Is this anti-Semitic?

[Domen]

"12% percent of modern Ashkenazi Jews are of Khazar descent"

This is "popular genetics" or something like this - in other words, rubbish pseudo-science.

There is no any scientific way to check how many Jews are descended from Khazars.

You should also remember that 10 generations ago each person had even up to 1024 ancestors - who lived more or less at the same time (as one generation). Researching haplogroups gives us answer only about 2 of those 1024 ancestors who lived 10 generations ago - i.e. direct female lineage ancestor and direct male lineage ancestor. But nothing about 1022 ancestors of all lateral lineages - and we also inherit genes from them, not only from 2 direct lineages.

That being said, despite these shortages of haplogroup research, it is still useful to understand how populations used to spread around the globe.

 

[Mouthwash]

If Israel's justification for existing is providing a homeland for Jews descended from there, why wouldn't that be pertinant?

Because the justification for a Jewish state in Israel isn't "we lived there 2,000 years ago," despite endless use of that in Pro-Palestinian circlejerking.

 

[useless]

Because the justification for a Jewish state in Israel isn't "we lived there 2,000 years ago," despite endless use of that in Pro-Palestinian circlejerking.

Why specifically a Jewish state? Why not a secular one?

 

[Domen]

Because the justification for a Jewish state in Israel isn't "we lived there 2,000 years ago,"

You didn't want Madagascar so you got Israel instead.

BTW - what is this justification? I suppose the "forcible argument" ???

Why specifically a Jewish state? Why not a secular one?

Jews are not only a religious group but also a nation - like Germans, Scots, Poles, French, English or Russians.

A "secular Jewish state" would also be possible.

 

[Adjuvant]

I don't understand any position in this entire thread to be "antisemitic" in the manner you're portraying here. It makes me a little upset when certain things which affect me personally as used in political brow-beating, and if you're upset about the politics of it all you should say, "I'm upset about the politics", not say, "there's an anti-semite" and "oh, I found another one".

You're digging a very deep hole for yourself.

 

[useless]

You know what's also anti-semitic? Displacing Arab people from their homes and forcing them into increasingly smaller ghettoised lands. Strangely Mouthwash doesn't seem to be concerned or bothered by that aspect of anti-semitism.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why specifically a Jewish state? Why not a secular one?

Why exactly can't the two be conterminous? Unless, of course, you're strawmanning the term "Jewish state" to mean "Halachic state."

You didn't want Madagascar so you got Israel instead.

BTW - what is this justification? I suppose the "forcible argument" ???

What "forcible" argument?

I don't understand any position in this entire thread to be "antisemitic" in the manner you're portraying here. It makes me a little upset when certain things which affect me personally as used in political brow-beating, and if you're upset about the politics of it all you should say, "I'm upset about the politics", not say, "there's an anti-semite" and "oh, I found another one".

You're digging a very deep hole for yourself.

It's a very short distance to "Israel is a racist country because it only accepts Jews who are racially pure" or whatever. I've never ever heard a Rabbi take the position that being Jewish is dependent upon genetics. The process of conversion is universally accepted as legitimate.

 

[Domen]

This reminds me of a certain court case in Poland between Mr Michnik and Mr Ziemkiewicz.

Mr Ziemkiewicz published an article in which he wrote that Michnik - quote: "terrorizes his political enemies by suing them, with use of preheated judges".

Then guess what Michnik did. Of course he sued Ziemkiewicz for an insult, claiming that Ziemkiewicz called him "a terrorist" in his article.

Of course Michinik lost the case - and here the case is also lost, because this article:

http://thebilzerianreport.com/defining-anti-semitism/

Is not anti-Semitic. Just like "terrorizing political enemies by suing them" is not the same as "being a terrorist".

Adjuvant is right - do not confuse political opinions with ethnic hatred, Mouthwash.

Not everything which may be inapropriate towards the Jewish people (or towards someone else), is automatically anti-Semitic (or anti-Someone).

PS: I don't write that this article quoted above is not incorrect in what it claims. I only wite that it is not anti-Semitic.

 

[Adjuvant]

I've never ever heard a Rabbi take the position that being Jewish is dependent upon genetics. The process of conversion is universally accepted as legitimate.

I have, as I have also suffered others' opinions as to "who are legitimate christians" based on descendancy.

 

[useless]

There certainly seems to be a growing movement for a non-secular Jewish State in Israel.

 

[Tahuti]

There certainly seems to be a growing movement for a non-secular Jewish State in Israel.

Well, there is such a movement yes. That's still far cry from the idea that Israel is a "Jewish state" in the religious sense. Israel is as much a Jewish state as Greece is a Greek state.

 

[Domen]

There certainly seems to be a growing movement for a non-secular Jewish State in Israel.

There are plenty of non-secular states in the world already. One more such state would not make a big difference.

 

[Adjuvant]

Hey, if you really want something to poke at, I personally feel the modern state of Israel to be illegitimate because it wasn't founded by God but rather the UN.

How do you like those apples?

 

[Tahuti]

There are plenty of non-secular states in the world already. One more such state would not make a big difference.

Well, for liberal democracies, being laicist or religious or something in between doesn't really make difference for its population anyway. It mostly a matter of imagery, similar to royal families in constitutional monarchies. Hence, it doesn't make much difference, whether you are ultrasecularist France, formally religious Denmark or quasi-religious Netherlands or Israel for that matter.

Another point: The Netherlands has a significant population of Bevindelijk Gereformeerden who are deeply religious Calvinists. Since municipalities, elementary schools and high schools have significant amount of autonomy, they can live this deeply religious lifestyle with support of the government similar to Haredim in Israel. They even have their own political party known as the SGP, which usually wins some seats in the second chamber. Yet nobody seems to notice that. Not even the majority of Dutch people seem to notice it; anti-clerical sentiment in the Netherlands is primarily linked to opposition to Muslim majority Minorities (MMM, an acronym of my own invention, I think). As a Dutchmen, I find it silly that so much attention is given to Haredim (and Arab immigrants in Europe) while Bevindelijk Gereformeerden largely go unnoticed, even in my own country. However, the Netherlands is otherwise a highly secularised society, and the relatively priviliged position of the Bevindelijke Gereformeerden are mainly due to the Netherlands' decentralised governmental structure.

 

[Mouthwash]

You know what's also anti-semitic? Displacing Arab people from their homes and forcing them into increasingly smaller ghettoised lands. Strangely Mouthwash doesn't seem to be concerned or bothered by that aspect of anti-semitism.

Are you hoping for a response here?

 

[timtofly]

Hey, if you really want something to poke at, I personally feel the modern state of Israel to be illegitimate because it wasn't founded by God but rather the UN.

How do you like those apples?

Do you have proof of this claim? Did the UN sneak something past God? Was it not the will of God? How far do we want to take this?

 

[Adjuvant]

Do you have proof of this claim? Did the UN sneak something past God? Was it not the will of God? How far do we want to take this?

That's a fair question. In my understanding the book of Joel portrays what should and will happen, and what has been happening the last 70 years does not comply with the prophesied Zion. As a matter of fact, I'd compare it to events "leading to those characterized" in Joel.

What we have now is a thing being "called" Zion, and everyone seems to hope very much it is Zion. In a way I wish it was, but it is not. I'm no anti-zionist. I genuinely feel this is not Zion.

 

[classical_hero]

You know what's also anti-semitic? Displacing Arab people from their homes and forcing them into increasingly smaller ghettoised lands. Strangely Mouthwash doesn't seem to be concerned or bothered by that aspect of anti-semitism.

You mean how Arabs illegally immigrated to the region. Arabs have zero connection to the land of Israel.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's just odd that this term came into use. Calling something anti-jewish (though even that doesn't fit when someone like Netanyahu is talking, as he just loves to call anyone who criticises the government of Israel anti-semitic) would have been a) far more correct and b) more straight to the point.

Words aren't created after logical thought. The term "antisemitism" was populated by a German journalist Wilhelm Marr as an euphemism for "anti-Jewish" (Marr was the founder of the "Antisemitic League"). Hence, the meaning struck, even though it's linguistically incorrect.

Compare with "homophobia", which, linguistically, is even worse (literally, "fear of sameness").

 

[Perfection]

We were having a discussion on antisemitism. He cited an antisemitic website. I'm calling him out on it.

How dull.