Alien2311, got a problem with pro-Semites? [Archive]

Ankh_Too

02-26-2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
But it was unfair to call Ariel Cohen a pro-semite; unfair to Palestinians and other Semites. All Arabs are Semites, but not all Jews are Semites. Sephardic Jews are Semites, but most European Jews(Ashkenazis) belong to the Finno-Turkic race, being descended from the Khazarians, as demonstrated by Arthur Koestler and others.

Are you sure you want to hitch your cart to this pony? Not only is this the argument used by Christian Identity groups to claim that they are the true descendents of ancient Israel, but the grounds are very shaky for any such claim in the first place.

As far back as 1997 there was genetic evidence that Ashkenazi Jews carried the same genetic markers as Sephardic Jews.
K. Skorecki et al., "Y chromosomes of Jewish priests," Nature, 385:32, 1997 (http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html)
According the biblical accounts, the Jewish priesthood was established about 3,300 years ago with the appointment of the first Israelite high priest. Designation of Jewish males to the priesthood continues to this day, and is determined by strict patrilineal decent. Accordingly, we sought and found clear differences in the frequency of Y-chromosomes haplotypes between Jewish priests and their lay counterparts. Remarkably, the difference is observable in both Ashkenazi and Sephardic populations, despite the geographical separation of the two communities.

1998 brought a follow-on study (by some of the same researchers) that expanded upon the findings of the Skorecki study. Unfortunately, the only abstract listing online points to a paid registration for Nature articles M.G. Thomas et al., "Origins of Old Testament priests," Nature, 394:138-40, 1998. (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/dynapage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v394/n6689/full/394138a0_fs.html)

M.F. Hammer et al., "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97:6769-74, June 6, 2000. (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Jewish-Middle-Eastern-Common.htm)
The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.

While reasearch is most definitely ongoing, it's difficult to see how anyone could stand behind such a position given the wealth of evidence that the various Jewish populations have retained such genetic similarity. On another note, while it's true that just because a position or idea is espoused by a disgusting and hateful group such as
Stormfront (http://www4.stormfront.org/posterity/ci/tjg.html) does not automatically invalidate the idea or position, you might want to make sure to wash your hands afterward and seriously reconsider where you're getting your pointers.

mystic2311

02-26-2003, 08:35 PM

Ironically, one of the characters in Pynchon's "The Crying of Lot 49" was named Genghis Cohen. Did Pynchon know something about this debate?

This data on genetic markers is certainly interesting, but one has to be careful about the interpretation. There are at least 2 interpretations:

1. The Ashkenazim and Sephardim both originated in Israel.

2. The Sephardim originated in Israel, the Ashkenazim originated somewhere else, but they both have a common ancestor from a third geographic region. For example, it is possible that they had a common ancestor on the Anatolian plateau which then gave rise to migrations to the Middle East and to Southern Russia. This possibility is discussed in a well-balanced discussion here:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/07-Jews-As-Nation/section-5.html

I have seen these sorts of genetic analyses (like Rebecca Cann's analysis of mitochondrial DNA pointing to a common ancestor in Africa, the "Eve" hypothesis) published and they seem to be rock solid and then some other geneticist tears them apart on methodological or statistical grounds. Unfortunately, I am only a biochemist, not a geneticist and I don't know enough to criticise the hypotheses.

The other problem is how to reconcile the historical data with the genetic data. One possible solution is that the Khazarians represent one of the 10 lost tribes that moved up there and either retained their Jewishness or lost it and regained somehow. But I don't know the timelines well enough to judge if that is possible.

Even if the European Jews originated in the middle east, I don't see how that gives them the right to move back there. Move your feet, lose your seat. Palestine was actually an arbitrary choice for a Jewish state; the Brits were going to send them to Madagascar. Uganda and Argentina were other alternate sites. The Madagascar plan was scrapped after Zionist terrorists blew up a ship full of Jews headed for Madagascar, killing about 250 Jews.

History is full of many examples of less than honorable behavior by Zionists, including Zionist collaboration with Nazis. But that should probably be another thread.

I am not anti-semitic (I am pro-Palestinian for example), but I am anti-Zionist and anti-Israel.

Coldfire

02-26-2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
a global terrorist network (Mossad)I'm not going to debate your other points, partially because I agree with some, and partially because I don't care about others. But: would you mind demonstrating what makes the Mossad "a global terrorist network" rather than the Israeli intelligence agency?

I'm sure you can dig up some dirt on the Mossad, but then again, so could I about, say, the CIA. What makes the Mossad "terrorist"?

Michael Ellis

02-26-2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Coldfire
I'm sure you can dig up some dirt on the Mossad, but then again, so could I about, say, the CIA. What makes the Mossad "terrorist"?

Judging by his previous post, it's because they're Israeli.

Michael Ellis

02-26-2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Zionist collaboration with Nazis. But that should probably be another thread.You'd better have a cite for this.I am not anti-semitic (I am pro-Palestinian for example), but I am anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. :dubious:

Michael Ellis

02-26-2003, 09:25 PM

Damn! Can someone fix the coding glitch here?

edwino

02-26-2003, 10:03 PM

First, a word about the genetics, of which I am quite familiar.

The Cohen Modal Haplotype of the Y chromosome is enriched obviously in Kohanim. It is also enriched in other groups, but that is a different story. The actual autosomal genetics of the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim are pretty close to their neighbors. The big distinguishing feature is limited gene pool size leading to allelic enrichment mostly by genetic drift. This is seen in the preponderance of genetic disease in both Ashkenazim and Sephardim. The most famous examples are in Ashkenazim -- Tay Sachs and Gaucher Disease, as well as some clotting deficiencies and a whole host of other things. But it exists in Sephardim as well with a few thalassemias and a couple of other diseases. Amongst the non-Cohen Ashkenazim, there are not a lot of mtDNA or Y chromosome markers that would suggest an Asian descent, as you may expect from Khazaria. They look predominantly European in origin, similar to the Neolithic Europeans who colonized most of Europe and different from the Paleolithic and Neolithic waves who moved into Northern Asia. If I remember my Cavalli-Sforza correctly. What this shows is a bunch of interbreeding.

But few people are trying to argue the Jews are a genetically related group of people. I'm pretty sure no scientists are. Jews are related by a shared tradition, so it doesn't really matter what their genetics are. And the tradition holds Israel holy. That is the founding force behind Zionism.

As far as I know, the British weren't the ones trying to send the Jews to Madagascar -- that was the Nazis. It was scuttled when they found a more convenient solution by "relocating" them to the East. If you can produce a cite for the British and Madagascar, that would be appreciated. Also a second for the Zionists collaborating with the Nazis.

Next, more of a rant.

mystic, you are just the latest of a series of people who I have encountered who talk and talk and talk about Evil Israel, while blindly turning your eye to anything else. You are just one step away from the ZOG and Protocols of Elders of Zion crowd, and that step grows increasingly skinny as one starts talking about the Mossad being behind 9/11 and the like.

You know it is all very well talking about the evils performed at the start of Israel. Sure, every group, every country has unfavorable aspects in their history, and even in their present. Your approach is to overlook or forgive all of the ones except those that occured in Israel. So of course Israel looks like the bad guy. It is the approach that you have used in all of your debates so far -- there is only one side to the debate (your one) and all of the other arguments against it are just lies. So lots and lots of talk about the Irgun and the Stern Gang and Deir Yassin and Sabra and Shatilla and the USS Liberty, but of course nothing about the deportation of Jews from Arab countries, the massacres of Jews that occured before 1948 in Israel. Nothing about the PLO in Munich or or Tunis or Beirut or on the Achille Lauro. Nothing about surprise attacks on Israel in 1948 and 1973, or the events leading up to the 1967 war, even though those were a casus belli in every sense of the term.

Ya know, some of the early Zionists were kooks. Some unsavory policies of Zionism were kept around even until recently. But there is very little evidence of Israel recently acting expansionist. They gave back the buffer zone in Lebanon. Many Israelis want out of the territories even if it means acting unilaterally. I'm sure most would be glad to get out if they could be assured that they would not be invaded the day after they withdrew. I don't agree with Sharon or the settlers. But any other country in a similar circumstance would have acted similarly. I honestly cannot say why Israel is such a lightning rod for ire.

I don't understand what it means to be anti-Israel. Would you care to tell us? I am pro-Israeli in the same sense that I am pro-American, or pro-French or pro-Jordanian. Israel, the US, France, and Jordan are all countries with millions of citizens who aren't going away. I am also pro-Palestinian in that I support the right of self-governance. But I can't support the Palestinians over the Israelis. As you said, move your feet lose your seat. It cuts both ways. So please let us know what you mean by being anti-Israel but pro-Palestinian. Does this mean you would you support an Arab war of extermination against Israel?

edwino

02-26-2003, 10:05 PM

Hey Michael Ellis. I see you too are in Location, Location. Perhaps we should organize the first ever Location, Location Dopefest?

Apos

02-26-2003, 11:26 PM

Hey Beagle: you've got real smooth, silky skin.

Michael Ellis

02-26-2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by edwino
Hey Michael Ellis. I see you too are in Location, Location. Perhaps we should organize the first ever Location, Location Dopefest?

But which location would we use? ;)

Ankh_Too

02-26-2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
This data on genetic markers is certainly interesting, but one has to be careful about the interpretation. There are at least 2 interpretations:

1. The Ashkenazim and Sephardim both originated in Israel.

2. The Sephardim originated in Israel, the Ashkenazim originated somewhere else, but they both have a common ancestor from a third geographic region.

Okay, being a biochemist, you should certainly be more familiar with the scientific and genetic information contained in even the abstracts than I. However, it doesn't seem as if you bothered to read any of of them. The study by Hamer, et, al, did not study simply Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, but Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite and Ethiopian Jews as well as other ehtnic populations from the same geographic area. The graph of their results shows all the Jewish populations with a fairly tight grouping, interspersed with other non-Jewish populations from the Middle East including Palestinians, Syrians Lebanese, Druze and Saudi Arabians.

M.F. Hammer et al., "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97:6769-74, June 6, 2000. (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Jewish-Middle-Eastern-Common.htm)
A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different.
If there's some other ancestor who caused the various Jewish populations to have such a close haplotype similarity, then it also affected all the Semetic populations, because they are very similar to the rest of the Middle East populations in the study.

Originally posted by mystic2311
For example, it is possible that they had a common ancestor on the Anatolian plateau which then gave rise to migrations to the Middle East and to Southern Russia. This possibility is discussed in a well-balanced discussion here:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/07-Jews-As-Nation/section-5.html

I'd really appreciate it if you could point out just exactly where the faq mentions that the common ancestor. There are six paragraphs of history on the Khazars which is, I must admit, fascinating stuff. Only in paragraph seven does it mention whether or not the Ashekanzi Jews might be descended from the Khazars. While it mentions a couple reasons that "Some believe that they are, at least to a certain extent," the faq then spends three paragraphs pretty much explaining why that's not really the mostly likely explanation at all. It mentions archeaological, linguistic and cultural reasons that show that while there was almost certainly a "cross-polination" with that area, the idea that Ashkenazi Jews aren't really Semites because they're descended from the Khazars is a very, very long stretch, at best.

Banger

02-26-2003, 11:57 PM

If the Jew did not exist, the pro-semite would invent him.

I'm not even sure what that means, but I figure the Pit is as good a place as any to twist a phrase on its head ;)

Captain Amazing

02-27-2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by edwino
Also a second for the Zionists collaborating with the Nazis.

I've been looking for that second one for you. All I could find so far was (on anti-semitic hate sites, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of it) that Avraham Stern sent some of his people to Turkey in '40 or '41 to say to the Germans. "Hey, you want the Jews out of Europe, we want the Jews out of Europe. Give us guns, we'll keep the Brits busy here, then after you win the war, let us set up a Jewish state in Palestine, ship all your Jews here, and back me as dictator."

Now, like I said, I've never seen this on anything like objective websites, so I don't know if I believe it or not. I will say that it's not something I'd put past Stern doing, because he was, IMHO, a nut and a thoroughly unpleasant person, but I don't know.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 01:46 AM

OK, take a number you guys! Thanks I appreciate your interest in this fascinating and vital topic.

Zionist collaboration with Nazis can be found in:
The Hidden History of Zionism. Ralph Schoenman.
Blowback. Christopher Simpson.

The relevant passages from Blowback can be found here: (look for the name Fieval Polkes)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Brunner_B_CS.html

Another fascinating story is that of Rudolph Kastner (or Kasztner). Was he a savior or a Nazi collaborator? Here is a pretty balanced story about him:

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1997/September/erseptember.22/9_22_97Lahav.html

And a very detailed story here:

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/19.1/bilsky.html

You can find other sites extolling him and others vilifying him.

ok more later...daughter needs help with homework...

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by edwino
As far as I know, the British weren't the ones trying to send the Jews to Madagascar -- that was the Nazis. It was scuttled when they found a more convenient solution by "relocating" them to the East. If you can produce a cite for the British and Madagascar, that would be appreciated. Also a second for the Zionists collaborating with the Nazis.

Here is the cite about the Patria affair ( my mistake, it was Mauritius, not Madagascar):

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/irgunill.html#19

THE PATRIA AFFAIR

On October 1, 1940, three vessels sailed from the Rumanian port of Tulcia - the Atlantic, the Milos and the Pacific, carrying some 3,500 immigrants from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia. At the beginning of November, the Pacific and the Milos reached Haifa, and their 1,800 passengers were transferred by the British to the 12,000-ton Patria. On November 20, the Atlantic arrived and 100 of its passengers were also transferred to the Patria. The British Government had decided to take drastic steps in order to put an end to the illegal immigration, and announced the following day that the immigrants were to be deported to Mauritius, and that their fate would be decided when the war ended.

The Haganah leaders decided to prevent the Patria from leaving port by sabotage. A mine was prepared at Haifa, concealed in a cloth bag and smuggled aboard the ship, where it was handed over to one of the Haganah liaison officers. On November 25, 1940, at about 9 a.m. the mine was detonated. The intention was to blast a small hole in the vessel's side so that that it would slowly take in water allowing time to evacuate all those on board. However, the mine blasted a large hole and water flooded into the hold. Within 15 minutes the ship began to list with only a small portion remaining above water. Some 250 people (200 of them Jews, and most of the remainder British soldiers) went down with the ship. This was the largest number of victims of any single operation conducted by an organization since the beginning of British rule in Palestine.

The Patria survivors were eventually permitted to remain in Eretz Israel, but 1,584 of the Atlantic's passengers were deported to Mauritius, and returned to Eretz Israel only five years later, on August 20, 1945.

edwino

02-27-2003, 02:44 AM

Polkes tacitly cooperated with the Nazis in 1932, before the shit hit the fan. Kastner paid Eichmann $2 million to save 1600 Jews in Hungary. Hardly collaboration. Kastner lost his libel suit against those accusing him of being a collaborator (although the trial was more about Israeli politics than Kastner). He was assasinated a few months later, but the verdict was overturned posthumously.

Your claim was for "Zionist collaboration with the Nazis." You have given us two isolated incidents in which you really have to stretch to describe them as "collaboration." Yet this is cited as your sole example of "less than honorable behavior by the Zionists." Seems like your are clutching at straws here -- at least you could have thrown us the standard old Deir Yassin and King David Hotel.

Nobody in their right mind would claim that Zionism (or any other movement for that matter) is completely unstained. But here we have another example of how you and your kind lock onto any tiny intransigence ever committed by any one calling themselves a Jew, Israeli, or Zionist, and that these somehow serve to delegitimize the State of Israel. Yet of course the other sides are completely excused for their major violations.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Coldfire
I'm not going to debate your other points, partially because I agree with some, and partially because I don't care about others. But: would you mind demonstrating what makes the Mossad "a global terrorist network" rather than the Israeli intelligence agency?

I'm sure you can dig up some dirt on the Mossad, but then again, so could I about, say, the CIA. What makes the Mossad "terrorist"?

No argument there, the CIA is a terrorist organization too. Any political organization that murders people without trial is terrorist.

Mossad terrorism:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/israel/mossad/

And Mossad's record has also been blemished by a few embarrassing failures. In Lillehammer Norway on 07 January 1974 Mossad agents mistakenly killed Ahmad Boushiki, an Algerian waiter carrying a Moroccan passport, whom they mistook for PLO security head Ali Ahmad Salameh, believed to have masterminded the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics [Salameh was killed in a 1979 car-bomb explosion in Lebanon]. Following the attack, the Mossad agents were arrested and tried before a Norwegian court. Five Israeli agents were convicted and served short jail sentences, though Israel denied responsibility for the murder. In February 1996 the Israeli government agreed to compensate the family of Ahmad Boushiki.

On 24 September 1997 Mossad operatives attempted to assassinate Khalid Meshaal, a top political leader of the Palestinian group Hamas. The assassins entered Jordan on fake Canadian passports, and injected Meshaal with a poison. Jordan was able to wring a numbar of concessions out of Israel in the aftermath of the fiasco, including the release of the founder of Hamas, Shaykh Ahmad Yasin, from an Israeli jail.

Then there is the assassination of Gerald Bull. I am sure you can find many more examples. Most of Israel's PMs were top terrorists, like Ehud Barak. He may talk like Elmer Fudd but he is one bad ass dude.

edwino

02-27-2003, 02:52 AM

Mauritius doesn't equal Madagascar. And this was way after the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which stated the British government's commitment to a Jewish state in Israel. The British were blocking Jewish immigration into Israel for other reasons -- among other things to keep the region relatively stable so it could serve as a staging ground for North Africa. The politics of Jewish immigration into Palestine during the 1920s to 1948 is complex and completely unrelated to having a Jewish homeland in Uganda.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by edwino
Polkes tacitly cooperated with the Nazis in 1932, before the shit hit the fan. Kastner paid Eichmann $2 million to save 1600 Jews in Hungary. Hardly collaboration. Kastner lost his libel suit against those accusing him of being a collaborator (although the trial was more about Israeli politics than Kastner). He was assasinated a few months later, but the verdict was overturned posthumously.

Your claim was for "Zionist collaboration with the Nazis." You have given us two isolated incidents in which you really have to stretch to describe them as "collaboration." Yet this is cited as your sole example of "less than honorable behavior by the Zionists." Seems like your are clutching at straws here -- at least you could have thrown us the standard old Deir Yassin and King David Hotel.

Nobody in their right mind would claim that Zionism (or any other movement for that matter) is completely unstained. But here we have another example of how you and your kind lock onto any tiny intransigence ever committed by any one calling themselves a Jew, Israeli, or Zionist, and that these somehow serve to delegitimize the State of Israel. Yet of course the other sides are completely excused for their major violations.

Well there is lots more. I can only type so fast. The overall picture is that the Zionists did anything they could to get Jews to Palestine, even blowing up synagogues in Iraq ("Every Spy a Prince" by Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman).

And what is my kind? I am merely a truth seeker. It is clear your mind is made up, so there is no point debating this with you. I traveled to Morocco a number of years ago and was surprised to see Jews, Christians, and Arabs sitting around a table together. I asked them how come they weren't fighting with each other? They just laughed and said that was only in Israel. Jews and Arabs traditionally have gotten along quite well together. Remember, both Jews and Arabs were kicked out of Spain by the Christians, and the Crusaders slaughtered Jews and Arabs, and Byzantine Christians for that matter. The major problem in the Middle East arose when European Jews went there. They have no historical or ethnic claim to the land. A religion is not a justification for a state. If it were, I could convert to Catholicism and invade Italy, assassinate the Pope and move into the Vatican.

Israel had a chance for a legitimate state, but they blew it. Assassinating Count Bernadotte, blowing up the King David Hotel, the massacres at Deir Yassin, the Lavon affair, the Suez war of 1956, the pre-emptive strike at Egypt in 1967, the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, all these convinced their arab neighbors that Israel is a terrorist nation, a threat to peace and stability.

We are going to war with Iraq for violating UN resolutions, so again I ask, why not go to war with Israel, who has violated more UN resolutions than any other country, has weapons of mass destruction, and is carrying out a campaign of genocide against the Palestinians? They even oppress their own people--Sephardic Jews are second class citizens in their own country because of the racist Ashkenazi oppressors.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by edwino
Mauritius doesn't equal Madagascar. And this was way after the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which stated the British government's commitment to a Jewish state in Israel. The British were blocking Jewish immigration into Israel for other reasons -- among other things to keep the region relatively stable so it could serve as a staging ground for North Africa. The politics of Jewish immigration into Palestine during the 1920s to 1948 is complex and completely unrelated to having a Jewish homeland in Uganda.

But you are ignoring the fact that Haganah blew up the ship and killed more than 200 Jews.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Ankh_Too
Okay, being a biochemist, you should certainly be more familiar with the scientific and genetic information contained in even the abstracts than I. However, it doesn't seem as if you bothered to read any of of them. The study by Hamer, et, al, did not study simply Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, but Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite and Ethiopian Jews as well as other ehtnic populations from the same geographic area. The graph of their results shows all the Jewish populations with a fairly tight grouping, interspersed with other non-Jewish populations from the Middle East including Palestinians, Syrians Lebanese, Druze and Saudi Arabians.

Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite and Ethiopian Jews are all Sephardic Jews, who are oppressed within their own homeland of Israel by the racist European Jews.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 03:17 AM

Ankh_too, It is almost to the end:

"The Ashkenazi Jews are also the direct descendants of the Israelites.
Genetic tests seem to indicate some ancestry from the regions known
today as Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, and Iraq. Mediterranean
Fever, for example, is found among some Ashkenazi Jews as well as
Armenians and Anatolian Turks. It is now asserted that many Ashkenazi
men who belong to the priestly caste (Kohenim) possess a "Kohen"
marker on the Y-chromosome. However, note that this provides no
evidence of Khazar ancestry. Common genetic markers in people from
these regions is expected for the following reasons, which alone could
account for the common markers occurring in some Jews as well as
non-Jews in Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, and Iraq:
1. Archaeological evidence suggests that the some of the earliest
ancestors of the ancient Levantine and Mesopotamian civilzations
originated in the region of Armenia and moved southwards.
2. The Tanach records extensive evidence of intermarriage between
Jews and ancient peoples who originated in eastern Anatolia, viz.
the Hittites and Hurrians (including the Jebusites of Jerusalem).
The Edomites who were of mixed Hebrew and Hurrian ancestry were
also absorbed into the Jewish people.
3. The Armenians and Kurds are the descendants of people who remained
in Eastern Anatolia / Armenia / Kurdistan and intermarried with
the Turks and neighbouring peoples."

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by edwino
Polkes tacitly cooperated with the Nazis in 1932, before the shit hit the fan. Kastner paid Eichmann $2 million to save 1600 Jews in Hungary. Hardly collaboration. Kastner lost his libel suit against those accusing him of being a collaborator (although the trial was more about Israeli politics than Kastner). He was assasinated a few months later, but the verdict was overturned posthumously.

You are not telling the whole story about Kasztner:

_It was in this trial, which took place in 1954–1955, that an Israeli judge first had to address the evils of the Nazi era in his court of law. The defendant was an old Hungarian Jew, Malkhiel Gruenvald, who was accused of defaming the Zionist leader of Hungarian Jewry, Rudolph (Israel) Kastner, by alleging that he had collaborated with the Nazis.2 Kastner had lived in Budapest during World War II and organized, together with other Zionist activists (among them Yoel and Hanzi Brandt), a committee for the rescue of Jewish refugees trying to escape the Nazi terror in neighboring countries by entering Hungary. After the 1944 German takeover of Hungary, Kastner had served as chief negotiator with Adolf Eichmann, the top Nazi official responsible for the deportation of Jews to German concentration camps, and with other Nazi officials on behalf of Hungary's Jewish community. The deal sought by Kastner and seriously considered by the Nazis was a "blood for goods" pact, intended to save the life of nearly one million Jews in exchange for ten thousand trucks to be delivered to the German Army. This ambitious goal was not achieved and approximately 400,000 Hungarian Jews were eventually sent to their deaths in Auschwitz. However, Kastner did succeed in saving a group of 1,685 Jews who were shuttled to safety in Switzerland. This transport (known as the "Bergen Belsen transport") included a disproportionate number of Kastner's friends and relatives."

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/19.1/bilsky.html

He saved his friends and relatives and allowed 400,000 Jews to be exterminated. You are right, he did not collaborate with the Nazis. He only saved his friends and relatives at the expense of others. So let's make a movie about this hero and call it "Kasztner's List." That will be a blockbuster.

Skip

02-27-2003, 06:14 AM

Israel had a chance for a legitimate state, but they blew it. Assassinating Count Bernadotte, blowing up the King David Hotel, the massacres at Deir Yassin, the Lavon affair, the Suez war of 1956, the pre-emptive strike at Egypt in 1967, the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, all these convinced their arab neighbors that Israel is a terrorist nation, a threat to peace and stability.

Considering that the Lavon Affair, the Suez war, the 1967 war (which was as you said, pre-emptive to an Arab attack), Lebanon etc etc all happened after the 1948 War. So I think it's highly doubtful that the Arab states gradually came to the conclusion that Israel must be destroyed due to Israel's various indiscretions. Rather they've held that view since 1948, before most of the events you listed even happened.

Skip

02-27-2003, 06:28 AM

He saved his friends and relatives and allowed 400,000 Jews to be exterminated.

This is a bit misleading. Even if Kastner hadn't given preference to his friends and family, 400,000 Jews would still have been murdered. He didn't "allow" the rest to be exterminated. To somehow blame him for the deaths of 400 000 Jews is dishonest in the least.

Was it wrong he gave preference to his family. Probably, but if you know for sure that if they did not get rescued they would be heading for the death camps I think any person thinks first of saving their family. I know I would.

Beagle

02-27-2003, 08:38 AM

If that isn't old-fashioned anti-Semitism I'll be a primates collateral relation. It is the new language of 'anti-war,' 'progressive' Jew hating. France is the epicenter. Divest now, from Israel! Subtext: ignore everything horrible that goes on within Iraq and pump billions of Francs there.

So, mystic2311, when we attack Israel it's collateral damage be damned, right? You are nothing if not a flaming hypocrite.

Beagle

02-27-2003, 09:06 AM

Apos, you came close. Actually I have coarse hair and a brush on my tail.

Nobody has asked: what is a Unitarian agnostic? Answer: someone who doubts everyone's god. He was an agnostic Protestant really. Just wanted to see if anyone would assume I was Jewish.

I cannot believe that people are going to let this devolve into an intellectual discussion of Semites. Did any of you read that GD thread?

mystic2311: you can fool some of the people some of the time, you've proven that.

edwino

02-27-2003, 10:57 AM

*sigh*
Originally posted by mystic2311
The major problem in the Middle East arose when European Jews went there. They have no historical or ethnic claim to the land. A religion is not a justification for a state. If it were, I could convert to Catholicism and invade Italy, assassinate the Pope and move into the Vatican.Whether you agree or not that Jews have legitimate claim to the region, you can't change the fact that 5 million of them live there now. The initial conditions of founding are moot, because you can't move 5 million people. I suppose whites have no right to be in the Americas and Australia either. We can argue the initial conditions until we turn blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that the situation there now is the one we have to deal with. My personal justification, as an atheist who was raised Jewish, is that this was a refugee situation similar to most other refugee situations. Most other refugee situations do not end with massive repatriation, which almost never works. And I don't think that this one should either.

Israel had a chance for a legitimate state, but they blew it. Assassinating Count Bernadotte, blowing up the King David Hotel, the massacres at Deir Yassin, the Lavon affair, the Suez war of 1956, the pre-emptive strike at Egypt in 1967, the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, all these convinced their arab neighbors that Israel is a terrorist nation, a threat to peace and stability.Here is the list again. I'm surprised you didn't put Sabra and Shatila on there for shits and giggles. Ya know, the world agreed in 1948 to support a Jewish state in the region. To that point, the Jews had mostly legitimately acquired land in Palestine. Sure there were outbreaks of violence, but they happened on both sides. Chanting "Deir Yassin" over and over again without any acknowledgement of Arab wrongdoings is not winning any points in the argument.

But in 1948, the UN voted to divide Palestine. You seem to ascribe value to UN resolutions (at least when Israel is the one breaking them) so lets start there. From that point, they were a legitimate state in the eyes of the world. And they were attacked and defended themselves. The 1956 Suez Crisis was certainly not precipitated by Israel -- Israel only came in as backup to their English and French allies. They gained no land at that point. 1967 should never be held against Israel. They had every reason to pre-emptively attack, and Egypt had been censured by the UN for closing the Straits of Tiran. And Lebanon, I don't think it was a well advised military action, but again it did not happen in a vacuum. But Israel was supporting their allies in repelling Syrian backed forces. Why no criticism of Syria for invading and holding Lebanon for over 20 years?

...is carrying out a campaign of genocide against the Palestinians? They even oppress their own people--Sephardic Jews are second class citizens in their own country because of the racist Ashkenazi oppressors.Define for us genocide. They are doing a remarkably poor job at genocide if that is what they are aiming to do. And now you care for the plight of the Sephardim. Is the US a racist state because African Americans are poorer than whites? There is no institutionalized racism against the Sephardim, and with the rise of Shas they have gained lots of political power. It is a shame that there is still some prejudice and there isn't an even distribution of wealth. But why does this delegitimize Israel? Does it not happen in every country?
But you are ignoring the fact that Haganah blew up the ship and killed more than 200 Jews.No, I am not. I never tried to justify that. It was a stupid move on the part of the Haganah. But it had nothing to do with having a Jewish homeland in Madagascar, or for that matter Mauritius.

Ankh_Too

02-27-2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite and Ethiopian Jews are all Sephardic Jews,

Sephardic Jews are Jews from Spain and Portugal and their descendants. Roman Jews predate the Sephardic/Ashenazi split and are descendants of those who lived in ancient Rome. The Near Eastern Jewish populations in the study were from Iran and Iraq in addition to those from Yemmen and Saudi Arabia. Although they are often lumped in with Sepharidic Jews in order to contrast them with Ashkenazi Jews, these Arab Jews are more properly referred to as Mizrahi, not Sephardic. Not only are they culturally distinct from Sephardic Jews, they also represent a separate genetic grouping.

Nor did any of this address the close association of haplotypes between the various Mizrahi and the non-Jewish populations of the same area. Again, if your second hypothesis about the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews having a common ancestor from which they derive their similarities in haplotypes, then the entire Semetic genotype had the same ancestor, including the non-Jewish Arabs of the same geographic regions.

Originally posted by mystic2311
who are oppressed within their own homeland of Israel by the racist European Jews. .

That said, I'm certainly not going to argue that the Mizrahi weren't and aren't marginalized and discriminated against. But your phrasing starts to make me really curious to your motivations. "the racist European Jews," is a sweeping stereotype that raises a lot of warning flags. Not only that, but it has absolutely no fucking connection with your original assertion that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars.

Originally posted by mystic2311
Ankh_too, It is almost to the end:

"The Ashkenazi Jews are also the direct descendants of the Israelites. Genetic tests seem to indicate some ancestry from the regions known today as Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, and Iraq. Mediterranean Fever, for example, is found among some Ashkenazi Jews as well as Armenians and Anatolian Turks. It is now asserted that many Ashkenazi men who belong to the priestly caste (Kohenim) possess a "Kohen" marker on the Y-chromosome. However, note that this provides no evidence of Khazar ancestry. Common genetic markers in people from these regions is expected for the following reasons, which alone could account for the common markers occurring in some Jews as well as non-Jews in Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Iran, and Iraq:
1. Archaeological evidence suggests that the some of the earliest
ancestors of the ancient Levantine and Mesopotamian civilzations
originated in the region of Armenia and moved southwards.
2. The Tanach records extensive evidence of intermarriage between Jews and ancient peoples who originated in eastern Anatolia, viz. the Hittites and Hurrians (including the Jebusites of Jerusalem). The Edomites who were of mixed Hebrew and Hurrian ancestry were also absorbed into the Jewish people.
3. The Armenians and Kurds are the descendants of people who remained in Eastern Anatolia / Armenia / Kurdistan and intermarried with the Turks and neighbouring peoples."
emphasis added

Not only is there no statement in that entire paragraph that would lead one to conclude that Ashkenazi Jews do not derive from the Isrealites, a Semetic people, but it also states the affirmative that they are. How you can interpret this to be a "balanced discussion" on the possibility that the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews had a "common ancestor" on the Anatolian plateau is utterly beyond me. The Sephardic Jews aren't even mentioned on that page, much less that paragraph.

elf6c

02-27-2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Beagle

mystic2311: you can fool some of the people some of the time, you've proven that.

Nope, I wasn't fooled a bit either. I was just hoping somebody would take care of this one.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 12:33 PM

No one can argue that the Israelis are carrying out a systematic program of ethnic cleansing, which is supposedly what Milosevic is on trial. So why isn't Sharon on trial at the Hague?

http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0606.html

How do you explain the Jews who are opposed to Israel's brutal occupation of Palestinian land and murder of Palestinians? I guess they are self-hating Jews.

http://www.nimn.org/

My suggestion is we stop giving Israeli $3 billion in aid every year. Without our support and especially our weapons, I bet they will learn real fast how to get along with their neighbors.

Beagle

02-27-2003, 12:44 PM

No one can argue that the Israelis are carrying out a systematic program of ethnic cleansing, which is supposedly what Milosevic is on trial. So why isn't Sharon on trial at the Hague? I'll argue that the Israelis are not "carrying out a systematic progarm of ethnic cleansing."

You asserted, prove it: Israel is carrying out a 1) systematic 2) program 3) of ethnic cleansing.

If you cite Sabra, Shatila, and Jenin that proves virtually nothing - oh he of the vast sweeping claim and master of hyperbole.

elf6c

02-27-2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
No one can argue that the Israelis are carrying out a systematic program of ethnic cleansing, which is supposedly what Milosevic is on trial. So why isn't Sharon on trial at the Hague?

http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0606.html

How do you explain the Jews who are opposed to Israel's brutal occupation of Palestinian land and murder of Palestinians? I guess they are self-hating Jews.

http://www.nimn.org/

My suggestion is we stop giving Israeli $3 billion in aid every year. Without our support and especially our weapons, I bet they will learn real fast how to get along with their neighbors.

Lots of people could argue #1. Using you logic, I assume Yassar Arafat and most of the PLO leadership would be tried at the same time? After all his own party's martyr brigade (the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade) has claimed many suicide bombings.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_against_Israel
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0205/S00104.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020413-75604040.htm
http://foxnews.net/story/0,2933,74793,00.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/12/1018333418306.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/27/mideast/

I notice you have not said one thing about the intentional terror attacks on Israeli civilians. You talk about murder of women and children, but unsurprisingly ignore where it is occurring intentionally. Hmm, why would that be?

Maybe I am just some crazy "Pro-Semite"

:rolleyes:

Estilicon

02-27-2003, 01:26 PM

The word is manicheism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm) in spanish it is used to refer to persons that can only see a thing as either totally good or totally bad. Sadly I see a lot of it here in the SDMB, specially by americans: either Israel is perfect or it is the fourth reich, America is always wrong or it is never wrong, Bush is either an idiot ( well, in fact most people think he is really an idiot) :)
As the link I provided says that word comes from a christian sect that believed in the duality good vs evil. Sadly for they and for many members on this boards things are rarely that simple. There are no such thing as the "great satan" or "the axis or evil". And Israel is certainly not evil but it has a poor record in human rights (palestinian ones to be precise). I can't believe that many people in here uses a lot of kind of arguments in order to defend what can't be defended.
Most of the members of this board are americans, as I already said, you never lived under a regime that violated human rights constantly (at least frontiers inward), in fact neither have I (I was a baby when democracy returned to my country). But I learned my history The Junta comitted horrendous crimes in order to stop the comunist guerrilas, they did stop them (they were never a real threat) but the price was too much and even today almost 25 years after those events you can still see the mothers of many that were dissapeared in front of the presidential palace claiming for their sons and daughters.
In conclussion no matter the provocation, no matter the cost. an state should never violate the rights of it's inhabitants and for that Israel should be considered a rogue state, and for that it's goverment should pay*

* and this doesn't mean, in case I haven't been clear, that Irak, North Korea, Iran and countless other regimes are good, that saddam is a good guy and that america is the new evil empire.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
If that isn't old-fashioned anti-Semitism I'll be a primates collateral relation. It is the new language of 'anti-war,' 'progressive' Jew hating. France is the epicenter. Divest now, from Israel! Subtext: ignore everything horrible that goes on within Iraq and pump billions of Francs there.

So, mystic2311, when we attack Israel it's collateral damage be damned, right? You are nothing if not a flaming hypocrite.

Actually, I am not a hypocrite, I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, which, apparently, you support.

Beagle

02-27-2003, 01:54 PM

You have no clue what I support. Every time I try to explain it you are intentionally obtuse, outright rude, mischaracterize what was said, say something insupportable, or cite a very biased source while out-of-hand rejecting any mainstream source.Beagle: You asserted, prove it: Israel is carrying out a 1) systematic 2) program 3) of ethnic cleansing.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Skip
He saved his friends and relatives and allowed 400,000 Jews to be exterminated.

This is a bit misleading. Even if Kastner hadn't given preference to his friends and family, 400,000 Jews would still have been murdered. He didn't "allow" the rest to be exterminated. To somehow blame him for the deaths of 400 000 Jews is dishonest in the least.

Was it wrong he gave preference to his family. Probably, but if you know for sure that if they did not get rescued they would be heading for the death camps I think any person thinks first of saving their family. I know I would.

Read the article by Bilsky. Gruenvald accused Kastner of aiding and abetting the transport of the Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz, even misleading the Jews about where the trains were going. Throug his collaboration with the Nazis, Kastner was allowed to save his own family and friends. If this is not the most disgusting act of cowardice and betrayal, I don't know what is.

"According to Gruenvald's allegations, Kastner had become friendly with the Nazis through their negotiations and as a result had been allowed to save his relatives and a small number of Jewish
dignitaries. In return, Kastner had let the Nazis use him by not informing Hungarian Jews of the real destination of the trains. Gruenvald also alleged that Kastner, in collusion with some Nazis, had stolen Jewish money and then helped save the life of Becher with favorable testimony at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Warned by the attorney general that he must either sue Gruenvald
for libel or resign from his government post, Kastner sued. Since he was a senior government official, he was represented at the trial by the attorney general, Haim Cohen, himself. In the course of the trial, however, it was Kastner, not Gruenvald, who found himself on the defensive."

I am getting more and more disgusted with the way the people on this thread dismiss or rationalize the crimes of Jews or Israelis. I guess I have higher moral standards than the rest of you.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
You have no clue what I support. Every time I try to explain it you are intentionally obtuse, outright rude, mischaracterize what was said, say something insupportable, or cite a very biased source while out-of-hand rejecting any mainstream source.

Hey, you just called me a flaming hypocrite! I can't help it if you keep sticking your foot in your mouth :D

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
I'll argue that the Israelis are not "carrying out a systematic progarm of ethnic cleansing."

You asserted, prove it: Israel is carrying out a 1) systematic 2) program 3) of ethnic cleansing.

If you cite Sabra, Shatila, and Jenin that proves virtually nothing - oh he of the vast sweeping claim and master of hyperbole.

I don't have to. Francis Boyle already made the case in the Counterpunch article. He is the world expert on ethnic cleansing, so I will defer to him.

Why can't I mention Sabra, Shatilla, or Jenin? That is like a judge telling a prosecutor, you have to prove this man guilty of murder, but you are not allowed to tell the jury anything about the guy he allegedly killed. Sounds like a reverse kangaroo court to me.

Beagle

02-27-2003, 02:18 PM

Only in a world of words have no meaning could Sabra and Shatila, events which happened over 20 years ago, could prove systematic ethnic cleansing being carried out today.

I've brought them up before myself, though not to prove that Israel is carrying out a 1) systematic 2) program 3) of ethnic cleansing. I did not do that because I would have been spouting polemical bullshit.

Captain Amazing

02-27-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
kaI am getting more and more disgusted with the way the people on this thread dismiss or rationalize the crimes of Jews or Israelis. I guess I have higher moral standards than the rest of you.

Well, you certainly have higher moral standards with regards to Jews than the rest of us do. I don't know what your moral standards are in regards to Gentiles. But it makes me wonder, does the US have a right to exist? After all, we killed and drove off the natives, brought in slaves (and then, after they got their freedom, discriminated against them), and engaged in terrorism to get our independence. I guess, therefore, we have no right to exist. Yet, here we are.

Alessan

02-27-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
I guess I have higher moral standards than the rest of you.

I guess you do, bitch.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Ankh_Too
[snip] Although they are often lumped in with Sepharidic Jews in order to contrast them with Ashkenazi Jews, these Arab Jews are more properly referred to as Mizrahi, not Sephardic. Not only are they culturally distinct from Sephardic Jews, they also represent a separate genetic grouping.

[snip]

That said, I'm certainly not going to argue that the Mizrahi weren't and aren't marginalized and discriminated against. But your phrasing starts to make me really curious to your motivations. "the racist European Jews," is a sweeping stereotype that raises a lot of warning flags. Not only that, but it has absolutely no fucking connection with your original assertion that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars.
[snip]

Do you have a cite for the Mizrah Jews? All the sources I have seen refer only to 2 types, Ashkenazi and Sephardic.

The assertion that the Ashkenazi are descended from Khazarians is not mine, it is the assertion of a number of historians. Koestler summarized the evidence in The Thirteenth Tribe. Until the genetic studies are verified by an independent study, I would not put much faith in them. As I told you, these sorts of conclusions are highly dependent on the initial assumptions and the method of statistical analysis and are frequently disputed.

What is with the swearing? You said above that my identification of European Jews as racists "has absolutely no fucking connection with your original assertion that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars." I disagree, it has everything to do with it. Just for laughs, here is a definition of racism:

The ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) defines racism as follows:
“Any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”

If the European Jews are derived from Khazarians, a Turkic race, not a Semitic race, then it might explain why they are racist toward Semites, including Palestinians, and Sephardic Jews. That seems pretty logical to me.

Beagle

02-27-2003, 02:45 PM

Well, I almost strung that sentence together. It was damn close, you could sense what I was getting at.

mystic2311: That whole moral standards comment pretty much sums up why I quit debating you in Great Debates. Fucking Hell!

Isreal has a right to exist as much because it already does as any other reason. I don't want to get into nicieties of international law and bullshit with you for that reason alone. You want us to bomb Israel, ha ha, it has no right to exist, it carries out systematic ethnic cleansing...etc...

1+1+1= you are willing to kill everyone in Israel (well, the Jews) to make the the situation 'peaceful.'?

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by edwino
*sigh*
Whether you agree or not that Jews have legitimate claim to the region, you can't change the fact that 5 million of them live there now. The initial conditions of founding are moot, because you can't move 5 million people.

Here is the list again. I'm surprised you didn't put Sabra and Shatila on there for shits and giggles.

Define for us genocide. They are doing a remarkably poor job at genocide if that is what they are aiming to do. And now you care for the plight of the Sephardim. Is the US a racist state because African Americans are poorer than whites? There is no institutionalized racism against the Sephardim, and with the rise of Shas they have gained lots of political power. It is a shame that there is still some prejudice and there isn't an even distribution of wealth. But why does this delegitimize Israel? Does it not happen in every country?
No, I am not. I never tried to justify that. It was a stupid move on the part of the Haganah. But it had nothing to do with having a Jewish homeland in Madagascar, or for that matter Mauritius.

My point is not to move the Jews again. My point is we need to reform the state of Israel, and $3 billion a year in aid is a lot of leverage. The state of Israel is a rogue state, approaching the level of a criminal state. Israel is becoming a certain of operation of Russian organized crime, drug smuggling, diamond smuggling, white slavery etc. on top of the genocide they are carrying out against the Palestinians. BTW, the definition of genocide does not include a time element, it doesn;t matter if it takes days or years, it is still genocide. Perhaps you have a definition of genocide which specifies a threshold of X people per year who have to be killed for it to qualify as genocide? (Oh and I did not mention Sabra and Shatilla specifically because that was subsumed under the category "invasion of Lebanon.")

A stupid move? A group of terrorists murders 200 people and you call it a stupid move? I suppose you think Osama made a stupid move when he killed 2800 people at the WTC (if you believe it, which I don't).

Once again the hypocrisy is revealed. You continually minimize or rationalize the crimes of Jewish terrorists.

mystic2311

02-27-2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Beagle

Isreal has a right to exist as much because it already does as any other reason. I don't want to get into nicieties of international law and bullshit with you for that reason alone. You want us to bomb Israel, ha ha, it has no right to exist, it carries out systematic ethnic cleansing...etc...

1+1+1= you are willing to kill everyone in Israel (well, the Jews) to make the the situation 'peaceful.'?

I never said Israel doesn't have a right to exist, but it definitely needs to be reformed.

I never said I wanted to bomb Israel. I asked a rhetorical question, "Why don't we bomb Israel instead of Iraq?" The purpose of the question was to point out the hypocrisy of American foreign policy. Look at this comparison:

Iraq
Violates UN resolutions
Has WMD (maybe)
Attacked neighbor(Iran)
Oppresses Kurds
Supports terrorists
Has oil

Israel
Violates UN resolutions
Has WMD(definitely)
Attacked neighbor(Egypt)
Oppresses Palestinians
Supports terrorists
Doesn't have oil

If the issue is WMD and threats to peace and security, logically the US would bomb Israel. If the issue is oil, then it makes sense to bomb Iraq. If in doubt, resort to logic.

Ankh_Too

02-27-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Do you have a cite for the Mizrah Jews? All the sources I have seen refer only to 2 types, Ashkenazi and Sephardic.

Sure:

Sephardi and Mizrahi Women Write about Their Lives Editors' Introduction (http://bridgesjournal.org/backissues/v7n1editorsletter.html)
Some definitions: Mizrahi--eastern in Hebrew--is used to describe people descended from Jewish communities that never left the Middle East and North Africa in the course of Jewish history. Their home language was usually Arabic or Judeo-Arabic and many aspects of their culture closer to their Arab neighbors than to Ashkenazi Jews. The adjective Sephardi is the term that derives from Sephard, the Hebrew word for Spain, representing those descendants of the Jewish community that flourished in Spain or Portugal for hundreds of years until the Catholic Inquisition and expulsion of the Jews in 1492. This community was dispersed and settled primarily in the Ottoman Empire, especially in Morocco, Turkey and Greece. Ladino, the medieval Judeo-Spanish language they carried with them, was still spoken in the families of many of the women writing here.

There are other, ancient, Jewish communities that are neither Ashkenazi, Sephardi, nor Mizrahi. Though some Ethiopian, Italian, Greek, and Indian Jewish communities trace their lineage to those lands for more than a thousand years, their histories are tied in complicated ways to the other Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Jews.

The Jewish world is not simply divided into Sephardic and Ashkenazi although they are, by far, the two most well-known groups and dominate the popular conception of Jews and Jewish culture.

Originally posted by mystic2311
The assertion that the Ashkenazi are descended from Khazarians is not mine, it is the assertion of a number of historians. Koestler summarized the evidence in The Thirteenth Tribe. Until the genetic studies are verified by an independent study, I would not put much faith in them. As I told you, these sorts of conclusions are highly dependent on the initial assumptions and the method of statistical analysis and are frequently disputed.

Although you might not have come up with it originally, you certainly made the assertion in the middle of the discussion. I refered to that, not the idea that you came up with it on your own.

How many independent studies do you want? If you want a few more, fine:
M.G. Thomas et al., "Y chromosomes traveling south: the cohen modal haplotype and the origins of the Lemba--the 'Black Jews of Southern Africa,'" American Journal of Human Genetics, 66:674-86, February 2000 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v66n2/990488/990488.html)
The Lemba are a traditionally endogamous group speaking a variety of Bantu languages who live in a number of locations in southern Africa. They claim descent from Jews who came to Africa from "Sena." "Sena" is variously identified by them as Sanaa in Yemen, Judea, Egypt, or Ethiopia. A previous study using Y-chromosome markers suggested both a Bantu and a Semitic contribution to the Lemba gene pool, a suggestion that is not inconsistent with Lemba oral tradition. To provide a more detailed picture of the Lemba paternal genetic heritage, we analyzed 399 Y chromosomes for six microsatellites and six biallelic markers in six populations (Lemba, Bantu, Yemeni-Hadramaut, Yemeni-Sena, Sephardic Jews, and Ashkenazic Jews). The high resolution afforded by the markers shows that Lemba Y chromosomes are clearly divided into Semitic and Bantu clades. Interestingly, one of the Lemba clans carries, at a very high frequency, a particular Y-chromosome type termed the "Cohen modal haplotype," which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of Judaic origin.

Almut Nebel et al., "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East", American Journal Human Genetics, 69:1095-1112, 2001 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v69n5/013033/013033.html)
The investigation of the genetic relationship among three Jewish communities revealed that Kurdish and Sephardic Jews were indistinguishable from one another, whereas both differed slightly, yet significantly, from Ashkenazi Jews. The differences among Ashkenazim may be a result of low-level gene flow from European populations and/or genetic drift during isolation.

"Oppenheim, Ariella, et al. "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews." Human Genetics 107(6) (December 2000): 630-641. (http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00439/contents/00/00426/s004390000426ch002.html)
Single-step microsatellite networks of Arab and Jewish haplotypes revealed a common pool for a large portion of Y chromosomes, suggesting a relatively recent common ancestry. The two modal haplotypes in the I&P Arabs were closely related to the most frequent haplotype of Jews (the Cohen modal haplotype). However, the I&P Arab clade that includes the two Arab modal haplotypes (and makes up 32% of Arab chromosomes) is found at only very low frequency among Jews, reflecting divergence and/or admixture from other populations

There, that's three more studies, two of which support the close association of the Ashkenazi Jews to each of the other studied groups of jews. The first (Thomas, et al) dealt with the Y chromosome transference in an heretofore unsuspected group of Jewish decendents.

Are these sufficient? There are five directly on point and one supporting a collateral point. Will you at some point say "Hey, there might be something here," or will you wait until someone produces a single study that says they were unable to replicate the findings and jump up with a resounding "Huzzah, finally, Koestler has been vindicated! They aren't really Jews after all." These studies date from 1997 through 2001, how long until you accept that they might actually be verified?

Originally posted by mystic2311
What is with the swearing? You said above that my identification of European Jews as racists "has absolutely no fucking connection with your original assertion that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars." I disagree, it has everything to do with it. Just for laughs, here is a definition of racism:
<<snip>>
If the European Jews are derived from Khazarians, a Turkic race, not a Semitic race, then it might explain why they are racist toward Semites, including Palestinians, and Sephardic Jews. That seems pretty logical to me.

The swearing was and is a stylistic choice in order to illustrate both frustration and confusion. I also tend to sprinkle curses around in order to add emphasis. Deal with it.

But this theory depends on the Ashkenazi Jews knowing that they were in fact, decended from Khazars instead of the Israelites. As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of Ashkenazi Jews believed that they are descended from the Tribes of Israel, not from a Turkic warrior race who converted in the 11th Century. You would have been better served to say that the Mizrahi faced discrimination because they were seen as different to the predominating Ashkenazi culture, which I believe is demonstrably true, without availing yourself of the race card. Only if you can show that they are not only descended from Khazars (which seems unlikely given all the genetic data I've outlined so far) and that they knew it (which contrasts itself with just about every public aspect of Ashkenazi "Jewishness") would it be proper to describe it as racism.

Upon previewing:

Originally posted by mystic2311
I suppose you think Osama made a stupid move when he killed 2800 people at the WTC (if you believe it, which I don't).

Well if not bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who did organize the attacks?

edwino

02-27-2003, 05:49 PM

Dude, the genetics point is totally moot. We are getting all huffy about Y chromosome haplotypes here, which is an infinitesimal piece of DNA encoding very very little. That we can follow paternal lineages using Y haplotype analysis is a happy thing for molecular anthropologists, but it bears no relevance to anything except the study of human migration, especially when it comes to Judaism.

Judaism is a shared tradition which, besides the priestly castes, is separated from lineage. All that is required to be a Jew is to be converted. One of my friends in high school, Shaka, was a Jew who was far more orthodox and observant than I. I saw him cry at the Western Wall. Connection with Israel goes hand in hand with Judaism the religion and shared tradition. If I forget thee Jerusalem and that stuff.

I don't care if we Ashkenazim are descended from Abraham or Khazars or Angolan herdsmen or Vermont haberdashers. It doesn't matter. We are considered Jewish, and with that is a connection to Israel.

mystic again
The state of Israel is a rogue state, approaching the level of a criminal state. Israel is becoming a certain of operation of Russian organized crime, drug smuggling, diamond smuggling, white slavery etc. on top of the genocide they are carrying out against the Palestinians. This is the same bullshit over and over again. Yes, there are crime problems in Israel. Yes, along with the huge Russian immigration, some aspects of organized crime came. But this is so far from turning Israel into a center of all of these things. A few isolated incidents of white slavery and suddenly Israel is the worldwide capital. Never mind those Eastern European prostitutes populating every street corner in London or Paris or New York. Oh, a few manage to make it to Tel Aviv and suddenly Israel is the nucleus. But of course Israel is judged, yet again, on a totally different level than any other country in the world.

EstiliconThe word Manichean is used as well in English. I agree that t is a good description of what is going on here. I will point out that most American Jews and even most Israeli Jews have no problems criticizing Israeli politics. Hell Israeli politics is some of the most divisive in the world, and their press is amongst the freest in the world. But on the other side, I think there is a large segment of people, including most of the Arab World and their supporters in the West, to whom the "shitty little state" of Israel is the great harbinger of evil in the world. This is probably partly because the repressive regimes in the Arab world seize the situation in Israel as a scapegoat to divert their populace's attention. Since the Arab press is not nearly as free, the coverage tends to be very polarized. This rubs over into their sympathizers in the West.

I think that people in the West are also more likely to not realize what it is like to live without free press and have the government spoonfeed you news. So an Arab source is taken on even footing as an Israeli one. Or the truth is somewhere in between. So the Arabs say 1000 were killed in Jenin and Israel says 50, then maybe if we take an average and assume that 500 were killed, oh and that's still a massacre. Many of us in the West forget that the Arab press has often got no qualms about making stuff up to support their point or rehash known falsities, like the blood libel.

Ankh_Too

02-27-2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by edwino
Dude, the genetics point is totally moot. We are getting all huffy about Y chromosome haplotypes here, which is an infinitesimal piece of DNA encoding very very little. That we can follow paternal lineages using Y haplotype analysis is a happy thing for molecular anthropologists, but it bears no relevance to anything except the study of human migration, especially when it comes to Judaism.

Judaism is a shared tradition which, besides the priestly castes, is separated from lineage. All that is required to be a Jew is to be converted. One of my friends in high school, Shaka, was a Jew who was far more orthodox and observant than I. I saw him cry at the Western Wall. Connection with Israel goes hand in hand with Judaism the religion and shared tradition. If I forget thee Jerusalem and that stuff.

I don't care if we Ashkenazim are descended from Abraham or Khazars or Angolan herdsmen or Vermont haberdashers. It doesn't matter. We are considered Jewish, and with that is a connection to Israel.

I'm sorry, I should have made my own ideas more clear. I absolutely agree that it's completely ridiculous to debate one's "Jewishness" depending on whether or not they are descended from the Khazars or the original Israelites or (as you so amusingly phrased it "Vermont haberdashers". I was responding to a single claim that mystic2311 made, one I thought to be not only incorrect, but used by a whole host of extremely unsavory individuals and groups to attack the "legitimacy" of Judaism and Jews.

edwino

02-27-2003, 06:24 PM

Ankh_Too
I do think it is an interesting anthropological question, and I respect your debating of that point. But mystic is just looking for things to delegitimize Israel and the Ashkenazim. The core concept of Zionism is for a homeland for the Jews. Jewish means Jewish by descent or conversion, and a converted Jew is absolutely no different than one by descent. mystic has been ignoring this core premise and is arguing that descent is the only thing that counts in Judaism. So debating descent with him is just feeding into his fallacy.

Just out of curiosity, are you a geneticist or a biologist?

Estilicon

02-27-2003, 08:24 PM

Thanks edwino, you learn something everyday :)

Beagle

02-27-2003, 09:06 PM

This Jewish ethnicity stuff is all interesting and new to me, for the most part.

Does any of this apply to Mr. Cohen? The guy who mystic said could not form rational thoughts because of his pro-Semitism. Keep in mind that Mr. Cohen was arguing a tangential point dealing with the compostition and funding of the anti-war movement, not the sacredness of the Holy Land or anything like that.

I think Poland - in part for personal family reasons - should be free from Communist domination. Am I still capable of forming a rational opinon on European economic policy, for example? Meaning, of course, my opinons on Poland do not preclude that, correct?

mystic2311: Attacked neighbor(Egypt) This would be the revisionist view of the Six Day War pushed by the Arabs who were amassing for an attack, got surprised, and lost, right?

This kills me, because I used to rip on Israel all the time. I realized how imbalanced my view was. Now, here I am arguing on this side. Long strange trip, etc...

tomndebb

02-27-2003, 10:37 PM

The assertion that the Ashkenazi are descended from Khazarians is not mine, it is the assertion of a number of historians. Koestler summarized the evidence in The Thirteenth Tribe. No. It is (or was) asserted by Koestler. No serious historian (and I would not saddle the popularist, Koestler, with that label), believes that the Ashkenazim are "descended" from the Khazars. Not only do the genetic studies argue against it, the actual historical records of the Jews of Central Europe argue against it. That the Khazars existed and that their nobles converted to Judaism has been long recognized. (There have been a few virulently anti-Jewish hatemongers who have pretended that the information was "suppressed"--and quoted articles in the Encyclopedia Hebraica to prove their point!) However, even granting that a few remnant Khazar/Jewish communities continued to exist among the Rus and a few others moved into the valley of the Danube after the destruction of Khazaria, there is simply no evidence that the documented movement of Jews eastward from the Germanic lands failed to occur.

And, of course, as edwino has pointed out, the ethnic background of any Jewish group is irrelevant to any discussion of the state of Israel.

Hank Fescue

02-27-2003, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb

And, of course, as edwino has pointed out, the ethnic background of any Jewish group is irrelevant to any discussion of the state of Israel.

How do you figure this? The interior ministry uses ethnic compositon in citizenship issues. Ethnicity is of utmost importance to the state of Israel in determining its populace. Also, recently revoking the citizenship of an Arab in Israel, an unprescidented move. Ethnic background not relevant to the state of Israel? You are making a joke?

Hank Fescue

02-27-2003, 11:16 PM

Israel is a democracy for Jews only.

Racism has many other manifestations in Israel beyond official statutes. Most notable of these prejudicial practices is the ban against Palestinians serving in the Israel Defense Forces. Even though Palestinians make up nearly 20 percent of Israel’s population—a larger minority than blacks in America—they are left in the paradoxical position of being denied the basic duty of protecting what is supposedly their country.

Isn't that nice?

And this, the normal response to the rest of the world from the US.

You don’t need to see racism to recognize it. Unlike pornography, which often is in the eye of the beholder, racism in nations is self-evident. It comes in the form of a constitution, the laws that a nation adopts and the behavior of its citizens toward minorities. Yet the United States failed to recognize racism when the American delegation walked out of the recent U.N. World Conference Against Racism in sympathy with Israel. Significantly, it was the only country in the world to do so.

Nice to meet you Mystic2311 . Good to know that not everyone on this board pro-semitic.

I have said it before here. If anyone in the middle east should be invaded, it is Israel. They pose a much larger threat to the rest of the world than Iraq. It is a threat to the Arab world though and they don't garner much respect around these parts.

milroyj

02-27-2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
A stupid move? A group of terrorists murders 200 people and you call it a stupid move? I suppose you think Osama made a stupid move when he killed 2800 people at the WTC (if you believe it, which I don't).

So tell us, mystic2311, just who perpetrated 9/11? Space aliens? The Boogey-Man? Screaming Mimis? oh wait, here's a thought, maybe, just maybe, it was the Mossad! The Jews did it! You know, all those darn Jews stayed away from work in the WTC that day, right?

Ugh. Anything you have said, and probably anything you will say going foward, is being summarily dismissed, by most people, because of such an ignorant post.

tomndebb

02-27-2003, 11:55 PM

The interior ministry uses ethnic compositon in citizenship issues. Cite?

milroyj

02-27-2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Hank Fescue
Nice to meet you Mystic2311 . Good to know that not everyone on this board pro-semitic.

And being anti-semitic is so much better, right?

edwino

02-28-2003, 12:17 AM

Bzzt about the Interior Ministry using ethnicity. If Yassir Arafat converts to Judaism tomorrow, and gets an Orthodox rabbi to sign off on him, and claims Right of Return the day after, he is as much a citizen of Israel as Ariel Sharon. There is no Jewish ethnicity, in the true sense of the word. There is a shared tradition amongst Jews, but tradition has nothing to do with ethnicity. Travel to Israel someday, and you will find a very multiethnic society. With Ethiopian Jews and the "Black Hebrews" and Yemenite Jews and Russians and even a smattering of Cochin Jews from India and Jews from China and Japan, along with the Arab Jews, Sephardim, and Ashkenazim makes for quite the rainbow.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 02:57 AM

Wazzup Hank!?! Nice to meet you too. So far there are only 3 rational people on SDMB, you, me and a guy named 2 thick. Everybody else is brainwashed imperialist capitalist pro-zionist shills. This place is like a circle jerk of ingrown toenails echoing each others insipid shallow analysis like a bunch of retarded ducks. There I said it. We should start our own discussion board called The Twisted Dope--Coz the Real World is too Complicated for these Straight Dopes to Figure Out.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by milroyj
So tell us, mystic2311, just who perpetrated 9/11? Space aliens? The Boogey-Man? Screaming Mimis? oh wait, here's a thought, maybe, just maybe, it was the Mossad! The Jews did it! You know, all those darn Jews stayed away from work in the WTC that day, right?

Ugh. Anything you have said, and probably anything you will say going foward, is being summarily dismissed, by most people, because of such an ignorant post.

The ignorance is all yours, dipshit. Do you have evidence that Osama Ben Laden perpetrated 9-11? If so you should put in your resume to the FBI and take Bob Mueller's job. He has publicly admitted that he has no such evidence.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Beagle
This Jewish ethnicity stuff is all interesting and new to me, for the most part.

Does any of this apply to Mr. Cohen? The guy who mystic said could not form rational thoughts because of his pro-Semitism. Keep in mind that Mr. Cohen was arguing a tangential point dealing with the compostition and funding of the anti-war movement, not the sacredness of the Holy Land or anything like that.

I think Poland - in part for personal family reasons - should be free from Communist domination. Am I still capable of forming a rational opinon on European economic policy, for example? Meaning, of course, my opinons on Poland do not preclude that, correct?

This would be the revisionist view of the Six Day War pushed by the Arabs who were amassing for an attack, got surprised, and lost, right?

This kills me, because I used to rip on Israel all the time. I realized how imbalanced my view was. Now, here I am arguing on this side. Long strange trip, etc...

If you mean by revisionist that the truth is finally coming out. The truth is, Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 and in 1967. Any justification for the attack is bullshit. How do you know the Egyptians were amassing for an attack? Do not the military forces of a country have the right to be inside the borders of that country? You believe any bullshit Zionist propaganda. An attack is an attack. In 1974, Israel was attacked. In the other wars, Israel was the aggressor. Where do you think the current Bush policy of pre-emptive strike on Iraq comes from? It is an Israeli policy. Even Hitler, when he wanted to invade Poland, had his soldiers dress up in Polish army uniforms and attack a radio station. Even Hitler recognized that you need a valid excuse to attack a country. The Israelis have gone beyond that.

Michael Ellis

02-28-2003, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Everybody else is brainwashed imperialist capitalist pro-zionist shills.

Yeah mystic, that's the ticket. You're right, everyone else is wrong.

Skip

02-28-2003, 06:08 AM

Hank Fescue:"Most notable of these prejudicial practices is the ban against Palestinians serving in the Israel Defense Forces. "

Uh, bullshit. Non-Jews are not required to do compulsory miliatary service. However there are still Muslims and Christians who voluntarily enlist. From [url=http://www.jewishsf.com/bk020118/i17.shtml]this article[/b]:
Through the years, however, the IDF has allowed Muslim and Christian Arabs to enlist on a volunteer basis..

Skip

02-28-2003, 06:48 AM

mystic2311:The truth is, Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 and in 1967. Any justification for the attack is bullshit. How do you know the Egyptians were amassing for an attack?

Well besides closing the Straits of Tiran and Aqaba to Israeli shipping (basically an act of war in itself)...

But here are some speeches from Nasser before the war started.

From March 8 1967:

We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.
Mind you that's after then Foreign Minister Golda Meir had asked to meet with Arab leaders to negotiate a settlement. Yeah those Israelis are just too darn warlike

After Nasser ordered the United Nations Emergency Force to leave the Sinai (where they were acting as a buffer) he said this on May 18 1967:

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.
Truly words of peace and not a hint of aggression.

On May 20th Syrian Defence Minister chimed in with

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.
Notice that 'initiate the act of liberation itself' part.

Once the blockade was up Nasser continued with more threatening speeches. On May 27th he said

Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight..

The next day he said

We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.

King Hussein then stepped in to the fray. On May 30 he stated:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq also stated:

The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map.
Emphasis mine.

Of course along with all of this talk Arab armies were massing on the borders of Syria and Egypt. Approximately 250 000 troops were mobilised (half in the Sinai who were moved in on 1967) and more than 2000 tanks and 700 aircraft were made ready for the invasion.

Here's Egypts statement on the mobilisation of troops and their movement into the Sinai (you know, towards Israel) that they issued on May 15th 1967:

But, after considering all the possibilities, we decided to take a firm stand against the Israeli military threats and intervene immediately in case of any aggressive action taken by Israel against Syria...

The following orders have been issued:

1. Mobilization of the armed forces;

2. Raising the level of preparedness to full alert for war, beginning 14.30, 14 May 1967;

3. The formations and units indicated by the operation plans will move from their present stations to their appointed grouping areas;

4. The armed forces will be at full alert to carry out their battle assignment on the Israeli front according to developments in the situation...

MEBuckner

02-28-2003, 07:40 AM

Do you have evidence that Osama Ben Laden perpetrated 9-11?
Here ya go, dipshit:
Originally from Transcript of Usama Bin Laden videotape (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-video.html) on the website of the Federation of American Scientists (http://www.fas.org)

(Transcript and annotations independently prepared by George Michael, translator, Diplomatic Language Services; and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, Arabic language program coordinator, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. They collaborated on their translation and compared it with translations done by the U.S. government for consistency. There were no inconsistencies in the translations.)

In mid-November, Usama Bin Laden spoke to a room of supporters, possibly in Qandahar, Afghanistan. These comments were video taped with the knowledge of Bin Laden and all present....

Usama Bin Laden: Those youth who conducted the operations did not accept any fiqh in the popular terms, but they accepted the fiqh that the prophet Muhammad brought. Those young men (...inaudible...) said in deeds, in New York and Washington, speeches that overshadowed all other speeches made everywhere else in the world. The speeches are understood by both Arabs and non-Arabs–-even by Chinese. It is above all the media said. Some of them said that in Holland, at one of the centers, the number of people who accepted Islam during the days that followed the operations were more than the people who accepted Islam in the last eleven years. I heard someone on Islamic radio who owns a school in America say: "We don't have time to keep up with the demands of those who are asking about Islamic books to learn about Islam." This event made people think (about true Islam) which benefited Islam greatly....

UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for....

UBL: We were at (...inaudible...) when the event took place. We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5:30 p.m. our time. I was sitting with Dr. Ahmad Abu-al-((Khair)). Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington. The news continued and no mention of the attack until the end. At the end of the newscast, they reported that a plane just hit the World Trade Center....

UBL: The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.

UBL: (...inaudible...) then he said: Those who were trained to fly didn't know the others. One group of people did not know the other group. (...inaudible...)

elf6c

02-28-2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Wazzup Hank!?! Nice to meet you too. So far there are only 3 rational people on SDMB, you, me and a guy named 2 thick. Everybody else is brainwashed imperialist capitalist pro-zionist shills. This place is like a circle jerk of ingrown toenails echoing each others insipid shallow analysis like a bunch of retarded ducks. There I said it. We should start our own discussion board called The Twisted Dope--Coz the Real World is too Complicated for these Straight Dopes to Figure Out.

Ahh isn't that just heartbreaking- the bigot doesn't like us.

Keep ranting about "the Jews" maybe you can draw a few more bigots for indentification.

Feel free to leave at any time-- some has already started a message board for you- its called Stormfron-t (typo intentional) you will fit in real well.

:mad:

zev_steinhardt

02-28-2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Palestine was actually an arbitrary choice for a Jewish state; the Brits were going to send them to Madagascar. Uganda and Argentina were other alternate sites.

Sure. Everyone knows that for centuries (until 1948) Jews had always longed to return to their Ugandan homeland and that whenever they prayed (until 1948 that is), they always faced Kampala.

Zev Steinhardt

Captain Amazing

02-28-2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Sure. Everyone knows that for centuries (until 1948) Jews had always longed to return to their Ugandan homeland and that whenever they prayed (until 1948 that is), they always faced Kampala.

My favorite part of the bible is when, even after Moses parts Lake Victoria to lead the Jews to freedom, they build a golden chimpanzee to worship, and G-d punishes them by making them wander through the mountain highlands for 40 years.

Estilicon

02-28-2003, 10:31 AM

MEBuckner do you realize the futility of what you just did? You wasted precious electrons trying to convince someone that can't be convinced. After all everyone in this planet is aware of Osama's confession the only people that don't believe in them are fanatics.

Palestine was actually an arbitrary choice for a Jewish state; the Brits were going to send them to Madagascar. Uganda and Argentina were other alternate sites.

Argentina? Cite? of course we are not the most powerfull country in the world but we are no Palestine. Any attemp to create a new Israel in our country would have been a very short and bloody one IMHO

tomndebb

02-28-2003, 10:44 AM

Argentina? Cite? The British never envisaged a plan to send Jews to Argentina. What mystic2311 was referring to (but got mostly wrong as it gets most of its facts wrong) is that among the early Zionist leaders, there were discussions of where they should attempt to establish a refuge. At the time of those discussion, the Ottoman Empire was obviously beginning to break up and the political situation was seriously unsettled, so one faction of the Zionists proposed that they look into Argentina (a moderately stable location in a temperate climate, far from European weapons and prejudices).

The advocates for Palestine won that discussion, and with the post-WWI breakup of the Ottoman Empire, that choice was confirmed, in their opinion, as the most workable.

Hank Fescue

02-28-2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by tomndebb
Cite?

You can't be serious here Tom. You obviously know enough about this subject that when asking for a cite that the interior ministry uses etnic criteria for citizenship you are just being a dick head. There have been changes back and forth within the ministry depending on who was in power and the climate of immigration. There have been many court cases that dealt with nothing other than determining the ethnic make up of a person applying for citizenship and whether or not they were "Jewish enough" to have right of return. Its all on the books Tom . Here are a few cites for you that demonstrate the use of ethnicity in Israeli immigration.

Compare then "racist," "xenophobic," intolerant Germany or Austria with Israel. What triggered the Times article was recently published figures showing that during the first three months of 1999 non-Jews outnumbered Jews–55 percent to 45 percent–among immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Panic seized the Israeli body politic. Non-Jews were acquiring too much political clout. "The loopholes in the law must be closed,’’ thundered Rahamim Malul, a lawmaker from the religious Shas party recently, "so that the state will not turn into a country where a large percentage of its citizens are gentiles."

And the loopholes are being closed. Immigration policy is increasingly restrictive. Many immigrants are unable to marry, since Orthodox rabbis (who alone are authorized to perform weddings in Israel) refuse to officiate at what they view as mixed-marriage ceremonies. An Israeli who wishes to marry a non-Jew must leave the country to marry. And even then the Interior Ministry may not accept the validity of such a marriage. Recently, it declared that non-Jewish spouses could not enter Israel under the Law of Return, but had to apply under regular immigration rules.

http://www.antiwar.com/rep/szamuely15.html

The Law of Return
The Law of Return applies only to individuals belonging to the Jewish ethnic community.

The Law of Return, passed in 1950 and amended in 1954 and 1970, stipulates that "Every Jew has the right to settle in Israel as an oleh". This means that Jews have a preferential status, since Israeli nationality is automatically accorded to them on request and if their Jewish status is recognized by the authorities. Assistance is also accorded to help them settle in Israel.

Bolding mine.
http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/50/act/shvut/17.html

Again Tom, if you aren't making a joke, I will find it difficult to carry on a conversation with you. You don't think ethnicity has anything to do with Israel? Wake up and smell the coffee man.

Hank Fescue

02-28-2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by milroyj
And being anti-semitic is so much better, right?

Saying that anti semitic is better than pro semitic is like saying a crap in your pants is better than a crap in your panty hose.

I don't have much opinion on people of semitic ethnicity. They are people like anyone else. I do have an opinion on the policy of Israel towards ethnicity.

Captain Amazing

02-28-2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Estilicon
Argentina? Cite?

Actually, it wasn't the British who suggested Argentina, but Herzl. In his book "The Jewish State" he briefly considered the possibility Argentina might sell some of its land and that a new state could be constructed on the bought land. I don't think the possibily was explored very seriously, though.

Argentine is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, has a sparse population and a mild climate. The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from the cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has certainly produced some discontent, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the intrinsic difference of our new movement.

tomndebb

02-28-2003, 12:21 PM

Here are a few cites for you that demonstrate the use of ethnicity in Israeli immigration. You should take the time to actually read your sources. Your source referring to ethnicity explicitly defines that ethnicity two paragraphs later as religious background, not bloodline:The concept of "ethnic community" is a specifically Israeli notion which consists in the inscription on the individual's identity card of the religion to which he or she belongs: Jewish, Moslem, Christian or Druze. Nothing there about whether they have the right ancestors. You are grabbing a word that they use (in an admittedly odd way) and then trying to claim something that they explicitly deny.

Note, that in your first quoted piece, the issue was in regards to whether the Orthodox Rabbis would agree to preside over marraiages that would establish the religious heritage of the children. edwino's comment, above, has been supported by your citations.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 12:23 PM

I am amazed at the depths of ignorance on the SDMB. I never said the Brits were going to send the Jews to Argentina or Uganda. It was Herzl's idea:

http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/act/14zion.html

C. The Uganda Proposal - The Rift and its Consequences

Herzl reported to the six hundred delegates at the Zionist Congress on his journey to Russian as well as the failure of negotiations with both Turkey and Germany. Then he dropped his Uganda "bombshell". A furious argument erupted between supporters of this proposal and its opponents. A proposal was brought to send out a committee of inquiry to Uganda. 295 delegates voted in favor; 175 against; 132 abstained. The rift was unavoidable. Most of its supporters were from western Europe, while its opponents were the Russian Zionists [including the Kishinev contingent]. The Russian Zionist leaders accused their west European colleagues, and particularly Herzl, of not understanding the terrible tragedy taking place in eastern Europe. Weizmann [later, the first President of the State of Israel] said they had not understood that, "Russian Jewry, with all its suffering, is not prepared to translate its dreams and longings for the land of their fathers to any other location."

The leader of the "nays" was Dr. Yehiel Chlenov, who maintained that Herzl's victory would herald the downfall of the Zionist movement. At the height of the furious debate, many of the dissenters to the proposal left their seats, wept openly, fainted or sat on the floor as a sign of mourning. There was serious concern that the Zionist movement had come to the end of the way. Herzl now appreciated the force of the opposition and the only way open to him was that of reconciliation. In his last addreess to the Congress, he reiterated that Uganda was only a temporary solution, raised his right hand and vowed: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning."

The Uganda Proposal demonstrated that Herzl failed to understand the depths of belief in Zionism, in particular among the Russian Zionists [and despite the fact that it was intended to resolve the situation of Russian Jewry.]

Herzl, after the failure of the Uganda Proposal, was a broken man. Over the seven years he had led the Zionist movement, his health had deteriorated; after "Uganda", there was a further deterioration. Nevertheless, he continued his efforts towards the ultimate goal and traveled to meet the Pope and the King of Italy. In July 1904, he died of heart disease.

If you morons would actually read what I write instead of spitting out these knee-jerk reactions, you might appear less foolish. Yo Zev, do some research before you embarass yourself further.

Eat shit, Tomndebb....you are the one who gets the facts wrong. I demolished you about the Hawaiian overthrow on that other thread, I noticed you slithered out of there with no further comments.

BTW, Herzl's vision for Israel extends from "the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates River." Obviously, pro-Zionist hawks like Perle and Wolfowitz are tricking Americans into fighting a Zionist war of aggression in Iraq.

zev_steinhardt

02-28-2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311

If you morons would actually read what I write instead of spitting out these knee-jerk reactions, you might appear less foolish. Yo Zev, do some research before you embarass yourself further.

Yo, mystic2311, I'm well aware that the Uganda idea was one that was floated by Herzl and co. I was, however, pointing out that your assertion that the Jews picked the Middle East totally arbitrarily is dead wrong. Simply because Herzl was willing to consider one area hardly means that the Jews never had any connection to the area that they did settle and just chose it "arbitrarily" (as if they just closed their eyes, pointed to a map picked a spot).

Zev Steinhardt

tomndebb

02-28-2003, 12:43 PM

Y'know, lying about what you said in the very thread where you posted it does not make you look very good:
Originally posted by mystic2311
Palestine was actually an arbitrary choice for a Jewish state; I never said the Brits were going to send the Jews to Argentina or Uganda.the Brits were going to send them to Madagascar. Uganda and Argentina were other alternate sites.

You have already had to backpedal on the "Madagscar" nonsense, but then you lied and claimed that the Brits were going to send "the Jews" to Mauritius when the Brits were merely refusing immigration to one small group of Displaced Persons, not setting up an entire policy of migration or transport.

tomndebb

02-28-2003, 12:48 PM

Y'know, lying about what you said in the very thread where you posted it does not make you look very good:

[i]Originally posted by mystic2311
I never said the Brits were going to send the Jews to Argentina or Uganda.Palestine was actually an arbitrary choice for a Jewish state; the Brits were going to send them to Madagascar. Uganda and Argentina were other alternate sites.

You have already had to backpedal on the "Madagscar" nonsense, but then you lied and claimed that the Brits were going to send "the Jews" to Mauritius when the Brits were merely refusing immigration to one small group of Displaced Persons, not setting up an entire policy of migration or transport.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 02:51 PM

I said "Uganda and Argentina were other alternate sites." I did not say that the Brits were trying to send the Jews to Uganda and Argentina. You inferred that because the previous sentence said something about the Brits. You assumed that the Brits were the perpetrators of the second action. I knew, as I assumed most people would know, that the Zionists chose Uganda and Argentina as alternate sites. It doesn't matter whose idea it was; my point was that the choice of Israel as a Zionist state is arbitrary. I still stand by that point. Why would Herzl be so passionate about going to Uganda? I believe this casts doubt on the nation that Israel is a holy Jewish state. It is not, it is simply a political hijacking of a great religion, Judaism. Otherwise, why would Jews be burning the Israeli flag?

http://www.netureikarta.org/sttmnt26feb02.htm

This also shoots down your unfounded notion that I am a bigot. I am pro-Jew but anti-Zionist. BTW, Arabs are semites too, so how come Americans that hate Arabs are not called anti-Semites? The Israeli Defense Forces are anti-Semitic, since they murder Palestinians.

The whole anti-Semitism issue has nothing to do with bigotry, it is about political correctness. When I offer rational and legitimate criticism of Zionist policies, I am called an anti-Semite. When I offer rational and legitimate criticisms of American policies, I am called anti-American. How come Americans that hate the French for irrational reasons are not called anti-French?

The purpose of labeling someone an anti-Semite is to suppress dissent, and to inhibit critical thinking. It won't work on me, but it obviously has worked on the rest of you (except for Hank).

Hank Fescue

02-28-2003, 03:08 PM

One of the more prolific posters here was quick to call me anti semitic the very first time I mentioned Israel here. It is a knee jerk and nothing more. It is used just as Mystic said, to discount rational discussion of anything that might cast a poor reflection on Israel.

Tom , your assertion that ethnicity plays no part in Israeli internal ministry and immigration is nothing short of ignorant. You obviously know the facts and choose to ignore them. The right of return laws are based upon your ethnic and religious characteristics and nothing else. I won't try to persuade you furthter. I don't think you are ready to face the truth.

The idealism of the Zionist pioneers has faded, but alia (in Hebrew, ascending to the promised land), which is its raison d'être, continues. Of course, Israel is not the only county to have immigrants. But it is the only one to confer nationality automatically on a single category of people: Jews. The Law of Return, adopted in 1953, is founded on the rabbinical definition whereby "Whosoever is born to a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism is a Jew". The ultra-orthodox claim that this conversion must take place according to their own definition of religious law (Halacha), thereby excluding all the conservative, liberal and reform synagogues to which two-thirds of the faithful across the diaspora belong - and as many as 90% in the United States.

"whosoever is born to a Jewish mother". You say it doesn't havge anything to do with bloodline? Wake up and smell the coffee man.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 04:09 PM

Thanks for presenting that evidence, ME Buckner. I won't call you a dipshit, but I will say that you are amazingly gullible. First of all, that tape would be inadmissible in a court of law because it is hearsay. Secondly, the chain of custody has not been established. Thirdly, reasonable doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the tape. Be real, man, it doesn't even look like Osama! Compare the two images of Osama here:

http://www.rense.com/general18/face.htm

And Osama has denied involvement in the attacks. Why would he deny it, since it would make him a hero in the Islamic world?

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=2392&TagID=2

If that is your only evidence, then guess what, Osama would be acquitted. Do you have any real evidence?

I am amazed that, on a discussion board that is supposed to be the paragon of skepticism and critical thinking, so many people can be so gullible, to accept the authenticity of the tape without question. Imagine if I release a tape showing George Bush snorting coke and laughing about how he pulled off the 9-11 attacks, don't you think it would be examined critically? Americans are falling for the biggest hoax of all time.

Even the FBI doesn't believe that Osama did 9-11. Read his rap sheet here:

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terubl.htm

"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

No mention of 9-11.

Bob Mueller admitted they have no evidence linking the 19 hijackers to 9-11:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/051302/FBI_Admits__No_Evidence_/fbi_admits__no_evidence_.html

The defense rests.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 04:15 PM

Good article about Jewish terrorism:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0151/vest.php

Oy McVey!

edwino

02-28-2003, 04:22 PM

mystic:
How does a discussion of alternatives delegitimize Israel? Your own cite showed that when Hertzl brought up Uganda, it nearly tore the Zionist movement in two, and that considerable energies were devoted to healing that rift. And that Hertzl himself quoted the "I forget thee O Jerusalem" line. Don't understand. Please enlighten.

Hank Fescue: You said
Ethnicity is of utmost importance to the state of Israel in determining its populace.It all really depends on how you define ethnicity. If you define "Jewish" to be an ethnicity, then sure Israeli immigration laws revolve around ethnicity. But, you have to preface that definition because anybody on the planet can then become a member of the Jewish ethnic group, lineage or not. This is different from any other ethnic group I can think of; as much as I want I can't become a Filipino or a Bosnian Serb. You also ignore the fact that non-Jews can also immigrate to Israel and become citizens, with full rights as Israelis. And that Israeli Arabs (who are predominantly Christian and Muslim, although there are other sects like Samarians and Druze) have full rights as Israelis, minus compulsory Army service.

Yes, Jews are guaranteed citizenship. No, Israel does not deny these rights to others solely on ethnicity (using your definition). Yes, Israel works hard to keep Israel a Jewish state (here we go with the raison d'etre again) but non-Jews in Israel are given far more rights than non-Hashemites in Jordan, non-Kuwaitis in Kuwait, non-Saudis and Saudi Arabia, and so on and so forth. So how exactly does this delegitimize the state of Israel?

Hank Fescue

02-28-2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by edwino
[B
It all really depends on how you define ethnicity. If you define "Jewish" to be an ethnicity, then sure Israeli immigration laws revolve around ethnicity. But, you have to preface that definition because anybody on the planet can then become a member of the Jewish ethnic group, lineage or not. This is different from any other ethnic group I can think of; as much as I want I can't become a Filipino or a Bosnian Serb. You also ignore the fact that non-Jews can also immigrate to Israel and become citizens, with full rights as Israelis. And that Israeli Arabs (who are predominantly Christian and Muslim, although there are other sects like Samarians and Druze) have full rights as Israelis, minus compulsory Army service.

Yes, Jews are guaranteed citizenship. No, Israel does not deny these rights to others solely on ethnicity (using your definition). Yes, Israel works hard to keep Israel a Jewish state (here we go with the raison d'etre again) but non-Jews in Israel are given far more rights than non-Hashemites in Jordan, non-Kuwaitis in Kuwait, non-Saudis and Saudi Arabia, and so on and so forth. So how exactly does this delegitimize the state of Israel? [/B]

Edwino , I have not said that the state of Israel is deligitimazed by any of these things. Your tactic reeks.

Comparing Israel to Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is really cool too man. That makes everything allright. Do you think racism in the US is OK because it is much worse elsewhere in the world? That is a logical flaw in your reasoning.

The only point I am making is that ethnicity is paramount in the law of Israel. Anyone in the interior ministry of Israel will tell you that outright. They don't make a secret of it. Why are you guys getting your nuts in a wad over it? It is the truth.

Mtgman

02-28-2003, 04:51 PM

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 05:00 PM

Edwino,
A man tells a woman, "You are my one true love, will you marry me?" The woman says yes. "The man says, OK, great, but there are these other 3 women I am considering marrying, I'll get back to you."

Is the woman de-legitimized? No. The man is de-ligitimized.

Israel is not de-ligitimized. Zionism is de-ligitimized.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 05:08 PM

Edwino, please tell me your assessment of the Jews around the world who are burning the Israeli flag in protest of the Israeli government's policies toward Palestinians.

Are these Jews anti-Semitic?

There was a French guy named Bourrisson who denied the Holocaust happened, and was rightfully castigated. Noam Chomsky said in relation to this that if you really believe in free speech, you must support the right of others to say things that you vehemently disagree with. For stating this reasonable proposition, Chomsky was called anti-Semitic. This is covered in the film, Manufacturing Consent. This is what I am talking about, using the label anti-Semitic inappropriately to marginalize those people you disagree with.

Captain Amazing

02-28-2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Israel is not de-ligitimized. Zionism is de-ligitimized.

How so? Zionism is just the belief that there should be a Jewish state. Israel was established by Zionists as that Jewish state. You can't really say that Israel is legitimate but Zionism is illegitimate, because Zionism was the founding ideology of the State of Israel.

Captain Amazing

02-28-2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Noam Chomsky said in relation to this that if you really believe in free speech, you must support the right of others to say things that you vehemently disagree with. For stating this reasonable proposition, Chomsky was called anti-Semitic.

Except that's not what Chomsky said. Chomsky said, in part,

I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work.

Claiming that there are no "anti-Semitic implications" in Holocaust denial is, at the very least, extremely naive.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
How so? Zionism is just the belief that there should be a Jewish state. Israel was established by Zionists as that Jewish state. You can't really say that Israel is legitimate but Zionism is illegitimate, because Zionism was the founding ideology of the State of Israel.

Really? Ask these people:

http://www.ukar.org/jewsnot1.shtml

Beagle

02-28-2003, 05:35 PM

mystic: You want to debate the CIA, KGB, Sabra, Shatila, the USS Liberty, Pollard, etc., fine. When you accuse anyone who debates you of being a tool of ZOG, CIA, the CIA controlled ABC, Mossad - or whatever - reaction pretty much like this thread is almost sure to be the result.

You obviously haven't hung around long enough to see one of december's Israel threads. Hell, offhanded comments. Accusations of board bias for Israel only make you look uninformed.

But, don't expect people to jump on the anti-pro-Semitism bandwagon. Not many Dopers defending the Palestinian people or their right to self-determination want to touch that one, I'm guessing.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
Claiming that there are no "anti-Semitic implications" in Holocaust denial is, at the very least, extremely naive.

I disagre, it is actually quite a sophisticated position. Here is something else Chomsky said,

As Noam Chomsky said in defence of his decision to write a foreword in favour of the free speech of French holocaust revisionist Faurisson "It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers".

http://www.infotrad.clara.co.uk/antiwar/freespeech.htm

Sorry, it's Faurisson not Bourrisson.

tomndebb

02-28-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Hank Fescue
The Law of Return, adopted in 1953, is founded on the rabbinical definition whereby "Whosoever is born to a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism is a Jew". The ultra-orthodox claim that this conversion must take place according to their own definition of religious law (Halacha), thereby excluding all the conservative, liberal and reform synagogues to which two-thirds of the faithful across the diaspora belong - and as many as 90% in the United States. So, you present more evidence that Israel identifies Jewishness according to religious principles (which is where "born to a Jewish mother" originated)--and note that your quote includes converts to the religion--and also provide evidence that ultra Orthodox would deny that membership to the multitude of ethnic Jews living in the U.S. and the world, yet you continue to claim that Israel is basing its citizenship on some imaginary "ethnic" identity when you have already provided a link to the site that shows that their use of the word ethnic is not based on DNA or anything similar.

I can see why you would not want to try to persuade me further, since all your evidence supports my position.

Captain Amazing

02-28-2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Really? Ask these people:

http://www.ukar.org/jewsnot1.shtml

That actually supports my point. I said that you can't think the State of Israel is legitimate but Zionism is illegitimate. They seem to think, from their signs that both Zionism and the State of Israel are illegitimate. One of them's even holding a sign that says "Authentic Jews will Never Recognize the State of Isreal"

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
That actually supports my point. I said that you can't think the State of Israel is legitimate but Zionism is illegitimate. They seem to think, from their signs that both Zionism and the State of Israel are illegitimate. One of them's even holding a sign that says "Authentic Jews will Never Recognize the State of Isreal"

They are saying that the present state of Israel is illegitimate because it has been hijacked by Zionism. Another state of Israel was possible, one which was not infected with the virus of Zionism which is actually fascism and racism disguised as a religious movement. If the Zionists had decided to go to Uganda instead, we would be hearing about Ugandan suicide bombers and the country of Israel or Palestine would be a peaceful place where Jews and Muslims and Christians live in peace just like they do in Morocco and other places around the world.

milroyj

02-28-2003, 07:28 PM

BTW, Mystic, we are still waiting to hear your enlightened viewpoint on just who did perpetrate 9/11?

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by milroyj
BTW, Mystic, we are still waiting to hear your enlightened viewpoint on just who did perpetrate 9/11?

I don't know and I don't think anybody really knows. It is foolish to jump to conclusions about who the perpetrators are, unless you just want to be a lynch mob and satisfy your rough sense of justice. I doubt that it matters to most Americans who actually did it, they just want to kill somebody in revenge. We killed about 3000 innocent civilians in Afghanistan, so it's about even.

I still want to know how you can explain your theory that 19 Arab terrorists carried out the 9-11 attacks given the fact that 7 of them are still alive.

mic84

02-28-2003, 08:19 PM

mystic2311:
Jews around the world who are burning the Israeli flag in protest of the Israeli government's policies toward Palestinians.

Are these Jews anti-Semitic?

Most if not all of them probably aren't. Some might be. It doesn't matter.

One can be critical of Israel's policies without being anti-Semitic. As you note, many Jews(as well as other people) are.

You, on the other hand, are a model anti-Semite(in the standard meaning of the word)
Throughout this thread, you keep mentioning individual Jews(IIRC, Kestner, Stern, Haganah leadership), some of them rather morally corrupt, others morally corrupt only in your not-so-humble opinion, and concluding from the actions of these individual Jews that the Jewish state must be morally corrupt as well.
This is anti-Semitism. You are prejudiced against many Jews on the basis of the actions of a few(or, likely, on some other basis that you'd like to keep to yourself).

I'm a Jew, so it is personal. My only appropriate response to your posts is, in fact:
Fuck you, too.

mystic2311

02-28-2003, 08:41 PM

AAGGGGHHH! I have been tarred with the brush of anti-semitism...all I can do now to clear my name is convert to Judaism and join the Jews Against Zionism.

milroyj

02-28-2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
I don't know and I don't think anybody really knows. It is foolish to jump to conclusions about who the perpetrators are, unless you just want to be a lynch mob and satisfy your rough sense of justice. I doubt that it matters to most Americans who actually did it, they just want to kill somebody in revenge. We killed about 3000 innocent civilians in Afghanistan, so it's about even.

I still want to know how you can explain your theory that 19 Arab terrorists carried out the 9-11 attacks given the fact that 7 of them are still alive.

Now you are just being a fuckwad. Do you have cites for any of your bullshit?

Cite that most Americans just want to kill somebody in revenge?

Cite that 3000 innocent civilians were killed in Afghanistan?

Cite that 7 of the 19 hijackers are still alive? WTF? :rolleyes: :mad: :confused: ;j :wally :smack: :dubious:

mic84

02-28-2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
AAGGGGHHH! I have been tarred with the brush of anti-semitism...all I can do now to clear my name is convert to Judaism and join the Jews Against Zionism.

It is true that oftentimes reasonable people are accused of anti-Semitism without any justification. It's not the case with you.

If you see a flaw in my logic, be so kind to point it out. Otherwise, I stand by my diagnosis.

milroyj

02-28-2003, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by mic84
[B You are prejudiced against many Jews on the basis of the actions of a few(or, likely, on some other basis that you'd like to keep to yourself).[/B]

I agree, mic84, that our Alien "friend" has an agenda he wants to keep to himself, though he's not very good at it. Wonder what it could be? Hmm.

A Monkey With a Gun

02-28-2003, 09:47 PM

"pro semites"? Man, I wasn't even aware there was a league.

tomndebb

02-28-2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
I said "Uganda and Argentina were other alternate sites." I did not say that the Brits were trying to send the Jews to Uganda and Argentina. You inferred that because the previous sentence said something about the Brits. You assumed that the Brits were the perpetrators of the second action.You really want us to believe that is what you meant?Originally posted by mystic2311[/i]
Palestine was actually an arbitrary choice for a Jewish state; the Brits were going to send them to Madagascar. Uganda and Argentina were other alternate sites. The Madagascar plan was scrapped after Zionist terrorists blew up a ship full of Jews headed for Madagascar, killing about 250 Jews.

Given that you:
- confused the Great Britain with the Nazis when you brought up Madagascar,
- made no mention of any other agents or planners in your original statement,
- referred back to the Madagascar in the final sentence, so that both of your "British Madagascar" errors flanked the comments about Uganda and Argentina
and
- later presented a misleading claim that Britain's intentions to hold 3,500 refugees in Mauritius was an British plan to send all the Jewish people, there, while you were backpedaling on your Madagascar claims,

I am afraid that I consider it rather more likely that you were originally ascribing all those plans to the British and are now using a grammatical construction to distance yourself from your original error.

This would be consistent with your claims in your comments regarding Hawaii where you simply ignored all the evidence provided by multiple posters that the 1893 revolution (while supported by U.S. troops--a point I acknowledged I had forgotten) was actually a revolution by Hawaiian nationals, although the prime movers were descendants of immigrants from the U.S. I hardly "slithered out" of the thread: once multiple posters had established my facts as true, I simply refrained from returning to goad you into more intemperate (and false) replies.

edwino

02-28-2003, 10:54 PM

mystic
You do not understand the positions of the ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist people at all. It's not that they don't believe in Zionism, but they don't accept Zionism as a legitimate secular/nationalistic strategy. They believe that the state of Israel can only be founded once the messiah (moshiach) comes and the Third Temple is built. They focus on hastening the coming of the Messiah, and believe that the current state of Israel is illegitimate because there is no messiah.

You can bet that if you asked those people what would happen to the Muslims in the area once the messiah comes, you would get some pretty strange answers. And none of them would be that there would be a democratic state founded offering full citizenship to Arabs and Jews living peacefully side by side. You would probably get an answer like "G-d would move/kill all of the Arabs to give us the land promised to Abraham" (which includes both sides of the Jordan River). So don't go pointing to those people as an example of "enlightened Jews" or whatever.

You are better to point to the Jews who are bringing Arafat supplies, or the other Jews behind ultra-left movements throughout the world. But usually these people don't identify themselves as Jewish, so you are out of luck there too.

mystic2311

03-01-2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by mic84
It is true that oftentimes reasonable people are accused of anti-Semitism without any justification. It's not the case with you.

If you see a flaw in my logic, be so kind to point it out. Otherwise, I stand by my diagnosis.

There is a flaw in your logic.

mystic2311

03-01-2003, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by tomndebb
You really want us to believe that is what you meant?

This would be consistent with your claims in your comments regarding Hawaii where you simply ignored all the evidence provided by multiple posters that the 1893 revolution (while supported by U.S. troops--a point I acknowledged I had forgotten) was actually a revolution by Hawaiian nationals, although the prime movers were descendants of immigrants from the U.S. I hardly "slithered out" of the thread: once multiple posters had established my facts as true, I simply refrained from returning to goad you into more intemperate (and false) replies.

In answer to your first question, yes. My mistake is in subscribing to too many threads and not having enough time to be as verbose as I would like. Therefore, I often use words sparsely and concisely and perhaps do not express myself as clearly as I would like. Please accept my profuse apologies for any misunderstandings this has caused, but rest assured I never intended to imply that the British were sending Jews to Madagascar, Uganda, or Argentina.

As far as Hawaii goes, your understanding of Hawaiian history is grossly distorted. I have lived here for 15 years and it has taken me that long to understand the many nuances of Hawaiian history. You may look at it as a revolution of Hawaiian nationals, but it was basically a revolution of economic interests, primarily sugar and pineapple. You may think that sugar and pineapple have rights of political determination, but that would place you in bizarro land. In the real world, human beings, not corporations, have the fundamental right to determine their political destiny. If you ascribe to any other view, well, you are less than human, and should be reincarnated as a pineapple or a sucrose molecule.

mystic2311

03-01-2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by edwino
mystic
You do not understand the positions of the ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist people at all. It's not that they don't believe in Zionism, but they don't accept Zionism as a legitimate secular/nationalistic strategy. They believe that the state of Israel can only be founded once the messiah (moshiach) comes and the Third Temple is built. They focus on hastening the coming of the Messiah, and believe that the current state of Israel is illegitimate because there is no messiah.

You can bet that if you asked those people what would happen to the Muslims in the area once the messiah comes, you would get some pretty strange answers. And none of them would be that there would be a democratic state founded offering full citizenship to Arabs and Jews living peacefully side by side. You would probably get an answer like "G-d would move/kill all of the Arabs to give us the land promised to Abraham" (which includes both sides of the Jordan River). So don't go pointing to those people as an example of "enlightened Jews" or whatever.

You are better to point to the Jews who are bringing Arafat supplies, or the other Jews behind ultra-left movements throughout the world. But usually these people don't identify themselves as Jewish, so you are out of luck there too.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But how would your theological position be altered if it turned out that Osama ben Laden was the Messiah? Just wondering.

mystic2311

03-01-2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by milroyj
I agree, mic84, that our Alien "friend" has an agenda he wants to keep to himself, though he's not very good at it. Wonder what it could be? Hmm.

What are you, a conspiracy theorist?

mystic2311

03-01-2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by milroyj
Now you are just being a fuckwad. Do you have cites for any of your bullshit?

Cite that most Americans just want to kill somebody in revenge?

Cite that 3000 innocent civilians were killed in Afghanistan?

Cite that 7 of the 19 hijackers are still alive? WTF? :rolleyes: :mad: :confused: ;j :wally :smack: :dubious:

No bullshit here, fuckface...only the truth!

9-11 Hijackers still alive:
http://www.indymedia.no/news/2002/12/3934.php

3500 Civilians killed in Afghanistan:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1210-01.htm

Cite that most americans just want to kill somebody in revenge? Well, just chalk that up to my incisive insight into american psychology. Sometimes, you don't need cites, you just know it. It's called intuition.

mystic2311

03-01-2003, 03:17 AM

Any more questions? this is getting boring...you should pay me for all the history lessons I am teaching you....

edwino

03-01-2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But how would your theological position be altered if it turned out that Osama ben Laden was the Messiah? Just wondering. I have no theological position. And you clearly have utterly no understanding of the Jewish concept of messiah.

Skip

03-01-2003, 07:57 AM

mystic: Uh the hijackers are dead. Very dead. The people who had their identities stolen or who have names that are the same as the hijackers are still very alive. Even the FBI knows that some of the hijackers used stolen identities and aliases. From this 27th Sept 2001 press release (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm) naming the hijackers:

It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. The FBI asks anyone who has ever seen or has information about these individuals to immediately contact the nearest FBI office or the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 or submit information at WWW.IFCCFBI.GOV.

The reason why the FBI still uses those names for the hijackers (even though they were stolen from innocent people) is that they are trying to find witnesses who came into contact when with the witnesses when they were using these false names.

Skip

03-01-2003, 08:04 AM

'..came into contact with the witnesses...'
replace 'witnesses' with 'hijackers'

milroyj

03-01-2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by mystic2311
No bullshit here, fuckface...only the truth!

9-11 Hijackers still alive:
http://www.indymedia.no/news/2002/12/3934.php

Ah well, the truth is out. From your (ha, ha) cite, who perpetrated 9/11? Drum roll, please....

Duh! The Jews!

If that's what you really think, why didn't you come right out and say it? Not only are you a bigot of the lowest order, you're also a chicken-shit. Color me surprised, bigots usually are.

Now go away.

tomndebb

03-01-2003, 09:34 AM

You may look at it as a revolution of Hawaiian nationals, but it was basically a revolution of economic interests, primarily sugar and pineapple. You may think that sugar and pineapple have rights of political determination, but that would place you in bizarro land. Hardly more bizarre than believing that "economic interests" or "sugar and pineapple" are not actually persons who are creating and acting on situations. (And the persons acting to implement their economic desires were, in fact, 2d generation Hawaiian immigrants, backed, in two instances, by the power of the U.S. government.)

"Bizarro land"? Osama bin Laden was not connected to the WTC/Pentagon attacks? The attackers are still alive? The Jews created the attacks? The British wanted to ship all the Jews to Mauritius? Ashkenazim Jews are "really" Khazars? Sugar and pineapple economic interests are, somehow, able to act without any human intervention? Yep, bizzare.

mic84

03-01-2003, 02:25 PM

mic84
If you see a flaw in my logic(proving that mystic's an anti-Semite - my edit now), be so kind to point it out. Otherwise, I stand by my diagnosis.

mystic:
There is a flaw in your logic.

The Holy Grail[/i]] It's just a flesh wound!!![/Black knight from The Holy Grail]

Come to think of it, [b]mystic deserves his own Monty Python character.

Hank Fescue

03-01-2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb
So, you present more evidence that Israel identifies Jewishness according to religious principles (which is where "born to a Jewish mother" originated)--and note that your quote includes converts to the religion--and also provide evidence that ultra Orthodox would deny that membership to the multitude of ethnic Jews living in the U.S. and the world, yet you continue to claim that Israel is basing its citizenship on some imaginary "ethnic" identity when you have already provided a link to the site that shows that their use of the word ethnic is not based on DNA or anything similar.

I can see why you would not want to try to persuade me further, since all your evidence supports my position.

Tom, you are right. All of the research about ethnicity mentioned earlier in this thread is just for fun. No one really cares about that stuff, much less Israel, the Jewish state. Everyone has an equal shot at Israeli citizenship no matter who they are and Jewish ethnic ties won't help you any. Israel welcomes everyone Tom .

Glad you cleared all of that up for me Tom. :rolleyes:

tomndebb

03-01-2003, 03:04 PM

Israel welcomes everyone Tom. It seems that you really haven't read the link that you posted.
From the link originally posted by Hank Fescue (http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/50/act/shvut/17.html):It is possible to acquire Israeli nationality, even without being Jewish, if the conditions determined by the law are fulfilled: several years' residence in Israel, or birth to an Israeli father or mother, a pledging of loyalty to the State of Israel, etc.
which followedThe concept of "ethnic community" is a specifically Israeli notion which consists in the inscription on the individual's identity card of the religion to which he or she belongs: Jewish, Moslem, Christian or Druze. Alongside the rights and obligations incumbent on all citizens, the members of the different communities are subject to those applying to their specific groups (for marriage and divorce, for instance, they appear before their own courts).and preceded this explanatory remark:N.B.: 'Nationhood' or 'nationality' is closer to the Hebrew term ('LE'OM'). We have however employed the term 'ethnic community', since the concept of 'Le'om' does not correspond to the western connotation of 'nationality' and may lead to confusion.The authors of that English commentary on laws written in Hebrew chose to use the word "ethnicity" despite their acknowledgemnt that it is not a proper translation of Le'om.

Originally posted by Hank Fescue
All of the research about ethnicity mentioned earlier in this thread is just for fun. No one really cares about that stuff, much less Israel, the Jewish state.Not so much for fun as for the interest that many people have in history, anthropology, and human migrations. Given the tendency of various Jewish groups to maintain coherence through the years, they make a good target for people who wish to study migrations--regardless whether the researchers are Jewish or Gentile. It is, of course, probable that there would be considerably less interest if people such as the Nazi's or the proponents of the Khazars=Ashkenazim errors did not, themselves, take quite so much interest in the subject. Such research is hardly a significant portion of the Israeli budget.

Hank Fescue

03-01-2003, 05:14 PM

Tom , What is it about the mother / child relationship that eludes you? Israel grants citizenship based on who your mother is. Again, "Israel grants citizenship based on who your mother is". That is a true statement Tom . It is not difficult to understand. Based on whether or not your mom was Jewish you may or may not be qualified for citizenship. That is a consideration based wholely on your blood line. I don't refute that it is possible to acquire citizenship otherwise. Ethnicity is given preference though. Instead of playing the strawman game, could you address the issue of the mother / child relationship as it pertains to citizenship in Israel. If your mother is Jewish you are granted citizenship.

The definition of Jewish is quite arbitrary and swings wildly from case to case depending on who is controling the ministry at the time. At one point the ministry was declining to grant citizenship under law of return to children of mixed marriages. The ultra orthodox tend to be more concerned with ethnicity. At any rate, the policy leaves these matters to the sole discretion of the ministry and that is where the concern over ethnicity shows. When the more liberal are in power you might be Jewish enough, when the more conservative are in power, you might not.

Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality and (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

(snip)
In the State of Israel the right of a citizen classified in law as a "non-Jew" (namely, an "Arab") to partake in the political process is formally equal to the right of a citizen classified in law as a "Jew". Likewise the standing of a citizen classified in law as a "non-Jew" before the courts of law is formally equal to the standing of citizen classified in law as a "Jew".

On the other hand the right of a citizen classified in law as a "non-Jew" to the social and welfare services and the material resources of the State are NOT equal to those of a citizen classified in law as a "Jew", and, until the ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as High Court of Justice on the the case of Qaadan versus Qatzir in March 2000, such citizens of the state of Israel as are defined in law as "non-Jews" (namely, "Arabs") were denied access to 93 per cent of the territory of pre-1967 Israel administered by the Israel Lands Administration (ILA).

Tom , if you want to turn this into a debate of the meaning of ethnicity, I guesss you can.

From Meriam Webster:

Main Entry: eth·nic·i·ty
Pronunciation: eth-'ni-s&-tE
Function: noun
Date: 1950
: ethnic quality or affiliation

You want to get into the meaning of the word "affiliation"?

Hank Fescue

03-01-2003, 05:30 PM

N.B.: 'Nationhood' or 'nationality' is closer to the Hebrew term ('LE'OM'). We have however employed the term 'ethnic community', since the concept of 'Le'om' does not correspond to the western connotation of 'nationality' and may lead to confusion.

No it does not conform to the western notion of nationality. In fact, there is no such thing as "Israeli nationality". You are either Jewish national or Arab national. If people born in Israel were all considered Israeli nationals they couldn't rightfully discriminate against the Arabs. :eek:

E-Sabbath

03-01-2003, 05:47 PM

I just think it's very interesting to consider how OBL might lead the Jews to a new Kingdom and rebuild the Temple.

That's what the Messiah's supposed to do, right? I'm not sure how he's going to pull it off, but... hm. No, no, not seeing it.

mic84

03-01-2003, 06:12 PM

Hank, sorry, but you have very little idea of what you are talking about.
If, however, what you mean to show is that being an Arab in Israel somewhat sucks, I agree completely(well, unless we're talking about 18-year old males, in which case being an Arab is a big advatage, because Arabs aren't generally drafted)

Originally posted by Hank Fescue
[B]Tom , What is it about the mother / child relationship that eludes you? Israel grants citizenship based on who your mother is. Again, "Israel grants citizenship based on who your mother is". That is a true statement Tom . It is not difficult to understand. Based on whether or not your mom was Jewish you may or may not be qualified for citizenship. That is a consideration based wholely on your blood line. I don't refute that it is possible to acquire citizenship otherwise. Ethnicity is given preference though. Instead of playing the strawman game, could you address the issue of the mother / child relationship as it pertains to citizenship in Israel. If your mother is Jewish you are granted citizenship.

Generally, yes, but not always. If you converted from Judaism, you'll not be granted Israeli citizenship based on the law of return, your mother's religious and ethnic affiliation notwithstanding.
If you converted to Judaism, you have the right of return, your ethnicity notwithstanding.
BTW, not only Jews have the right of return. You have the right of return if just one of your grandparents is Jewish.

It would be reasonable to conclude that Israel's immigration laws are based on cultural affiliation rather than ethnicity.

The purpose of the law is another matter. Indeed, Israel wants ethnic Jews to immigrate to Israel. Indeed, Israel is a Jewish state. Is there anything wrong with it? Well, I dunno. Could be. I can only add that Israel's by far not the only nation state.

The definition of Jewish is quite arbitrary and swings wildly from case to case depending on who is controling the ministry at the time. At one point the ministry was declining to grant citizenship under law of return to children of mixed marriages. The ultra orthodox tend to be more concerned with ethnicity.

True, but so what? The law of return takes care of all the cases with ethnicity. It's true that the ulrta-orthodox dispute the
"Jewishness" of those who where converted by other streams, though.

tomndebb

03-01-2003, 06:23 PM

Ethnicity is given preference though. Instead of playing the strawman game, could you address the issue of the mother / child relationship as it pertains to citizenship in Israel. If your mother is Jewish you are granted citizenship. And if your mother is an Irish Celt or a Japanese who converts to Judaism, and you have no drop of Semitic blood in your veins, you are still considered to be a Jew because it is a religious rule, not an ethnic one. Take a look at the Falashas, some time.
No it does not conform to the western notion of nationality. In fact, there is no such thing as "Israeli nationality". You are either Jewish national or Arab national. If people born in Israel were all considered Israeli nationals they couldn't rightfully discriminate against the Arabs.Interesting that you are willing to accept Ms. Weil's statement that the word does not match "nationality," but you are unwilling to accept her declaration that she has used the word "ethnicity" in a non-standard way. (And that you ignore her clear presentation that there are four, not two, "ethnic communities" (to use her term).)

As to discrimination against non-(religious)-Jews in Israel, I have not claimed that it is a society of full equality of treatment in practice. There are, indeed, examples of discrimination against Muslims and Christians. However, you have failed to substantiate, in any way, your claim that Ethnicity is of utmost importance to the state of Israel in determining its populace. since your entire argument is based on a too-literal interpretation of Ms. Weil's explanation of "Right of Return" (in which you ignore her explanation that she is not using "ethnic" in the way that you have seized upon).
While the Uri Davis opinion (http://www.mideastjournal.com/israelsdemocracy1.html) which you quoted without attribution points up inequities in the practice of Israeli government, his personal gloss of the words '(namely, an "Arab")' is based on his perception of who is being harmed, and does not actually demonstrate that it is ethnic (as opposed to religious or political) discrimination that is occurring. Is there discrimination in Israel? Sure. The society is not perfect. The Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews have each made claims against the Ashkenazi political majority over the years and Arabs and Falashas (the immigrants from Beit Israel of Ethiopia), as well as other groups have also noted examples of active discrimination or neglect. However, the struggles for political power among different cultural groups within Israel still do not substantiate your claim that "ethnicity is of utmost importance to the state of Israel in determining its populace."

mystic2311

03-01-2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by milroyj
Ah well, the truth is out. From your (ha, ha) cite, who perpetrated 9/11? Drum roll, please....

If that's what you really think, why didn't you come right out and say it? Not only are you a bigot of the lowest order, you're also a chicken-shit. Color me surprised, bigots usually are.

Now go away.

I didn't say the Jews perpetrated 9-11. You said it, so that makes you an anti-Semite.

mystic2311

03-01-2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb
Hardly more bizarre than believing that "economic interests" or "sugar and pineapple" are not actually persons who are creating and acting on situations. (And the persons acting to implement their economic desires were, in fact, 2d generation Hawaiian immigrants, backed, in two instances, by the power of the U.S. government.)

As you will recall, the original argument was about whether or not the Hawaiian Kingdom was stolen at gunpoint, and I demonstrated that was indeed the case. You told me that claim was bogus, and I proved you wrong. Now you are basically agreeing with me in the above quote, when you admit that the revolution of the sugar/pineapple growers was backed by the power of the US government. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

milroyj

03-01-2003, 07:58 PM

No, your rather stupid "cite" did. You're even more chicken-shit than I thought was possible.

1. You stated Osama didn't perpetrate 9/11.

2. When called on it, you posted said link.

3. Your link says, DUH, the JEWS did it.

So you did say Jews were responsible for 9/11, but you're not willing to admit it. Chicken-shit. Anyway, what is your issue with Jews?

mystic2311

03-01-2003, 08:08 PM

Sorry, I can't find in my cite where it says that the Jews did 9-11. Where exactly is it, and please post the paragraph where it says that.

Michael Ellis

03-01-2003, 08:46 PM

Here ya go!

Now I'm really going to rock your faith in the false religion of 9-11. In February of 2000, Indian intelligence officials detained 11 members of what they thought was an Al Qaeda hijacking conspiracy. It was then discovered that these 11 "Muslim preachers" were all Israeli nationals! India’s leading weekly magazine, The Week, reported,...........

Beagle

03-01-2003, 09:35 PM

Duh! The Jews! (http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/Schmid/WhoBlewUpWTC.html) The Indymedia cite links directly here under the link "Who Blew Up the World Trade Center."Duh! The Jews!
Who best meets the qualifications? Duh! is the only response that comes to mind.
The only group of people I'm aware of who can meet the qualifications and who would have the motive are the Israelis and American Jews.

I can think of several scenarios. The least complex scenario that is that the Jews discovered where some of the Arab terrorists were living and installed a few microphones in their homes. They then began listening to the conversations.

One day the Jews hear the Arabs talk about flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. The first reaction of the Jews was laughter. Could the Arabs possibly be serious about such a wild stunt, they laughed? How could the Arabs possibly pull off something so difficult and bizarre? Surely the Arabs were daydreaming.

I doubt that the Jews believed the Arabs were serious. The conversations among the Jews was probably something like: The source goes on to explain the Jewish Joke Theory.

tomndebb

03-01-2003, 10:57 PM

As you will recall, the original argument was about whether or not the Hawaiian Kingdom was stolen at gunpoint, and I demonstrated that was indeed the case. You told me that claim was bogus, and I proved you wrong. Now you are basically agreeing with me in the above quote, when you admit that the revolution of the sugar/pineapple growers was backed by the power of the US government. Thanks for finally agreeing with me. I admitted, in that thread, having forgotten the role that the Marines had played in the 1893 revolt by the haoles. You have continued to insist that Hawaii was "stolen" while refusing to acknowledge that Hawaiians were among the "thieves."

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 12:48 AM

It would be reasonable to conclude that Israel's immigration laws are based on cultural affiliation rather than ethnicity.

What are you talking about exactly? You say the law is based on cultural affiliation? That is ethnicity man. Look it up.

If you converted to Judaism, you have the right of return, your ethnicity notwithstanding.

If you convert, you have joined the ethnic community of Judaism. You can now pass along this ethnicity through your blood by Israeli law.

The purpose of the law is another matter. Indeed, Israel wants ethnic Jews to immigrate to Israel.

That is all I am saying. Tom seems to imply that this is not the spirit of Israeli law. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself.

True, but so what? The law of return takes care of all the cases with ethnicity. It's true that the ulrta-orthodox dispute the
"Jewishness" of those who where converted by other streams, though.

Right. If you have a claim to ethnicity in the narrow sense of the word as I presume you to use it, meaning a true genetic link, your rights are above anyone else and not in dispute. Your gentetics are the only factor in consideration. Israel will give you citizenship be you a spy or murderer if you have a genetic claim.

And if your mother is an Irish Celt or a Japanese who converts to Judaism, and you have no drop of Semitic blood in your veins, you are still considered to be a Jew because it is a religious rule, not an ethnic one. Take a look at the Falashas, some time.

Tom , you seem to see a difference in religious and ethnic claims. Your ethnicity can be related to your religious affiliation. In either case, it is a bad deal. You think citizenship based on religious preference is somewhat better than ethnic or genetic markers? Either case is disturbing. Further, the law clearly allows for the children of Jews to be included. Converted mother or not, that is a claim based solely on your genetic make up.

However, you have failed to substantiate, in any way, your claim that
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity is of utmost importance to the state of Israel in determining its populace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure I have Tom . Jews are an ethnic group. Israel wants Jews as citizens. Most know this as truth.

tomndebb

03-02-2003, 12:59 AM

You think citizenship based on religious preference is somewhat better than ethnic or genetic markers? I have not made any judgement regarding the quality of Israeli laws. I have disputed your claim that the laws are ethnic in intent. You have now claimed that "ethnic" = "cultural", so you seem to want to use any definition you can to make the "ethnic" claim regardless of facts. Since Israel will admit the child born to a Polynesian mother who has converted to Judaism with the same alacrity that it admits a child with a clearly Ashkenazi mother who can trace her roots back 20 generations, they are obviously not looking for ethnic (genetic) qualifications, which was your original claim.

mic84

03-02-2003, 01:38 AM

Your gentetics are the only factor in consideration. Israel will give you citizenship be you a spy or murderer if you have a genetic claim.

Evidently, you're not familiar with the Israeli citizenship laws. I happen to be. What you write here is again not true(well, depends which spies you're talking about).

Evidently, you haven't read my post, or ignored what was convenient for you to ignore. (cf. my point about converting from Judaism)

Are you trying to win a polemic here, no matter what the facts are?
Well, you lost. Tough luck.

mic84

03-02-2003, 01:44 AM

Evidently, you haven't read my post, or ignored what was convenient for you to ignore. (cf. my point about converting from Judaism)
Hm, all I said applies to me as well. He didn't ignore the point, he just answered with such bullshit that I ignored it. Sorry about that.

mystic2311

03-02-2003, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
Here ya go!

That is not talking about 9-11, it is talking about an incident that happened in February 2000. Nice try, dipshit.

mystic2311

03-02-2003, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Beagle
Duh! The Jews! (http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/Schmid/WhoBlewUpWTC.html) The Indymedia cite links directly here under the link "Who Blew Up the World Trade Center." The source goes on to explain the Jewish Joke Theory.

I don't know where you found That Duh! The Jews site. I only posted the link to the Indymedia site which was about the 9-11 hijackers still being alive. I am not responsible for every embedded link in a cite that I post, other wise I am responsible for the whole internet.

The Indymedia site is only saying that Arabs did not do it. Why does that automatically imply that the Jews did it? For all I know, it could have been white supremacists or Basque separatists or Kazakh terrorists.

Since both Arabs and Jews are Semites, that makes you a double anti-Semite!

mystic2311

03-02-2003, 02:47 AM

American diplomat admits that Iraq war is all about Israel:

MOYERS: Tell me what you think about the arguments of one of those men, Richard Pearl, who is perhaps the most influential advocate in the President's and the administration's ear arguing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. What do you think about his argument?

WILSON: Well, he's certainly the architect of a study that was produced in the mid-'90s for the Likud Israeli government called "a clean break, a new strategy for the realm." And it makes the argument that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's been since expanded to include Iran.

MOYERS: So this was drawn up during the '90s…

WILSON: Right. During the '90s, absolutely.

MOYERS: By men outside of all this?

WILSON: Outside of all this, yeah.

MOYERS: And…

WILSON: Now, Richard Pearl's been outside of office since the Reagan years.

MOYERS: And this, you're saying that this has become a blueprint for the Bush Administration?

WILSON: Well, I think this is part of what has been the underpinning of the-- of the philosophical argument that calls for basically radically changing the political dynamics in the Middle East and…

MOYERS: To favor Israel?

WILSON: Well, to favor American national security interests and Israeli national security interests which are tied. I mean, we have…

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_wilson.html

mystic2311

03-02-2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by tomndebb
I admitted, in that thread, having forgotten the role that the Marines had played in the 1893 revolt by the haoles. You have continued to insist that Hawaii was "stolen" while refusing to acknowledge that Hawaiians were among the "thieves."

No, I just have a different definition of Hawaiian than you do. There is no sense arguing further about it, but you may be interested in the sort of legal issues that were brought up in Rice v. Cayetano regarding what is a Hawaiian.

zev_steinhardt

03-02-2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by mystic2311
I knew, as I assumed most people would know, that the Zionists chose Uganda and Argentina as alternate sites. It doesn't matter whose idea it was; my point was that the choice of Israel as a Zionist state is arbitrary. I still stand by that point. Why would Herzl be so passionate about going to Uganda? I believe this casts doubt on the nation that Israel is a holy Jewish state.

And I'm still calling you on your assertion that Israel was an "arbitrary choice."

So, what do you think? Everything written in the Bible about the Jews being in Israel thousands of years ago is false?

Even if you are an atheist and don't believe word one of the bible, are you still going to dismiss the archaelogical evidence of Jewish settlement during the times of the latter Davidic kings? Or did the Jews make that all up?

What about the proven historocity of the Hasmenoan kings and the Second temple, proving that Jews were there then? Or did the Jews make that up too?

What about the New Testament, Josephus, and other ancient historians who attest to the Jewish presence in Israel? Or did the Jews fabricate the entire thing then too?

What about Titus's conquest over the Jews of Jerusalem, which proves that the Jews have lived there then too? Or did the Jews build the Arch of Titus to fool everyone?

How about the continual Jewish presence in the area down to modern times? Or did we make that up too?

What about the fact that for thousands of years, Jews have been praying three times a day for a return to Israel and Jerusalem? Or do you believe we only started doing that in 1948 and that until then we were praying for a return to Kampala?

Yeah, I'm aware that Herzl was willing to consider other sites. So what? That doesn't negate the fact that the Jews have been in the area for thousands of years and have a cultural and historical tie to the land. To claim that the choice was arbitrary (as if we just picked it out of a hat) is sooooo far off the mark that if you truly believe that, then you are probably too far gone to continue having a rational discussion with.

Zev Steinhardt

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb
No. It is (or was) asserted by Koestler. No serious historian (and I would not saddle the popularist, Koestler, with that label), believes that the Ashkenazim are "descended" from the Khazars. Not only do the genetic studies argue against it, the actual historical records of the Jews of Central Europe argue against it. That the Khazars existed and that their nobles converted to Judaism has been long recognized. (There have been a few virulently anti-Jewish hatemongers who have pretended that the information was "suppressed"--and quoted articles in the Encyclopedia Hebraica to prove their point!) However, even granting that a few remnant Khazar/Jewish communities continued to exist among the Rus and a few others moved into the valley of the Danube after the destruction of Khazaria, there is simply no evidence that the documented movement of Jews eastward from the Germanic lands failed to occur.

And, of course, as edwino has pointed out, the ethnic background of any Jewish group is irrelevant to any discussion of the state of Israel.

So Tom , here you acknowledge the conversion of a sect of Jews that are now considered an ethnic group of Jews. You agree with me then. Conversion equals joining the ethnic community.

have not made any judgement regarding the quality of Israeli laws. I have disputed your claim that the laws are ethnic in intent. You have now claimed that "ethnic" = "cultural", so you seem to want to use any definition you can to make the "ethnic" claim regardless of facts. Since Israel will admit the child born to a Polynesian mother who has converted to Judaism with the same alacrity that it admits a child with a clearly Ashkenazi mother who can trace her roots back 20 generations, they are obviously not looking for ethnic (genetic) qualifications, which was your original claim.

I don't use any definition to make the ethnic claim. I use the generally accepted meaning. In the previous quote you admit that this group was converted. Do you consider them ethnic? When it works for you to use the broad definition you choose it, if the narrow definition works you use that. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Tom, lets get back to the "whosoever is born to Jewish mother". I want to hear your description of a childs relationship to its mother. You don't seem to acknowledge this concept as based on genetics.

tomndebb

03-02-2003, 12:53 PM

So Tom , here you acknowledge the conversion of a sect of Jews that are now considered an ethnic group of Jews. You agree with me then. Conversion equals joining the ethnic community. You don't seem to be reading my statements any better than you read your links that provided support for my position. The Khazars were an ethnic group [different from any other group of Jews when they converted. So ethnicity had nothing to do with their acceptance as Jews.

I have, however, not claimed that there is not a large group of Jewish people who may have an ethnic component, especially after a couple of thousand years of intramarriage. However, your claim is that Israeli law is based on ethnic composition and that is a false statement to which you adhere despite the information that you have posted.
I don't use any definition to make the ethnic claim. I use the generally accepted meaning. Then you are simply inventing the idea, since you have provided no evidence for your position.

You keep harping on the religious law of recognizing the child of a Jewish mother to be Jewish (while steadfastly ignoring the religious nature of that law). So tell me, what "ethnicity" (using the "common meaning" of genetics) is the child of an Ethiopian member of Beit Israel? What is the "ethnicity" of a child born to an Irish mother who has converted to Judaism?

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 01:04 PM

You keep harping on the religious law of recognizing the child of a Jewish mother to be Jewish

You know this is the law of Irsael and not just a religious one. You are bordering on dishonesty.

I don't use any definition to make the ethnic claim. I use the generally accepted meaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you are simply inventing the idea, since you have provided no evidence for your position.

I am inventing the idea of ethnicity? Look it up Tom . It is you using the most narrow definition in order to defend your statement that ethnicity has nothing to do with the state of Israel. Ethnicity has everthing to do with the state of Israel.

So tell me, what "ethnicity" (using the "common meaning" of genetics) is the child of an Ethiopian member of Beit Israel? What is the "ethnicity" of a child born to an Irish mother who has converted to Judaism?

You answer a question with a question? Why don't you answer the question yourself. In the eyes of Israel the child is a Jew by the fact that the child was born to Jewish mother. A distinction based on the childs genetics.

Skip

03-02-2003, 01:10 PM

You know this is the law of Irsael and not just a religious one. You are bordering on dishonesty.

Uhm, isn't it the law of Israel precisely because it is a Jewish law? What with Israel being a Jewish homeland and all? But Israeli law also is a superset of this. One can still become a citizen of Israel even if you aren't Jewish.

Captain Amazing

03-02-2003, 01:22 PM

Hank,

A bunch of countries give special consideration to members of certain ethnic groups in granting citizenship. Ireland does it, Germany does it, Italy does it. Why is it so terrible that Israel does it?

E-Sabbath

03-02-2003, 01:34 PM

So... Wait. Let me get this. Hank has now said that the child of an Irish woman and the child of an Ethopian woman are, thanks to their mother having been born or converted to Judiasm, genetically of the same race.

tomndebb

03-02-2003, 01:39 PM

Why is it so terrible that Israel does it? Hank did not merely claim that some consideration was given to ethnic identity. His claim is that Israeli law is based on it.

As to the whole "mother" red herring: A child is certainly the genetic product of its mother, however, for "ethnicity" (using his false claim that he is relying on the "generally accepted" definition), the child would need to have a common descent from a recognized "Jewish" ethnic group. The very fact that Israel uses the religious law and accepts any person born to a mother who was Jewish--even a convert, regardless of ethnic background--as its basis shows that his claim is simply false.

edwino

03-02-2003, 01:49 PM

tomndebb
There is no use of debating him on the ethnicity point. The definitions of the word ethnicity includes cultural and religious distinctions, probably because they were thinking about Jews. Hank is not using the common-sense, everyday definition of ethnicity that everyone in the rest of the world uses -- groupings based on common language or racial lines. Using the non-standard definition ("ethnicity"), I can define Muslim or Catholic as an "ethnicity" as opposed to just using Arab or Irish. As I stated earlier, there is a difference between these kinds of "ethnicities" and the "real" kind -- I can join the Muslim or Catholic "ethnicity" if I want to, but I couldn't join the Han Chinese or the Hmong or the Apache if I wanted to.

IMHO there is really no point in continuing a debate on this if the terms are so loosely defined. It makes the language rather meaningless. When Yemenites, Russians, Ethiopians, and Indians are of the same "ethnicity" then yeah, Israel bases its immigration laws on "ethnicity." But so do a bunch of other countries. In fact, most countries in the world have some representation of ethnicity into their laws. I mean even the good old USA -- if you are born to American citizen parents, you are eligibile for citizenship. John McCain was born in Panama to American parents but he is still eligible to run for the presidency. The Constitution specifies that only "natural-born" Americans are eligible for Presidency, and apparently being born in Panama to American parents is good enough.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079204/

mic84

03-02-2003, 02:10 PM

mystic posted:
Since both Arabs and Jews are Semites, that makes you a double anti-Semite!

[Black Knight from The Holy Grail having one leg and both arms chopped off] All right, we'll call it a draw. [/BK]

Alessan

03-02-2003, 02:23 PM

The simple truth is, that Israel accepts anyone who could potentially be persecuted for being Jewish. Since some antisemitism is religion based, and some antiemitismis raicially based, Israel accepts immigrants who can claim either Jewish faith or Jewish descent.

That's all.

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Alessan
The simple truth is, that Israel accepts anyone who could potentially be persecuted for being Jewish. Since some antisemitism is religion based, and some antiemitismis raicially based, Israel accepts immigrants who can claim either Jewish faith or Jewish descent.

That's all.

Thats right. Tom made the ridiculous statement that ethnicity has nothing to do with a discussion of the state of Israel. I think anyone with an honest take on the issue knows that is ridiculous.

Tom is also lying about what I have said. He has tried to misconstrue my words to say that Israeli law is based solely on that criteria. That is not my point. The point is that when saying ethnicity has no part in discussion of Israel, Tom is being an ignorant pro-semitic jack ass.

An ethnic connection by way of genetic proof is one of the easiest tickets to Israel. I have not said it is the root of all evil in the world. But it is the truth. Tom is informed enough about this subject that his claim of ethnicity having no bearing on the state of Israel is nothing short of a lie.

The definitions of the word ethnicity includes cultural and religious distinctions, probably because they were thinking about Jews. Hank is not using the common-sense, everyday definition of ethnicity that everyone in the rest of the world uses -- groupings based on common language or racial lines. Using the non-standard definition ("ethnicity"), I can define Muslim or Catholic as an "ethnicity" as opposed to just using Arab or Irish. As I stated earlier, there is a difference between these kinds of "ethnicities" and the "real" kind -- I can join the Muslim or Catholic "ethnicity" if I want to, but I couldn't join the Han Chinese or the Hmong or the Apache if I wanted to.

So you want to use the narrow definition? If you consider ethnic as a genetic term then I must ask: Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve or are we all part of the same evolutional pattern? Your use of the word that limits its use to genetic terms would make us all of the same ethnicity no matter what you believe in the theory of our origins. In either case we are all related. That is why ethnicity includes other factors. Those factors of culture and religion are the only things that seperate us. To consider that ethnicity does not pertain to culture, religion and affiliations is useless.

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
Hank,

A bunch of countries give special consideration to members of certain ethnic groups in granting citizenship. Ireland does it, Germany does it, Italy does it. Why is it so terrible that Israel does it?

It isn't so terrible that Israel does it. It is terrible that Tom knows they do it but denies it in the face of the truth. You don't have to convince me that Israel, Ireland or any other country uses ethnic croteria for legal purpose. Convince Tom . He is the one claiming otherwise.

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by E-Sabbath
So... Wait. Let me get this. Hank has now said that the child of an Irish woman and the child of an Ethopian woman are, thanks to their mother having been born or converted to Judiasm, genetically of the same race.

Define "Race".

Alessan

03-02-2003, 03:17 PM

I have to say, Hank, that if you don't stop using the phrase "pro-semite" - which implies that hating Jews as valid as supporting them - I'll be forced to go mideastern on your ass.

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 03:25 PM

I like the term "pro-semitic" to describe people that support Jews above other ethnicities.

Alessan

03-02-2003, 03:32 PM

Thn use some other term for it. "Jewish Nationalist", maybe. And be sure that you're very, very careful when you accuse someone of it. For instance, patriotism isn't a form of bigotry.

You're using a term which can only mean "pro-Jewish" as an insult, and that's pissing me off. A civil person wouldn't do that.

Mmm-kay?

edwino

03-02-2003, 03:42 PM

Hank, you really have no reading comprehension, do you? tomndebb has been taking you to task over this statement:
Ethnicity is of utmost importance to the state of Israel in determining its populace.which you made way back on page 2, in response to something I said about Israel not caring about the ethnicity of the Jews making aliyah. It is obvious that tomndebb and I are using the everyday definition of ethnicity, which generally revolves around area of origin and language groups and of which descent is a major factor. I have made it very clear that in my definition, one can not just pick an ethnicity and join it.

You are using a very different definition of the word -- I call it "ethnicity." You define Jewish as an "ethnicity", while I don't think many others in the world would. In fact, I think it smacks of dishonesty to claim that, based on a loose translation of a Hebrew word, Israel is being racist in its immigration policies. With my definition, one can't just pick and choose which ethnic group they would like to join and do it. I can become Catholic or Muslim, but I can't become Irish or Arab.

The confusion lies in the fact that the language is so muddled. "The Jewish race" or "Jewish ethnicity" are really not well thought out terms. Judaism is a religion and a shared tradition first and foremost, despite whatever anybody says. Like other religions and shared traditions, it is passed from generation to generation. But this doesn't make it an ethnicity.

Don't get tomndebb and me started on race. We have been down this road many many times. Race and ethnicity are social constructs with little or no basis in genetics, although they have quite a lot of descent implied within the definition.

edwino

03-02-2003, 03:45 PM

Why is it OK to use the term pro-Semitic to mean valuing Jews over everybody else and not use the term antisemitic to mean one who hates Jews? The term "antisemite" was coined to mean "one who hates Jews."

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Alessan
Thn use some other term for it. "Jewish Nationalist", maybe. And be sure that you're very, very careful when you accuse someone of it. For instance, patriotism isn't a form of bigotry.

You're using a term which can only mean "pro-Jewish" as an insult, and that's pissing me off. A civil person wouldn't do that.

Mmm-kay?

I am not about to stop using "pro-semitic" because it pisses you off. It is not an unreasonable term. I haven't directed it at you, yet.

Why is it OK to use the term pro-Semitic to mean valuing Jews over everybody else and not use the term antisemitic to mean one who hates Jews? The term "antisemite" was coined to mean "one who hates Jews."

If someone hates Jews I think anti-semitic is the pertfect term. It stands to reason that someone valuing Jews over others could be called pro-semitic.

Judaism is a religion and a shared tradition first and foremost, despite whatever anybody says. Like other religions and shared traditions, it is passed from generation to generation. But this doesn't make it an ethnicity.

Yes it does make it an ethnicity. As a matter of fact, shared religions and traditions passed from generation to generation are exactly what ethnicity is. I have said it several times now. Look it up.

Race and ethnicity are social constructs with little or no basis in genetics,

So what is the big argument here? This has been my contention all along. Why are you arguing with me and then reversing your use of the word?

Ethnicity is paramount in Israeli immigration law.

Michael Ellis

03-02-2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by edwino
Why is it OK to use the term pro-Semitic to mean valuing Jews over everybody else and not use the term antisemitic to mean one who hates Jews? The term "antisemite" was coined to mean "one who hates Jews."

Because they're using the "weasel" definition of anti-semite.

mystic2311

03-02-2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
Here ya go!

Furthermore, that incident mentions that the people involved were "Israeli nationals," not Jews. If I am not mistaken, an Arab can be an Israeli national. The Palestinians who did not flee the country after the 1948 war were offered Israeli citizenship. Hell, an Arab named Bishara is in the Knesset.

mystic2311

03-02-2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
Because they're using the "weasel" definition of anti-semite.

No you are using an inherently biased definition of Semite. Both Arabs and Jews ethnically are Semites, ne c'est pas? I mean, aren't they all descended from Abraham? The Jews have hijacked the term anti-Semite. Americans who hate Arabs are also anti-Semites. Americans who are racist toward Africans could be called anti-Hamites, I suppose.

This is similar to the way people from the United States of America have hijacked the term "American." Logically, people from both North America, Central America, and South America should all be called Americans. But "USAans" think that they are the only ones who deserve to be called Americans.

So this notion that Jews and Americans have that they are somehow special, is that narcissistic, racist, and just prejudiced?

edwino

03-02-2003, 04:24 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hank Fescue Yes it does make it an ethnicity. As a matter of fact, shared religions and traditions passed from generation to generation are exactly what ethnicity is. I have said it several times now. Look it up.
[/quote[
Would you define Episcopalian as an ethnicity? If you would, then we have no argument, just a vastly different concept of the word ethnicity.

milroyj

03-02-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
So this notion that Jews and Americans have that they are somehow special, is that narcissistic, racist, and just prejudiced?

No, but you are, especially the "racist" and "just prejudiced" part. Don't you have some white sheets to wash?

Skip

03-02-2003, 04:30 PM

mystic2311:Furthermore, that incident mentions that the people involved were "Israeli Nationals" not Jews. If I am not mistaken an Arab can be an Israeli national.
And from that same IndyMedia link it claims in big 36pt black letters across the screen: "The Arabs Are Not To Blame For WTC The Attack"
So if it was an Israeli, but not the Arabs (and therefore not Arab-Israelis) then I wonder who it could've been? The Druze perhaps?

mystic2311

03-02-2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by milroyj
No, but you are, especially the "racist" and "just prejudiced" part. Don't you have some white sheets to wash?

I have not said anything in this discussion that could be considered racist or prejudiced. I am simply trying to point out the inherent bias in the discourse about Jews and Arabs. Hank is the only here who understands my use of the term pro-semitic. You are the one who should be putting on the white sheet. You are like a white supremacist, who when accused of being pro-white by a black man, responds by calling the black man a racist.

edwino

03-02-2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
The Jews have hijacked the term anti-SemiteThe Jews, eh? Funny how a German anarchist named Wilhelm Marr (http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195040058.html) coined the term to replace the German Judenhass, or Jew-hatred, to give it a more "sophisticated" air.

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by edwino
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hank Fescue Yes it does make it an ethnicity. As a matter of fact, shared religions and traditions passed from generation to generation are exactly what ethnicity is. I have said it several times now. Look it up.
[/quote[
Would you define Episcopalian as an ethnicity? If you would, then we have no argument, just a vastly different concept of the word ethnicity.

No, I wouldn't consider Episcopalian as an ethnic group. As far as I know they don't use bloodline to determine who belongs to thier religion.

Judasim uses bloodline to determine who belongs to them. And please don't get into the convert arguement. I know you can be converted. That doesn't nullify the descent laws.

milroyj

03-02-2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
I have not said anything in this discussion that could be considered racist or prejudiced.

The cite you linked to, to back up your own arguement, was the "Duh The Jews" website. Can't get much more prejudiced than that.

Hank is the only here who understands my use of the term pro-semitic.

Translation: Hank is the only one here, out of 31,000 posters, who will publically support your obvious anti-Semitism. Kudos to you, :wally:

You are the one who should be putting on the white sheet. You are like a white supremacist, who when accused of being pro-white by a black man, responds by calling the black man a racist.

Utter nonsense. Who said anything about being pro-white?

zev_steinhardt

03-02-2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Hank Fescue
No, I wouldn't consider Episcopalian as an ethnic group. As far as I know they don't use bloodline to determine who belongs to thier religion.

Oh yeah? Ask the Episcopalian parents of an adorable one-year old if she is a member of the church.

Judasim uses bloodline to determine who belongs to them.

That's only one criteria (out of two).

And please don't get into the convert arguement. I know you can be converted. That doesn't nullify the descent laws.

Why not use it? It's a valid argument. If you can convert to the group, then they don't use bloodlines exclusively as a criteria for membership. As others have pointed out, many groups (including the US) use bloodlines for membership in their groups. So what if the Jews use it as well?

Zev Steinhardt

Michael Ellis

03-02-2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
No you are using an inherently biased definition of Semite. Both Arabs and Jews ethnically are Semites, ne c'est pas? I mean, aren't they all descended from Abraham? The Jews have hijacked the term anti-Semite. Americans who hate Arabs are also anti-Semites. Americans who are racist toward Africans could be called anti-Hamites, I suppose.

anti-Semite n., anti-Semitic a., (a person) hostile to Jews [L19]. anti-Semitism n. hostility or opposition to Jews [L19].

Page 88 of The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

Alessan

03-02-2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Hank Fescue
I am not about to stop using "pro-semitic" because it pisses you off. It is not an unreasonable term. I haven't directed it at you, yet.

If someone hates Jews I think anti-semitic is the pertfect term. It stands to reason that someone valuing Jews over others could be called pro-semitic.

Since when is the opposite of hatred something negative?

An anti-semite is someone who hates Jews. A pro-semite is the opposite of an anti semite; the opposite of hatred is love.

Love is a good thing. Therefore, being a pro-semite is good thing, and thus is not an insult, but rather something to be proud of.

I allow you to call me a pro-semite.

tomndebb

03-02-2003, 05:41 PM

'There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't--till I tell you.
I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you"!'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means
just what I choose it to mean--neither more or less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean different
things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.Humpty your great-granddad, Hank?

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 05:45 PM

Why not use it? It's a valid argument. If you can convert to the group, then they don't use bloodlines exclusively as a criteria for membership. As others have pointed out, many groups (including the US) use bloodlines for membership in their groups. So what if the Jews use it as well?

Zev Steinhardt [/B]

Yes they use bloodlines as one of the criteria. Now tell Tom that. I am not making an argument for the rightful / wrongfulness of the criteria. I am only arguing that it exist and is an important part of any discussion of Israel. You listening to all this Tom ?

Since when is the opposite of hatred something negative?

An anti-semite is someone who hates Jews. A pro-semite is the opposite of an anti semite; the opposite of hatred is love.

Love is a good thing. Therefore, being a pro-semite is good thing, and thus is not an insult, but rather something to be proud of.

I allow you to call me a pro-semite.

As long as you don't cross the line of racism, which has nothing to do with hate but with the valuing of one group over all others, you will probably be OK. And by the definition of anti-semitism posted below, it doesn't say anything about hate. It says hostility or oppostion to Jews. While hostility is not a good thing towards anyone, mere oppositon to beliefs and values is not out of the ordinary and the negative sense that comes with anti-semitism seems a bit unfair for someone in that position.

Alessan

03-02-2003, 05:51 PM

So your saying that anti-semitism can be justified? That in certain situations, you'd define yourself as an anti-semite?

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb
Humpty your great-granddad, Hank?

Nope. But if ethnicity has nothing to do with Israel, you might be a monkeys uncle.

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Alessan
So your saying that anti-semitism can be justified? That in certain situations, you'd define yourself as an anti-semite?

Not sure if it can be "justified". If I am oppossed to the use of religious law and bloodlines as the policy of a nation that recieves billions in support from my country that demands seperation of church and state, I don't see that as an irrational position. If you would consider that anti-semitic then, yeah, I guess I could justify anti-semitism in the same way you would justify pro-semitism.

Alessan

03-02-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Hank Fescue
Not sure if it can be "justified". If I am oppossed to the use of religious law and bloodlines as the policy of a nation that recieves billions in support from my country that demands seperation of church and state, I don't see that as an irrational position. If you would consider that anti-semitic then, yeah, I guess I could justify anti-semitism in the same way you would justify pro-semitism.

But anti-semitism is opposition to Jews, not the State of Israel and its government. Which do you oppose?

tomndebb

03-02-2003, 06:24 PM

Nope. But if ethnicity has nothing to do with Israel, you might be a monkeys uncle. OK. So now you are weaseling away from your claim of "utmost importance" (with a non-standard definition of "ethnicity") to a position of some importance. Humpty is proud, I'm sure.

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Alessan
But anti-semitism is opposition to Jews, not the State of Israel and its government. Which do you oppose?

I don't oppose either on the wholesale notion you elude to. I oppose the occupation, I oppose the settlements in the occupied territories, I oppose the exclusion of Palestinians from the right to return to their home, I oppose the use of military force on civilians, I oppose bulldozing of homes and communities, I oppose the oppression of an entire ethnic group of people to the point that they are willing to become suicide bombers, I oppose the virtual caste system that is used to exclude ethnic groups from services offered by the government of the country to which they belong, I oppose the expulsion of political dissidents from a supposed democracy, I oppose the denial of citizens right to vote in Jerusalem, I oppose the billions in aid sent until the violations of human rights and international law are rectified and sanctioned.

I do not oppose Jews as an ethnic group. I don't oppose any group on ethnic basis. I do not oppose Israels right to exist. I, in fact, support the state of Israel in its right to exist as a peaceful nation.

Hank Fescue

03-02-2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb
OK. So now you are weaseling away from your claim of "utmost importance" (with a non-standard definition of "ethnicity") to a position of some importance. Humpty is proud, I'm sure.

Oh no. Ethnicity is of utmost importance. The only weaseling I see is from your contention that ethnicity has no part in the state of Israel.

Why don't you make that statement again for yourself Tomand try to back it up.

E-Sabbath

03-02-2003, 07:44 PM

Hank, what's your point?

People can emigrate to Israel with or without being jewish.
If they are descended from someone who is jewish, they get in automatically.
If they are not descended from someone who is jewish, but decide to convert themselves, they also get in automatically.
If their mother or maternal grandparents, etc, are not ethnically jewish, but converted, they also get in automatically.

So... uh... what was the point here?

tomndebb

03-02-2003, 07:52 PM

Hank, you are weaseling and you have failed to prove your assertions.

Israel has no rule that says you may be a citizen if you have x grandparents, or y great-grandparents of "Jewish" blood (whatever that might be), in the way that various North American Indian nations determine recognition of membership. (In fact, you can have three Jewish grandparents and still not meet the automatic inclusion rule if your mother's mother was not Jewish. and your mother never converted.) It says that if your mother practices the religion of Judaism, you are admitted. You have provided no reason to believe that that is an ethnic (by "generally accepted" definitions of ethnic) rule.

wring

03-02-2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Hank Fescue
Oh no. Ethnicity is of utmost importance. The only weaseling I see is from your contention that ethnicity has no part in the state of Israel.

Why don't you make that statement again for yourself Tomand try to back it up.

hell, I'd settle for seeing it said by him a first time. (IOW, please provide the direct quote where he made that claim).

what I see is him attempting to get you to back up your claim that ethnicity is of utmost importance.

mystic2311

03-02-2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by milroyj
The cite you linked to, to back up your own arguement, was the "Duh The Jews" website. Can't get much more prejudiced than that.

Utter nonsense. Who said anything about being pro-white? [/B]

I never linked to the "Duh the Jews" website, you liar. You are the one who linked to that cite, so you are the prejudiced one.

The analogy to being pro-white was meant to show that you are the bigot. It appears that analogical reasoning is beyond the scope of your intelligence.

mystic2311

03-02-2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
anti-Semite n., anti-Semitic a., (a person) hostile to Jews [L19]. anti-Semitism n. hostility or opposition to Jews [L19].

Page 88 of The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

That is like defining anti-Caucasian as someone who hates Americans. The dictionary definition of anti-Semite ignores Semitic people who are not Jews. The term to be accurate should be anti-Jew. This just proves my point, that the term anti-Semite has been hijacked. Somebody should write a letter to the Oxford people and get them to make this correction. BTW, dictionary definitions merely state the way words are commonly used, it doesn't mean that the current usage is correct or logical.

Tamerlane

03-02-2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
This just proves my point, that the term anti-Semite has been hijacked.

To have been hijacked, it would have to have meant something other than anti-Jew to begin with. But as Edwino pointed out, it was in fact specifically coined to mean anti-Jew. That the term creates some etymological confusion is besides the point. There was no hijack.

On the other hand, using the term anti-Semitic in a broader sense to apply to all speakers of Semitic languages is in fact a hijack, though perhaps a perfectly appropriate and logical one.

BTW, dictionary definitions merely state the way words are commonly used, it doesn't mean that the current usage is correct or logical.

Quite true. Strict dictionary definitions are often flawed for a number of reasons.

I have no problem with someone using anti-Semitic in a broader context. Perhaps the definition should be changed. However it should be acknowledged that historically, and I believe in the public consciousness today, it specifically refers to being anti-Jew.

- Tamerlane

Michael Ellis

03-02-2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Tamerlane
However it should be acknowledged that historically, and I believe in the public consciousness today, it specifically refers to being anti-Jew.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Hank Fescue

03-03-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by wring
hell, I'd settle for seeing it said by him a first time. (IOW, please provide the direct quote where he made that claim).

what I see is him attempting to get you to back up your claim that ethnicity is of utmost importance.

Originally posted by Tom
And, of course, as edwino has pointed out, the ethnic background of any Jewish group is irrelevant to any discussion of the state of Israel.

I think this discussion in itself proves that to be utter non sense.

Originally posted by mic84
The purpose of the law is another matter. Indeed, Israel wants ethnic Jews to immigrate to Israel.

Originally posted by Zevsteihardt
So, what do you think? Everything written in the Bible about the Jews being in Israel thousands of years ago is false?

Even if you are an atheist and don't believe word one of the bible, are you still going to dismiss the archaelogical evidence of Jewish settlement during the times of the latter Davidic kings? Or did the Jews make that all up?

What about the proven historocity of the Hasmenoan kings and the Second temple, proving that Jews were there then? Or did the Jews make that up too?

What about the New Testament, Josephus, and other ancient historians who attest to the Jewish presence in Israel? Or did the Jews fabricate the entire thing then too?

What about Titus's conquest over the Jews of Jerusalem, which proves that the Jews have lived there then too? Or did the Jews build the Arch of Titus to fool everyone?

How about the continual Jewish presence in the area down to modern times? Or did we make that up too?

All of that is true and it is all part of the often heard ethnic claim to the state of Israel. But of course, as Tom says, ethnicity has no relevance in the discussion of Israel. Sorry Zevsteinhardt

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
A bunch of countries give special consideration to members of certain ethnic groups in granting citizenship. Ireland does it, Germany does it, Italy does it. Why is it so terrible that Israel does it?

Oh Captain, oh Captain, your remarks have no relevance in a discussion of the state of Israel, according to Tom .

Originally posted by Allessan
Since some antisemitism is religion based, and some antiemitismis raicially based, Israel accepts immigrants who can claim either Jewish faith or Jewish descent.

But Allessan , your mention of descent has no place in a discussion of Israel, according to Tom .

Originally posted by elf6c
Keep ranting about "the Jews" maybe you can draw a few more bigots for indentification.

FWIW, my ex wife is of mixed black/white parents, I dated an hispanic girl for a year and right now, a skinny dip in the gene pool with one of the Jewish girls sounds like fun. How about a naked grudge match Allessan? ;)

Captain Amazing

03-03-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Hank Fescue

Well, so long as you're Jewish, your race or ethnicity IS irrelevant to getting citizenship in Israel. You can be a German Jew or a Zulu Jew, and the same laws still apply.

FWIW, my ex wife is of mixed black/white parents, I dated an hispanic girl for a year and right now, a skinny dip in the gene pool with one of the Jewish girls sounds like fun. How about a naked grudge match Allessan? ;)

I really don't think you're his type.

Alessan

03-03-2003, 02:05 PM

Quite.

mystic2311

03-03-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Tamerlane
To have been hijacked, it would have to have meant something other than anti-Jew to begin with. But as Edwino pointed out, it was in fact specifically coined to mean anti-Jew. That the term creates some etymological confusion is besides the point. There was no hijack.

On the other hand, using the term anti-Semitic in a broader sense to apply to all speakers of Semitic languages is in fact a hijack, though perhaps a perfectly appropriate and logical one.

Quite true. Strict dictionary definitions are often flawed for a number of reasons.

I have no problem with someone using anti-Semitic in a broader context. Perhaps the definition should be changed. However it should be acknowledged that historically, and I believe in the public consciousness today, it specifically refers to being anti-Jew.

- Tamerlane

Thank you. I admit I hijacked the term, but I hijacked it with a purpose, to show that there is an inherent bias in the discourse about Jews and Arabs. What term should we use for someone who hates Arabs?

tomndebb

03-03-2003, 02:25 PM

I think this discussion in itself proves that to be utter non sense. Well, when you take it out of context that way, of course.

People tend to be divided among different ethnic groups and Israel includes people who are in those groups. The context of my statement is that Israel has no law regarding ethnicity in determining citizenship. Your claim is that such imagined ethnicity is of "the utmost importance" despite the fact that you cannot point to any law which uses ethnicity to define citizenship and have to twist and falsify the evidence you have presented in order to pretend that it does have relevence.

Are there ethnic concerns in Israel? Sure. Heck, in this thread, alone, we have identified five separate ethnic groups who are among the various Jewish communities of Israel (none of whom were admitted based on an ability to trace their bloodline back to Moses or Abraham).

So, tell us, how many of the Falasha to Israel were admitted to Israel based on their ethnicity?All of that is true and it is all part of the often heard ethnic claim to the state of Israel.The only people that I have ever encountered talking about an ethnic claim to Israel have been anti-Jewish hate mongers trying to distort the record of the Khazar to claim that they had no ethnic claim. The claims to Israel I have heard from supporters of that state have been that it is the spiritual homeland for the people who follow Judaism. As zev points out, there have, indeed, been Jews living on the land continuously, but that is simply a refutation of the claim by some ignorant people that Judaism disappeared from the land after the destruction of the Temple--a totally baseless lie. Meanwhile, Israeli law makes no provision for a person to become a citizen based on the amount of ethnic "Jewish" blood that person has.

A person with seven great-grandparents of one ethnicity and one great-grandparent of another would typically be considered a member of that ethnic community. However, if that eighth great-grandparent was a woman who was not Jewish who gave birth to a grandmother who did not convert who gave birth to a mother who did not convert, that person would not be considered "Jewish" for the purpose of Israeli citizenship. Ethnicity plays no part in Israeli law.

zev_steinhardt

03-03-2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Hank Fescue

All of that is true and it is all part of the often heard ethnic claim to the state of Israel. But of course, as Tom says, ethnicity has no relevance in the discussion of Israel. Sorry Zevsteinhardt

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing mystic2311's lie that the choice of Israel as the Jewish homeland was completely arbitrary.

Zev Steinhardt

Hank Fescue

03-03-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
I really don't think you're his type.

Ooops. Bad assumption on my part. Sorry about that Allessan . Zevsteinhardt, I know you weren't addressing me but you were taking part in a discussion of Israel. Tom claims ethnicity has no relevance in such a discussion and I just trhought it ironic that he would make such a statement within the context of a discussion about Israel that is full of relevant ethnic issues.

Hank Fescue

03-03-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Tom
People tend to be divided among different ethnic groups and Israel includes people who are in those groups. The context of my statement is that Israel has no law regarding ethnicity in determining citizenship.

You are a real bullshitter Tom. Up until your stupid remark, there was no context of citizenship. I brought that up after your remark. Try again. Only this time remember, when back pedaling, look behind you.

And the ethnic claim stands. "Whosoever is born unto a Jewish mother". That is ethnic in nature in more than one sense of the word, it describes "born unto" which indicates a genetic link and "Jewish" which is an ethnic and religious term. It is an ethnic consideration. You can twist and squirm and lie all you want. It won't help.

mystic2311

03-03-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing mystic2311's lie that the choice of Israel as the Jewish homeland was completely arbitrary.

Zev Steinhardt

That was not a lie, it was just a different interpretation of history than what you are proposing. Believe it or not, different people are allowing to think differently and arrive at different conclusions.

If we all had to agree with you, what would be the point of debate?

We all make mistakes. I confused Mauritius with Mauritania. Tomndebb forgot that US Marines played a role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy (which he graciously admitted). Making a mistake is not the same as lying.

But I still say that if Herzl made a passionate argument for the Zionists to settle in Uganda, that implies that there is something arbitrary about their choice of homeland.

You can disagree with me, but you have no right to call me a liar.

Now when someone says that I posted a cite to a website when in fact I posted a cite to another website, that could be a mistake or a lie. If it is done intentionally, it is essentially the same as deliberately misquoting someone, which is against the rules of the forum.

zev_steinhardt

03-03-2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
That was not a lie, it was just a different interpretation of history than what you are proposing. Believe it or not, different people are allowing to think differently and arrive at different conclusions.

If we all had to agree with you, what would be the point of debate?

I'm not asking you to agree with me. You made an assertion and I countered it. I am now asking you to respond to the substance of what I wrote (forget the word "lie." I'll retract it and apologize if that's the hangup).

Please respond to the series of questions that I asked regarding your claim that the choice of Israel for the Jewish homeland was completely arbitrary.

Zev Steinhardt

tomndebb

03-03-2003, 04:59 PM

Up until your stupid remark, there was no context of citizenship. I brought that up after your remark. Really? Perhaps you should pay more attention to discussions when you jump into them. My statement was the ethnic background of any Jewish group is irrelevant to any discussion of the state of Israel. which was a reply to the whole hoary nonsense about "Khazars" and the "right" of the Jewish people to move to Israel. There are certain hate groups that claim that the Ashkenazi do not have a claim to be admitted to Israel because they are not ethnic Jews. However, long before the genetic tests were brought out to find out the ethnic origins of the Ashkenazim, the fact was that they were always considered Jewish because of their beliefs, not their bloodline. The "Ashkenazi are Khazars not Jews" argument is bogus on its face because it is not ethnicity that Israel looks at when considering who is a Jew. That was my statement in context.

This Right of Return is only manifested in the context of extending citizenship to individuals born outside Israel. Citizenship is the only point--and you introduced the word, pretending that you understood the discussion. There is no other context for it (other than for a few hate groups to claim that the Jews are not really Jews or some such double talk). Is that your position?
There is no Israeli law that says one must be 7/8 Ashkenazi or 13/16 Sephardic to become a citizen. The rule is simply that if your mother is recognized as an adherent to Judaism, regardless of her "ethnic" makeup, you are eligible to be considered a Jew and become a citizen.

And the ethnic claim stands. "Whosoever is born unto a Jewish mother". That is ethnic in nature in more than one sense of the word, it describes "born unto" which indicates a genetic link and "Jewish" which is an ethnic and religious term. It is an ethnic consideration. You can twist and squirm and lie all you want. It won't help.Closing your eyes and repeating the same nonsense over and over does not make it true. We have already established that a woman does not need to be an "ethnic" Jew to pass on her religion to her children. I have already pointed out that a person with as many as seven out of eight ethnic Jewish great grandparents will not be considered Jewish if the maternal line is not Jewish, so that claiming an "ethnic" link in defiance of the "generally accepted" meaning of the word (which you pretended to use) is false. Are you going to continue to pursue this claim if you discover that the same rule holds true for adopted children of Jewish mothers? Your whole argument is based on ignoring the "generally accepted" meaning of ethnicity--which relates to all of one's ancestry, not a single parental phenomenon--and claiming that a single mother-child generation establishes such an ethnicity.

The Falasha were accepted into Israel as citizens despite the fact that they are clearly African, not semitic. The Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi ethnic groups are separate, yet all are admitted to Israel regardless of ethnicity. The state of Israel makes no mention of any ethnic group when identifying potential citizens.

"There is glory for you."

milroyj

03-03-2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
I never linked to the "Duh the Jews" website, you liar. You are the one who linked to that cite, so you are the prejudiced one.

Let's review the facts. Back on page 3 of this thread, as evidence for your assertation that some of the 9-11 hijackers are still alive, you posted the link to indymedia.no. Thing is, the indymedia website is basically just a collection of links to other websites, including the "Duh the Jews" one. So it is reasonable for one to examine said links in an effort to determine the reliability and veracity of indymedia.no as a citation. Both reliability and veracity are clearly lacking, on the citation YOU offered as evidence.

Do I believe you didn't see the "Duh the Jews" thing when you posted your link to indymedia? Yeah, probably. So we have either sloppy research on your part, or you really believe some of the craptacular stuff posted on that website, because DTJ was just one of many b.s. links on that website. Which is it?

Hank Fescue

03-03-2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb
Really? Perhaps you should pay more attention to discussions when you jump into them. My statement was which was a reply to the whole hoary nonsense about "Khazars" and the "right" of the Jewish people to move to Israel. There are certain hate groups that claim that the Ashkenazi do not have a claim to be admitted to Israel because they are not ethnic Jews. However, long before the genetic tests were brought out to find out the ethnic origins of the Ashkenazim, the fact was that they were always considered Jewish because of their beliefs, not their bloodline. The "Ashkenazi are Khazars not Jews" argument is bogus on its face because it is not ethnicity that Israel looks at when considering who is a Jew. That was my statement in context.

You are a weasel Tom . But you are kind of cute when you
weasel. Where, oh where is the mention of citizenship anywhere? It isn't there Tom . The entire discussion was about the use of "anti-semetic", who was semitic genetically, who had a claim of thier ancestors living in Palestine, etc. I can't find a single metion of current Israeli citizenship policy before I metioned it. Yet you give this weasel - like shit:

The context of my statement is that Israel has no law regarding ethnicity in determining citizenship.

Again, where is the context to which you refer? You made the remark before citizenship law was mentioned then try to back pedal and squirm your way out of that remark by attributing it to the context of citizenship law, context that didn't exist at that point of the discussion.

Originally posted by Tom
We have already established that a woman does not need to be an "ethnic" Jew to pass on her religion to her children. I have already pointed out that a person with as many as seven out of eight ethnic Jewish great grandparents will not be considered Jewish if the maternal line is not Jewish, so that claiming an "ethnic" link in defiance of the "generally accepted" meaning of the word (which you pretended to use) is false. Are you going to continue to pursue this claim if you discover that the same rule holds true for adopted children of Jewish mothers?

We have established that a woman can pass on religion through child birth? I don't recall that discussion but it would be an interesting one. Wonder how one would describe such a transaction?
A person with only one Jewish great grandparent could be considered Jewish on the other side of your coin.

Main Entry: 1eth·nic
Pronunciation: 'eth-nik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos national, gentile, from ethnos nation, people; akin to Greek Ethos custom -- more at SIB
Date: 15th century
1 : HEATHEN
2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> b : being a member of an ethnic group c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>

Seems to me you are the one avoiding the accepted use of the word.

And if you were to tell me that adopted children were recognized without conversion...... well, why don't you make that claim and see.

Tamerlane

03-04-2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Thank you. I admit I hijacked the term, but I hijacked it with a purpose, to show that there is an inherent bias in the discourse about Jews and Arabs.

Inherent bias? No, not really in my estimation. Or at least not in the sense that these terms were invented because Jews have been given some sort of automatic superior moral standing in debates. Quite the contary - the reason we have a specific term for anti-Jewish sentiment and not anti-Arab, is that bias against Jews is far more historically rooted in western society than bias towards Arabs ( or even Islam ). Sure, in the middle ages Islam and Islamic states were a major boogeyman and very real and dangerous adversary to the Christian west sensu latu. But Jews were particularly reviled as an "internal problem", all the more so as they were highly resistant to conversion and some elements of Jewish society were able to become quite prosperous despite this ( in some limited fashion perhaps, because of this ). Arabs ( outside of a few locales and for limited periods of time ) were mostly "the other" - foreign, perhaps barbaric and technically theological adversaries. But not the creeping third column ( yes, post-reconquista Spain excepted )Jews were regarded as by so many conspiracy theorists and just plain bigots down through the millenia.

Anti-Arab sentiment, modern anti-Arab sentiment, didn't really take off ( at least in the U.S. ) until the oil embargoes of the 1970's, the creation of the PLO and their ( and their more radical splinter groups ) expansion of terror tactics, and the Hostage Crisis in Iran ( never mind they aren't Arabs - to Joe Q. Public it looked like part and parcel of the same thing ). It reached a crescendo with the first World Trade Center bombing. In contrast, anti-Jewish sentiment is considerably more venerable.

What term should we use for someone who hates Arabs?

I'm afraid the less-than-euphonious phrase "anti-Arab" or some iteration will have to cover it. If you wanted to use a broad definition of anti-Semite you could ( with perhaps a word or two of explantation and with a handy, polite and reasonably worded stock return ready for the inevitable correction ). However keep in mind that if say anti-Semite should mean anti-Semitic-language-speaking folks, you are presented with the potential philosophical problem ( if you're being a stickler for etymological accuracy ) of making sure the person/comment/action under fire is both anti-Arab AND anti-Jewish ( and if we really get technical, anti-Syriac et al ). Not to hard when addressing a KKK chapter leader perhaps, but Ariel Sharon saying something inflammatory about Arabs wouldn't fit - He may be anti-Arab, but he's certainly not anti-Jewish ( I might argue his actions occasionally are in a metaphysical sense, but that's a matter of policy disputes, not racism ).

- Tamerlane

Tamerlane

03-04-2003, 05:18 AM

Hank Fescue - Judaism is a rather unusual and confusing case. A tribal identity for many/most that is also a religious faith that accepts ( but doesn't seek ) converts above and beyond that. And it's true that ethnicity can be defined in a multitude of ways.

But having observed this argument wending along I really have to agree with tom ( not surprising, I usually do, which you can take as bias if you wish ), that you are casting ethnicity in a way it isn't commonly used in this case. In this case, the fact that converts are accepted as citizens of Israel trumps the fact that sons of Jewish mothers get an automatic in - Descent is a factor, but religious faith ( which merges with and helps define the tribal community to be sure ) is the major guiding principle. Your insistence that this is an ethnic identifier flies in the face of normal modern usage of the term. You can say it is a biased system ( it clearly is and quite deliberately so - whether it is a justified bias is a different question ), but I think you are mislabeling it structurally.

Just MHO.

- Tamerlane

tomndebb

03-04-2003, 06:15 AM

Where, oh where is the mention of citizenship anywhere? It isn't there Tom . The entire discussion was about the use of "anti-semetic", who was semitic genetically, who had a claim of thier ancestors living in Palestine, etc. However, it was "living in Palestine" in the context of the nation of Israel. The whole "who is a Jew?" discussion that generally surrounds any talk of the Khazars (and whether or not they have invalidated "Jewish ethnicity") is always framed in the context of the nation of Israel. If we were discussing only religion, no one would care that an ethnic Turkic group had converted. Christianity converted lots of good Roman pagans, Celtic druids, Nordic pagans, and other groups. No one goes on about whether the French or the Irish have a right to be Catholic because they are neither semitic nor the original Italic pagans from the region of Rome. The only time the discussion arises is when someone points to the Khazars and claims that some large numbers of Jews have no business going to the region between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. Since the Jews do not care about the ethnic bloodlines of the adherents to their religion, it is true, as I said in the comment that set you off, that "the ethnic background of any Jewish group is irrelevant to any discussion of the state of Israel." Nations are composed of citizens. My specific comment was that regardless of the origins of the Khazars or the relationships of the Khazars to the Ashkenazim, such discussions have no impact of the nature of who Israel will or can or should admit to their nation since they do not care about ethnicity--as demonstrated by the willingness of the Jewish nation to admit Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Cochin, and Falasha ethnic groups.

You correctly identified the issue as citizenship, which was, indeed, my point in the context of the Khazars, but then incorrectly tried to claim that ethnicity was the chief issue for the Israelis. Ethnicity is the issue for opponents of Israel, but it is of no concern in Israeli law. Are you claiming that if we can identify any Khazar descendants, they should be barred from Israel? Are you saying that Israel should have denied admission to the Falashas? Israel said the answer was no--ethnicity is irrelevant.

mystic2311

03-04-2003, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
I'm not asking you to agree with me. You made an assertion and I countered it. I am now asking you to respond to the substance of what I wrote (forget the word "lie." I'll retract it and apologize if that's the hangup).

Please respond to the series of questions that I asked regarding your claim that the choice of Israel for the Jewish homeland was completely arbitrary.

Zev Steinhardt

In response to your questions, I don't doubt any of the facts about Jewish history. Rather than put words in their mouth, I will let the Zionist tell of their love for Jerusalem:

"In fact, many prominent Zionists who had toured Palestine felt the place to be less of an ideal Jewish homeland and more of a dump.

"You talk of the Holy Land. In God’s name what do you know about Palestine? I have been there and a more God-forsaken place there does not exist on this planet. How can a land thrive without water and whence can you find a supply for irrigation? The whole thing is pernicious nonsense,and what is more the advocates of the plan know it to be
impossible" (Cohen 90).

Herzl himself found Jerusalem to be a city lacking in all sorts of modern conventions and was not entirely pleased by what he found there. "Jerusalem, with it’s musty deposits of two thousand years of inhumanity, intolerance and uncleanness lying in the foul-smelling little streets, made a terrible impression on Herzl" (Prior 7). In Herzl's own diary he declared that while Jerusalem was a majestic city it was also in dire need of modernization.

"The musty deposits of two thousands years of inhumanity, intolerance, and foulness lie in reeking alleys. The one man who has been present here all this while, the lovable dreamer of Nazareth, has done nothing but help increase the hate. If Jerusalem is ever ours, and if I were still able to do anything about it, I would begin by cleaning it up. I would clear out everything that is not sacred, set up workers’ houses beyond the city, empty and tear down the filthy rat-holes, burn all the non-sacred ruins, and put the bazaars elsewhere. Then,retaining as much of the old architectural style as possible, I would build an airy, comfortable, properly sewered, brand new city around the Holy Places" (Hammer 211)."

And Palestine wasn't arbitrary?

"After the British made it clear that they would no longer consider a Jewish settlement in Uganda due to reasons of practicality, Zangwill considered settlements in places as far ranging as Canada, Australia, Iraq, Libya, and Angola but nothing came from any expeditionary force that was sent to scope these territories. He even sponsored a project with the help of the wealthy American Jewish banker named Jacob Schiff wherein some 9,000 Jews came to Southwestern Texas to form a settlement. Zangwill had little if any real attachment to Palestine as a homeland, and his movement was successful until the Balfour Declaration of 1917 gave British support in writing for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The British, wanting support from the
Jewish population in order to enter World War I and also hoping to protect British economic interests in the Suez canal were much more favorable to Zionists desires than they had been previously."

Zangwill had little if no attachment to Palestine as a homeland. The Zionists were so desperate, hell, they even settled in TEXAS! Where's Irishman?

http://www.trincoll.edu/~kclark2/the_city_of_jerusalem.htm

mystic2311

03-04-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by milroyj
Let's review the facts. Back on page 3 of this thread, as evidence for your assertation that some of the 9-11 hijackers are still alive, you posted the link to indymedia.no. Thing is, the indymedia website is basically just a collection of links to other websites, including the "Duh the Jews" one. So it is reasonable for one to examine said links in an effort to determine the reliability and veracity of indymedia.no as a citation. Both reliability and veracity are clearly lacking, on the citation YOU offered as evidence.

Do I believe you didn't see the "Duh the Jews" thing when you posted your link to indymedia? Yeah, probably. So we have either sloppy research on your part, or you really believe some of the craptacular stuff posted on that website, because DTJ was just one of many b.s. links on that website. Which is it?

You are really a low life form, somewhere between the cockroach and the leech. I present to you evidence that is richly sourced to reputable journalistic media such as BBC and CNN, and what do you do, you rummage around at the end of the article to pull up some link that has nothing to do with what I posted, it is not supportive of the information that I posted, perhaps the author felt it was related, so what?

Here is an analogous scenario: I show you an article on the front page of a newspaper, and instead of reading it, you sniff around in the back of the newspaper, you find a wanted ad for homosexual encounters with young boys and you accuse me of being a pedophile. I forgot, you don't understand analogies, so you probably don't understand what I am talking about.

You must have been a dog in your past life, you certainly enjoy sniffing around people's arses.

Hank Fescue

03-04-2003, 02:51 PM

So Tom, now you seem to come down on the side of Mystic. The choice of the Jewish homeland was arbitrary and has nothing to do with ethnic ties to the region? As others have pointed out, the choice was not arbitrary but based on religious, cutural and ancestral history in the region. Religion, culture and genetics being the the very definition of ethnicity. Tom, is it possible that ethnicity is very important to Israel? Do you even consider the possibility that is of some importance? Your statement still makes no sense, no matter the context you choose to place it in. "ethnicity is irrelevant in any discussion of Israel". That is bullshit Tom.

Lets examine the great great grandma theory you seem to like so much.

Great, great grandma was Jewish. By this virtue her daughter, great grandma, was Jewish. Great, great grandma and little great grandma moved out west to dig for gold. Away from cultural influence, great grandma took to drinking and swearing in a local saloon as a young woman and soon forgot all about any religious notions she learned as a child. Now great grandmas daughter, grandma, was raised in and out of bars and honkey tonks and also learnecd to drink and swear and gave little or no thought to being Jewish although she was Jewish because great grandma was. Now mom, knew very, very little of any Jewish family tradition. She was more into the drinking and swearing family tradition. Now along comes...um...we'll call her Fred. Along comes Fred. Fred is Jewish. Jewish because her mom, by virtue of her grandmother, by virtue of her great grandmother, by virtue of her great, great grandmother, was Jewish. Any practical elements of Judaism have been absent from the family for generations. Tell me Tom , what the hell makes Fred Jewish? What gives her a right to citizenship in Israel? Are you going to claim religion after all those years? What it is called Tom ? There must be a word somewhere in your vast vocabulary that comes closest to describing Freds claim to being Jewish. I can't wait to hear.

zev_steinhardt

03-04-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
In response to your questions, I don't doubt any of the facts about Jewish history. Rather than put words in their mouth, I will let the Zionist tell of their love for Jerusalem:

[quote][b]
"In fact, many prominent Zionists who had toured Palestine felt the place to be less of an ideal Jewish homeland and more of a dump.

"You talk of the Holy Land. In God’s name what do you know about Palestine? I have been there and a more God-forsaken place there does not exist on this planet. How can a land thrive without water and whence can you find a supply for irrigation? The whole thing is pernicious nonsense,and what is more the advocates of the plan know it to be
impossible" (Cohen 90).

I don't know that these quotes that you present are accurate. However, let's pretend for a moment that they are. So what? You have a couple of negative opinions on a place that wasn't developed. You know, people do buy houses that are "fixer-uppers." In fact, in the "Hammer 211" quote you presented, they even talked about fixing up the city, acknowleding the Holy places that were there, and making a go at it. Obviously, if there were Jewish holy places there already, then it wasn't arbitrary, was it?

In any event, just because some people were willing to accpet places such as Uganda, Argentina or Antarctica (yes, I'm being facetious), that doesn't mean that the final selection wasn't arbitrary. And if you're going to concede my points about Jewish history and yet tell me that the choice of Israel for a Jewish homeland was completely arbitrary, then you're just contradicting yourself.

Zev Steinhardt

mystic2311

03-04-2003, 03:12 PM

Read this story about how the Zionists murdered Yaakov Yisrael Dahan:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/holocaust/YisraelDahan.htm

It illustrates what I am trying to say. There was another way possible, that Jews, Christians, and Muslims could have gotten along peaceably in Palestine/Israel. But the Zionists, a subset of Jews, screwed it up for everybody. Zionists poisoned the well for everyone, and the true Jews like Jews against Zionism are trying to keep alive the spirit of Dahan.

mystic2311

03-04-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt

I don't know that these quotes that you present are accurate. However, let's pretend for a moment that they are. So what? You have a couple of negative opinions on a place that wasn't developed. You know, people do buy houses that are "fixer-uppers." In fact, in the "Hammer 211" quote you presented, they even talked about fixing up the city, acknowleding the Holy places that were there, and making a go at it. Obviously, if there were Jewish holy places there already, then it wasn't arbitrary, was it?

In any event, just because some people were willing to accpet places such as Uganda, Argentina or Antarctica (yes, I'm being facetious), that doesn't mean that the final selection wasn't arbitrary. And if you're going to concede my points about Jewish history and yet tell me that the choice of Israel for a Jewish homeland was completely arbitrary, then you're just contradicting yourself.

Zev Steinhardt [/B]

The choice of Israel for a Jewish homeland was NOT arbitrary for Jews. It was arbitrary for the Zionists, as I have amply illustrated. The Zionists are a subset of Jews, and do not represent all Jews. I am not contradicting myself, you are simply conflating the category "Zionist" with the category "Jew" which is illogical.

zev_steinhardt

03-04-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Read this story about how the Zionists murdered Yaakov Yisrael Dahan:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/holocaust/YisraelDahan.htm

It illustrates what I am trying to say. There was another way possible, that Jews, Christians, and Muslims could have gotten along peaceably in Palestine/Israel. But the Zionists, a subset of Jews, screwed it up for everybody. Zionists poisoned the well for everyone, and the true Jews like Jews against Zionism are trying to keep alive the spirit of Dahan.

Even Jews who are against Zionism will tell you that the choice of Israel wasn't arbitrary (they would have opposed a Jewish state anywhere on theological grounds). So how does this bolster your argument that the choice of Israel was arbitrary?

Zev STeinhardt

zev_steinhardt

03-04-2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
The choice of Israel for a Jewish homeland was NOT arbitrary for Jews. It was arbitrary for the Zionists

No, you're wrong. Even Zionists would tell you and readily agree that there is ample Jewish history in the area. Just because they were willing at one point, for whatever reason, to consider someplace else still doesn't make the final choice arbitrary. You make it sound like they put the names of every region on earth into a hat and just happened to pick out that one. (No, I'm not stating that you are asserting that that is what, in fact happened. But by using the word "arbitrary" you are asserting that it was more or less picked at random.)

Zev Steinhardt

Hank Fescue

03-04-2003, 03:21 PM

Just a thought.

Pizza is irrelevant in any discussion of Pizza Hut. They also make lasagna. The fact that they make lasagna trumps any claim that Pizza Hut is concerned about Pizza. :rolleyes:

mystic2311

03-04-2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
No, you're wrong. Even Zionists would tell you and readily agree that there is ample Jewish history in the area. Just because they were willing at one point, for whatever reason, to consider someplace else still doesn't make the final choice arbitrary. You make it sound like they put the names of every region on earth into a hat and just happened to pick out that one. (No, I'm not stating that you are asserting that that is what, in fact happened. But by using the word "arbitrary" you are asserting that it was more or less picked at random.)

Zev Steinhardt

I think we are almost there. We probably actually agree with each other. Let me say it another way. If I was a Zionist, Israel would not be high up on a long list of places I would choose as a homeland. IT WOULD BE THE ONLY PLACE!!! I don't know how they could have considered ANY alternatives. The fact that the Zionists could for one second consider an alternative to Israel tells me they had some other agenda than returning to the Holy Land. And when they did go to the Holy Land, they defiled it by going around being obnoxious assholes and screwing up 2000 years of work that good hardworking Jews had done to live peaceably with their Arab/Muslim/Christian neighbors in the Holy Land. The trouble only started when the Zionists got there. I would think they should ask themselves what was wrong with their approach and how they can make amends and start over. But instead, the butchers like Sharon keep murdering Palestinian children, and Palestinian suicide bombers keep blowing up innocent Jews in cafes when they should be blowing up the butchers like Sharon.

If saying this makes me an anti-Semite, fuck it, I don't give a shit. It is the fucking truth. Deal with it.

zev_steinhardt

03-04-2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
I think we are almost there. We probably actually agree with each other. Let me say it another way. If I was a Zionist, Israel would not be high up on a long list of places I would choose as a homeland. IT WOULD BE THE ONLY PLACE!!! I don't know how they could have considered ANY alternatives. The fact that the Zionists could for one second consider an alternative to Israel tells me they had some other agenda than returning to the Holy Land.

How about the possibility of hedging their bets. IOW, Israel was the first choice, but if they couldn't get it, they would have accepted someplace else as a "second choice." That still doesn't negate the basic premise of a Jewish homeland.

Zev Steinhardt

Captain Amazing

03-04-2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
I Let me say it another way. If I was a Zionist, Israel would not be high up on a long list of places I would choose as a homeland. IT WOULD BE THE ONLY PLACE!!!

Why? I mean, if I were a 19th century Zionist, Israel would be my first choice...all that religious symbolism and all, and it would make religious Zionists happy. It's also reasonably unoccupied, and the Ottoman Sultan and his people are corrupt enough that they might sell it to us. But, if push comes to shove, and Israel isn't available, what's wrong with someplace else?

tomndebb

03-04-2003, 05:37 PM

So Tom, now you seem to come down on the side of Mystic. The choice of the Jewish homeland was arbitrary and has nothing to do with ethnic ties to the region? No. What you are now saying is that you took my specific comment to mystic2311 regarding the irrelevance of the "semitic or not semitic" nature of the Khazar and applied to it Israeli citizenship. Given your appeal to citizenship, I thought you had a point (in error), rather than realizing that you simply expressed yourself very poorly regarding a subject where you were already completely ignorant.

Sequence:

1. Discussion of Khazars and how they are not "semitic."

2. I point out that such ethnic concerns are irrelevant because Israel's laws are not based on whether someone is semitic.

3. You jump in with your erronneous claims that citizenship is ethnic and that ethnicity is of "utmost importance."

4. We get into general discussion in which you misquote Barbara Weil, make up new rules for ethnicity, and steadfastly ignore the fact that Israel has allowed non-semitic people to immigrate and become citizens. (I notice that you steadfastly ignore every reference to the Fashalas.)

tomndebb

03-04-2003, 05:53 PM

Oh, and as to your scenario in which you inverted my story of great-grandmother and her descent, I actually do not know whether Halakic conventions would consider Fred Jewish or not. However, if Fred were considered Jewish for the purpose of citizenship while Great-grandma, grandma, and mom had all married pure-blooded Inuit or Yanomamo, then by the "conventionally accepted" rules of "ethnicity" that you earlier pretended to follow, Fred would by Inuit or Yanomamo, not Jewish, despite his ability to gain Israeli citizenship.

Hank Fescue

03-04-2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb
Oh, and as to your scenario in which you inverted my story of great-grandmother and her descent, I actually do not know whether Halakic conventions would consider Fred Jewish or not. However, if Fred were considered Jewish for the purpose of citizenship while Great-grandma, grandma, and mom had all married pure-blooded Inuit or Yanomamo, then by the "conventionally accepted" rules of "ethnicity" that you earlier pretended to follow, Fred would by Inuit or Yanomamo, not Jewish, despite his ability to gain Israeli citizenship.

So Tom , why does Fred get to claim citgizenship? Come on man. Why? What do we call that sort of discretion? Fred is not a religious person. Israeli law considers her Jewish though. Why Tom? Considering ethnicity has no place in this dicussion of Israel, although this discussion of Israel is choc full of ethnicity, what is it Tom. Come on, you have the answers, cure my ignorance, what do we call the reason for Freds right of return? Must be a word for it somewhere that fits.

The conversation:

1. Much discussion of ethnic claims to Israel and Judaism.

2. Tom claims that ethnicity has no relevance in ANY discussion of Israel.

3. I jump in and toss out just one example (citizenship) where ethnicity is very important.

4. You start back pedaling and claiming your comment was taken out of context.

Read this damn thread man. It is a discussion of Israel and it is full of ethnic debate. You are just too fucking thick headed, stubborn and proud to admit that your assertion that "ethnicity is irrelevant in any discussion of Israel" is non sense. Ethnicity has everything to do with Israel since B.C. until this very moment.

Hank Fescue

03-04-2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb
(I notice that you steadfastly ignore every reference to the Fashalas.)

I notice you ignore my reference to lasagna. Guess you're still tinking pizza is imortant to Pizza Hut.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom
[B]The context of my statement is that Israel has no law regarding ethnicity in determining citizenship.[B][QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom
[B]However, it was "living in Palestine" in the context of the nation of Israel. The whole "who is a Jew?" discussion that generally surrounds any talk of the Khazars [B][QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom
[B]What you are now saying is that you took my specific comment to mystic2311 regarding the irrelevance of the "semitic or not semitic" nature of the Khazar and applied to it Israeli citizenship.[B][QUOTE]

So [B]Tom[B], in exactly what fucking context should I place your comment in, you can't seem to decide anymore.

milroyj

03-04-2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by mystic2311
Here is an analogous scenario: I show you an article on the front page of a newspaper, and instead of reading it, you sniff around in the back of the newspaper, you find a wanted ad for homosexual encounters with young boys and you accuse me of being a pedophile.

Not quite sure why we are talking past each other, but, the scenarios are not analogous.

You made the claim that 9/11 hijackers are still alive. You gave the indymedia.no cite as your evidence. Your claim is factually incorrect. Four planes crashed, and no passengers or crew survived. Doesn't matter if there were 19 hijackers, or 12, or 20. All of the hijackers are dead.

Now, if the question was asked: "Did the U.S. mis-identify some of the hijackers after 9/11?" or "Or is the FBI incompetent?" or even, "Are there crazy conspiracy theories about who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks?" Maybe, your cite would work. As it stands, though, it does not back up your assertion that "7 of the 19 hijackers are still alive."

Just because they include, amongst their numerous links, CNN & the BBC doesn't prove anything. If you look at the bigger picture, when they include the DTJ link as one of the pieces under their headline "Many of the 9-11 hijackers are still alive", their credibility, and yours, approaches zero.

mystic2311

03-04-2003, 08:02 PM

Milroyj:

Aha! You have been exposed as a freeper-bot! Only a hyper-literal android would have taken the interpretation you took. I suppose when your girlfriend/wife/whore asks you if you want to have sex, you look puzzled and say, "Why, I already have a sex."

What a twit.

milroyj

03-04-2003, 09:13 PM

Whatever, dud. You made the assertion and you can't back it up. Couldn't you have copped to that 2 or 3 pages ago?

mystic2311

03-05-2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by milroyj
Whatever, dud. You made the assertion and you can't back it up. Couldn't you have copped to that 2 or 3 pages ago?

I already won the argument. A human would have known that. You must report to the freeper mothership for reprogramming. The battle to suppress human inquiry is demanding and you are needed on the front lines right away. I must confess, your programming is advanced and almost human, but a sim-simian is no match for my taoist rhetorical skills.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

I have other threads to conquer.

tomndebb

03-05-2003, 04:46 AM

Hank, I notice that you are gettingf so incoherent that you are now misquoting me. Take a deep breath and try to get yourself under control. You're going to have a coronary; defending your ignorance is just not worth it. ;)

E-Sabbath

03-05-2003, 06:00 AM

What, in the name of the Great Yehudi, is a freeper-bot?

Is that an ad hominem? Accusing your 'opponent' of being a robot? Or is this a new sort of baseless argument alltogether?

Michael Ellis

03-05-2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by mystic2311
I have other threads to conquer.

You haven't conquered this one yet.

elf6c

03-05-2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
You haven't conquered this one yet.

Yeah, no kidding.

Still trying to reason with a bigot is pointless. I was very impressed with the efforts of tomndebb and zev_steinhardt among others, but knew they were doomed to fail by page 2. Sadly, logic, thoughtful discussion and well supported facts almost never can move entrenched hatred. While we are about fighting ignorance, intentional self-inflicted ignorance appears to be terminal.

But hey, this post probably makes me a "freeper-bot", whatever the fuck that means in Bigot (I guess we have to Bablefish it from Bigot to English).

:rolleyes:

SentientMeat

03-05-2003, 09:41 AM

What, in the name of the Great Yehudi, is a freeper-bot?I see you have all become acquainted with our resident David Icke admirer.
I asked that question in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163775), which subsequently became a 9/11 conspiracy in
this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165180). mystic has not yet answered what he means by this answer to “Are you a Holocaust Denier?”: I am a Holocaust Realist.

Hank Fescue

03-05-2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb
Hank, I notice that you are gettingf so incoherent that you are now misquoting me. Take a deep breath and try to get yourself under control. You're going to have a coronary; defending your ignorance is just not worth it. ;)

I didn't misquote you Tom . I just screwed up the coding. I'll try again.

Originally posted by Tom
The context of my statement is that Israel has no law regarding ethnicity in determining citizenship

OK, you said the statement was made in the context of Israeli citizenship law.

Originally posted by Tom
However, it was "living in Palestine" in the context of the nation of Israel. The whole "who is a Jew?" discussion that generally surrounds any talk of the Khazars....

No wait, it is living in Palestine in the context of the nation of Israel.

Originally posted by Tom
What you are now saying is that you took my specific comment to mystic2311 regarding the irrelevance of the "semitic or not semitic" nature of the Khazar and applied to it Israeli citizenship.

No, no wait. You made the statement in the context of semitic or not semitic and I applied it to citizenship.

Tom, do you even know what you said anymore? Now again, could you clarify as to what context I should place your comment in.

Also, have you come up with that word yet Tom? You know, the word describing how culture, religion and tradition are passed across generatrions? I know it's a tough one but surely there is something. Hey, how about "intraveinous proselytization"?

Originally posted by Tom
you are now misquoting me.

You lying sack of shit. I have not misquoted you. Every bit of what I have quoted is cut and pasted from your own post. You are so fucking pig headed that you stoop to dishonesty before admitting you are wrong.

Beagle

03-05-2003, 01:31 PM

SEARCH: "freeper"

Free Republic (http://www.freerepublic.com/). Righty website? Yes, I see a picture of Ann Coulter.

BUT

Freeper Report: anti-war movement? (http://www.amazing.com/politics/freeping/2003-01-11/account.html)

Freeper song? (http://www.dittomom.com/dittomom/freeper.htm)

Conspiracy Planet (http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=97&contentid=437)

So, in conclusion, freeper has something to do with Free Republic, free press, anti-war politics, conspiracies, or something else. There are more listings. mystic declared victory and huffed off. How cute.

tomndebb

03-05-2003, 01:35 PM

You lying sack of shit. I have not misquoted you. Yes, you did. See the portion in quotation marks of the following statement you made that crops and changes my actual statement. That is called misquoting. your assertion that "ethnicity is irrelevant in any discussion of Israel" is non sense.Time for you to quit, I guess. You can't even remember when you've made stuff up.

Beagle

03-05-2003, 01:39 PM

Yeah. That's about it. With a different search, I found this (http://www.megaone.com/bmovies/freepers.html).Ever since there was a al-Qaeda Underground, the word freeper has been circulating the boards. What is it? What does it mean? Where did it come from? I will answer these questions for you, from the point of view of someone who used to think that the republicans were right some of the time, and the democrats were right some of the time.

Freeper originally was a word used to describe those who hang out and post on a website called www.freerepublic.com. This message board is for conservatives. I encourage you all to go to this site and take a look for yourself. Now, since that time, the word freeper has evolved. Many of us in the middle (the real middle) and on the left (to varying degrees) are amazed at what the mainstream republicans and media have been able to accomplish. They've basically built a following of "freepers" who are like sheep; following blindly, spouting the party line, never questioning. They're blinded by the hate that the media and the mainstream repubs have shoved at them for years. They've been scared into sheep. They've been told anyone in the middle or left is a commie pinko who wants to destroy them and the country with "big government". They believe this without question, in their blindness. For this reason, the word freeper does not just equate to those who hangout/post on freerepublic, it now encompasses any and all of the brainwashed right. You can be a conservative and not be a freeper if you think for yourself, but you can't be a freeper without being a sheep. It's basically one big ad hominem argument directed at everyone who is not a conspiracy nut.

mystic2311

03-05-2003, 02:58 PM

I eat ad hominy grits for breakfast. I think it is ironic that you say that my attacks are ad hominem, but your attacks (like labeling me as a bigot) are not. If you actually read my posts, you will find no evidence of bigotry.

Sentient meat, you seem to have forgotten the post where I said that David Icke is a nutcase. And what part of Holocaust Realist do you not understand?

Main Entry: re·al·ism (Merriam-Webster)

1 : concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and
visionary
2 a : a doctrine that universals exist outside the mind; specifically : the conception that an abstract term names an independent and unitary reality b : the conception that objects of sense perception or cognition exist independently of the mind -- compare NOMINALISM
3 : fidelity in art and literature to nature or to real life and to accurate representation without idealization

Meanings 1 & 3 are most apropos.

Beagle, you left out this:

The Tactics of Freepers
Freepers engage in many forms of tactics to intimidate their enemies. If you're engaged in a real debate with a freeper (perhaps one of your friends is a freeper) they will usually start raising their voice immediately. They will then say things as if they were obvious fact (fox news isn't biased, cnn is liberal, Clinton was a rapist, etc) when in fact anyone who looks at such things objectively disagrees with them. They refuse to back down from such points, even if massive evidence to the contrary is displayed for them. Another tactic used by freepers, but only in the online community, is called "freeping". Freeping equates to we network security guys called a Distributed Denial of Service Attack. In network security, an attacker can utilize large numbers of 'hacked' computers, making them all flood a server with various protocols and information at the same time, hogging the server's bandwidth and overloading it's software, eventually causing said server to crash when it can't handle the load anymore. Freeping is the same thing, except instead of 'hacked' computers being used, people are being used. They herd their sheep to one specific site that disagrees with their fascist views and they disrupt the site constantly until a) they feel their mission is accomplished b) the site goes down or c) they get bored. Then they all go back to freerepublic (freeperville, henceforth) and pat each other on the back and say "Wow, we sure showed those commies!" For some reason, they believe this helps their agenda. Personally, I think it paints them as the criminals they are. If they were using ICMP packets instead of actual people, it'd be illegal.

Summary
Freepers are slightly to the right of Hitler. Most believe that America is the only Godly country (save Israel, sometimes) and that all the unGodly must be 'smited'. They believe that rich, white males should be ruling the world and keeping their 'wimmin' and 'niggers' in check, and working, like the Good Book says they should. They're completely unable to comprehend that they're not the majority in this country, and that legitimate conservatives (John McCain) and legitimate Christians despise them. They're truly the perfect example of propaganda, scare tactics, and brainwashing. If you know any freepers in your day to day activities, I encourage you to prove my words to yourself by attempting to engage them in honest debate. If they fail to exhibit the qualities, they're not completely hopeless yet, I encourage you then to attempt to give them a mind of their own.

Hank Fescue

03-05-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb
Yes, you did. See the portion in quotation marks of the following statement you made that crops and changes my actual statement. That is called misquoting. Time for you to quit, I guess. You can't even remember when you've made stuff up.

Originally posted by Tom
ethnic background of any Jewish group is irrelevant to any discussion of the state of Israel..

That is what you said Tom. And that was not even mentioned in my post where you accused me of misquoting you. Do you have any further defense or rationalization of your remark or does the brevity of your last couple post mean you are out of bullshit?

And I am still waiting for you to come up with that word used to describe religious, cultural and genetic connections Tom.

Also this is enlightning as to your tactics:

Are you going to continue to pursue this claim if you discover that the same rule holds true for adopted children of Jewish mothers?

Why didn't you follow up on this Tom? You imply that this is a relevant issue and then back away from the challenge to prove it? Why Tom? Could it be that the rule does not hold true for adopted children?

So you fish around to find out if you might be able to sneak another lie past me, find out you can't and abandon your implication. You are a weasel Tom. Time for you to quit. Judging from the substance of your last two post, you already have.

Beagle

03-05-2003, 03:10 PM

If you have read anything I've written, and I doubt it, I've carefully avoided calling you a bigot. I did say that anti-pro-Semitism sounded an awful lot like anti-Semitism, which you all more than I hashed out for several pages, including a detailed discussion of Jewish history and ethnicity. Once again proving that SDMB posters are willing to polish a turd.

Let's go back, *shimmer, shimmer* I posted an article by Ariel Cohen citing the Venona book and the author who happened to attend an anti-war rally. You, out of fucking nowhere, assume that ARIEL COHEN, hmmm, is a "pro-Semite." This, after basically dismissing any attempts to engage you in rational discussion - in Great Debates and throwing around accusations of "freeper(ness)" without knowing one thing about the people you were insulting.

And, now, you cry martyrdom.

Boo. Fucking. Hoo. You are an arrogant prick.

mystic2311

03-05-2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
If you have read anything I've written, and I doubt it, I've carefully avoided calling you a bigot. I did say that anti-pro-Semitism sounded an awful lot like anti-Semitism, which you all more than I hashed out for several pages, including a detailed discussion of Jewish history and ethnicity. Once again proving that SDMB posters are willing to polish a turd.

Let's go back, *shimmer, shimmer* I posted an article by Ariel Cohen citing the Venona book and the author who happened to attend an anti-war rally. You, out of fucking nowhere, assume that ARIEL COHEN, hmmm, is a "pro-Semite." This, after basically dismissing any attempts to engage you in rational discussion - in Great Debates and throwing around accusations of "freeper(ness)" without knowing one thing about the people you were insulting.

And, now, you cry martyrdom.

Boo. Fucking. Hoo. You are an arrogant prick.

Elf6c called me a bigot. Sorry, Beagle, I have gone all the way back to the original thread started by Henry B, and I don't see any evidence that you or anyone tried to debate me rationally, unless you consider closedmindedness, trite putdowns(reference to tinfoil hats), bigotry, arrogance, hypocrisy, etc. to be evidence of rational debate. I am not an arrogant prick in real life, but I do play one on SDMB. I was just trying to fit in. Almost everyone here is an arrogant closed minded prick. Any reference to CIA or conspiracies is immediately dismissed out of hand. So tell me, Watergate never happened? Iran-Contra and Iraqgate demonstrated legal above-the board attempts by honest people to carry out programs that they thought were legal and just? The CIA never plotted to kill Castro?

And your claim that North Korea has penetrated the anti-war movement is not a conspiracy theory?

conspiracy
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to
commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

The SDMB is not dispelling ignorance, it is just perpetrating it.

tomndebb

03-05-2003, 04:01 PM

Hank, you deliberately changed what I saidthe ethnic background of any Jewish group is irrelevant to any discussion of the state of Israel.to the very differentethnicity is irrelevant in any discussion of IsraelI realize that you have difficulty understanding a lot of things, but that is a misquote where you changed multiple key points of my statement.

I did not say that ethnicity has no relevance to Israel; I said the the ethnicity of any group is irrelevant to the state of Israel. In other words, worrying about the semitic nature of Khazars (the point that prompted my comment) is irrelevant to issues of the state (think laws, citizenship, etc.) regardless of the issues of the culture or society (on which ethnicity may or may not have a concern). This is not weaseling; this is the explicit point that I initially made and the point that I have continued to maintain throughout your increasing loss of control.

I have allowed you to dance around the mother-child connection, hoping that you would finally realize that one cannot define ethnicity with a single connection.
You and I have already demonstrated that:
first when I pointed out the great-grandmother scenario in which a person who would be clearly identified as an ethnic Jew by any normal use of the word ethnic would not qualify for citizenship
and then when you countered with "Fred" who would clearly not be considered an ethnic Jew by any normal use of the word, but who might be granted citizenship. (I say "might" because I do not actually know the law in the scenario you described.)

So we have two cases where maternal descent will give results that are opposite of the normal concept of ethnic identity, yet you continue to whine that maternal descent makes it all ethnic.

You also keep ignoring the Falashas who are not ethnic Jews but who were granted citizenship, and have now wandered off to carp about Italian foods since you did not actually understand the point being made.

You have now misquoted me and lied about misquoting me while demonstrating that you have never had a clue regarding the actual points of the discussion. (Do you lose arguments with yourself, like this, often?)