poor bastards who were caught in that hideous period of time. Those were MY people, FT, and may the echoes of their tortured voices guide you on your way when you someday make your egress from this world. So you can remember what a fatuous git you were.

But where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that the Hebrews 'owned' Canaan? Aslo - the Hebrews themselves were not above a little sacrifice, now, were they? And some of the biblical stories definitely hint at a history of human sacrifice amongst the Hebrews. Cain sacrifices a human to his god to appease him, since he did not accept the previous sacrifice. In response to this better sacrifice, Cain is rendered immortal. Jesus is 'sacrificed' upon an altar of wood, and, in response, is made immortal.

I do not like the bible as a history. And it is far from all we have... it is just the only text that spends much time discussing the beliefs and prejudices of the Hebrews... which doesn't necessarily make it an accurate or reliable historical text.

The evidence, the record, or Abraham buying Canaan, or the central part which was Moria and Zion, etc., is in the same place as the evidence of the Israelites killing off the Canaanites: in the Bible. You might not trust it as a source but you should be consistent, shouldn't you?

The promise of the rest of the Land and the command to drive the Canaanites out &/or destroy them came from G-d. I can understand if you find this more dubious than biblical history per se as regards the mundane, but the rest of it, the purchase of the land (Genesis) and the destruction of the Canaanites (Exodus) have the same provenence and level of credibility.

At the risk of using a somewhat superficial approach... there are certain appearance characteristics that are common in certain genetic heritages. Some of these characteristics enable people to make a semi-educated guess about what MAY have been the ancestry of a certain ethnic grouping. Examples might include being able to tell that a blonde, blue-eyed, pale-skinned female MAY have origins in Northern European stock... or that the ruddy-skinned, red haired, green-eyed male may have some Celtic 'blood'. Similarly, if an ethnic grouping leans closer toward a slavic tilt than towards an 'arabic' tilt, it can probably be assumed that that grouping MAY have a different heritage to the other grouping that they are SAID to resemble.

So it's an 'ass=u+me'tion that Jews are Khazars because they look like... Turks? Certainly a resemblence that I myself have never noticed. But it's not that your approach is superficial, it's simply that it aims at the wrong target. Why?

Judaism is NOT a race. Judaism is a RELIGION.

The first Hebrews were (recorded biblically as being) of a pure racial stock, being from a family of chaldean Akkadians from Ur who practiced niece/cousin-intermarriage. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca all practiced this and were all relatives to one another and of pure Akkadian stock, as was Jacob, Isaac and Rebecca's son. But after that it broke down. Jacob had twelve sons (and at least one daughter, Dinah) from four different mothers. Two of these, Leah and Rachel, were also kinswomen, but the other two were their maidservents, one an Egyptian and the other a Canaanite (IIRC), the mothers of (IIRC) four of the twelve israelite (named for Jacob's new G-d-given name) patriarchs. Thus after that generation 1/6 of israelite blood, or more to the point, 1/2 of the blood of 1/3 of the tribes, was of "unpure" lineage. But since the next generation would not have married their own sisters, there had to be tribal intermarriage, at least in the early days. So egyptian and canaanite blood would have spread through all the tribes.

Dinah was raped by Hamor, a local Hittite (IIRC) prince who was so infatuated that he came to Jacob to ask for her hand in marriage. Dinah's brothers were outraged. Jacob told Hamor that he would have to convert in order to marry Dinah, and, being his people's prince, they would all have to convert as well. Hamor agreed, and one a certain day all of the males of his people were circumcized. The next day two of Dinah's brothers attacked the Hamorians, while they were still limping around, killing all the men and taking the women and cattle as spoil. G-d condemned this act. Not only had they dealt violently with a people who had an agreement with their father, but a people who HAD CONVERTED TO THEIR RELIGION.

There was never a racial qualifier for being a Jew or for converting to Judaism, at least, certainly, not in the Bible. At the exodus from Egypt, any person who put the blood on their door entered into the Jewish covenent, circumcision to come later if needed. It is widely believed that many egyptian slaves joined the exodus, if only to escape slavery, and the Bible tells of egyptians among the people of the exodus. So not all of those who went with Moses and Aaron had blood ties to Abraham, but all of them were Jews (Hebrews, really) due to their following that relgion by the blood on the door and by circumcision. David's grandmother Ruth was a Moabite (I think I called her a Canaanite before... sorry) but she converted, so that made her a Jew. Jews could be considered a race because of the Akkadian roots of the earliest Hebrews, but Judaism is not a race, it is a religion.

Let me repeat that in bold undelined italic capital letters just in case there is anyone reading this who still doesn't get it: JUDAISM IS NOT A RACE, IT IS A RELIGION!

And I don't really think it matters, anyway. If certain groupings insist that the line is passed only through the mother, that you have to be born a jew, that you are only jewish if you are from the 'pure' stock - then that is a very factor in what is 'going on' in the world. Maybe they are collectively wrong? Maybe it is unfair or wrong?

You don't seem clear on the fact that having a jewish mother does not ensure "pure" racial stock. One could be descended through purely maternal lines to a "purely" jewish woman 8 generations back, and if so you are racially 255/256 "non-Jew" and 1/256 Jew, but by the Talmudic tradition of maternal inheritence you are fully a Jew.

You need to understand that that tradition (NOT "law") was created by men to protect the jewish people from cultural absorbtion due to genetic absorbtion due to rape. The Jews, like many close-knit traditional groups, rejected the victims and the children of rape, and to prevent the Jews from being raped out of their distinct existence they devised a rule that the child of any jewish mother was a Jew. So, Khazars aside, there is surely a lot of "non-jewish" blood in modern Jews due to their history as victims of oppression. But all that it takes to have "jewish blood" is to be circumcized and follow the Torah, so it's all moot.

Still this says nothing of the validity of the Jewishness of the children of a born-Jew and a convert, or even of two converts. Those children would be Jews. Why? Again, JUDAISM IS NOT A RACE. It is a religion that came out of a family that was of a certain race, but there is no racial test.

My grandfather told a story (and belonged to a community that told that story) about a belief about what is true. Thus - that viewpoint is 'germain' in terms of what is perceived by some people... and they certainly believed that they were right. They ARE Jews, and they say that those other people are not Jews... how does one argue against it?

Your grandfather's story is about a Jew who married a Gentile who was not a convert to Judaism. THAT is why it is NOT GERMAIN. It has NOTHING to do with the alleged Khazar issue because the Khazars were legitimate converts.

You can try to paint it as a matter of opinion, but it simply is not. There are rules for being jewish and for converting to Judaism and for remaining jewish or being expelled from Judaism, and the rule book is the Torah. It may be open to interpretation at some points but the fundemental principles are really not up for debate.

Yes, today there are different schools of Judaism, and Orthodox Jews do not accept the conversion of Gentiles to non-orthodox strains of Judaism, and the most fervent do not even accept born-Jews who are not Orthodox. But this doesn't have any baring on the Khazars, as these divisions did not exist back then. And again, these divisions are not racial divisions, they are religious ones.

Kudos for deliberate and planned use of the word 'wrongitude'.

Peace.

Thanks. :)

Anyway I got to run and I still haven't gotten to the other points of your earlier post, which probably doesn't matter because for the most part it's all different angles on the same stuff. But for Phrax' sake I should go back to what we were discussing about modern Israel, and your wrongitudinality therein. ;) I guess I'll catch it tonight if I get home in time and I'll see your reply in the morning.

Shalom and Aloha.

Israel never handled anything solely by itself. At first the Czech Republic and Great Britain helped it and now the US helps it in every aspect other then directly going in and fighting the battle for them.

And? Most nations have historically been at least somewhat reliant on others (say, like, the US was on France during its revolution). That's the whole point of alliances.

And it wasn't like Israel had THAT much help, say, during the 1948 war.

America provides israel with the most advanced weaponry as well as the best training

Training, really? Can you cite a source for that?

in short without America israel wouldnt last 5 years.

Proof for this assertion? Without American help, Israel would certainly be at a disadvantage, but it has one of the best armed and trained armies in the world. It suspect it would take a lot longer than 5 years.

I never said zionism started in 1947 I stated that the israeli regime officially gained recognition form the UN declaring it a new jewish state.

Actually, you didn't say either.

You said:

the deaths would never occur if their ancestors never occupied palastine in the first place in 1947

Which is not the same as above. Part of it is dependant on what you mean by "occupied". If by occupied you simply mean, immigrated to Palestine, then my correction stands. If by occupied you instead meant, "was recognized by the UN", then that's something else entirely. I would suggest you try to be more specific with your language choices. "When they occupied Palestine" isn't very helpful to anyone, particularly since the language is so subjective.

It doesnt matter how you think the arab leadership is worse

Who says it doesn't matter? What argument are you advancing to support this? I don't even know what part of my post you're responding to.

the fact is palastine was populated with mostly muslims for about 1700 years and it should go back to that state.

Why? Under what rationale? Couldn't the same argument be used to support deporting all non-"Native Americans" from North America? What makes the US different? That it's been 200-odd years instead of 50? Your so-called argument seems pretty thin here.

I know the middle east wasnt perfect before israel but the early 1900s saw great improvements between the muslim and christian relations(Britain did afterall contribute to and help the arab uprising defeat the ottoman empire in WW1) after this things seemed to be more stable until your people just had to start their return to the "holy" land

Let's break this down.

1- The early 1900s did see some improvements between Muslim and Christian relations. It also saw further detriment of said relations as the Christian West continued to use the East as pawns, and as the East tried to wrest independence from colonial Western powers.

2- Your chronology is quite skewed. Modern Zionist immigration, as I said, started in the 1880s. The Ottoman Empire was defeated in 1917. It is factually IMPOSSIBLE for your theory as advanced above to be correct, since Zionist immigration PRE-DATES British occupation (incidentally, my impression is they weren't THAT popular among the native populace, since they were seen as more colonial imperialist expansionists) and its supposed "stability".

3- "My people", as far as I know, were not among those who were living in Palestine pre-1948. What few Israeli relatives I do have seem to have gone their post-Holocaust. Most of my relatives were in America by the time WWI started. Those that weren't here by the early 20s were massacred in Poland and Hungary by the Nazis and their collaborators, in part due to the British blockade which prevented thousands of Jews from escaping the death camps.

...Please refrain from engaging in personal attacks (or using rhetoric which skirts the line of such). My "people" are not the issue of debate here.

after the israeli regime was established

No bias here, right? :rolleyes: What made/makes the Israeli government any more a "regime" than other world governments?

the arab nations didnt see this as a jewish threat rather they saw it as a western threat again putting christians at odds against the muslims.

As opposed, to, say, Western Christians (British) occupying their land after conquering it in WWI. Right.

Israel started a chain reaction which led to the creation of terrorist groups such as the hamas and al quida

Absurd. The ideology of those groups can be traced back to pan-Arab and Muslim nationalist ideology created in the late 19th and early 20th century. Part of that was related to the influence (and perceived opposition) of Zionism, but, as you said, Zionism was also seen as merely ONE MORE MANIFESTATION of THE WEST. This can all be located in the fundemental conflict between East and West for control of the region, going back thousands of years to the Crusades and attempted Islamic conquering of Europe. Attempting to blame all of this on Israel is not only stupid and simplistic, it's downright ignorant.

and since America helps this regime out we are targeted as well.

America is a target by virtue of being associated with "the west". Part of this is undoubtedly related to America's assistance of Israel and the practical actions they have both engaged in and supported. But there's a whole ideological component you are willfully ignoring in order to pin all the blame on Israel. Again, I find this over-simplistic, not to mention simply incorrect.

September 11th occured simply because our American government blindly supports the israeli government and thus has become a target for islamic militants worldwide.

More oversimplification.

The contribution the American government makes to the israelis far outweighes what the israelis give in return. Israel is known for manufacturing weapons that at times falls into the hands of gangsters, thugs, and criminals worldwide(the uzi and night hawk especially) and I cannot see how this is a good contribution.

How many American-made guns are used by criminals? How many American-made cars are used by criminals? What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING? Should we censure Japan because hackers use Japanese computers? Should Russia be held responsible because a lot of terrorists seem to like Kalashnikovs?

A good solution to this problem would be let jerusalem be international territory guarded by the UN forces. Most of Palastine should be returned to the palastinians. And perhaps the jews can have a small section in northern palastine where they wont be harmed.

Overlooking the obvious arrogance and condescension implicit in your "good solution", I wonder what guarantee would this new smaller, less defensible Jewish state have against future attacks? Particularly by such extremist groups like Hamas, who continue to state that their goal is to control ALL of "Pre-state Palestine"?[/QUOTE]

A friend of ours was in the Navy (Israeli) at the time of the Liberty incident. Here is what actually happened.

A ship was spotted, Israel claim that it was inside Israeli waters, but either way, it must be accepted that it was on the very border of sovereign waters. They demanded that the ship identify itself, but because it was a spy ship, the Americans didn't reply. Israel delivered the unknown ship an ultimatum, get out of our waters, in 24 hours. The ship still stayed in place, 24 hours later, Israeli ships and planes came in and attacked the unknown ship. The fact that it had and American flag, and writing that said "USS Liberty", well, lets say that that isn't overly hard to fake. It does seem a lot more logical, you've got to admit. The only thing, that seems slightly unclear, is why the Americans ordered the planes back and I think that the Liberty may have been doing something... less than legal.

A friend of ours was in the Navy (Israeli) at the time of the Liberty incident. Here is what actually happened.

A ship was spotted, Israel claim that it was inside Israeli waters, but either way, it must be accepted that it was on the very border of sovereign waters. They demanded that the ship identify itself, but because it was a spy ship, the Americans didn't reply. Israel delivered the unknown ship an ultimatum, get out of our waters, in 24 hours. The ship still stayed in place, 24 hours later, Israeli ships and planes came in and attacked the unknown ship. The fact that it had and American flag, and writing that said "USS Liberty", well, lets say that that isn't overly hard to fake. It does seem a lot more logical, you've got to admit. The only thing, that seems slightly unclear, is why the Americans ordered the planes back and I think that the Liberty may have been doing something... less than legal.
Just like a US spy plane being involved in an incident in the air space of another nation. Being forced to land then the US complaining because that nation took a good look around and took items from said spy plane. Accept with good grace that you were found out and got a slap on the wrist.

You mean hell?

Yeah, he sure was a resiliant bugger.

It's well known that he was the spiritual leader of Hamas, Israeli intel is the best in the world. There was plenty of evidence against him.

Shimon Peres, is a Avoda politician (Labour) and so is very left-wing. It's like a Kerry quote for something that Bush did.

The 'best' intelligence in the world? This would be the same intelligence that just got caught spying on their American allies again, for the second time in 20 years?

Joshua was the 'spiritual leader' of the Hebrews, when they carried out their 'war of conquest' in Canaan. So, by your reckoning, he deserved to die?

Oh wait... some people put forth the proposition that it WASN'T a war of conquest... they were taking back the land that they thought had been stolen from them.

Now, why does that sound so familiar?

There is also plenty of evidence against Sharon. Including a long wall built in another nation's sovereign territory, illegally.

The evidence, the record, or Abraham buying Canaan, or the central part which was Moria and Zion, etc., is in the same place as the evidence of the Israelites killing off the Canaanites: in the Bible. You might not trust it as a source but you should be consistent, shouldn't you?

The promise of the rest of the Land and the command to drive the Canaanites out &/or destroy them came from G-d. I can understand if you find this more dubious than biblical history per se as regards the mundane, but the rest of it, the purchase of the land (Genesis) and the destruction of the Canaanites (Exodus) have the same provenence and level of credibility.



So it's an 'ass=u+me'tion that Jews are Khazars because they look like... Turks? Certainly a resemblence that I myself have never noticed. But it's not that your approach is superficial, it's simply that it aims at the wrong target. Why?

Judaism is NOT a race. Judaism is a RELIGION.

The first Hebrews were (recorded biblically as being) of a pure racial stock, being from a family of chaldean Akkadians from Ur who practiced niece/cousin-intermarriage. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca all practiced this and were all relatives to one another and of pure Akkadian stock, as was Jacob, Isaac and Rebecca's son. But after that it broke down. Jacob had twelve sons (and at least one daughter, Dinah) from four different mothers. Two of these, Leah and Rachel, were also kinswomen, but the other two were their maidservents, one an Egyptian and the other a Canaanite (IIRC), the mothers of (IIRC) four of the twelve israelite (named for Jacob's new G-d-given name) patriarchs. Thus after that generation 1/6 of israelite blood, or more to the point, 1/2 of the blood of 1/3 of the tribes, was of "unpure" lineage. But since the next generation would not have married their own sisters, there had to be tribal intermarriage, at least in the early days. So egyptian and canaanite blood would have spread through all the tribes.

Dinah was raped by Hamor, a local Hittite (IIRC) prince who was so infatuated that he came to Jacob to ask for her hand in marriage. Dinah's brothers were outraged. Jacob told Hamor that he would have to convert in order to marry Dinah, and, being his people's prince, they would all have to convert as well. Hamor agreed, and one a certain day all of the males of his people were circumcized. The next day two of Dinah's brothers attacked the Hamorians, while they were still limping around, killing all the men and taking the women and cattle as spoil. G-d condemned this act. Not only had they dealt violently with a people who had an agreement with their father, but a people who HAD CONVERTED TO THEIR RELIGION.

There was never a racial qualifier for being a Jew or for converting to Judaism, at least, certainly, not in the Bible. At the exodus from Egypt, any person who put the blood on their door entered into the Jewish covenent, circumcision to come later if needed. It is widely believed that many egyptian slaves joined the exodus, if only to escape slavery, and the Bible tells of egyptians among the people of the exodus. So not all of those who went with Moses and Aaron had blood ties to Abraham, but all of them were Jews (Hebrews, really) due to their following that relgion by the blood on the door and by circumcision. David's grandmother Ruth was a Moabite (I think I called her a Canaanite before... sorry) but she converted, so that made her a Jew. Jews could be considered a race because of the Akkadian roots of the earliest Hebrews, but Judaism is not a race, it is a religion.

Let me repeat that in bold undelined italic capital letters just in case there is anyone reading this who still doesn't get it: JUDAISM IS NOT A RACE, IT IS A RELIGION!



You don't seem clear on the fact that having a jewish mother does not ensure "pure" racial stock. One could be descended through purely maternal lines to a "purely" jewish woman 8 generations back, and if so you are racially 255/256 "non-Jew" and 1/256 Jew, but by the Talmudic tradition of maternal inheritence you are fully a Jew.

You need to understand that that tradition (NOT "law") was created by men to protect the jewish people from cultural absorbtion due to genetic absorbtion due to rape. The Jews, like many close-knit traditional groups, rejected the victims and the children of rape, and to prevent the Jews from being raped out of their distinct existence they devised a rule that the child of any jewish mother was a Jew. So, Khazars aside, there is surely a lot of "non-jewish" blood in modern Jews due to their history as victims of oppression. But all that it takes to have "jewish blood" is to be circumcized and follow the Torah, so it's all moot.

Still this says nothing of the validity of the Jewishness of the children of a born-Jew and a convert, or even of two converts. Those children would be Jews. Why? Again, JUDAISM IS NOT A RACE. It is a religion that came out of a family that was of a certain race, but there is no racial test.



Your grandfather's story is about a Jew who married a Gentile who was not a convert to Judaism. THAT is why it is NOT GERMAIN. It has NOTHING to do with the alleged Khazar issue because the Khazars were legitimate converts.

You can try to paint it as a matter of opinion, but it simply is not. There are rules for being jewish and for converting to Judaism and for remaining jewish or being expelled from Judaism, and the rule book is the Torah. It may be open to interpretation at some points but the fundemental principles are really not up for debate.

Yes, today there are different schools of Judaism, and Orthodox Jews do not accept the conversion of Gentiles to non-orthodox strains of Judaism, and the most fervent do not even accept born-Jews who are not Orthodox. But this doesn't have any baring on the Khazars, as these divisions did not exist back then. And again, these divisions are not racial divisions, they are religious ones.



Thanks. :)

Anyway I got to run and I still haven't gotten to the other points of your earlier post, which probably doesn't matter because for the most part it's all different angles on the same stuff. But for Phrax' sake I should go back to what we were discussing about modern Israel, and your wrongitudinality therein. ;) I guess I'll catch it tonight if I get home in time and I'll see your reply in the morning.

Shalom and Aloha.

I can't argue with most of these points. My evidence, while obtained first-hand is anecdotal, as I said before.

If a proportion of the population call themselves Jews, and forbid others the right to call themselves Jews... I cannot prove them wrong. (Any more than I can prove the people who call themselves 'married' and forbid others the right to call themselves 'married' wrong... I can argue against it... but it is a belief issue... and their belief, not mine).

My grandmother was told she could not 'convert' - if that helps in definition - she was told she was born not a Jew, she would die not a Jew.

This Jewish community is the same community that argues the Kazars were not true 'Jews', for the same reason... and, note: by THEIR reasoning, Judaism is race AND religion... since they make the two linked.

Also - on the subject of your statement "You don't seem clear on the fact that having a jewish mother does not ensure "pure" racial stock.": It does! If you believe that the 'Jewish' line is passed through the mother, then the child IS pure, if the matrilineal path is unbroken.

Which is, of course, one of the reasons why Jesus wasn't messiah - since JOSEPH traced lineage to David.

And, re: the Kazars... they were not legitimate converts - to some people. And those people are the people who claim to be in a position to make that distinction... so, the 'legitimacy' is questionable.

Example: I make a declaration that I am a freemason at the local 'chapter'. The local freemason chapter looks at me, does a membership check, and then issues a statement that I am NOT a freemason. Who is right? Is my claim legitimate? Who gets to decide?

Just like a US spy plane being involved in an incident in the air space of another nation. Being forced to land then the US complaining because that nation took a good look around and took items from said spy plane. Accept with good grace that you were found out and got a slap on the wrist.
yeah, you know better than Navy personnel at the time.:rolleyes:
Didn't quite get your point but I got the last sentence. That was what happened. If you prefer to believe that some Israeli pilots got bored one day and decided to go shoot up a close allies ship, I won't stop you. If it looks logical to you, then fine.

I can't argue with most of these points. My evidence, while obtained first-hand is anecdotal, as I said before.

If a proportion of the population call themselves Jews, and forbid others the right to call themselves Jews... I cannot prove them wrong. (Any more than I can prove the people who call themselves 'married' and forbid others the right to call themselves 'married' wrong... I can argue against it... but it is a belief issue... and their belief, not mine).

My grandmother was told she could not 'convert' - if that helps in definition - she was told she was born not a Jew, she would die not a Jew.

This Jewish community is the same community that argues the Kazars were not true 'Jews', for the same reason... and, note: by THEIR reasoning, Judaism is race AND religion... since they make the two linked.

Those who do so are simply racists. It sounds to me like they believe that there are no provisions for conversion in Judaism, and this simply is not the case. The Torah provides rules for conversion, regardless of what rabbi subsequent to the prophets have written in the Talmud. In fact, nearly every rabbi I have ever known has asked me if I was interested in converting. Both of them. ;)

I have never asked them about the Khazars, so I don't know if what your contacts have told you is based upon racism or upon some actual biblical problem with the khazar conversions. But it's strange that the very people whom you, and Austrealite, claim are not Jews at all but rather the descendents of Khazars claim, according to you, that the Khazars and their descendents are not really Jews.

Less strange, however, when the DNA evidence shows that they have no linkage to the Khazars, who were Turks, and when there is no resemblence physically between modern Jews and modern Turks. It's just a load of bullshit concocted by a "scholar" whose agenda was to prove that Europeans are the "true inheritors" of G-d's eternal covenent, a "scholar" who thought that the Khazars were a hametic people.

Also - on the subject of your statement "You don't seem clear on the fact that having a jewish mother does not ensure "pure" racial stock.": It does! If you believe that the 'Jewish' line is passed through the mother, then the child IS pure, if the matrilineal path is unbroken.

From the Talmudic perspective, yes. However, Austrealite, and so I presume you, would argue that an alleged prominence of khazarian genetic heritage would invalidate the jewishness of such a person. If it's a racial test then that person does not have racially pure jewish blood, period. And if it's not, then Judaism is not a race.

Which is, of course, one of the reasons why Jesus wasn't messiah - since JOSEPH traced lineage to David.

Actually despite what most Christians believe, the NT does not claim that Mary was impregnated by G-d. It merely has Gabriel stating that Mary would be "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit, making it possible for her to be pregnent while still a virgin.

It is possible for a virgin to become pregnent: hand-to-penis, to the point of orgasm, followed by hand-to-vagina. It is very rare, but it really doesn't take a miracle.

Add to this that in ancient times a betrothed couple was allowed to sleep together, and even to have sexual contact. For Aaronites, like Mary, there would be no actual coitus until the full ceremony, but they could do just about anything else.

So Jesus was indeed the son of Joseph, son of David. If the NT is to be believed that is.

And, re: the Kazars... they were not legitimate converts - to some people. And those people are the people who claim to be in a position to make that distinction... so, the 'legitimacy' is questionable.

Example: I make a declaration that I am a freemason at the local 'chapter'. The local freemason chapter looks at me, does a membership check, and then issues a statement that I am NOT a freemason. Who is right? Is my claim legitimate? Who gets to decide?

The Bible gets to decide. If you can show me a historical argument that refutes the biblical ligitimacy of the khazar conversions I will consider it. Maybe your gandpa's rabbi can help? Nonetheless there still remains no evidence whatsoever that Jews of today are all or nearly all descended from Khazars.

If a proportion of the population call themselves Jews, and forbid others the right to call themselves Jews... I cannot prove them wrong. (Any more than I can prove the people who call themselves 'married' and forbid others the right to call themselves 'married' wrong... I can argue against it... but it is a belief issue... and their belief, not mine).

One can argue against it and POTENTIALLY prove it wrong, DEPENDING on what arguments they are making and what AUTHORITY and LEGITIMACY they are appealing to. In order to do ANY of this, however, one has to understand their argument, and it does not necessarily appear that you do.

My grandmother was told she could not 'convert' - if that helps in definition - she was told she was born not a Jew, she would die not a Jew.

Well, in that case, this had, as I suspected, more to do with the cultural xenophobia of the particular community and much less to do with Judaism as a religion, because Judaism does NOT require that one be born a Jew in order to be considered a Jew. Conversion is a perfectly legitimate process in Judaism.

This Jewish community is the same community that argues the Kazars were not true 'Jews', for the same reason... and, note: by THEIR reasoning, Judaism is race AND religion... since they make the two linked.

But in this case, we have to be deliberate and explicit about ISOLATING this one particular community from Judaism as a whole, because their ideology is dinstinct from normative Judaism.

Also - on the subject of your statement "You don't seem clear on the fact that having a jewish mother does not ensure "pure" racial stock.": It does! If you believe that the 'Jewish' line is passed through the mother, then the child IS pure, if the matrilineal path is unbroken.

Absolutely not. "Purity" has nothing to do with it. If it did, then people would be questioning David, Solomon's, and the future Jewish Messiah's Jewishness, because they are all descended from a FEMALE CONVERT.

Which is, of course, one of the reasons why Jesus wasn't messiah - since JOSEPH traced lineage to David.

But that has nothing to do with a PURITY issue.

And, re: the Kazars... they were not legitimate converts - to some people. And those people are the people who claim to be in a position to make that distinction... so, the 'legitimacy' is questionable.

If anything's in question, it's what legitimacy and authority this particular community is supposedly adhering to, since it seems to be directly contradicting the normative Jewish position which has existed, among all denominations, for thousands of years.

Example: I make a declaration that I am a freemason at the local 'chapter'. The local freemason chapter looks at me, does a membership check, and then issues a statement that I am NOT a freemason. Who is right? Is my claim legitimate? Who gets to decide?

The way to determine this is to do more research about what the membership requirements are, according to the Masonic traditions or bylaws. In the case of Judaism, we KNOW that conversion IS acceptable, and that being born Jewish is NOT a requirement to be considered Jewish, as long as one goes through conversion. We are dealing with a case of people diverging from the established tradition and precedent, and as such, it is not an appropriate case to use in order to make any kind of larger claims about Judaism or Jewish positions.

It all depends on which side of the fence you're standing.

It all depends on which side of the fence you're standing.

No it doesn't. :D

I have never asked them about the Khazars, so I don't know if what your contacts have told you is based upon racism or upon some actual biblical problem with the khazar conversions. But it's strange that the very people whom you, and Austrealite, claim are not Jews at all but rather the descendents of Khazars claim, according to you, that the Khazars and their descendents are not really Jews.


I have no idea about Austrealites convictions... except that I have had to argue against some of his 'european chosen people' activities before...


From the Talmudic perspective, yes. However, Austrealite, and so I presume you, would argue that an alleged prominence of khazarian genetic heritage would invalidate the jewishness of such a person. If it's a racial test then that person does not have racially pure jewish blood, period. And if it's not, then Judaism is not a race.


Presume me... presume away. I'm a messenger, I admit it. Shoot the messenger if you will, but they are not my 'religious beliefs', just what I was told was true.


So Jesus was indeed the son of Joseph, son of David. If the NT is to be believed that is.


I believe the NT every bit as much as I believe the OT.


Maybe your gandpa's rabbi can help?

I might be able to ask him, if I knew who he was, and I lived 4000 miles closer.

:(

Stay tuned for next week's exciting installment of more wrongnification.

. . .

I'm a messenger, I admit it. Shoot the messenger if you will, but they are not my 'religious beliefs', just what I was told was true.

But your stated beliefs, be they religious or casual, conflict with eachother, other than believing that Khazars are not Jews... which could be true being as I have no example of the rabbinical case against their conversion to confirm or deny. But while your grandfather's community, apparently, tells you that the Khazars were not legitimately converted, or even that no one can legitimately convert, you yourself have gotten from... someone other than Austrealite... the idea that all modern "Jews" are not Jews because they descend from Khazars. Just where, oh where, did you get that idea? And do you realize that you are combining the "Jews descend from Khazars" position with the "Khazars were never Jews" position, the latter of which those who conveyed to you the former would never agree too?

I believe the NT every bit as much as I believe the OT.

Which tells us that you are either a Christian, a Muslim, a Bahai, a J4J or a totally non-Abrahamite. Gonna make me go gravedigging in your old posts? ;)

Well, not gonna do that right now... so let's assume for the sake of ARGUMENT ( :D ) that you do believe the NT, at least somewhat... you would have to admit that it never there says that Jesus was actually conceived by G-d, only that a virgin pregnency was made possible by His intervention... and you would have to admit that a woman can be impregnated without coitus, simply by the (Bahai-delivered) "messy fingers" theory. And so, if you do believe in the OT, you would have to admit that Jesus can not be excluded as the Messiah of the Seed of David by dint of the dubious "devine insemination" belief, since the NT never presents his conception as such.

All just a side-point. But I was pointed to a Bahai page a while back that presented these interesting facts, and I like to spread them around whenever I get a chance! :D

But anyway, also on this point, you seem to take Talmudic(?) teachings (is it actually from there?) and the insular opinions of some racist rabbis from two generations back as having greater provenence than thje OT itself. Whether or not you believe in the latter, shouldn't the Torah be the final source?

And to make a fairly ugly comparrison, there were some hard-core Nazis who considered only Nordics to be Whites, excluding Gauls and Celts from such an "honour". Since they were self-professed "Whites", should we let their definition stand over all others who would claim whiteness?

Back to the original, if (one community of) self-professed Jews claim that the Khazars were not Jews, and if a bunch of followers of an inept Replacement Theology "scholar" say that that the former group are in fact Khazars, what can we logically conclude?

One or both of these groups has been smoking rocks!

I might be able to ask him, if I knew who he was, and I lived 4000 miles closer.

:(

Is your grandfather still alive and lucid, and in that community? Are there any aunts or uncles there? I guess it depends on your level of interest if they are, as I am sure that there are rabbis there, alive, if not the same ones that told your grandmother this.

Stay tuned for next week's exciting installment of more wrongnification.

Looking forward to it. :) And actually it's been pretty daily, which is a good pace for something like this.

Domo arigato gozei-mas. :)

But your stated beliefs, be they religious or casual, conflict with eachother, other than believing that Khazars are not Jews... which could be true being as I have no example of the rabbinical case against their conversion to confirm or deny. But while your grandfather's community, apparently, tells you that the Khazars were not legitimately converted, or even that no one can legitimately convert, you yourself have gotten from... someone other than Austrealite... the idea that all modern "Jews" are not Jews because they descend from Khazars. Just where, oh where, did you get that idea? And do you realize that you are combining the "Jews descend from Khazars" position with the "Khazars were never Jews" position, the latter of which those who conveyed to you the former would never agree too?


Actually, no - the opinions I relayed are contradictory, perhaps... but they are not 'mine', and I see them as less than contradictory, anyway.

If, as you state, this crowd I was close to are something of a minority, and something of a (shall we say) bigotted minority, at that... they would, one assumes, consider that all Jews today are descended from Khazars... except, OF COURSE, for the one TRUE group of Jews... and we can probably guess which section they would identify THEMSELVES with, can't we?


Which tells us that you are either a Christian, a Muslim, a Bahai, a J4J or a totally non-Abrahamite. Gonna make me go gravedigging in your old posts? ;)

Well, not gonna do that right now... so let's assume for the sake of ARGUMENT ( :D ) that you do believe the NT, at least somewhat... you would have to admit that it never there says that Jesus was actually conceived by G-d, only that a virgin pregnency was made possible by His intervention... and you would have to admit that a woman can be impregnated without coitus, simply by the (Bahai-delivered) "messy fingers" theory. And so, if you do believe in the OT, you would have to admit that Jesus can not be excluded as the Messiah of the Seed of David by dint of the dubious "devine insemination" belief, since the NT never presents his conception as such.

All just a side-point. But I was pointed to a Bahai page a while back that presented these interesting facts, and I like to spread them around whenever I get a chance! :D

But anyway, also on this point, you seem to take Talmudic(?) teachings (is it actually from there?) and the insular opinions of some racist rabbis from two generations back as having greater provenence than thje OT itself. Whether or not you believe in the latter, shouldn't the Torah be the final source?

And to make a fairly ugly comparrison, there were some hard-core Nazis who considered only Nordics to be Whites, excluding Gauls and Celts from such an "honour". Since they were self-professed "Whites", should we let their definition stand over all others who would claim whiteness?

Back to the original, if (one community of) self-professed Jews claim that the Khazars were not Jews, and if a bunch of followers of an inept Replacement Theology "scholar" say that that the former group are in fact Khazars, what can we logically conclude?

One or both of these groups has been smoking rocks!


I also have some "bahai" stuff stored on my machine - some of which is STRIKINGLY convincing in terms of prophecy, especially in light of the 'misfires' christianity managed in that respect.

You are missing out a vital possibility in the case of Mary... and one that SHOULD be precluded by Jesus being a boy... (but, with god, all things are possible). You are missing the point that Mary was parthenogenetic, and that Jesus was, ultimately, the child of Mary and... well, Mary!


Is your grandfather still alive and lucid, and in that community? Are there any aunts or uncles there? I guess it depends on your level of interest if they are, as I am sure that there are rabbis there, alive, if not the same ones that told your grandmother this.

Looking forward to it. :) And actually it's been pretty daily, which is a good pace for something like this.

Domo arigato gozei-mas. :)

I BELIEVE my grandfather died about half a decade ago. I have little contact with most of my family, especially those not VERY closely related to me... and, as I pointed out, I have relocated by a quarter of a globe since the last time I saw ANY of them.

I am quite tempted to go and investigate, at some point in the future - purely because I feel I am learning here (see - some people do!), and it would be interesting to confront those 'authorities' armed with knowledge, rather than as a token 'ignorant gentile'.

Ke aloha nô me ka mahalo kâua!

Actually, no - the opinions I relayed are contradictory, perhaps... but they are not 'mine', and I see them as less than contradictory, anyway.

If, as you state, this crowd I was close to are something of a minority, and something of a (shall we say) bigotted minority, at that... they would, one assumes, consider that all Jews today are descended from Khazars... except, OF COURSE, for the one TRUE group of Jews... and we can probably guess which section they would identify THEMSELVES with, can't we?



I also have some "bahai" stuff stored on my machine - some of which is STRIKINGLY convincing in terms of prophecy, especially in light of the 'misfires' christianity managed in that respect.

You are missing out a vital possibility in the case of Mary... and one that SHOULD be precluded by Jesus being a boy... (but, with god, all things are possible). You are missing the point that Mary was parthenogenetic, and that Jesus was, ultimately, the child of Mary and... well, Mary!



I BELIEVE my grandfather died about half a decade ago. I have little contact with most of my family, especially those not VERY closely related to me... and, as I pointed out, I have relocated by a quarter of a globe since the last time I saw ANY of them.

I am quite tempted to go and investigate, at some point in the future - purely because I feel I am learning here (see - some people do!), and it would be interesting to confront those 'authorities' armed with knowledge, rather than as a token 'ignorant gentile'.

Ke aloha nô me ka mahalo kâua!

So these opinions are not yours. You have yet to answer where you get, and why you assert, the belief that modern Jews are not truly Jews.

As for parthenogenisis, indeed, Jesus would have been born female. Also, in terms of messianic prohecy, it would not work because Mary, apart from not being a male descendent of anyone, was not descended from David, but from Aaron.

Caio.

So these opinions are not yours. You have yet to answer where you get, and why you assert, the belief that modern Jews are not truly Jews.

As for parthenogenisis, indeed, Jesus would have been born female. Also, in terms of messianic prohecy, it would not work because Mary, apart from not being a male descendent of anyone, was not descended from David, but from Aaron.

Caio.

I didn't say that modern Jews were not Jews... I argued that the majority of the Jews currently living in Israel are Kazars... which they would be, if the version of the story is true.

Anyway - that was like the fifth of five points I made, and not, to my thinking, the most important.

And, in terms of parthenogenesis, Jesus COULD have been born male, with either a little intercession from a higher power, or with a mutation of the x chromosome... we have no record of his actual DNA, so we can't check his chromosomes!

If the immaculate conception and the lineage of Jesus were the ONLY 2 reasons why Jesus couldn't be Messiah, it might matter!

I didn't say that modern Jews were not Jews... I argued that the majority of the Jews currently living in Israel are Kazars... which they would be, if the version of the story is true.

And why do you assume it to be so? What data or evidence have you seen to support it?

Another reason why Jesus was kind of difficult to produce is that all the lineages that trace Jesus back to David come through Joseph, not Mary. Yet supposedly Jesus' father was god, not Joseph. I think that the christians are having it a bit of both ways here, but I doubt that Joseph was god.

I didn't say that modern Jews were not Jews... I argued that the majority of the Jews currently living in Israel are Kazars... which they would be, if the version of the story is true.

Anyway - that was like the fifth of five points I made, and not, to my thinking, the most important.

OK... you have yet to answer where you get, and why you assert, the belief that most modern Israelis are not truly Jews.

What makes it important to me is that it is the same bullshit line, more or less, that Austealite keeps repeating and keeps not backing up. And should you not recall, you named it "Fact number five" or somesuch. Now you are more or less distancing yourself from it by having stated that it is just something that you heard someone... Austrealite? Tenite Traditions? say. I just want you to back it up, if you can, since Austrealite and his ilk never seem willing to do that, and since I have always thought of you as several levels more advanced in logic and education.

Yes, "always." As in, "even before I ever encountered any of you." :)

And it is important because it was offered by you as a reason, even if one of five, that Israel's claim to their land is invalid.

And, in terms of parthenogenesis, Jesus COULD have been born male, with either a little intercession from a higher power, or with a mutation of the x chromosome... we have no record of his actual DNA, so we can't check his chromosomes!

If the immaculate conception and the lineage of Jesus were the ONLY 2 reasons why Jesus couldn't be Messiah, it might matter!

Like I said, just a side-note. So that people like Moontain can understand that the Bible never says that Joseph was not Jesus' father. ;)

OK... you have yet to answer where you get, and why you assert, the belief that most modern Israelis are not truly Jews.

What makes it important to me is that it is the same bullshit line, more or less, that Austealite keeps repeating and keeps not backing up. And should you not recall, you named it "Fact number five" or somesuch. Now you are more or less distancing yourself from it by having stated that it is just something that you heard someone... Austrealite? Tenite Traditions? say. I just want you to back it up, if you can, since Austrealite and his ilk never seem willing to do that, and since I have always thought of you as several levels more advanced in logic and education.

Yes, "always." As in, "even before I ever encountered any of you." :)

And it is important because it was offered by you as a reason, even if one of five, that Israel's claim to their land is invalid.

Like I said, just a side-note. So that people like Moontain can understand that the Bible never says that Joseph was not Jesus' father. ;)

How did we come back to Tenete Wassname and Austrealite? I said where I got the version of the story I heard - and which, I have never really seen any reason to question... I mean, why would I? Unless one of them is actually the spirit of my poor old grandad come back to haunt me in digital form, of course.

I did have another thought though, about the Khazar connection which you wrote off - which is the fact that Yiddish seems to be most closely linked to Ukranian (I think it was) as a language - which might indicate some probability of racial connection - or maybe just a geographic one.

I think I listed some reasons why the formation of the state of Israel was a bad idea.... and the Khazar thing was the fifth reason on my list... but, I'm not going to quibble over it. What is it you want me to back up exactly? The fact that Jews are Khazars? That most Israeli's are Khazars? That Israeli's aren't Jews? I have stated that I was repeating what I was 'taught' - and, I still don't see any real reason to DOUBT the Khazar connection - although I have admitted that my grandfather's policy on who can "be a Jew" might have been a peculiarity to his 'associates'.

Just point me at what you want me to prove or defend, and if I think it is worth proving or defending, I'll see what I can do.... and if I think it's somehow outside of what I'm setting up as my table here, I'll state that, too.

I realise that you knew me for my infinite wisdom long before you ever encountered me.... after all, every on has heard of the great Grave_n_Idle, who is infinitely wise.... or was it infinitely wide?

:)

btw - I think what you want me to defend is the "Israeli =/= Jew" thing... so, let me get back to you on that.

A bien tot, mes amies.

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-cohen-levite.html

About four-fifths of the way down the page, there is a table, showing the genetic markers on the y-chromosome prportional in Israeli and non-Israeli Jews, consonant with the 'Cohen' gene - the patrilineal 'Jewish' gene that links the priests of Judaism, supposedly as far back as Aaron:

Ashkenazi and Sephardic Cohanim (left two columns in the chart below) show significant differences in the occurrence frequencies of the haplotypes said to make up the 'Cohen gene'. Israelite populations from both populations (right two columns) do not show the same differences. If the 'Cohen gene' comes from a single Biblical ancestor, the Cohanim seem to have had different genetic histories since the split between Sepharad and Ashkenaz.

Also - from "David Keys. Catastrophe: An Investigation Into the Origins of the Modern World. New York: Ballantine Books, 2000" (Pages 99-100):

"discovered that an astounding 30 percent of Ashkenazi non-Cohenic Levites have a particular combination of DNA material on part of their Y-chromosome that is not shared to any extent by either non-Levite Ashkenazi Jews or the Sephardic community as a whole. This genetic marker does not even show up among the Cohens (descendants of the ancient Israelite Chief Priests) - but only among the descendants of Assistant Priests, and then only within Ashkenazi (northern European) Jewry. What seems to have happened is not only a potentially large-scale conversion of non-Jewish people, almost certainly Khazars, to Judaism, but also the adoption of Levite (Assistant Priest) status by a substantial number of the Khazar converts.... A tenth-century letter of recommendation from the Jewish community of Kiev to Jewish communities outside Khazaria was signed by Jews with traditional Turkic names whose almost certainly Turkic Khazar ancestors had adopted second names... indicating that they saw themselves as descendants or close associates of the ancient tribe of Levi.... Adoption of Cohenic or ordinary Levitical status by converts was and is expressly forbidden by rabbinical law, so the Khazars had to develop a mythic national history that gave them the right to Levitical status. They claimed that they were the descendants of one of the lost tribes of Israel and were not converts at all but merely returnees to Judaism. Furthermore, the tribe they claimed ancestry from was that of Simeon, the brother of the founder of the tribe of Levi.... Probably it was the old pre-Jewish Khazar priests - the qams - who at the conversion had become Levites en masse".

Which also mentions something about claiming 'Levitical status' as 'expressly forbidden by rabbinical law'.

I said where I got the version of the story I heard - and which, I have never really seen any reason to question... I mean, why would I?

Perhaps because then you would be able to speak with confidence, knowing that you actually have some knowledge of what you're talking about, rather than merely repeating what someone else told you, having no clue as to its veracity? I would think you would be particularly interested in doing some more research into this after it was just proven to you that your grandfather's contention about having to be "born a Jew" was blatantly incorrect.

From Khazaria.com:

http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html

I argue in this essay that Eastern European Jews descend both from Khazarian Jews AND from Israelite Jews.

Note that "both" does not mean "exclusively".

It seems that after the fall of their kingdom, the Khazars adopted the Cyrillic script in place of Hebrew and began to speak East Slavic (sometimes called "Canaanic" because Benjamin of Tudela called Kievan Rus the "Land of Canaan"). These Slavic-speaking Jews are documented to have lived in Kievan Rus during the 11th-13th centuries. However, Yiddish-speaking Jewish immigrants from the west (especially Germany, Bohemia, and other areas of Central Europe) soon began to flood into Eastern Europe, and it is believed that these newer immigrants eventually outnumbered the Khazars. Thus, Eastern European Jews predominantly have ancestors who came from Central Europe rather than from the Khazar kingdom. The two groups (eastern and western Jews) intermarried over the centuries. This idea is not new. In a footnote in Chapter 2 of History of the Jews in Russia and Poland Volume 1 (English translation, 1916), the great Ashkenazic historian Simon Dubnow writes: "It is quite possible that there was an admixture of settlers from the Khazar kingdom, from the Crimea, and from the Orient in general, who were afterwards merged with the western element." (page 39).

The Ashkenazi Jews are also the direct descendants of the Israelites. Genetic tests seem to indicate that Jewish ancestry largely comes from the regions known today as Turkey, Armenia, Israel, and Iraq. Mediterranean Fever, for example, is found among some Ashkenazi Jews as well as Armenians and Anatolian Turks. Many Ashkenazi men who belong to the priestly caste (Kohenim) possess the "Cohan modal haplotype" (CMH) on the Y-chromosome. While not exclusive to Jews, the CMH is found mostly in peoples from the north-eastern Mediterranean region (and, incidentally, among Palestinian Arabs), and its distribution supports the claim that Jews who have the CMH have an ancestral line from the Middle East. A genetics study released in May 2000, led by Michael Hammer, contends that the results show that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to Yemenite Jews, Iraqi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Kurdish Jews, and Arabs than they are to European Christian populations, and that hardly any intermarriage or conversion has occurred to affect the Jewish groups over the centuries. A study the following year by Ariella Oppenheim et al. showed why it is important to include multitudes of comparisons between ethnic groups; Hammer had failed to test Kurds and any Slavic group other than Russians, whereas Oppenheim's team did so and therefore came to somewhat different conclusions. But, in general, evidence from both studies is strong that most Ashkenazic Jews descend from Judeans in their paternal lineages. DFNB1, a genetic mutation causing deafness, affects Jews as well as Palestinians and other Mediterranean populations, according to research by Dr. Aravinda Chakravarti. A particular mutation that causes coagulation factor XI deficiency is found among both Iraqi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews, from a common ancient ancestor over 2000 years ago. Discussions and summaries of genetic evidence are here.

...For now, I can point out that the Israelite traces among the East European Jews came from three sources: (1) Sephardic Jews fleeing Spain and Portugal and resettling in Lithuania and Poland, (2) Roman Jews, and from (3) Khazarian Jews who merged with Israelites, just as the Schechter Letter states "they became one people". The Khazars and the Israelites mixed with each other.

Are all Jews around the world descended from the Khazars? Certainly not. East European Jewish ancestry originates substantially from ancient Judea, and the same is true of most other modern Jewish populations (with the exception of groups like Libyan Jews and Ethiopian Jews). But, it is rational to conclude that some Jews also have some Khazar ancestors.

Once again, let's recap.

You said:

"Five: Most of the Jews in Israel are not actually Jews. They are of Eastern European descent, from the mass conversion of the Kazars to Judaism. And, since you can only truly be a Jew by being BORN a Jew, those people have no true legitimate claim to the name.

And we have documented the following (going in reverse):

1- Your statement "can only truly be a Jew by being BORN a Jew" is false. Jewish law recognizes conversion as legitimate, as long as it is done according to specific guidelines.

2- Your statement that Jews of Eastern European descent are descended from Khazars is also false, or at least misleading, as the above quoted source points out- SOME E.E. Jews likely have SOME Khazar ancestry, but that is quite different from asserting, as you are, that E.E. Jews are predomiinatly "pure' Khazar.

3- Your statement that "most of the Jews in Israel are Eastern European" is also false. In fact, the majority of Jews in Israel at present at Sephardic Jews. (Statistics seem to indicate that since the 1990s, Sephardim have made up about 60% of the Jewish population.)

In other words, every sentence in the above paragraph you wrote is untrue, or at the least, misinformed. First, Khazar Jews are potentially just as "Jewish" as the original Judeans; second, Eastern European Jews are not primarily descended from the Khazars, but rather from Central European Jews, with SOME additional Khazar ancestry, and third, the majority of Israeli Jews today aren't even Eastern European in the first place! So the Khazar thing really has NOTHING to do with Israel's legitimacy.

QuahJoh, is Womblingdon still on NS? Had a lot of contact with him before, but right now, I fear that something hapened to him since he is a Israeli citizen and isn't on NS a while.

You know more?

Best Regards from the mountains,

...

QuahJoh, is Womblingdon still on NS? Had a lot of contact with him before, but right now, I fear that something hapened to him since he is a Israeli citizen and isn't on NS a while.

You know more?

Best Regards from the mountains,

...

Haven't heard anything. Something might have happened, but it's just as likely he simply hasn't had time for it. Even during the heyday of the Intifada, more people died in Israel every year from car accidents than terrorism.

[QUOTE=QahJoh]Haven't heard anything. Something might have happened, but it's just as likely he simply hasn't had time for it.[QUOTE]

Well, his last post is really old. I do wurry. :(