The real apartheid state.

[Tahuti]

I don't follow? Poland gained plenty of land permanently after the Soviets evicted millions of Germans off of it. If anything, the wars of the early twentieth century are a solid validation of ethnic cleansing.

Implying it had to kick out Germans from its land in the first place to gain that territory.

Now, if there are stark political differences that are congruent with ethnic groups, that will certainly lead to ethnic tensions. For instance, Belgium is divided between the relatively fiscal conservative Flemish and and the largely socialist Walloons, though it was long a non-issue. Switzerland hosts diverse ethnic groups, that politically speaking have roughly the same preferences, which is why there is little discord over there.

And new ethnic affiliations may arise that were previously not there, due to the said geographic and political interests. Conversely, ethnic affiliations may erode if there is a strong sense of political agreement between the ethnic groups in question. For a time, the Netherlands was pillarised, and Dutch society was roughly divided into quasi-ethnic sub-groups based on religion and ideology: 'Liberals', 'Socialists', 'Catholics' and 'Protestants'. This phenenoma largely dispersed in the 1970s. Ethnic groups are largely a political creation: There isn't some kind of primordialist nonsense at play here like ethnic nationalist love to claim, but it is true that political differences can make ethnic boundaries quite true and something that you can't just erase, save for creating roughly the same economic and social circumstances for two different ethnic groups as to erode their casus for conflict.

The reason why most European countries fail to integrate migrants and their descendents form Turkey and Arab and African countries is because their social-political interests are highly divergent from the general population. They were brought as workers when the native population was entirely becoming part of the middle-class. They are as religious as their native Europeans were roughly 250 years ago (that they are often Muslim is totally irrelevant here, it is the matter of religiousity that matters here).

 

[Evie]

The legal basis of the claim is one relevant point to consider, but if the entire project is founded in large part on the notion of "This is our ancestral homeland", then it remains a relevant point of discussion even if you found your legal claim on another basis.

EDIT: That said, making the argument NOW that Jews currently living in Israel have no right to be there on the basis of where their ancestors lived or didn't live is daft, and if not racist at the very least discriminatory. Whatever their ancestors did or did not do just isn't relevant.

 

[Mouthwash]

EDIT: That said, making the argument NOW that Jews currently living in Israel have no right to be there on the basis of where their ancestors lived or didn't live is daft, and if not racist at the very least discriminatory. Whatever their ancestors did or did not do just isn't relevant.

The Khazar myth was resurrected in the 70's.

 

[Evie]

Well then I believe I already made it clear what my feelings on people making such arguments was. It's despicable.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think it may be a need to give Egypt its property back.

 

[Agent327]

The Jews chose Palestine for their state because it was land of their ancestors, but they never claimed that it should be theirs because of it. Huge difference.

'The Jews' never did anything, actually. Zionism finally focused on Palestine, mainly because it was 'availlable' (it wasn't their first choice).

As per the ancestry 'argument', that makes no sense whatsoever. Judaism is a religion, encompassing many ethnicities. Possibly, at one time most Jews lived in Palestine (and even here it is arguable whether they ever were a majority). At any rate, a lot has happened since then. Judaism has spread far and wide, and this wasn't a people expanding, this was conversion (in fact early Christianity mostly arose in centers were Judaism had spread earlier).

Associated with this is another myth, that of the forceful diaspora: the only evidence for such an event is in the centuries BC (the Babylonian exile was limited to Jewish elite, and after it was lifted only part of that community ever returned).

The Romans never banished Jews from Palestine, only from Jerusalem (and this was later lifted).

Interestingly, the coming of Islam never resulted in a mass emigration either (not surprising, as mass migrations are rare, especially among farmer societies). Instead there occurred a mass conversion (to Islam). Nonetheless, a Jewish minority (and a Christian one) remained ever since.

 

[Masada]

I plagiarized that from DDO.

This isn't a denial. It just shows you're a plagiarist.

Latino and black gangs simply emphasize that even in nations without racial characteristics at all, divisions on ethnic lines occur. Go to New York City and you'll find Jewish neighborhoods, Italian neighborhoods, Indian neighborhoods, Chinese neighborhoods, etc.

"People self-segregate, therefore Apartheid!"

Also, you know how I just apologized to you for responding to you with mockery? I'd like to rescind that and offer my opinion that you thoroughly deserved it.

Your opinion carries no weight, so I'm not in the least bit offended.

 

[Tahuti]

'Associated with this is another myth, that of the forceful diaspora: the only evidence for such an event is in the centuries BC (the Babylonian exile was limited to Jewish elite, and after it was lifted only part of that community ever returned).

Where is Dachs?!

The Romans never banished Jews from Palestine, only from Jerusalem (and this was later lifted).

I don't think this was ever implied.

 

[Agent327]

Dachs is in the History forum.

Do you have a point?

 

[Mouthwash]

'The Jews' never did anything, actually. Zionism finally focused on Palestine, mainly because it was 'availlable' (it wasn't their first choice).

It was the first choice for a unified Jewish homeland. Uganda was a way to get Jews out of Europe quickly.

As per the ancestry 'argument', that makes no sense whatsoever. Judaism is a religion, encompassing many ethnicities.

No, most of those ethnicities are directly descended from Judeans. "Ethnicity" is completely different from genetics.

The Jews are an ethnoreligious group. It's not like goddamn Christianity.

Possibly, at one time most Jews lived in Palestine (and even here it is arguable whether they ever were a majority). At any rate, a lot has happened since then. Judaism has spread far and wide, and this wasn't a people expanding, this was conversion (in fact early Christianity mostly arose in centers were Judaism had spread earlier). Associated with this is another myth, that of the forceful diaspora: the only evidence for such an event is in the centuries BC (the Babylonian exile was limited to Jewish elite, and after it was lifted only part of that community ever returned).

What the hell are you even trying to refute?

The Romans never banished Jews from Palestine, only from Jerusalem (and this was later lifted).

I'm going to stop this charade now.

Interestingly, the coming of Islam never resulted in a mass emigration either (not surprising, as mass migrations are rare, especially among farmer societies). Instead there occurred a mass conversion (to Islam). Nonetheless, a Jewish minority (and a Christian one) remained ever since.

I agree, cannot determine relevance to anything said so far.

This isn't a denial. It just shows you're a plagiarist.

How do I disprove it any more than I disprove me being part of Hezbollah's propaganda network? If you actually believe that I support segregation, go right ahead. I'll believe that ReindeerThistle is a corporate snoz trying to make socialists look bad.

"People self-segregate, therefore Apartheid!"

The strawman goes up, up... and away!

 

[Borachio]

This thread is all a worry, isn't it?

You would have thought there would have been some lessons learned by World War II.

One might think this.

But, you see, victims of one injustice very often inflict it on others. For example, people who sexually abuse children were often abused themselves (or maybe it's only sometimes?); and torturers have very often been victims of torture. It's how the brain works: if you've experienced it yourself it's OK to inflict it on others. No?

Not "do as you would be done by" but "do as you have been done by".

What are you talking about? I'm referring to the Muslims who say that Ashkenazi Jews being descended from Khazars invalidate their claim to the land. I've also heard them say that the Palestinians are directly descended from Canaanites.

Do you accept or deny that this is a form of racism when used politically?

I don't follow? Poland gained plenty of land permanently after the Soviets evicted millions of Germans off of it. If anything, the wars of the early twentieth century are a solid validation of ethnic cleansing.

Right. So ethnic cleansing is not only OK but a good idea? If someone should decide to ethnically cleanse their country of Jews that would be OK would it?

I must say, Mr Wash, your views are becoming steadily more and more unappealing.

As for the establishment of a non-Jewish state, why on earth not? Why couldn't Israel become a fully secular state?

Why can't all states be secular? If, in fact, there's any need for states at all.

 

[Agent327]

It was the first choice for a unified Jewish homeland. Uganda was a way to get Jews out of Europe quickly.

The point was: you said 'the Jews' did such and such. They did not. The Zionists did.

No, most of those ethnicities are directly descended from Judeans. "Ethnicity" is completely different from genetics.

The Jews are an ethnoreligious group. It's not like goddamn Christianity.

Interesting claim, but historically incorrect. One need only think of Ashkenazim and Ethiopian Jews.

The term Jew is derived from Juda. (There was also Israel.)

In actuality Judaism is very much like Christianity, which is also composed of various ethnoreligious groups. Speaking of 'the Jews' or 'the Jewish people' is a gross simplification.

What is the point you are attempting to make?

...

What the hell are you even trying to refute?

My 'point' is to present some facts - as opposed to myths.

I'm going to stop this charade now.

Feel free.

 

[Mouthwash]

One might think this.

But, you see, victims of one injustice very often inflict it on others. For example, people who sexually abuse children were often abused themselves (or maybe it's only sometimes?); and torturers have very often been victims of torture. It's how the brain works: if you've experienced it yourself it's OK to inflict it on others. No?

Not "do as you would be done by" but "do as you have been done by".

Apply Freudian bushwa to international relations or politics doesn't end well. Your proposal is nuts.

Did you read my post? Over half of Israeli Jews are Sephardi, and most of the Ashkenazim are descendants of those already in Palestine in 1945.

Right. So ethnic cleansing is not only OK but a good idea? If someone should decide to ethnically cleanse their country of Jews that would be OK would it?

Depends. Is there country in danger of becoming Jewish dominated itself? If so, then absolutely.

As for the establishment of a non-Jewish state, why on earth not? Why couldn't Israel become a fully secular state?

Why can't all states be secular? If, in fact, there's any need for states at all.

Israel is a secular state. Israel is Jewish in the national sense, not in a religious one.

The point was: you said 'the Jews' did such and such. They did not. The Zionists did.

The Zionists were Jews. Every religious Jew is technically a Zionist in some sense of the word because we believe that we will all be sent back to Israel after the Messiah comes.

Interesting claim, but historically incorrect. One need only think of Ashkenazim and Ethiopian Jews.

The term Jew is derived from Juda. (There was also Israel.)

In actuality Judaism is very much like Christianity, which is also composed of various ethnoreligious groups. Speaking of 'the Jews' or 'the Jewish people' is a gross simplification.

Are you even on the same planet, let alone the same arena of debate?

My 'point' is to present some facts - as opposed to myths.

Who precisely has parroted these myths?

 

[Borachio]

Apply Freudian bushwa to international relations or politics doesn't end well. Your proposal is nuts.

I made no proposal. It's an observation. And which countries aren't composed of the individuals that inhabit them?

Collectively, people are even less complicated than they are individually, imo.

Depends. Is there country in danger of becoming Jewish dominated itself? If so, then absolutely.

I can only think of one.

Israel is a secular state. Israel is Jewish in the national sense, not in a religious one.

Then it needs to protect every citizen regardless of their ethnicity.

I wish you'd decide what line you're going to follow.

You say Israel is Jewish nationally but not religiously, but that Jewishness is an ethnoreligious description.

 

[Tahuti]

Why can't all states be secular? If, in fact, there's any need for states at all.

The seperating line between secular and religious is very fuzzy when it comes to politics. Turkey as a country is arguably much more religious than Denmark, yet Turkey is formally secular while Denmark has a state church. If countries are politically liberal (liberal in the sense of allowing freedom) , it doesn't really matter whether the state is religious like the US, Israel or Denmark or secular like France or Japan.

If a state is a dictatorship and cares a lot about the topic of religion, only then will it matter whether the state is secular or not.

Israel is a secular state. Israel is Jewish in the national sense, not in a religious one.

While it is true that Israel is Jewish in the national sense, not in the religious one, and many influential Israelis are atheists (including Rabin, Dayan, Barak and Ben-Gurion) the Israeli state does have some strong religious elements that are quite alien to Western Europeans, particularly the laicist French. For instance, Sharia law is legally binding for Muslims in Israel. There is no civil marriage in Israel, even though foreign civil marriages including gay marriages are recognised in Israel. It doesn't have Judaism as a state religion though, but Israel as a state is somewhat religious in a weird sense. It is bit comparable to the situation in the USA, Denmark and Britain were religious elements still linger in the construction of the states, in spite of having an overall secular constitution/society.

 

[Mouthwash]

I made no proposal. It's an observation. And which countries aren't composed of the individuals that inhabit them?

Collectively, people are even less complicated than they are individually, imo.

*sigh*

I can only think of one.

Oh, I walked right into that, didn't I?

Then it needs to protect every citizen regardless of their ethnicity.

Of course.

I wish you'd decide what line you're going to follow.

You say Israel is Jewish nationally but not religiously, but that Jewishness is an ethnoreligious description.

They're two different concepts. One can argue, for instance, that Scots are leftist-leaning in general. That does not mean that Scottish nationalism is inherently based upon leftism. Like I said, Judaism isn't just a religion, it's a way of life. It's pretty obvious why they could identify collectively and why that would lead to a desire for self-determination.

 

[peter grimes]

OK, time to counter ignorance and BS.

The harder I try to clarify things, the more vigorously it flies over your head.

I wasn't literally referring to "Brooklyn" as an geographical area in which intermarriage was nonexistent. Brooklyn is the center of Orthodox Judaism in the US. I'm suggesting that the Jewish areas of Brooklyn, which function like a different country with their own rules, their own standards of conduct, their own Kosher businesses and their own way of life, are devoid of intermarriage because intermarriage is one of the biggest taboos in Judaism. Have you ever met or spoken to a Jew? Do you know anything about Judaism? Stop screwing around, dude.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding you - can you understand why I might have, considering this is what you had said:

In more religious places like Brooklyn or Israel-besides-Tel Aviv, intermarriage is almost nonexistent. So there's a huge sampling problem if you want to use anecdotal evidence.

Have I ever met or spoken to a Jew? Yes, actually. That's a strange question to ask, seeing as there are thousands of Orthodox Jews who live outside the small neighborhoods that I mentioned you might have been referring to when you said "Brooklyn".

They don't function like their own countries. They don't have their own army, they are subject to the laws of New York City, New York State, and the United States of America. Just because there are community centers, charitable organizations, special schools, and conflict resolution systems doesn't mean it's like a different country. More like a community.

It's not as if those things are unique to the Orthodox community, for that matter. It's also not as if elements of Orthodox culture are restrcited to those areas, either. You can find Kosher businesses in nearly every single neighborhood in the city. There are Sabbath elevators in every hospital I've ever been in here. There are those lines strung from lamp posts that define a blessed area. And in a lot of cases, the Orthodox rabbis overseeing the live animal markets are doing it right along side the Halal guys

 

[warpus]

I just looked up sabbath elevators. I am still not convinced that it isn't a joke, but okay, fine, it isn't a joke.

 

[Borachio]

It's an hilarious joke, imo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat_elevator

Honestly, how can anyone swallow this stuff? It's like institutionalized OCD.

 

[warpus]

I wonder why they just won't use the stairs, instead of resorting to this loophole. Obviously God isn't an idiot. I mean, obviously he doesn't actually exist, but c'mon.. this is sillier than silly hats.