The real apartheid state.

Talk about conforming to stereotype.
Indeed. The very same people incessantly discussing others instead of the topic is quite "stereotypical".

So it doesn't matter that he was turning into a dictator. The very reason why the military took over. But that doesn't matter.
The dictatorial military staged a coup so the democratically-elected president might not possibly become far less worse than them at some future time?

It is amazing how many conservatives don't seem to understand the importance of voting and term limits in a representative government, as opposed to military coups, at least when their own candidate isn't the one who is elected.
 
mrdab said:
How about Serbia losing Kosovo, Germany losing territories after WW2 or any other country having to give territorial concessions after losing a war?
Germany wasn't independent in 1945; and Israel is basically Serbia in that analogy. Way to prove my point!
 
Obviously, you don't realize that merely claiming that a democratically-elected government is "turning dictatorial" is not a reasonable excuse for the military to overthrow it and impose their own which is actually vastly worse. This is particularly true when the very same people who are making the allegations were opposed to that government the moment they took office.
 
You realize you are just parroting the same hyperbolic personal attacks many far-right authoritarians use instead of discussing such matters? What were you just claiming about your own views being so different than theirs?

Is it really your opinion that Morsi is a "terrorist"? What actual proof do you have other than the statements of a truly far-right authoritarian military government which violently took power in a coup of a democratically-elected government? A military which has tortured and murdered countless thousands of innocent victims themselves without facing the consequences of those acts?

Well, lookie here, we've got ourselves a strawmen!

Simply for pointing out that the military government was opposed to Morsy and has some popular support from Egyptians for it doesn't mean I support it! Hardly at all! I also never said that Morsy is terrorist. However, I was just saying it isn't simply sweet islamists versus military baddies. And you take that for supporting the Egyptian junta.
 
Kaiserguard said:
Do note that in Israeli declaration of independence, the Israeli framers made clear it was to respect all races and ethnicities.

They're scarcely going to say otherwise. Really, I'm sure we could if we put our minds to it find a dozen or more declarations of independence that fall rather short of what ended up happening.

Kaiserguard said:
No, I am saying that there broad antipathy in Egypt towards Hamas and other Islamic movements. In fact, while the current military government is far from democratic, it started with protests against the Morsy government.
The appropriate response to protests isn't a military coup followed by the torture and murder of (tens of) thousands of people who don't agree with you. I'll grant Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood screwed up. The Pharaoh decree and how the Constitutional Convention was handled for example were not the best signs. But Morsi was in his defense simply trying to move ahead of the Egyptian deep-state.
 
They're scarcely going to say otherwise. Really, I'm sure we could if we put our minds to it find a dozen or more declarations of independence that fall rather short of what ended up happening.

Fair point.
 
Really? I can't think what you might mean.

Spoiler :
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
 
3/5ths.
 
Well, lookie here, we've got ourselves a strawmen!.

Simply for pointing out that the military government was opposed to Morsy and has some popular support from Egyptians for it doesn't mean I support it! Hardly at all! I also never said that Morsy is terrorist. However, I was just saying it isn't simply sweet islamists versus military baddies. And you take that for supporting the Egyptian junta.
That is why I asked the question because the tenor of your statements was suggesting you might actually think so.

Glad to see you supposedly don't agree with these charges. You apparently merely posted that article to troll by continuing to concoct your own absurd "strawman" of my own views, and despite me categorically stating that I think nothing of the sort. :crazyeye:

The appropriate response to protests isn't a military coup followed by the torture and murder of (tens of) thousands of people who don't agree with you. I'll grant Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood screwed up. The Pharaoh decree and how the Constitutional Convention was handled for example were not the best signs. But Morsi was in his defense simply trying to move ahead of the Egyptian deep-state.
Indeed. Even bringing up Morsi in the context of this thread was just an intentional derail.
 
The appropriate response to protests isn't a military coup followed by the torture and murder of (tens of) thousands of people who don't agree with you. I'll grant Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood screwed up. The Pharaoh decree and how the Constitutional Convention was handled for example were not the best signs. But Morsi was in his defense simply trying to move ahead of the Egyptian deep-state.

As I mentioned earlier in a post to Formaldehyde, I do not support the military regime in Egypt in any way. And Morsy is likely to face a kangeroo court.
 
In American public schools social Darwinism is normally introduced as enabling eugenics and the Holocaust. Of course, Randtarian thought is social Darwinism by any other name, so it's not like people particularly care about the origins or history of their ideals. :crazyeye:

Yes I recall that as well.

You don't understand that a people who suffered a catastrophe where 25% (?) of their global population was destroyed might have a fierce yearning for their own homeland?

Certainly I do. What I object to is ethnic nationalism, not a desire for a homeland. My issue is that they believed it was for them and no one else. Hence what I said before about adopting what Europe was just growing out of.

According to Nazi ideology it was precisely because the Jews had no homeland that they owed no allegiance to any state. And the Nazis weren't uniquely anti-Semitic either. So what would you have the Jews do? People complain when they don't have a homeland and now complain when they do.

I don't know about you, but I don't take my marching orders from my enemies.


There was also the "complicity" of the European Jews, through Jewish Councils, in their own destruction to consider*. Is it surprising that they are keen on defending their piece of the globe now; against all comers and all non-Jewish residents?

There are many reasonable, understandable, and rationalizable beliefs and actions. That doesn't make them good, and it doesn't remove the destruction or harm they cause. Israel's existence has been so catastrophic in cause since inception, it has to seriously be asked if it was "worth it," even by the ethnic nationalists.

Israel is quickly becoming the world pariah that actions like theirs make them deserve. But in the end all that will just play into their siege mentality they use to justify every evil deed and crooked deal they make. Form said it best when he compared Israel to a NYC slumlord complaining about bad publicity.
 
OK, time to counter ignorance and BS.

Yeekim was right. I'm also less inclined to view this as a 'joke' than I was.

I plagiarized that from DDO.

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.

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.

Mouthwash, Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Hasbara or ICIC?

No, and I don't know what the ICIC is.

If you gain your land by evicting the currents occupants, of course you should expect security issues.

That's sort of why we evicted them in the first place.

I wonder why Hasbara didn't hire me yet. I seem to be the only relatively Pro-Israel guy who doesnt use "if you don't agree with me, you're an anti-semite!" trope but neither doesn't post any of the stuff Mouthwash just posted.

I have literally never heard anyone seriously call another person an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel in an appropriate fashion (which pretty much just means not raving about how their racism can be found in the Talmud).

Anecdotal evidence is exactly what you're using here by saying that intermarriage is almost nonexistent in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is the 4th most populous city in the US (after Chicago and LA). Saying that 2,500,000 people from nearly every nation on the planet don't intermarry with people of Jewish descent is laughable. I can only assume that you were biasing your sampling of "Brooklyn" to the insular neighborhoods of Southside Williamsburg, Borough Park, some areas of Crown Heights... maybe a couple other corners I'm not familiar with.

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.

And that's precisely your problem. When 2 warring tribes needed to find a way to dial down hostilities they would use marriage as a tool. Reducing the arbitrary stigma of exogamy will only serve to pacify the region.

Go convince all the Jews and Muslims that. I'll be waiting.

My entire point was that there isn't any sharp distinction, in the real world, between civic and ethnic nationalism, as defined here. You can't create a unified state based on shared values or political practices because Judaism and Islam are ways of life, not just religions. Both forbid intermarriage, especially in the Jewish case. Of course you can create a state where both of them get along, but there will always be political and social differences between the two. Sure, there are Jews in Fatah and there are Arab Muslims in the IDF. No one disputes that there won't be the odd case out. But I can't ever see an "Israeli nationality" emerging because what would it be based on? How would you make Jews and Arabs "one people?"

In fact, Zionism can be called, at least, partly, a type of civic nationalism because prior to 1948 there really was no universal sense of "Jewish identity." The Russian and Moroccan and Iranian Jews all came together out of a sense of ideals, not because of their shared Jewish bloodline. Any attempt to equivocate Israel with South Africa because of the supposed ethnic characteristic of the state is dishonest reductionist nonsense. Look at the example the link gave. Great Britain was formed out of Wales, Scotland and England because their beliefs and civic institutions were compatible. Israel was formed out of Jews, without a coherent ethnicity or identity, from all around the world for largely the same reasons.

"My long gone ancestors lived in these lands two thousand here ago, now I have the right to return here in sufficient number to make this my land" is pretty much insane troll logic.

I agree, and I think it's pretty funny how the Muslims take it seriously and then try to construct racially based arguments for why the Jews aren't the real Jews.

This statement means precisely nothing. "Ancestral home" is not a claim to anything except history.

I completely agree. After sixty years the Palestinians don't exactly have a right to the civilization that was built where their ancestors lived.

Sorry. I don't see any mass deportations or ethnic cleansing mentioned in the Wiki article during that period. Source?

It's worth noting, purely because you like appealing to authority so much, that Morris defended the ethnic cleansing and called it a historical mistake to stop at the 1948 borders.

The strange thing is, in the 19th century European Jews were the only ones who consistently thought internationally. Edmund Wilson gives this as the reason for their ability to contribute so many minds toward the creation of socialism and communism, and explains that phenomenon by noting that everywhere in Europe Jews were not regarded as truly "of" any country, because of that ethnic nationalism at work. And in the interwar period, this phenomenon was taken to the extreme. It even managed to influence Soviet policy through the creation of korenizatsiya, and they were supposed to be all about rejecting those things. Nazism is ethnic nationalism taken to its most insane extreme. And yet after the Second World War, as the rest of the world was just getting over all this ethnic nationalism fever, is precisely when the Jews decide that giving ethnic nationalism a go is the best idea. They were light-years ahead of the rest of the Europe for so long, and now they've descended into the maddening barbarism of the ideology which nearly cost their race its existence. I don't understand it.

You sound less sane, informed, and educated with every post.

In general, pre-Zionist Jews calculated that as long as they cooperated as much as possible with the Gentiles they could survive, but that simply didn't work with the Nazis (in fact it only made them more vulnerable). The modern attitude towards the Holocaust is something very different from Jewish mentality in centuries past.

And there's the fact that over half of all Israelis are Sephardi, including me. It's sort of telling how you still can't register them as anything but the white, leftist, cultured people that American Jews are.

To conclude, Cheezy, I think your fictive notions of "ethnicity" and "exclusive sovereignty", particularly in the light of your idealized notion of internationalism (on whose account you're advocating for the transformation of society into some apolitical, cooperative mass) are some of the stupidest, most emotional-reactionary bits of BS I've ever heard. It seems to me like it's more about a sense of personal justice rather than about really getting Jews and Arabs to stop killing each other. You're like the people who decry racial profiling because it judges individuals based on phenotype, or support international law as a genuine tool for resolving conflict. I wouldn't be surprised if anti-war rhetoric pops up in this forum somewhere as a way of justifying the potential criminal classification of IDF members.

You have yet to make a coherent argument as to why there should be a non-Jewish Israeli nationality, how one could be achieved, or why it was wrong to evict people who ethnically identified with your enemy in the middle of a war of self-determination. Kindly make it more sophisticated "Jew and Arab = white and black." I don't need your half-informed stereotypes to solve the most intractable conflict of the modern world, and neither do the Palestinians.

As far as I see, the expulsion of the Palestinians was actually moderate and conservative compared to what we could (and probably should) have done to give ourselves a country. When I drive by Netanya, I can see the beach about thirty feet to the left, and when I look in the other direction, I can see the mountains of the West Bank, owned by Jordan for nineteen years, a few miles away.
 
I agree, and I think it's pretty funny how the Muslims take it seriously and then try to construct racially based arguments for why the Jews aren't the real Jews.

I'm sorry, was there some part of "long gone ancestor" that you missed out on?

If it happened recently enough that many who were alive then are still alive today, we're not dealing with long-gone ancestors.
 
I'm sorry, was there some part of "long gone ancestor" that you missed out on?

If it happened recently enough that many who were alive then are still alive today, we're not dealing with long-gone ancestors.

Without mentioning any country, would that discussion still be relevant once you actually live there or have family and friends there?
 
I'm sorry, was there some part of "long gone ancestor" that you missed out on?

If it happened recently enough that many who were alive then are still alive today, we're not dealing with long-gone ancestors.

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?

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

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.
 
Apologies, I thought you refered to Muslims claiming rights of return. My mistake.

As for whether it's a form of racism: it depends on circumstances. If party X claim "This land is my land because my ancestor lived here", then party Y has a legitimate cause to counter that party X is not in fact descended from that ancestor.

If on the other hand party Y claims "You have no right to live here because it isn't the land of your ancestors", then if not racist (it could be two group that share "racial" features), it would certainly be discriminatory.

So...did the Jews claim the right to a homeland in the middle east before the Muslim questioned their ancestry, or did the muslim attack their ancestry before the "Ancient jewish homeland" argument showed up?
 
Apologies, I thought you refered to Muslims claiming rights of return. My mistake.

As for whether it's a form of racism: it depends on circumstances. If party X claim "This land is my land because my ancestor lived here", then party Y has a legitimate cause to counter that party X is not in fact descended from that ancestor.

What if the counterclaim is a complete strawman, and that party X never in fact claimed that "this land is my land because my ancestor lived here?"

So...did the Jews claim the right to a homeland in the middle east before the Muslim questioned their ancestry, or did the muslim attack their ancestry before the "Ancient jewish homeland" argument showed up?

It never did. 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.
 
Back
Top Bottom