[singing]
They know when you’ve been sleeping
They know when you’re awake.
They know when you’re wearing sock puppets
So don’t wear them for goodness sakes.
[/singing]
Seriously, there are ways to tell, including (but not limited to) the IP address that the post was made from. If you really want to know why he was banned, the appropriate place to ask is the Pit (or, possibly better yet, email a Mod).
As for your question being foolish, don’t worry. We were all newbies at one time.
**
Not quite, I’m afraid. It’s a facet of Israelis immigration law. It is not a facet of the Jewish religion. As I pointed out earlier, the Jewish religion has been around a lot longer than the State of Israel and the Law of Return. I noticed that Sweet Willy came back but did not answer my challenge. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and retract his statement (or modify it to state that the Law of Return promotes racism (something I disagree with, but not a statement that slanders an entire religion).
The Palestinians who did not leave Israel during the 1948 war are Israeli citizens. They have all the rights of Israeli citizens (except that they aren’t drafted into the army). There are currently 11 Israeli Arabs in the Kenesset (the Israeli legislative body). The Arabs who left in 1948 are not citizens.
zev_seinhardt, You must have read the thread backwards. I actually start by stating that Israeli immigration is racist. This fact is supported by the inherent rights in Israeli policy that are garnered from Judaism. I will, out of courtesy, retract that Judaism promotes racism, and infer that Judaism directly affects the promotion of racism in Israeli immigration policy. I don’t wish to insult your religion, but this is a tight rope.
It appears though that the ones who left aren’t citizens of anything. And the ones who stayed are now Israelis…do they have any political sympathy toward the ones who did leave? Or are they too divided now.
I’m also wondering about the right of return and how big of an issue it actually is.
Please forgive my ignorance, but if the “willful imposition of some kind of group status” is not the threat that (in itself) you are referring to, then why is the Right of Return even being discussed here?
Now, if you want to talk about Israel’s potential military threat, that’s a completely different ball of matzoh. I’m personally pretty confident they have nukes, but even if they don’t, they have a highly motivated and well-trained militia consisting of pretty much every able-bodied Jewish adult in the country, with some exceptions. Are they threatening? Sure. If you attack them, they’ll kick your ass.
If anything, the Israelis have shown remarkable restraint in the face of large-scale attacks in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Much of the territory captured by the Isrealis has been returned by international treaty (hmph, I always believed that if someone attacked you, you have the right to destroy them AND keep everything of theirs you can lay your hands on). I don’t know of captured Arabs being rounded up into death camps to be gassed, or being used in lethal medical experiements, etc.
If anything, the west should be encouraging them to seize large portions of the entire Middle East and establish benign puppet governments which will still be far superior to the ruthless dictatorships that now exist (that’s a ridiculous dream, I know, but Jews at least have a sense of humour about things. I’m pretty sure Saddam Hussein only laughs when he gasses some Kurds, the schmuck).
Is the Israeli military machine threatening? I sure as hell hope so, or what’s the point of having it? If Sweet Willy wants to talk about other menacing aspects of Judsaism, everything he’s said so far about preferential treatment is typical of ANY religious or social organization that has rules for its own members and definitions of who is and is not a member. Wait a sec, that means we’re all racist! OH, MY GOD! THE APOCALYPE IS AT HAND!!!
Go back to school, Willy. You’ve obviously flunked Misleading Arguments 101. Saying something is threatening because it sounds discriminatory, and digging up a bunch of selective Talmud quotes to bolster your argument is no disguise for a piss-poor position. You’re falling into the conspiracy theory trap, which always ends up with the speaker talking about enemies that are so powerful and so evil that it begs the question of why they simply haven’t eliminated him, yet.
The irony, of course, is that Willy could stand in Tel Aviv saying these things, and nothing would happen to him except getting a lot of scorn. Try to make a similar statement about the Palestinian Authority while standing in Hebron, and I’d be concerned about knocks on the door in the middle of the night.
By the way, the Middle East isn’t THAT big of a powder keg. None of the countries have nuclear capability (except Israel itself, probably) and they’ve been at war amongst themselves almost continually for… well, forever, actually. A really huge war between two Arab nations of equal strength is likely to resemble the bloody and slow attrition of Iran v. Iraq. A powerful Arab nation attacking a smaller one would be Iraq v. Kuwait. Anyone attacking Israel would be clobbered. None of these scenarios has ever been an automatic trigger to World War III.
P.S. I’m looking forward to hybrid-electric cars, the opening of Russian oil reserves, the development of the Alberta tar sands, and any anthing else likely to bankrupt the corrupt Arab oil states. It’ll be about damn time.
Brian, The rights of return are a sore issue for Palestinians. I believe them to be important and fundamental to this debate.
That is a very interesting observation Brian.
That is interesting too. Do you apply this belief to your daily life?
I don’t exactly know how to characterize this suggestion, but there is probably a long hard to pronounce word for it.
If you can find a single example of me quoting the Talmud I will drive to the great white north and smooch your posterior region. That is a lie and I will ask that you retract it.
As an incidental note, before I go after Willy, I’d like it noted that I am not calling attention to his repeated mispelling of my name, which would be petty.
Ahem.
The Israeli right of return predates this current conflict by quite some time. Are you arguing for unlimited return of Palestinians to the West Bank and/or Gaza Strip? I’m not certain what this would accomplish, aside from intensifying the conflict.
Thanks. I try.
Let’s say (purely hypothetically) that if a mugger attacked me, demanding my wallet, and I knocked him down and unconscious in self defense, I don’t think I’d have a moral problem taking his wallet. I would probably choose not to, but in the case of an assault or a military attack, a huge gamble is being taken that the defenders will not resist with such strength that the attacker will suffer greater losses. When Egypt’s actions brought the region to war, they lost parts of the Sinai Penninsula to Israel. Israel eventually returned this territory, at the urging of the U.S. and U.N. but historically, conquered territory has been kept by those who grabbed it. Morality really has little to do with it, but they did return the territory under treaty, which demonstrates a considerable act of good faith, in my opinion.
If I had to name it, I’d call it “pacification”. One of the main reasons the Roman and British empires lasted as long as they did is that they were reasonably skilled at administration and at putting down local rebellions. So far, the only nation in the region with a reasonably stable democracy is Israel. If anyone was going to conquer the region, I’d rather it be them because they seem to be the mostly reasonable, most of the time. A Jewish Empire? That doesn’t strike me as even remotely threatening, not nearly as much as, say, expanded Iraqi or Iranian influence. If this “powder keg” blows, I hope Israel comes out stronger than anyone else, because they’ve demonstrated the ability and will to build something out of the desert, while the Palentinians have not.
Actually, I kinda always thought this was due to a basic philisophical difference. It was driven home to me by a Lebanese associate of mine who summed up his cultural philosophy as “Me and my brother against my cousin; me and my cousin against an enemy.” As long as this kind of thinking persists (i.e. everyone is your enemy, and only ally yourself with anyone when you perceive a mutual enemy) I’m a little hard-pressed to imagine an Arab nation forming a stable rule of law. I have to admire Turkey for hanging on as long as it has, though I’m not eager to live there.
Whoops, got you confused with Vulcanus. Cheerfully retracted.
Well, maybe Israel could just abolish the right of return so that the appearance of race preference is out of the picture. I don’t see racial attitudes as part of the moral high ground.
Geezus Bryan . That is stealing. If you want justice we have a system for that.
Not always or exclusively the case.
Great Bryan, the British empire was skilled at putting down local rebellions. By this I guess you refer to the objection of indiginous people to the rule of a foreign minority. Some people would see that as the principle of “self rule”. Remember the nasty little rebellion problem in India?
Great. Maybe we should clone Genghis Kahn and set him loose in Israel.
Good for you. Now see if you can convince the Arabs.
Have you considered that maybe they like the desert just like it is?
What does your lack of imagination have to do with this?
Ahem. Okay, let us assume that Judaism is a racist religion (I still believe your argument is a bit weak, for the reasons I have already stated, but let us assume that you are right for the time being). Religions are only a threat if they tell their followers to go around killing those belonging to other religions. Also, it seems to me that Judaism, in regard to viewing itself as superior, is no worse than any other religion. So, Sweet Willy, what exactly are you basing the percentage of your argument off of? You suggest that Judaism is a threat. This would require some evidence that Judaism supports violence against other religions. Also, you would have to prove that the few Jewish Terrorist groups (yes, sadly, there is at least one) are supported by the mainstream Jewish people. Not only that, but you would have to somehow prove that Israel has taken violent action based purely on a racist mentality. Let’s get some examples. I eagerly await your evidence, if it exists.
How do you draw this conclusion? I am not going to post the definitions of threat and threatening since some seem to be offended by Merriam Webster. Look it up yourself if you want. Your conclusion here is wrong.
Well, I would say that is better than some and worse than others. All things considered, I think the religion is a good one. It does embrace some ideas that are detrimental to its relationships with other groups of people. Some of these ideas have been adopted by the Israeli government. If I was Jewish, I would want the nation of Israel to stop being racist in the name of my religion. It doesn’t reflect well upon the religion.
As it has manifest in the policy of a military nation, yes.
No. It would not. There are white seperatist groups that don’t support violence against black people but they influence the violence just the same. They are a threat.
No I would not. A threat does not indicate that such a thing has occured.
Hey Monty. Glad to see you join in. Hope you aren’t still sore at me. I am taking a bit of a thrashing here. Anyway, to your point.
This is sticky so bear with me. Read the rights of return. It adopts Jewish religious ideas of the inherent rights of Jews and sets it forth in national policy. This does not presuppose that the immigant in question is even a part of the Jewish religion. It allows for anyone of Jewish descent. It clearly states preference for people of a particular descent. You could be the most vile and despicable mutant on the planet and Israel still sees you as a better candidate for citizenship as long as you are Jewish. Do you get the picture?
I can be sore at you on one issue, and not sore on another. On this issue, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Could be because you’re wrong.
I have read it.
Incorrect. It decrees a certain group of people as already being citizens of the nation of Israel if they so choose. Their decision on this is based on the long-standing recognition of a nation without a land, that of the nation of Israel.
Actually, the Law of Return does presuppose that; however, the actual term is “member of the Jewish People.” Your misunderstanding of who is a Jew does not equate to the government of Israel being so woefully misinformed.
There’s nothing about preference there. The idea, as I mentioned above, is that the Law of Return is recognizing something the Jewish People have held. BUT, pay attention here please, the prospective immigrant must choose to become a citizen of the State of Israel.
I do, apparently you do not. The most vile murdering scum born on US territory is, in your words “a better candidate for citizenship” in the US than a PhD who was born outside of the country to non-US citizens.
Do everyone, but especially yourself, a favour: learn something before you try to teach others.
First of all, the definition of threat in the Encarta World English Dictionary:
Declaration of intent to cause harm the expression of a deliberate intention to cause harm or pain
Indication of something bad a sign or danger that something undesirable is going to happen
Somebody or something likely to cause harm a person animal or thing likely to cause harm or pain
The definition of threat in the Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary:
an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
one that threatens
an indication of something impending
In response:
You seem to suggest that a religion that doesn’t promote violent action against other religions and has never committed a violent act can be considered a threat. Your logic, please?
Well, Meyer Lansky would disagree with you on that. The fact is, the Law of Return allows the government to ban the immigration of criminals and other creepy people, or, as the actual law says:
Yes, a certain group of people. A certain group of people given preference above all others. The preference exist whether or not an individual chooses it.
No it does not. We have confirmed here that “member of the Jewish people” does not presuppose religion. A former Israeli testified to the fact of “proud athiest Jews”. You are only required to show Jewish heritage absent the practice of judaism. This is not related to religion but related to race.
Monty, The Jewish themselves are somewhat divided on who is a Jew. My undedrstanding is what is stated in the right of return and is what I am concerned with here. Care to give us your understanding of who is a Jew?
Monty, again, the preference exist regardless of who does and who does not choose to use it. The existence of such prefence affects the way in which others perceive the policy.
Yes, but a scum bucket of American heritage, born in Israel, is not given less consideration than a Jewish PhD born in Israel when applying here. However, a Jewish scum bucket born in the U.S. is given preference over an American PhD when applying to Israel.
You don’t have to commit a violent act to be a threat. I could teach a thousand kids to hate and never commit a violent act myself. But if they go out and kill from that hate, I am responsible in a real way. I am a threat in that case.
Kind of like that certain group of people, those born in the US or to US citizens overseas, huh? Is that an unfair prejudice or is it something that makes legal sense?
Actually, I’m not required to show any Jewish heritage, being LDS; however, there is a way to cease being a member of the Jewish People. Also, once one has gained Israeli citizenship, IIRC*, one can’t lose it.
*This was from a conversation I had with the legal counsel at the Israeli Consulate in San Francisco a few years back when the issue came up in connection with my job of processing official visas for US government travelers–one of those travelers was a naturalized US citizen who had been naturalized a citizen of Israel when he was a child.
Better yet, care to cite what the Government of the State of Israel considers who (not what) is a Jew as that is the meat of your complaint here?
I don’t give a rat’s patootie how others perceive jack. Perception does not equal Reality. Reality equals Reality. As it is, you have postulated (badly, I might add) that, by your definition, a preference exists. Anything anyone says, no matter how true, won’t matter because you have declared, as the basis of your complaint, a non-existant preference to exist.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG! As the US citizenship law now exists, that “scum bucket” is not merely of American heritage, he or she is a US citizen AT BIRTH. The Israeli PhD is not considered a US citizen, and thus, unlike the “scum bucket,” requires a visa to enter the US.
See my earlier posting.
Define “violent act.”
So what? How does that have any bearing on the issue of the Law of Return?
Willy: These kinds of extradition deals happen all the time. Holding up a single example lends no evidence to your “threat” thesis.
As far as I know, Israel has no death penalty and in this case, is hesitant to return Sheinbein to the U.S. if he will likely be executed. There have been a number of cases where Canada (also a non-death-penalty country) has been reticent to extradite criminals to the U.S for possible execution. I guess that makes us Canadians threatening, too.
I’m a Canadian Jew - a double-threat! Ooooh, I like the sound of that. Thought I’m actually an atheist, so I’d only be threatening on the ideology aspect, not the religious one.
Your distinction between "threat’ and “threatening” is a petty hair-splitting one that doesn’t make any sense to me at all. If Israel is not poised for large-scale invasions, nuclear exchanges, germ warfare, etc, how is it a threat to “us all” ? Related to this, I must point out that you keep lumping Judaism in with the State of Israel, two overlapping but not equivalent concepts. Judaism has many tenets which are not dependent on the existance of the modern state of Israel, and many of the actions taken by Israel are done to preserve and protect the nation itself, not Judaism as a whole.
Judaism is actually a pretty benign religion, as religions go. It demands literacy (we Westerners take this for granted, nowadays, but 500 years ago, this was downright incredible), and doesn’t consider nonbelievers “infidels” worthy of hate, expulsion and extermination. Divorce is permissible (reducing the domination over women) and at a boy’s bris (circumcision ritual) his father must swear before God that his son will learn a useful trade. Wow. Sounds like a plan for world domination to me.
Judaism can be and has been taken to extremes by some, as has every human philosophy or belief system (I’m sure you’ll be happy to regale us with anecdotal evidence), but among the western religions, it’s the one least likely to burn people at the stake or slice off hands, and it’s never (that I know of) offered a non-believer the choice of converting or death (I’m certainly not going to sponsor you for membership, so breathe easy). It’s one of the least threatening religions around. If you continue to believe otherwise without any good evidence (I’ve seen none so far), then you’re just paranoid. Take a schvitz and relax, boychick.
