Here ya go!
Duh! The Jews! 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 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.”
What are you talking about exactly? You say the law is based on cultural affiliation? That is ethnicity man. Look it up.
If you convert, you have joined the ethnic community of Judaism. You can now pass along this ethnicity through your blood by Israeli law.
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.
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.
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.
Sure I have Tom . Jews are an ethnic group. Israel wants Jews as citizens. Most know this as truth.
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.
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.
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.
That is not talking about 9-11, it is talking about an incident that happened in February 2000. Nice try, dipshit.
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!
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…
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
You know this is the law of Irsael and not just a religious one. You are bordering on dishonesty.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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/