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.
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.
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
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
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:
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.
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
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?
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:
Discussion of Khazars and how they are not “semitic.”
I point out that such ethnic concerns are irrelevant because Israel’s laws are not based on whether someone is semitic.
You jump in with your erronneous claims that citizenship is ethnic and that ethnicity is of “utmost importance.”
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.)
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:
Much discussion of ethnic claims to Israel and Judaism.
Tom claims that ethnicity has no relevance in ANY discussion of Israel.
I jump in and toss out just one example (citizenship) where ethnicity is very important.
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.
I notice you ignore my reference to lasagna. Guess you’re still tinking pizza is imortant to Pizza Hut.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Tom
The context of my statement is that Israel has no law regarding ethnicity in determining citizenship.
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
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 **
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]
So Tom, in exactly what fucking context should I place your comment in, you can’t seem to decide anymore.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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?
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: