Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just say it. I don't care, and won't judge, sincerely: race. Truth makes things easier. And, no, I don't consider your incredibly rare outliers (converts) relevant to dismissal of this category. No, I don't consider skin color to be the determining factor, but genetic lineage; though skin color and other phenotype expressions are racially consistent enough.
For me race is white, black or Asian. But, ok, yes we can talk about a group with certain genetic lineage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
You cannot speak for them. You tend to do this for other groups when you are attempting to explain your separateness from them. Beta Israel is another example.
I'm an Israeli, i know what they want, I hear what they are telling. They are Palestinians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Let me see an easy and accessible path to conversion, and then we can talk about what they supposedly want and what they are proud of as they remain in an open air prison camp.
They can stop this situation by recognizing Israel and ceasing from terror. I remember at the 80-s, people from Gaza were all over Israel, until the first Intifada started. The path to conversion is a religious rule and we are not going to change it for a zero chance that those fanatic Islamists will want to convert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Brits tend to become French in short time. Generation after generation, they do not stay separate as Brits. Gentile Europeans blend into their adopted nations, almost completely, for the most part. They don't create endless German or British political groups for every issue to include support for Britain and Germany for instance.
Germans lived in Eastern Europe for centuries, and most of them stayed separated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
I don't find this to be valid enough when living apart as a nation with inevitable interests that diverge from the majority (as all minorities have), at least while conducting significant political action in support of, and keeping ties with, the home nation. No group should have the privilege to bail out on whatever nation in which they reside (eg: aliyah) while being able to direct politics in the host nation. Everyone should be made to live with the consequences of their politics, with no bail out option.
Hmm. You want to close all the borders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
In other words, his racial lineage. I get it, and am fine with it. However, a spade must be called a spade insofar as the Jewish-Palestinian relationship is concerned. After that, Jewish political groups, that often support Israel in all Palestinian related politics, need to bow out of all demographic politics in the diaspora. There is simply a political double-standard. Resolving that standard, in either direction - take your pick, is crucial to the future of the West.
As I said before, the Zionist groups are more conservative and against Islamic immigration.
When is it permitted to take a land? For example, do you think it's ok for Russia to keep Kaliningrad?
No, That is German or Polish land (for them to decide). The entirety of the existence of the Soviet Union was a moral travesty founded on cold blooded murder of the rightful rulers of Russia, the destruction of Russian culture and the complete debasement of its people, and that ended in tens of millions of unjustified deaths in the Gulag and elsewhere. Whatever reasons were present for Russia's expansion in WWII, it did not justify stealing land from western European people. The land theft ultimately hurts populations that cannot be blamed for the war, and were savaged because of it.
I'm okay with ethnic land inheritance and even reconquering of historic homelands, as long as it is not at the expense of mass suffering and murder. Though, this is most justified when a people has little space. For instance, I would hold a Reconquista of California to be less moral than an Israeli reconquering of Israel or German reconquering of Kaliningrad. Everyone deserves their own space. In Israel's case, the land is taken back. That's fine. Theoretically, I have no issue with that. The Palestinian situation is inexcusably covered up and has gone on far too long. At this point Arabs should take them, just like they should have taken the Syrians (as I said, I look to history for moral logic guidance and not necessarily for a tally of offenses). A decision has to be made and immediately implemented. Israel is in control. No new options are coming. Any further time lapse is unjustified.
If someone believes that land grabbing is justified whenever war is (being) won, then that means that the moral condemnation of German expansion is invalid. I don't believe that war itself necessarily justifies land grabs and population displacement. There has to be a valid moral reason beyond mere victory in my opinion.
Do you understand that writing a document does not mean necessarily that the writer has the real power of implementing it?
No one believes that he did and does not have that power, with or without the backing of the Neo-Liberal establishment in the United States. This was a jointly written document. We've been supporting revolutions and proxy armies for a long time now. Both in this document and in the geopolitical logic that removes all credible doubt, his hands are certainly dirty.
For me race is white, black or Asian. But, ok, yes we can talk about a group with certain genetic lineage.
Technically speaking, genetic composition determines race, though admittedly most individuals emphasize phenotypic features that provide visual cues to racial admixtures. In terms of further classification, I suppose that it depends how genetically specific one group tends to view itself. Anyway, I get your point and I don't find any further racial discussion compelling other than to mutually acknowledge the existence of a genetically based ethnic inclusion; eg: matrilineal descent.
Quote:
I'm an Israeli, i know what they want, I hear what they are telling. They are Palestinians.
I get it, but given the situation I do not find that any presented voice, whether yours or theirs, to be a compelling poll. Anyone's voice, or a group put together for this purpose, can be held up to supposedly represent what everyone else thinks and feels. This type of poll is too open to manipulation. At this point, I would only hold Palestinians voting with their feet toward conversion programs to be a valid poll. In other words, provide the programs and observe what occurs.
The:
a. poke them with a stick,
b. make them mad,
c. hold up their hate,
d. declare them an enemy,
e. declare resolution impossible,
f. declare separation necessary, and
g. declare self defense and oppression necessary shtick is a little but old and transparent at this point.
In reality, I don't want you to be politically pressured to have to allow Palestinians to convert en masse. Not that I think that would ever be allowed to occur. However, such a possibility is a valid thought experiment that could be implemented should anyone wish to actually test the popular nationalism and animosity on both sides of the wall; apart from what we are merely told is unfeasible.
Again, I hold this dynamic to be relevant to demographic politics outside of Israel. I present these arguments only as a comparison of social and political parity. I feel that the Arabs have a large portion of the world, and that they initially genocided their way into power across the Levant. That isn't to say that I do not feel that populations should not be peaceably moved.
Quote:
They can stop this situation by recognizing Israel and ceasing from terror. I remember at the 80-s, people from Gaza were all over Israel, until the first Intifada started.
Who is committing terror? The average man or woman? No. You are conveying blame to innocent individuals. In the United States, Jewish led civil rights groups, often also either explicitly or implicitly Zionist in nature, demand that we never ever convey blame to all individuals in a group for the actions of other group members. This has been a leading new ethic insisted upon in our modern multicultural nations. Thus, the world asks that you apply the ethics insisted upon by diaspora, often Zionist, Jewish political groups. If you wish to rescind such values in the diaspora so that you are not examined and held to the same standards in Israel, then please organize political action to that effect.
I do not find prison camp insurrection to be compelling justification for oppression that was the core reason for the insurrection to begin with.
Quote:
The path to conversion is a religious rule and we are not going to change it for a zero chance that those fanatic Islamists will want to convert.
I know that you will not change it, but the thought experiment remains. Then give them a path of citizenship. At least conversion and inclusion might have them become amiable to Israel. You cannot state "zero" chance until you offer. I bet the chance is, in actuality, not zero. If it is zero, then you have nothing to lose by offering. In fact, you do not have to change the law. Merely provide the Rabbis and the education to give them a chance to meet the law.
Quote:
Germans lived in Eastern Europe for centuries, and most of them stayed separated.
They don't really exist now, except on the edge of Germany. There is certainly no resistance to assimilation in the United States.
Quote:
Hmm. You want to close all the borders?
Yes, to a degree. However, more pertinent to what I was discussing: I want citizens, political donors, and political activists to have to live with the nation that they create; with no easy option to leave and gain full citizenship somewhere else. It better assures that they treat the nation as if they are going to be there for the long term future. It helps prevent detrimental profit motivated decisions, for instance, that would not be made if they knew that their great great grandchildren had to make due here. It helps everyone here to keep an eye toward the social environment and not just treat this nation, or any other, like their personal money machine or social experiment. This is not specific to any immigrant group and it certainly is not directed specifically at Jewish people. It applies to everyone where it applies. I don't want Brits, Russians, Chinese, or any other nation given that option either.
Quote:
As I said before, the Zionist groups are more conservative and against Islamic immigration.
I don't see that here, to any significance. And it isn't just Islamic immigration that is a concern, just like the motivation for Israel's immigration laws are not just codified around preventing Islamic immigration.
No, That is German or Polish land (for them to decide). The entirety of the existence of the Soviet Union was a moral travesty founded on cold blooded murder of the rightful rulers of Russia, the destruction of Russian culture and the complete debasement of its people, and that ended in tens of millions of unjustified deaths in the Gulag and elsewhere. Whatever reasons were present for Russia's expansion in WWII, it did not justify stealing land from western European people. The land theft ultimately hurts populations that cannot be blamed for the war, and were savaged because of it.
I'm okay with ethnic land inheritance and even reconquering of historic homelands, as long as it is not at the expense of mass suffering and murder. Though, this is most justified when a people has little space. For instance, I would hold a Reconquista of California to be less moral than an Israeli reconquering of Israel or German reconquering of Kaliningrad. Everyone deserves their own space. In Israel's case, the land is taken back. That's fine. Theoretically, I have no issue with that. The Palestinian situation is inexcusably covered up and has gone on far too long. At this point Arabs should take them, just like they should have taken the Syrians (as I said, I look to history for moral logic guidance and not necessarily for a tally of offenses). A decision has to be made and immediately implemented. Israel is in control. No new options are coming. Any further time lapse is unjustified.
If someone believes that land grabbing is justified whenever war is (being) won, then that means that the moral condemnation of German expansion is invalid. I don't believe that war itself necessarily justifies land grabs and population displacement. There has to be a valid moral reason beyond mere victory in my opinion.
So, if we are going back to the topic, why there is no BDS and UN resolutions against Russia because of Kaliningrad grabbing?
Your approach will lead to more instability. Now aggressors know that they might lose land if they will start a war, like Germany in 1939, like Jordan in 1967. If we will adopt the approach of "no body can lose land" it will lead to the aggressors to feel immune, and therefore, they will start more wars.
No one believes that he did and does not have that power, with or without the backing of the Neo-Liberal establishment in the United States. This was a jointly written document. We've been supporting revolutions and proxy armies for a long time now. Both in this document and in the geopolitical logic that removes all credible doubt, his hands are certainly dirty.
Like a fly on a horse that say "we both carried the cart".
I get it, but given the situation I do not find that any presented voice, whether yours or theirs, to be a compelling poll. Anyone's voice, or a group put together for this purpose, can be held up to supposedly represent what everyone else thinks and feels. This type of poll is too open to manipulation. At this point, I would only hold Palestinians voting with their feet toward conversion programs to be a valid poll. In other words, provide the programs and observe what occurs.
Trying to actively convert them or even seriously proposing it, will lead to a bloodshed. I think we have enough of it already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
The:
a. poke them with a stick,
b. make them mad,
c. hold up their hate,
d. declare them an enemy,
e. declare resolution impossible,
f. declare separation necessary, and
g. declare self defense and oppression necessary shtick is a little but old and transparent at this point.
I think that in that case they should take anger management classes. You lose the war. Get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
In reality, I don't want you to be politically pressured to have to allow Palestinians to convert en masse. Not that I think that would ever be allowed to occur. However, such a possibility is a valid thought experiment that could be implemented should anyone wish to actually test the popular nationalism and animosity on both sides of the wall; apart from what we are merely told is unfeasible.
Again, I hold this dynamic to be relevant to demographic politics outside of Israel. I present these arguments only as a comparison of social and political parity. I feel that the Arabs have a large portion of the world, and that they initially genocided their way into power across the Levant. That isn't to say that I do not feel that populations should not be peaceably moved.
I hope you will present this very interesting offer (to convert) only in USA. But you can try and get to Gaza to there and declare it there. I hope you have insurance against being dragged by an motorcycle all over the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Who is committing terror? The average man or woman? No. You are conveying blame to innocent individuals. In the United States, Jewish led civil rights groups, often also either explicitly or implicitly Zionist in nature, demand that we never ever convey blame to all individuals in a group for the actions of other group members. This has been a leading new ethic insisted upon in our modern multicultural nations. Thus, the world asks that you apply the ethics insisted upon by diaspora, often Zionist, Jewish political groups. If you wish to rescind such values in the diaspora so that you are not examined and held to the same standards in Israel, then please organize political action to that effect.
I do not find prison camp insurrection to be compelling justification for oppression that was the core reason for the insurrection to begin with.
The average man or woman voted for Hamas. They won with 70%. After Israel left Gaza they had a chance to make it to Singapore. If they ceased terror, I can tell you 100% that Israel would open the gate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
I know that you will not change it, but the thought experiment remains. Then give them a path of citizenship. At least conversion and inclusion might have them become amiable to Israel. You cannot state "zero" chance until you offer. I bet the chance is, in actuality, not zero. If it is zero, then you have nothing to lose by offering. In fact, you do not have to change the law. Merely provide the Rabbis and the education to give them a chance to meet the law.
Yes, we have a lot to lose. There will be a crazy bloodshed. Any thing that touches religion is causing a blowout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Yes, to a degree. However, more pertinent to what I was discussing: I want citizens, political donors, and political activists to have to live with the nation that they create; with no easy option to leave and gain full citizenship somewhere else. It better assures that they treat the nation as if they are going to be there for the long term future. It helps prevent detrimental profit motivated decisions, for instance, that would not be made if they knew that their great great grandchildren had to make due here. It helps everyone here to keep an eye toward the social environment and not just treat this nation, or any other, like their personal money machine or social experiment. This is not specific to any immigrant group and it certainly is not directed specifically at Jewish people. It applies to everyone where it applies. I don't want Brits, Russians, Chinese, or any other nation given that option either.
After all that happen in the past, Jews cannot take this kind of risk anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
I don't see that here, to any significance. And it isn't just Islamic immigration that is a concern, just like the motivation for Israel's immigration laws are not just codified around preventing Islamic immigration.
Because you don't see a difference between zionist groups and liberals.
I am pleased if not relieved to find others with perhaps more time, patience and inclination toward the further exchange of opinion here, though there is little evidence much progress of any sort has been made. I suppose our hopes remain with France as she also does what she can to find grounds for resolution.
Meanwhile, along with a few other grasping accusations along the way, my knowledge of this history has been called into question. This because I have also not had the time, patience or inclination to answer every question posed to me. I don't claim to be the historical scholar that others seem to think they are here, but this one comment did catch my notice given what little I know about all this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mash123
As far as I remember Stalin was not working for the Zionists, nor other leaders of the world.
This statement above reminded me of yet another question that could be asked and answered if that were the preferred M.O. here, who were the Zionists working with back then to get what they wanted? Isn't there some little bit of documented history having to do with a Lehi group? And the Nazis? I won't waste anyone's time asking the questions...
Maybe someone with far better historical knowledge can simply fill in the rest of that story.
In so doing, we might also think a bit about this challenge we seem to be having when it comes to judging what is right vs wrong, as if there is no manner to do so simply because of different perspective and bias. Our greatest "enemy" above all others is our inability to objectively judge right from wrong.
I grudgingly reply to BMoreJuice in the following post, but I likely should not have as this conversation is not ultimately providing for progress.
Note that the over-arching motivation and subtext of my participation in this thread is summarized in the last paragraph of this post.
Everything else is a rather morose debate over details that we will never agree on and that are likely beside any reasonable point that can be made outside of persons who enjoy debating history for its own sake. I tend to respond to BMoreJuice in the tone in which he has addressed me.
Humility is not your strong suit.
Quote:
Because an appeal to textbooks, while providing no sources, is a rhetorical fallacy. Didn't your academic training teach you how to avoid fallacies in arguments? Perhaps you should not make an appeal to academics when you are obviously unschooled as to what your so called academic appeals imply. More to the point, which "textbooks" should I "research"? those written by Israelis, Arabs, Germans, Americans, or Chinese? Which textbooks are objective enough to reference?
Wall of text with still no sources.
Quote:
You knowledge of argumentation is extremely poor.
Please. Save your lies.
Please. Save your lies.
golgi1 proclaims that I have created a fallacy in my argument and calls me out on lies. His historical knowledge of the Jewish contribution to the British is poor.
- Please enrich your knowledge on Sarah and Aaron Aaronsohn, who established the Nili intelligence agency in Palestine, who provided key intelligence to the British which led to the Fall of the Ottoman Empire. Aaron also invited a strategy to save the wheat plant that has been enjoyed around the world.
- Please research the Jewish Brigade who helped the British War efforts against the Nazi's. Due to Anti-Semitism and other factors, the Brigade had less of an impact in the major theater.
There are history books who go into greater details and other reasons to why the British favored the Jews.
Quote:
Did you see my statement "assuming that it is true at all" referring to the Old Testament? the Old Testament, which Israel commonly relies on to justify claim to the land, clearly documents genocide.
Not really, it heavily relies on the United Nation Partition document.
Quote:
Either follow the arguments or do not respond. Anything else is an amateurish waste of time.
An amateurish ad-hominem fallacy.
Objectively, I'm not trolling but you are avoiding. WWII was over. There was no more pressing danger. If there was, and there was an emergency reason for Jews to emigrate to Israel, then why was there not a pressing reason for all Jews? Jews could have, and many did, stay exactly where they were. As it stands, at least half of Jews live outside of Israel. Do half of the Polish live outside of Poland? Do half of the French live outside of France? The existence of Israel is predicated on need. That need should be strong enough, if we are to justify Israel, for the great majority of Jews to now live in Israel. If they are not to live there, then they should fully integrate to the point where Israel is merely another nation to them and not a political cause that they choose to forward in every diaspora nation. If it is a cause, then they should move there.
Furthermore, I'm just attempting to respond to your "how to respond" Hasbara protocol. It's like you refer to a list of responses, and it is coming off as such as many make zero rhetorical sense when they are not merely relying on ad-hominems and meaningless assertions of validity ("you're wrong and invalid, I'm right", etc). When you aren't doing that you are challenging for "proof" for common knowledge while providing almost none for your own statements. It's a juvenile tactic out of your Hasbara book. No thanks. Look it up and provide counter-proof if you wish. At that point, I'll respond with proof. Do a little bit of work on your own before you demand so much from another in a conversation that, from my end, is primarily centered around the relative consistency of politics.
So essentially your argument is that since WWII ended and the Jews were no longer forced in extermination camps due to the fall of Hitler, everything is then just gravy train?
Yup, Pound Sand.
Quote:
Proof or pound sand!!
See how that works?
Your appeal to "historians", to cite "proof" over the hottest political issue in the world, is not compelling argumentation especially when assigning blame is involved. You continue to avoid facts and appeal to authority, another rhetorical fallacy. You're pretty terrible at this.
Why were there new Jews to fight?
The Arabs went to war when Israel was officially recognized as a state. This isn't rocket science.
Prove what point?
Quote:
So, your counterpoint resides on the fact that you aren't exactly like Hitler and retained 25% of a population?
You've made my point for me. Your morality is self-admittedly rooted in Nazism, or at least morally associated with it. It is truly bizarre and, as it is only quantifiably different than Hitler, as you admit, it is not qualitatively different from Hitler. Except for the fact that Hitler actually viewed Jews as an enemy and the Palestinians were cleansed for no discernible political purpose other than existing in land that you wanted.
Ethnic cleansing: the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing sometimes involves the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.
How can one ethnic cleanse a group of people yet make up a quarter of their population today?
Quote:
You said it, not me. I wouldn't have made this comparison. You did, and dug your own grave in this argument.
Prove what point? Shove your Hasbara responses.
What about the World Jewish Congress and myriad of other Jewish group support for Islamic immigration into Europe?
I don't disagree with you that it is bad. My point is that Jewish Political Group support, which is only truly effective due to the diaspora Jewish population, is reversed for self determination for Israel and for European tribes.
You care deeply about your own political survival while encouraging Lebanon type chaos in Europe.
Your first sentence is indecipherable in its point.
My point was clear. You used Christians as a pivot point in your argument. I stated that this was disingenuous as Jews explicitly do not want Christians to exist in Israel in the long term. That's the point, which was before clear.
My rejection of Jewish self determination in the Middle East is based off of loud and clear Jewish Political Group rejection of gentile European self determination wherever they reside. I've repeatedly stated or implied this.
First, everything that is occurring now in Syria was openly and diligently documented as a strategy by Benjamin Netanyahu and Richard Perle. It was the equivalent of detailing a plan to burn down their neighbors house, letting the world know about that plan, and then the house burns down exactly to plan years later; and then claiming innocence.
That's what it has to do with Israel. This document is constructive evidence and thus all crimes committed from the execution of this plan are able to be blamed on the authors of the plan. According to the above However, though these suspicions and charges are valid and certainly damning as to all further credibility, that isn't my concern.
My original statement had to do with Israel's past and continued lack of action on behalf of Christians, document, ISIS is a creation of Israel and all those involved in the plan's execution.
given the current situation, in the ME. It was stated in the context of Israel doing absolutely nothing for refugees, on a relative scale, while Jewish groups continue to guilt trip Europe into accepting as many refugees as they can possibly take. Though, If we add in the context of the Netanyahu and Perle document, then the inferences deduced from the present Israel-Europe-Refugee situation are much more damning.
All of this was stated. Your answers continue to ignore the conversational thread and thus should be read as noise. Carry on, but your credibility is about shot and you have proven yourself as nothing but a waste of time for your inability to carry on a conversation that keeps the discussions context.
This is a weak response to an overall weak showing. Again, you leave what was said aside at defer to your victim-framing nonsense. Yes, we know that you would like to abolish free speech that you define as anything that is opposed to your self interest. It's interesting that what would not be included in this free speech ban is any equivalent speech against Europeans. Everyone, and I mean everyone, is well aware of your position on inconvenient free speech. Thank you for the reminder. While there are no mainstream groups seeking the dilution of Jews in Israel, there are a glut of mainstream Jewish groups who cannot wait to celebrate the disenfranchisement of Europeans. Everything that you stated about your group and me is most accurately reversed in present reality. Nice conclusion. I'd be happy to see something different, in return for what we give. Perhaps you can be the first to start something significant.
I argue logic and the logic of morality. History is tragic but relatively unimportant to the political present, absent its universal moral implications, aside from the body count that everyone has a moral obligation to avoid. My logic is based on your denial of the self-determination of others, and I reflect that back to you when I show you how your own claims are only morally logical when they are politically consistent and applied to other groups. Without that, you have zero valid claim. With that, you have a valid claim. Your claim is based in morality, whether or not you know it. There is absolutely no other foundation that will ever hold up to any type of scrutiny. For morality to be valid, it must be universal. Any survival ethic that is not universal is, by its nature, immoral.
I have no clue what your talking about the rest. Jewish conspiracy's, bordline Holocaust denial, Netanyahu causing the worlds problems, Hasbra and other lexicons used by those who dislike Jews and Israel.
Anyway, hopefully mods ban hate speech.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A pleasure!
