GENIUS FORUMS

Victor,

Leyla Shen wrote:So, try again, cocksucker.

Victor: man, you are dumb...

See this (emphases mine):

I noted it, and duly make the following comment.

An individual qualified for residence in Israel under the Law of Return, so being legally recognised as a “Jew” based on Rabbinical (that is, religious) practice, under one of two conditions:

1. Born of a Jewish mother.
2. Conversion to Judaism.

Note: no definition is provided for the definition of the qualifier “Jewish” in “Jewish” mother, so we can safely assume, given 3A(a) of the same law dismisses a claim to Jewishness by “ethnicity,” the same conditions. Therefore, “Jew” by definition under this law is a strictly religious entity.

However, this law was amended in 1970 to include a further condition that, under no circumstances will any individual claiming to be a Jew be considered a Jew under this law if they have converted to another religion (which is completely consistent with the notion of “Jew” as strictly religious):

3. and who has not converted to another religion.

This law was amended because a Polish JEW (!), who had no less been persecuted by the Nazis, attempted to claim the Right of Return. It is obvious, then, that this individual MUST have been born of a Jewish mother, since he had clearly not converted to Judaism, and applied and/or made claim accordingly under that precondition. Thus, prompting the amendment.

Now, according to your supremely informative excerpt, this very same “Polish Jew” was denied citizenship under the Law of Return because he had converted to Christianity and such conversion to Christianity is, in fact, in direct opposition to the Zionist intention to “consolidate the Jewish nation in Israel.”

The completely twisted “logic” that follows in your excerpt goes like this: consequently, this created a great deal of controversy. What was concluded after public debate was that this “Polish Jew” could not claim the Right to Return because in not meeting the above definition of Jew, he had also foregone all his rights and commitments to Jewish nationhood and, thus, had no right to claim membership in it. (You can’t really be telling me you see a distinction between religion and nation here, can you Victor?!) Furthermore, goes the rationale, because of his conversion to another religion (Catholicism), his personal safety from persecution in Europe by the Nazis was guaranteed. (Hm, again, not about religion, I suppose?) Tacked on to the end of this [insert sarcasm] obviously coherent piece of logic, is the statement that he was granted citizenship under the Law of Citizenship instead. So, clear as the bright blue sky, the guy ain’t a Jew!

Then comes this whopper out of nowhere:

Section 4b of the Law of Return argues that being Jewish is both a nationality and a religion.

It clearly does NOT argue this. Saying so simply attempts to make a fucking distinction which does not, in fact, exist! Magic, man.

note that the Law of Return does not exclude atheist jews, thus clearly not defining being a jew as a religious thing.

Please see above.

Israeli newspapers reported at the end of December 1994 that churches in Nazareth were full to overflowing due to the large influx of olim from the former Soviet Union, many of whom are believing and practicing Christians.
...
It is interesting to note that despite the reports of church attendance, missionary activity and the like, a recent survey shows that fully 90 percent of immigrants from the former Soviet Union firmly believe that they are Jewish.You take the complex real world, imbecile, and try to stuff it into your anti-semitic preconceptions. The facts clearly indicate that jews are both an ethnicity and a religion, contrary to your moronic claim that it's nothing but a religion -- and that therefore you can be an atheist jew for example, as Feynman was (or a pantheist jew, as Einstein was).

[laughs] It doesn’t matter what they believed! What a Jew and the Jewish nation is, is clearly outlined in the “logic” that underpins the Law of Return: religion.

These people did not emigrate under the Law of Return. They are not Jews, by definition. They emigrated under the Law of Citizenship, the sovereign state of Israel.

Being Jewish has nothing to do with “ethnicity,” or Israeli citizenship. If an individual is not opposed to Jews and the Jewish nation and can somehow prove this to be the case, regardless whether or not they consider themselves to be Jews of any nature, they can be considered for citizenship.

This, in fact, makes the sovereign state of Israel secular to the degree that it is not influenced by the Jewish/Zionist nation--and only to that degree.

You still haven't answered my question -- if being a jew is only a matter of religion, to which ethnicity would you count an atheist jew?

It’s a question asked out of complete ignorance. I have no intention of entertaining it in any other form than I already am.

Do honestly try to keep up this time, Victor.

Leyla writes:

"Next you’ll be telling me they really are the chosen race, sent to redeem mankind with their superior wills and intellect. Sound familiar?"

Oh dear, now that one gets very, very complex. So complex that it might be impossible to wade through it, or get to the bottom of it, or even ever get out of it. On one hand the idea is ridiculously false, but then on the other obviously 'true'. I wonder sometimes if believing something to be true, and getting enough people to believe it true, make a truth? Outside of the 'exact sciences', where is 'truth' to be found? I am not too clear on the history of Judaism as a proselytizing religion in the early days, but early Christianity certainly took up the evangelical mission and made it 'catholic' and international, and took it to the corners of the earth, and in the core narrative, these Jews are 'God's chosen', the whole story is built on that, and through them comes redemption...

That according to the story line.

I know that religious and even semi-religious Jews, exclusively of Christianity, have a way to interpret what it means to be 'chosen' (and it is hardly a fate one would ever want to be chosen for, hence Jewish melancholia), and in that sense (even if it is an 'invented belief', one merely concocted) they have been true to their mission, and according to some religious Jews (Joseph Telushkin for example) ALL of the problem of reaction against Jews and Judaism stems from Jews being the beings that they are, that they define themselves as being. Jews have traditionally defined themselves as religious people, and I think that atheistic Jews are a relatively new thing, but generally speaking reaction against Jews ceases when Jews cease to define themselves as Jews, and this has been (I think) a big part of the European 'Jewish problem'. Who are these strange people among us? How did they get here? What odd role do they fulfill? Are they part and parcel of 'God' or part and parcel of 'the Devil'? What are we going to do about them?

From a modern, psychological perspective, they are a very strange glyph, a wildcard, and in that it is so easy to project onto them all sorts of repressed psychological content, in one moment defining them as emissaries of demons and the next (when one is a little calmer, or perhaps tipsy) seeing them as Michael's messengers. But some say, like Teluskin, that the European solution has always been to make Jews stop being Jews. A Jew existing, then, on Jewish terms, is intolerable.

So then, in this mishmash, who is doing the choosing? It is such an interesting question, so interesting that I am completely certain you will have no interest in it whatever. Oddly enough, some part of the role for the Jew in gentile culture has been a role assigned directly by the gentile! This is still very true for the conspiracy mongers, among others.

It's sort of funny then, in a tragic way: you interpret a people as a flock of demons one day, but then another you have to repent and see them really and truly as God's chosen, but you fucked up so severely, you treated them so badly. There is just such a complex relationship that has to be broached when one talks of the Europe and the Jews, it is simply unreal, out of this world. I am not sure if there has ever occurred something equal or even similar, this horrible, 'fated', dysfunctional relationship that yet produced extraordinary things.

Next time you are riding an ass to Damascus, think twice before revealing the content of your vision…

In your closed-mindedness, I am certain that there is just no dimension to any of these issues. You do not understand and you do not want to understand a wider interpretation of this history and what it means. If you did, I assert, your discourse might become somewhat interesting, and your animus less pronounced. Personally, I don't have any problem at all with your opinions or your 'will' toward Jews, or any definition you might arrive at for any human being who walks this planet. Like, who cares what you think? If I am a Jew and I define myself as a Jew, that is really all that matters. Like identity generally, it is a fluid territory. But there is a core fact, and not even you can do away with it, as a matter of fact you cannot even come close to touching it, and that fact is that people who define themselves as Jews exist, and will continue to exist, and the land where they exist right now, I mean as a state, is Israel, and it will keep existing. It defines itself, and discovers its own reasons to continue existing. In so many ways just like all people. (We have covered some of this territory at other times). To me, that is what matters, so some part of your 'concern'---more likely all of it---is of no relevance to me. Personally, I am a Jew with a very odd relationship to Judaism, and I do not have to explain myself to you or anyone. What counts for me, though, in all this is something tangible: that in some way my being in the world is affected by my definition, however strange it might be. And as I see things, being Jewish is not a static condition, it is not inert, but makes an effort to be active, even if it is in some small and insignificant way. I think that is part of the core of 'Jewishness', and the part that attracts and holds interest, for me anyway. It is a very strange play and theatre to have been born into.

Life seems to me like a giant theatre actually, a tragic theatre, a life-and-death theatre where so many roles and scenes are played out. One night you get to be a lord or a lady, the next a gravedigger, another a merchant, a maid, a Bishop, but the most intricate, the most mercurial role is reserved for the Jew, but lets face it, thats the way YOU want it, and YOU wouldn't have it any other way! It is your sport and in a very real sense, your delight.
__________________________________________

All sorts of people, I mean Jews, have offered opinions about a solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem, Buber included. I always tended to believe and be influenced by the idealists, but the more that I have looked into the issue, the more cynical I have become, and so now I don't think a two-state solution is an option. As I see things, the issue reduces in the most blatant way to 'straight power principals' (to use a Chomskian phrase).

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Antisemitism as word is already deeply flawed, stemming from a time people had racial ideas like the Ayran versus the Semitic race. Now it has become like the Jews represent the Semites in the world, accusing their fellow Semites the Arabs from being 'antisemitic'. It's a semantic mess.

Words mean what people use them to mean. Anti-semitism means the hatred of, and discrimination against, jews, not all semitic peoples in general.

Your logic is flawed to. How many of the Jews and fundamentalist Christians in the world believe in the right on a two-states 'final' solution? Enough to cause problems but not enough to represent some kind of 'Jewish' thinking on it, in my view, and any sane view.

Your problem is not with the support for binational solution, kiddo. While I ardently disagree with a binational Israel idea, supporting it doesn't make one an anti-semite. What makes you an anti-semite is the insane, evil idea that israel shouldn't exist at all, and that our 'real' home is in galut. I suspect your support for binational solution is a function of your anti-semitism, because that's the best way to destruction of israel as the jewish nation-state that you can see.

I already referred to a major influence on my thinking, Martin Buber, one of the greatest and most influential Jews of the last century. He represented openly the idea of a binational solution, where Palestinian Arab inhabitants would be given citizenship and an equal status to the Arab and Jewish citizens of present-day Israel. This runs against currently dominant extremist views in the Zionist as well Muslim camp but it's a good solution nevertheless, perhaps the only sane one if there wouldn't so much poisoned prejudice on all sides.

Yeah, And if grandma had balls, she would be grandpa.

For you to say that your solution is the only sane one, but for the realities of the world, is itself prima facie insane. if anti-semitism didn't exist, there would be no such urgent need for Israel. Fucking duh!

Now your warped logic would turn Buber into one of the greatest antisemitic dangers of last century. This is a clearly an example how some Jews can be subject to self-hatred and indeed invoke self-fulfilling prophecy; it's their idiocy that becomes hated when it turns into policy and the military and construction companies roll in to do their job.

Right. Like i said, anti-semitism is jews' own fault.

You are an anti-semite, dude. Accept it. underneath all teh blather, you think jews themselves are the problem.

Leyla Shen wrote:This law was amended because a Polish JEW (!), who had no less been persecuted by the Nazis, attempted to claim the Right of Return.

The issue with him was that he attempted to convert to catholicism as a part of his attempt to escape persecution by not appearing jewish. That was the basis of the israeli court ruling -- if a person gives up their jewish nationality, they cannot simultaneously claim it.

It clearly does NOT argue this.

it clearly does -- hence the 'born of a jewish mother' thing. This is why an atheist jew is still a jew, moron.

Please see above.

See what? it does not exclude atheist jews; it does not speak of those who abandoned judaism, but of those who convert to another religion. In fact, in reality, it does not exclude actual converts too, which is why there are so many ex-soviet jews who are xians in israel. I certainly wasn't asked my religious affiliation when I had undergone aliyah.

[laughs] It doesn’t matter what they believed!

of course not. It only matters what you believe, even though you are a deluded anti-semitic idiot.

It’s a question asked out of complete ignorance.

Meaning, you can't answer it.

A child of jewish parents who is an atheist, does not magically become an ethnic russian, frenchman, or whatever.

vicdan wrote:Words mean what people use them to mean. Anti-semitism means the hatred of, and discrimination against, jews, not all semitic peoples in general.

Yeah, whatever. I was just complaining in general about the word and its etymology, not redefining it. You appear to have a hang towards a mild form of autism during bbs communications, don't you now? It's quite common with the high IQ folks so don't worry about it.

Your problem is not with the support for binational solution, kiddo. While I ardently disagree with a binational Israel idea, supporting it doesn't make one an anti-semite.

Of course not, but then you need some imaginary reason to call me that. Lets see what you come up with:

What makes you an anti-semite is the insane, evil idea that israel shouldn't exist at all

How can I support a binational solution without thinking the current implementation at that location is flawed? So you think all supporters of binational solutions should believe Israel (as part of a two-state solution, with the name 'Israel' and without Palestinians) should exist? Totally irrational and unsound thinking here: one cannot expect someone to support binational solutions without questioning Israel as it is. Maybe you don't know what binational solution means? I don't know, your education on these kind of subjects has already proven to be shockingly weak. So perhaps you're shooting off your own foot again?

and that our 'real' home is in galut.

No, you're talking to imaginary miniature antisemites hiding in my pocket I guess. The only thing I wrote about it is: "It has formed the 'identity' of the Jew, perhaps from the very beginning and what is the problem of accepting this identity? ". With accepting I didn't mean they had to remain stagnant, that they couldn't live somewhere as a people if so desired. It was purely meant as reaction on your describing the galut as horrible hell of some kind. Thereby putting down two millenia of Jewish history which formed your cultural identity, if you like it or not. This has nothing to do with the right on a place to call home, and even less with your claimed right on a Jewish nation-state next to the Palestine refugee camps.

I suspect your support for binational solution is a function of your anti-semitism, because that's the best way to destruction of israel as the jewish nation-state that you can see.

Yes, that's exactly what a binational solution implies: the end of a Jewish nation-state and as such Israel. This is why I claim that in your eyes people like Martin Buber are anti-semite too, following your logic. Or perhaps you never understood how radical this solution was, opposing much of feverish Zionist thinking on the subject.

For you to say that your solution is the only sane one, but for the realities of the world, is itself prima facie insane. if anti-semitism didn't exist, there would be no such urgent need for Israel. Fucking duh!

The reality of the world includes four million refugees. no way they can ever go back where they lived with any other solution. Perhaps you want to build permanent concentration camps to keep them in? Or better yet: let a failing Palestine state take care of them! Cripples them even more and would create the need to perform regular IDF pre-emptive incursions to counter emerging terrorism. You know, pull off another Lebanon raid once in a while to crumble loads of infrastructure and destabilize a weak government.

There's only an urgent need for safety and peace and prospering for everyone or there will never be for anyone involved at all. Sorry, that's realism in a world without genocides.

Now your warped logic would turn Buber into one of the greatest antisemitic dangers of last century. This is a clearly an example how some Jews can be subject to self-hatred and indeed invoke self-fulfilling prophecy; it's their idiocy that becomes hated when it turns into policy and the military and construction companies roll in to do their job.

Right. Like i said, anti-semitism is jews' own fault.

No, but most of the strong opposition to Israel is. Even to the things they find 'holy' and a god given right.

You are an anti-semite, dude. Accept it. underneath all teh blather, you think jews themselves are the problem.

I think your irrational thinking on this matter is the only problem. Yes the Jews aggravated some of their problems themselves, by actions which, as I tried to demonstrate in this thread, were all fueled by misunderstanding and misapplying Judaism or Judeochristian flavored 'history'.

My first reaction to your post was: 'There he goes, blabbering again, saying nothing meaningful but spin. No need to respond.'

Then I thought: 'Heh, I bet if I don't respond, he will delude himself into thinking that I have "again walked away when my bluff was called".'

And then I thought: 'Why the fuck should i care about what this idiot thinks about me? he will delude himself no matter what.'

vicdan wrote: Then I thought: 'Heh, I bet if I don't respond, he will delude himself into thinking that I have "again walked away when my bluff was called".'

You're got that right at least. Shalom!

I'll leave with some further threatening and absurd 'antisemitic' thought on ending Jewish self-governance at least in terms of statehood.

Today, the prominent proponents for the one-state solution include Palestinian author Ali Abunimah *, Palestinian lawyer Michael Tarazi *, Jeff Halper *, Israeli writer Dan Gavron *, Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, and American academic Virginia Tilley. They cite the expansion of the Israeli Settler movement, especially in the West Bank, as a compelling rationale for binationalism and the increased unfeasibility of the two-state alternative. They advocate a secular and democratic state while still maintaining a Jewish presence and culture in the region. They concede that this alternative will erode the dream of Jewish supremacy in terms of governance in the long run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binational ... to_present

A more cautious criticism:

Uri Avnery, former Member of Knesset and leader of Gush Shalom, has objected to this solution becasue essentially it calls for the dismantling of the State of Israel, and a negation of the nation-building that has has been carried out by five generations . Although Avnery believes this idea is unrealistic and dangerous for the peace camp in Israel [dvr: note he doesn't call it antisemitism] , he does not rule out the possibility that it can be realized in the distant future, after an independent Palestinian state is established. He personally believes that the two states will move gradually, with mutual consent, towards a confederation or federation.

Well, it certainly will take a while before people in Israel would be willing to give up part of the work, hopes and dreams of five or more generations in return for more realistic, stable and longer lasting approaches. I can see that but it has to start somewhere. All great nations had centuries of trouble, merging, splitting and feuding before they reached their current stability. Israel and Palestine are very young.

See Jeff Halper's article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/halper11072005.html

Michael Tarazi:
http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-tarazi051004.htm
____________________________

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_onestate.htm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You're got that right at least.

Yeah, I had figured as much, idiot. Can i call 'em or can i call 'em? You had said nothing actually meriting a response in your previous post, but you would simply interpret having gotten the last word in as a concession on my part. I am not surprised, really. You have amply evidenced your intellectual dishonesty by now.

Well, it certainly will take a while before people in Israel would be willing to give up part of the work, hopes and dreams of five or more generations in return for more realistic, stable and longer lasting approaches.

More realistic? You are as deluded as ever. You yourself have said that this is 'more realistic' if it weren't for the realities of the world, for the existence of prejudice and all that stuff. You might as well speak of how it's more realistic for everyone to gather in a circle and sing Kumbaya, except for this little 'real world' thing.

A binational state will not be a realistic option even in the most strained sense of the world, not unless the muslim world undergoes a major change.

Nietzsche from "Dawn" in 1881.

Of the people of Israel

Amongst the spectacles to which the next century invites us is the decision on the fate of the European Jews… Every Jew has in the history of his fathers and grandfathers a mine of examples of the coldest composure and steadfastness in terrible situations…

There has been an effort to make them contemptible by treating them contemptibly for two thousand years and by barring them from access to all honours and anything honourable, thus pushing them to that much deeper into the dirtier trades; and under this procedure they have certainly not become cleaner. But contemptible? They themselves have never ceased to believe in their calling to the highest things, and the virtues of all who suffer have never ceased to adorn them. The way in which they honour their fathers and their children and the rationality of their marriages and marital customs distinguish them above all Europeans. In addition, they knew how to create for themselves a feeling of power and eternal revenge out of those very trades which were abandoned to them (or to which they were abandoned); one must say, in excuse even of their usury, that without this occasional, agreeable, and useful torture of their despisers they could scarcely have persevered so long in respecting themselves. For our self-respect depends on our ability to repay the good as well as the bad. Moreover, their revenge does not easily push them too far; for they all have that free mindedness, of the soul too, to which frequent change of location, of climate, and of the customs of neighbours and oppressors educates man…

And where shall this wealth of accumulated great impressions, which Jewish history constitutes for every Jewish family, this wealth of passions, virtues, decisions, renunciations, fights, and victories of all kinds - where shall it flow, if not eventually into great spiritual men and works?* Then, when the Jews can point to such gems and golden vessels as their work, such as the European peoples with their shorter and less deep experiences cannot produce and never could; when Israel will have transformed its external revenge into an eternal blessing for Europe; then that seventh day will come again on which the ancient Jewish god may rejoice in himself, his creation, and his chosen people - and all of us, all of which want to rejoice with him!

*Not really surprising the Jews are big in the movie and comedy industries, and science and in Nobel and other prizes. I don't think the world would notice if there were any great spiritual Jews.

In the same book and elsewhere Nietzsche calls them the purest and strongest of races that could if pushed enough by present antisemitism, rule Europe by itself.

Nazis must've had a hard time navigating through passages like that.

vicdan wrote:
A binational state will not be a realistic option even in the most strained sense of the world, not unless the muslim world undergoes a major change.

But you do realize don't you that a binational state, no matter how idealistic it might sound, is about a dismantling of the current state of Israel; it might even lose its name in such process.

At the same time you claim that any idea in the form of "Israel shouldn't exist at all" smells antisemitic. You even claimed that I'd support binationalism because it's the "best way to destruction of israel as the jewish nation-state". You've got it the other way around: a binational state implies the dismantling (destruction) of the Jewish nation-state. It would be part of another entity so it seizes to exist in the manner of 'Jewish nation-state". Not wanting to see a Jewish nation-state in that area is not antisemitism, period. There are many more constructive ways to guarantee safety, if that's the only issue. And yes, it needs a change in the Arab and Muslim world too to make it happen. But not as huge as you might think.

And the reason I support this as only viable solution is because I don't see another road to peace. Victor, you keep on asking me if I stopped beating my wife. Your mind is made up about my view on Jews and their rights. It's unnecessary cagey behavior on your side, stemmed from a complete misreading of my writings. On top of that we disagree about what is viable in a geopolitical sense. So be it.

I didn't misread you when you had said that jews' real home is in galut, dude. Whether you like it or not, you are an anti-semite.

Stupid wrote:The issue with him was that he attempted to convert to catholicism as a part of his attempt to escape persecution by not appearing jewish. That was the basis of the israeli court ruling …

Bullshit, liar. His attempt to escape persecution had nothing to do with the case brought before the court! Hence, that was NOT the basis of the Court ruling--especially if the issue is that he did such a thing under duress--and certainly is NOT the same as this, which was the actual ruling:

-- if a person gives up their jewish nationality, they cannot simultaneously claim it.

His Right to Return (that is, his status as a Jewish national and thereby a citizen of the state of Israel as opposed to, simply, a political Israeli national--a citizen of the state) was exactly what was on trial:

In the 1962 appeal there were 5 judges who did not render identical decisions or reasoning, but there was a 4:1 verdict to reject the application and rescind the order nisi to the Minister of the Interior.

Do you know what that means? The ruling determined that he, in fact, was not a Jew according to the law in question…

Point f(1)
"The applicant, Brother Daniel, is not a member of the Jewish nation, nor the Polish one either, for he renounced the latter before leaving Poland - he is stateless and shall be registered as such on his Identity card.

Point f(2)
"The space reserved for ethnic group** under section 4(1) of the Population Registration Ordinance 1949/5709 (document no.6) shall remain empty. Nor is there any anomaly in this since not all applicants for an Identity card are able to complete this section, for example, someone who has no religion."

…but was later accepted distinctly as an Israeli citizen under the Citizenship Law:

1. There is only one class of Israeli citizenship - full citizen.
2. Citizenship is granted by birth or descent, to all those normally resident in Israel on the 14th. May 1948 (the day the state was declared).
3. Religion, race or sex are not a bar to Israeli [note: not "Jewish"] citizenship.
4. Citizenship [note: not "nationhood"] can be acquired by a five-year naturalization process as in many other countries with a liberal immigration policy.
5. Citizenship can be requested and granted under the Law of Return, at the discretion of the Minister of Immigration (later: of the Minister of the Interior).

Do you think that Brother Daniel continued to live at the monastery in Israel until his death many years later and never renounced Catholicism was also a part of his attempt to escape persecution?

V: It [Section 4B of the Law of Return] clearly does [argue that being Jewish is both a nationality and a religion]-- hence the 'born of a jewish mother' thing. This is why an atheist jew is still a jew, moron.

No, it doesn’t, dickhead. Firstly, a law, by definition, is NOT an argument. Secondly, Section 4B of the Law actually makes NO distinction between nationality and religion, except to imply THEY ARE THE SAME. Meaningless rubbish.

By what definition does one’s mother alone determine one’s nationality?

If I had a Buddhist Egyptian father and a British Catholic mother and was born in Japan committed to the Orange People faith, by your logic my nationality necessarily and without question or naturalisation would be freakin’ British. Care to ask Britain how it would feel about that and why?

See what? it does not exclude atheist jews; it does not speak of those who abandoned judaism, but of those who convert to another religion.

Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend? It doesn’t exclude atheist “Jews” and does exclude religious converts because there is no religious contention in the former and there is one in the latter.

Your ethnicity, Victor, would be not even remotely Jewish without Judaism. Get a fucking grip, will ya.

In fact, in reality, it does not exclude actual converts too, which is why there are so many ex-soviet jews who are xians in israel.

Clearly, Victor, the Law of Return explicitly and in reality DOES exclude converts. That doesn’t mean laws can’t and aren’t challenged in courts, however. But that has never been the point--you know, the one you keep trying to avoid.

More later.

vicdan wrote:I didn't misread you when you had said that jews' real home is in galut, dude.

You're making it up. Show it! You can't and you won't even try because you know you can't. That's how your deceit works. To quote myself:

The only thing I wrote about it is: "It has formed the 'identity' of the Jew, perhaps from the very beginning and what is the problem of accepting this identity? ". With accepting I didn't mean they had to remain stagnant, that they couldn't live somewhere as a people if so desired. It was purely meant as reaction on your describing the galut as horrible hell of some kind. Thereby putting down two millenia of Jewish history which formed your cultural identity, if you like it or not

You have a severely restricted idea about what galut means just like you had a severely restricted, incomplete idea about Torah and the binational solution. And you smear anyone not submitting to your underdeveloped half-baked ideas. Now be at least consistent in your leave!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You're making it up. Show it!

I already had. your whole argument had been that jews have no historic connection to Israel, and that our identity as a people was formed in galut. Unless you are a deluded nut (which i cannot rule out in your case), this clearly implies that jewish home is in galut, that Israel as our homeland is a fictional thing.

You can spin all you want, but that does not make your anti-semitism go away.

Leyla Shen wrote:Do you think that Brother Daniel continued to live at the monastery in Israel until his death many years later and never renounced Catholicism was also a part of his attempt to escape persecution?

No, his conversion was sincere. People in severe stress tend to do that -- see Stockholm syndrome for example. I have no doubt that he was a sincere catholic. This doesn't change the origin of his conversion.

Secondly, Section 4B of the Law actually makes NO distinction between nationality and religion, except to imply THEY ARE THE SAME.

yeah, that's why it speaks separately of being a jew by virtue of birth to a jewish mother, and becoming a jew through conversion. Because, you know, religion is genetically transmitted by matrilineal descent.

Your ethnicity, Victor, would be not even remotely Jewish without Judaism. Get a fucking grip, will ya.

And a believing jew's religion would not be remotely judaism without jews as an ethnicity -- because that's what preserved judaism. The two are intertwined, both religion and ethnicity are involved, and you are an ignorant moron for continuously claiming that it's just a matter of religion.

Your insane claim flies in the face of all facts.

vicdan wrote:your whole argument had been that jews have no historic connection to Israel, and that our identity as a people was formed in galut. ... this clearly implies that jewish home is in galut, that Israel as our homeland is a fictional thing.

Aha, implies for you but is it that clear?

First of all I never argued for no historic connection to the region of Canaan (to use a neutral word). You're committing bifurcation as if it's all you do for a living (heheh). If you had payed attention you'd have noticed I was very precise in mentioning the things I doubted, like the United Monarcy or ethnic connections to a line of David or Salomo and their kingdoms. And furthermore I doubted it which isn't the same as denying the possibility. I do deny claims based on the current available evidence.

Would you deny your culture and identity is formed in galut? The galut is the story of Egypt and the exodus, the time of Moses, Persian capture, the formation of the written Torah during their stay Babylonia and so much more. It's about countries ranging from the Iran to the United States, ranging from centuries to millenia. It's quite reasonable to assert that the Jewish identity has been formed mostly there holding the traditions alive against all odds and not as much in one century of domination in Judah. And the concept of a 'promised land' is also part of your identity which is why it's also reasonable to strive for a homeland to settle for those who desire so.

But to imply that therefore a Jewish homeland becomes a fictional thing is pure idiocy and you know it, that's why you claim I'm suggesting it. You're smearing again. A homeland is not the same as a state and a way more complex issue than having a state at one specific location or in a certain specific form. That's only the current Zionist case using some kind of doublespeak or false conversion to bolster popular arguments.

You can spin all you want, but that does not make your anti-semitism go away.

It won't go away in your eyes as long as you're not willing to suspend your prejudices and smear campaign.

Bye, dude. Stew in your own prejudice and pray to Weininger on your own.

vicdan wrote:No, his conversion was sincere. People in severe stress tend to do that -- see Stockholm syndrome for example. I have no doubt that he was a sincere catholic. This doesn't change the origin of his conversion.

I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest the man’s psychological state was such that he converted due to severe stress, though it is clearly and easily a plausible possibility. But there is more to consider if one is going to take this line of reasoning.

From a Freudian psychoanalytic perspective, the stronger the primal (survival/pleasure) drives, the easier and swifter they yield to authority (“father” figure--that is, all things religious and/or intellectual) resulting exactly in such conversion--even into knowledge as the phallus. However, this same idea calls into question the very same relationship and psychological mechanisms between parent/s and child. That is, a child bonds to the stronger parent as the means for its own survival. So, if you are going to call into question the origin of his conversion in this manner, you would also have to consider the more fundamental and equally survival-driven basis for the relationship between parent/s and child.

Within such parameters, you are suggesting that the origin of his conversion is somehow from a source/conditions other than that in which a baby bonds to its parent, especially since he formally converted to a faith which actually DID help and not persecute him. That is, he never identified Catholicism (and the nunnery in which he took refuge), for obvious reasons, with his persecutors from whom he was thereby rescued. How, after all, had his mother or Judaism helped him here?

The rest of your post simply requires restating of things already addressed, at least for the most part.

I’ll respond when I can.

And as for the 'holocaust denial' smear campaign, Vic the belligerant idiot is probably not in favour of free speech, but of 'holocaust denial laws' in which anyone who decides to investigate the shady history of the holocaust is deemed a 'denier' and thrown in prison. Only stupid people would fall for the poisonous fallacy that investigation means 'denial' or as if the holocaust was proven at all for someone to be capable of denying it in the first place.

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com goes through the official documentation of witnesses and other so-called evidence, and brings about the many absurdities that need further explanation.

Then there's David Cole, one of a very few honest Jewish investigators who sees the many fallacies with the official story, is forced to recant his views: http://www.geniebusters.org/915/04h_Cole.html

despite his painful questions that still remain unanswered: http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gc46-origi.html

http://www.codoh.com/author/cole.html

one needs a good 10 hours to thoroughly read the devil's advocate: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=holohoax&meta=

Faust13 wrote:And as for the 'holocaust denial' smear campaign, Vic the belligerant idiot is probably not in favour of free speech, but of 'holocaust denial laws' in which anyone who decides to investigate the shady history of the holocaust is deemed a 'denier' and thrown in prison.

hahaha. What a dumb loser you are!

I am all in favor of free speech. You holocaust deniers are your own worst enemies -- exposing your stupidity and hatred to the world. Speak out, idiots!

vicdan wrote:I am all in favor of free speech. You holocaust deniers are your own worst enemies -- exposing your stupidity and hatred to the world. Speak out, idiots!

If you're in favour of free speech that's good, now say that to the rest of your Zionist/Crypto Jew gremlins not to make holocaust denial laws, not infiltrate education with holocaust propaganda and no tolerance of investigators, not to gang up and almost kill investigators such as Robert Faurisson, and not to exploit the holocaust for profit, as written in the Holocaust Industry by a rare honest Jew Finkelstein.

There's no such thing as 'holocaust denial' because the holocaust hasn't been proven yet. No real scientific or documented proof, just 'witnesses' who's accounts are quite shady and contradictory. And confessions brought about by torture and death threats.

Holocaust investigators aren't exposing their own stupidity, they're exposing how everyone else is stupid and intolerant of investigators and skeptical and critical analysis. Holocaust investigators don't have 'hatred' either, it is violent gags that beat up Faurisson who have hatred....

Your post is quite childish and lacking any real substance as usual. Speak out? Yeah holocaust investigators try to speak out, unfortunately smart people can't hear them because amidst their speaking there's gremlins incessantly shouting like a pack of wild hyenas.

ADL and others have no respect for free speech whatsoever, and would love to stifen and maim, and it does, any investigator who reveals the crimes of Crypto Jews and Zionists. Any intelligent person would have realized that by now.

Holocaust investigators have been speaking out on the fallacies for decades now. Yet their important questions haven't been answered. It's time for the holocaust believers to answer those questions, but that's not going to happen is it?

Faust13 wrote:If you're in favour of free speech that's good, now say that to the rest of your Zionist/Crypto Jew gremlins not to make holocaust denial laws

They don't, you bloody moron. Those laws are made by non-jews in Europe who have a serious problem with Holocaust denial. it wasn't jews who passed the Holocaust denial laws in Germany and Austria, moron.

I disagree with those laws, because i think the best cure for insane bigoted lies like yours is to hold them to the light of day. The solution to bad speech is more free speech, not less.

There's no such thing as 'holocaust denial' because the holocaust hasn't been proven yet. No real scientific or documented proof, just 'witnesses' who's accounts are quite shady and contradictory. And confessions brought about by torture and death threats.

Holocaust investigators aren't exposing their own stupidity, they're exposing how everyone else is stupid and intolerant of investigators and skeptical and critical analysis. Holocaust investigators don't have 'hatred' either, it is violent gags that beat up Faurisson who have hatred....

Your post is quite childish and lacking any real substance as usual. Speak out? Yeah holocaust investigators try to speak out, unfortunately smart people can't hear them because amidst their speaking there's gremlins incessantly shouting like a pack of wild hyenas.

ADL and others have no respect for free speech whatsoever, and would love to stifen and maim, and it does, any investigator who reveals the crimes of Crypto Jews and Zionists. Any intelligent person would have realized that by now.

Holocaust investigators have been speaking out on the fallacies for decades now. Yet their important questions haven't been answered. It's time for the holocaust believers to answer those questions, but that's not going to happen is it?

I don't really have any comment on the above. i just wanted to quote you so that everyone can see your words once again.

Thanks for helping the Zionist Cause, kiddo. You win a free matzoh! Your prize is in the mail.

vicdan wrote:

Faust13 wrote:If you're in favour of free speech that's good, now say that to the rest of your Zionist/Crypto Jew gremlins not to make holocaust denial laws

They don't, you bloody moron. Those laws are made by non-jews in Europe who have a serious problem with Holocaust denial. it wasn't jews who passed the Holocaust denial laws in Germany and Austria, moron.

No but without their tireless efforts it's quite possible they would have never been implemented.

This is evidenced by e.g. http://www.intjewishlawyers.org/html/introduction.asp

The Association has, for many years, appealed to various countries to adopt legislation
against antisemitism and Holocaust denial. After a few countries did adopt such legislation, the
Association urged the relevant authorities to take appropriate steps to ensure that the laws
adopted not remain a dead letter.

Hey, I found this quote from Martin Buber, just to annoy Victor:

It was Hitler who pushed the masses of Jews to come to Palestine, and not an elite who came to carry on their lives and prepare for the future. Thus, a selective organic development was replaced by a mass immigration requiring a political force for its security ... The majority of Jews preferred to learn from Hitler rather than from us ... Hitler showed that history does not follow the path of the mind, but that of power, and that when a people is quite strong, it can kill with impunity ...

Yes indeed, Zionism is for the most part a leftover 19th century extremist nationalist movement [from the Great Age of ultra-nationalist fever in Europe]. And yet, millions still believe... what Judas Magnes called "pagan Judaism".