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.
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
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.
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.
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/szamuely15.html
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
Y’know, lying about what you said in the very thread where you posted it does not make you look very good:
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.
Y’know, lying about what you said in the very thread where you posted it does not make you look very good:
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.
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).
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.
“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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Please?
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.
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.
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.