GENIUS FORUMS

I see you have given up trying to defend your moronic line that jews have no right to statehood.

You are truly dishonest, dear. Some day, you might grow up and understand what the word 'truth' means.

vicdan wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:So there's the problem: after losing the literal faith, a void dooms up where a secular national identity fills the gap

I have no void there. if anything, i have an embarrassment of riches -- I am both a jew and a ukrainian, belonging to two different peoples. There are not many bi-ethnic people out there, it's an interesting experience.

Just out of curiosity, for what reasons are you in the United States? Assuming you absorbed some of that culture, you're even tri-cultural. I've met people like that but they have one place where the heart really is, where they're born usually.

Why propagate an identity, after the religion and history based on that religion has been lost?

Why propagate any identity? if you don't understand teh very point of distinct culture, ethnicity, nationality, etc., just say so and stop dumping on jews specifically.

I understand it all too well but I'll say that the item doesn't bother me personally. I connect easily with many ethnicities and nationalities, and they with me, while not caring too much about my own either - I would move away without a thought, I wouldn't lose sleep over it if our country disappeared by absorption; the sea, Germany, France, I don't care. Together with the Brits the Dutch are since WW2 über-cynical about their own thing. Probably been around too much - the 'old' Europe indeed. And it's not like I think that's a healthy situation. A strong pride is good for the health of a state.

These are plain falsehoods. Without all the pure religious documents only unlikely speculation remains, no facts.

Even by your own standards there's jewish homestead in israel after 700BCE -- and it goes back to 13th century BCE if you are willing to be a little more honest.

You're not paying attention. I wrote about habitation in "Judea", which would now be some part of Southern Israel and Syria. And before 700BCE, the most honest estimation would be that the location was way more in flux and still undetermined, ranging from Egypt (at least 400 bloody years, why not call that homestead too?) to the Assyrian and Babylonian cities and when finally (re)building the temple in Jerusalem they got ruled by Greek and Romans until dispersed again. So we have 500 years of reasonably organized living in the form of a province, the size of Judea for most of the time.

And just to make it clear: nothing happening in any "Israel" sized area apart from 165 BCE to 63 BCE, the Hasmonean Kingdom.

Victor: "Zionism has been a predominantly secular nationalist movement all along."

The nationalist movement had everything to do with the supposed glory days and its heroes.

Just like any other nationalsit movement. So why choose the jews for your attacks?

Uhmmm, well.... maybe because we're discussing all things Jew here? The Jews with their eternal feeling of being under siege, could they exist without being on the brink I wonder. Look, I just want to name things as they are. If it's about grabbing land and putting ones mark on it, prosper the dance of meme and gene - damn the consequences - then just tell it as it is. Nationalist populist rhetoric is nice for the masses but not for the truth, which is my only concern, out of interest - not the morals of who's the nicest.

This 'historical right' is firmly embedded in religious rhetoric and archaeological evidence steeped in religious interpretations.

In short, you can't deny that jews lived in Israel before, but you will throw all sorts of sand to pretend that they didn't really live there before.

See above, I only challenge the claim of an historic Israel in any other shape or form than the ones I outlined, which is by far not Israel as it is now or as it ever was as far as non-biblical evidence suggests. The fact the ancestors lived there, somewhere around there, in the past do not imply rights of any kind. The Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, immigrated Arabs and various Bedouins could make similar claims based on history.

victor wrote:I guess the indisputable historic facts -- such as the Maccabee rebellion, the Great Rebellion, the Bar Kohba rebellion for example -- simply aren't a factor for you. The entire Second Temple period is just a religious myth. The Wailing Wall, in front of which I stood, is just a random pile of rocks most likely. Right.

Actually, there was a claim it was just an old wall of a Mosque from the Islamic corner :)

No seriously, an extensive list of past rebellions, captures, migrations, invasions and conquests are only a small part of the Zionist thinking on this. By themselves nowhere near enough to justify anything close to the two-state solution proposed by the UN.

My beef is with Moses, the promised land, a United Monarchy, Solomon and any Davidic dynasty. Because this is what really fueled the drive toward Israel in the 19th and 20th century, and not the rather heroic stories of Mattathias and his sons. [Hey, I grew up with them, surprise!]. Anyway, at the core of these stories lies religion, the same beliefs in ancient rule and divine promise. You don't seem to care about it, but I just don't see how this could fuel any sane nationalist movement.

Lets see these stories for what they are: during their stay in multi-ethnic Babylon (5th century BC), a religious rebirth occurred with the Jews, causing an emerging belief in destiny and divine birthright. They brought this home to start their own version of the Temple and this religion spread around the area which conflicted with religious restrictions in place.

Are you also going to post that jews living in Israel during the Roman rule is a religious myth too? And if you admit that jews lived there, in ancient times, that it is our ancient homeland, then at which time they showed up first is just a smoke-n-mirrors argument, isn't it?..

They lived as province to the Roman empire, like it was a province before to Egypt, Persia, Greek and so on. And that province was basically Judea only until the Hasmonean Kingdom that existed for a hundred years. The Jews were dispersed and the world moved on with its waves of migrations.

But this is not the main argument of mainstream Zionist. If it were, we would have another discussion.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Just out of curiosity, for what reasons are you in the United States?

We left USSR in part because of the problems i suffered for political dissent, and in part because my draft registration was coming up. My mother had pulled us out of Israel because of Gulf War I.

Assuming you absorbed some of that culture, you're even tri-cultural. I've met people like that but they have one place where the heart really is, where they're born usually.

if i had to pick one place, it would be Israel. if I could re-live my life and my family weren't a factor, i would have stayed there.

You're not paying attention. I wrote about habitation in "Judea", which would now be some part of Southern Israel and Syria. And before 700BCE, the most honest estimation would be that the location was way more in flux and still undetermined, ranging from Egypt (at least 400 bloody years, why not call that homestead too?)

Amazing. Surely you know that there's virtually no independent (of Torah) evidence of Egyptian captivity, right?..

Uhmmm, well.... maybe because we're discussing all things Jew here?

i see. So you are refusing to recognize nationhood rights on general principle, not just for jews? Then we really have nothing to talk about. Take it up with the UN.

See above, I only challenge the claim of an historic Israel in any other shape or form than the ones I outlined,

Then this is a non-issue. Today's israel is simply the realistic approximation -- we got what we could. The question of matching some arbitrary boundary out of many possible ancient boundaries never arose, except implicitly from your claims. i certainly never made any such assertion.

The Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, immigrated Arabs and various Bedouins could make similar claims based on history.

You seem to be forgetting that the underlying fount of such claims' legitimacy is the right to political self-determination. Syrians, lebanese, and egyptians already have it (though egyptians today have nothing to do with ancient Egypt essentially, as you surely knew). Bedouins, on the other hand, don't seem to have a conception of themselves as a singular people, and don't seem to aspire to nationhood (and are BTW treated extremely well in Israel).

Once more, you are simply tossing out random red herrings.

No seriously, an extensive list of past rebellions, captures, migrations, invasions and conquests are only a small part of the Zionist thinking on this. By themselves nowhere near enough to justify anything close to the two-state solution proposed by the UN.

it only has to be enough to justify existence of jews as a people, and israel as being our ancient homeland -- which is amply evident on both counts. i would be very curious to hear why you think our history in the region is not enough to justify thw two-state solution. more of this 'borders' red herring, your silly claim that only the exact ancient borders are relevant?

My beef is with Moses, the promised land, a United Monarchy, Solomon and any Davidic dynasty.

... not one of which things i had brought up; but your mind is made up, don't let me confuse you with facts.

Because this is what really fueled the drive toward Israel in the 19th and 20th century,

yeah, you just magically know this.

Have you ever spoken with actual israelis? Been at a seder in Israel? At a seder in galut, and said 'next year in Jerusalem'? Ever said 'Nes gadol haya po? Do you have any evidence to support your ideas about why zionists believe what they believe? Do you think jews in israel are unaware of the fact that exodus from Egypt is not supported by archeological evidence? Do you think the largely secular Israelis rest their zionism on the belief that Moses spoke to the burning bush?!.

Dude, you are simply pulling red herrings out of your ass to justify your preconceived conclusion that israel had no right to exist.

Anyway, at the core of these stories lies religion, the same beliefs in ancient rule and divine promise. You don't seem to care about it, but I just don't see how this could fuel any sane nationalist movement.

So first you tell me that religion is just religion (duh), and then you insist that any jewish nationalism must necessarily be religious in nature.

This is fscking insane. it's like insisting on a bribe to let me in, and then pointing out that bribe is a crime, and bribe-givers are not allowed in.

Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

But this is not the main argument of mainstream Zionist. If it were, we would have another discussion.

The main argument of mainstream zionism is that this is our ancient homeland. The details or exactly which years we lives there and under which kings are wholly irrelevant.

.

Thought about going thru 12 pages of all these ramblings (to find the specifics of daybrown comment)... naw, here it is:

Vatican Publishes Knights Templar Papers
http://www.livescience.com/history/0710 ... mplar.html

.

Vatican Publishes Knights Templar Papers

tomas this shit is deep man. way above my head. what's the cipher?!?

i was thinking tbimp... you know, third letter of each word. but that pattern doesn't make any sense.

vicdan wrote:

You're not paying attention. I wrote about habitation in "Judea", which would now be some part of Southern Israel and Syria. And before 700BCE, the most honest estimation would be that the location was way more in flux and still undetermined, ranging from Egypt (at least 400 bloody years, why not call that homestead too?)

Amazing. Surely you know that there's virtually no independent (of Torah) evidence of Egyptian captivity, right?..

Of course, or the evidence that has been uncovered suggest a picture so radically different than the one the Torah paints, one has to start doubting each and every yod in it, not as just being inaccurate but pulled out of an ass altogether [or more likely than just fiction: a deliberate and detailed rewriting of historical records, absorbing traditions from elsewhere, modifying, restructuring, 'falsifying' them to ones own end].

You ignore again the differentiation I outline between Judea and Israel and what that means for the Zionist arguments pre-1948. It means they were for an important part bullocks. I suspect the Brits and the Arabs saw through this better than other involved parties.

Uhmmm, well.... maybe because we're discussing all things Jew here?

i see. So you are refusing to recognize nationhood rights on general principle, not just for jews? Then we really have nothing to talk about. Take it up with the UN.

The right on starting a nation for a distinct ethno-religious group.... should be subject to the reality on the ground. That's why the Kurds should be strongly discouraged right now and Tibet seems to have a good case, just like the Tamils in Shri Lanka. While in India the Tamils don't feel the need at all.

See above, I only challenge the claim of an historic Israel in any other shape or form than the ones I outlined,

Then this is a non-issue. Today's israel is simply the realistic approximation -- we got what we could. The question of matching some arbitrary boundary out of many possible ancient boundaries never arose, except implicitly from your claims. i certainly never made any such assertion.

I'm not aware of any Zionist faction ever pushing for a Judah-like province. The claims were quite specific, the target set and the game well played. Realistic? I wouldn't say so, not without a bloody price to pay for the ones who lost the game.

The Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, immigrated Arabs and various Bedouins could make similar claims based on history.

You seem to be forgetting that the underlying fount of such claims' legitimacy is the right to political self-determination. Syrians, lebanese, and egyptians already have it (though egyptians today have nothing to do with ancient Egypt essentially, as you surely knew).

The right to political self-determination doesn't describe exactly which type of groups can claim this right or which actions would be legal in which circumstance. It's important to note that this right pans out differently after 60 years of a booming Israeli state compared to its birth. It would be obvious to me the right makes more sense for Tamils and Tibetans than a diverse group like the Jews spread around the world for so many ages, before and after their actual documented inhabitance of Judah.

No seriously, an extensive list of past rebellions, captures, migrations, invasions and conquests are only a small part of the Zionist thinking on this. By themselves nowhere near enough to justify anything close to the two-state solution proposed by the UN.

it only has to be enough to justify existence of jews as a people, and israel as being our ancient homeland -- which is amply evident on both counts. i would be very curious to hear why you think our history in the region is not enough to justify thw two-state solution. more of this 'borders' red herring, your silly claim that only the exact ancient borders are relevant?

A democratic state needs to have borders and some form of representation of inhabitants in the government. The claim that it's not really important how the state would be implemented in these regards seems moronic to me. It would be a major difference for the viability of the State of Israel if the area would have been, let's say, 50% smaller. Do I really have to explain the reasons why?

My beef is with Moses, the promised land, a United Monarchy, Solomon and any Davidic dynasty.

... not one of which things i had brought up; but your mind is made up, don't let me confuse you with facts.

You deny their relevance but that doesn't make it so. I clearly demonstrated linkage of mainstream Zionist thinking and also US support to these beliefs. This makes it relevant.

Do you have any evidence to support your ideas about why zionists believe what they believe? Do you think jews in israel are unaware of the fact that exodus from Egypt is not supported by archeological evidence? Do you think the largely secular Israelis rest their zionism on the belief that Moses spoke to the burning bush?!.

Don't be silly. But what I'm saying is not magic, every reference on Zionism describes it and I quoted some of it before. This is not about the exodus, it's about the history up until the building of the Second Temple and the extreme religious revival that started of Judaism as we know it.

But this is not the main argument of mainstream Zionist. If it were, we would have another discussion.

The main argument of mainstream zionism is that this is our ancient homeland. The details or exactly which years we lives there and under which kings are wholly irrelevant.

So you introduce the term 'ancient homeland' but don't allow discussion about if it's correct to call it ancient or how they arrived at their conclusions, if it's sensible at all? That's amazingly disingenuous.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The right on starting a nation for a distinct ethno-religious group.... should be subject to the reality on the ground.

it always is -- but the reality on the ground is that Israel is already a sovereign nation.

I'm not aware of any Zionist faction ever pushing for a Judah-like province. The claims were quite specific, the target set and the game well played. Realistic? I wouldn't say so, not without a bloody price to pay for the ones who lost the game.

Who would that be that paid such a bloody price? Palestinians? By and large, they weren't forcibly expelled; and those who chose to not leave, right now comprise the only major arab population in the middle east to enjoy full franchise in a modern democracy.

The right to political self-determination doesn't describe exactly which type of groups can claim this right or which actions would be legal in which circumstance. It's important to note that this right pans out differently after 60 years of a booming Israeli state compared to its birth. It would be obvious to me the right makes more sense for Tamils and Tibetans

Both of those peoples have a right to self-determination as well. You seem to be finally accepting that; so why not for jews?

A democratic state needs to have borders and some form of representation of inhabitants in the government. The claim that it's not really important how the state would be implemented in these regards seems moronic to me.

Good thing nobody made that claim, eh/..

It would be a major difference for the viability of the State of Israel if the area would have been, let's say, 50% smaller. Do I really have to explain the reasons why?

Erm, DUH?.. This -- the neighbors' hostility -- is precisely why Israel occupied the territories in 1967. Do you have a point?

You deny their relevance but that doesn't make it so.

You are arguing with me, not with a miniature zionist in my pocket who happens to hold exactly the views you find most easy to dispute.

Don't be silly.

So you know that what you said was bullshit, you just don't care.

But what I'm saying is not magic, every reference on Zionism describes it and I quoted some of it before. This is not about the exodus, it's about the history up until the building of the Second Temple and the extreme religious revival that started of Judaism as we know it.

it's about the whole history of the jewish people as we know it. Inasmuch as bible can be considered a historical source (which is not much), it is used as such; but the reasons are secular -- it's secular gleanings of secular information from a religious historical source. Religion incorporates historical facts quite often, and it's not prima facie outlandish to assume that the Torah described some historical facts.

That still doesn't make such secular nationalism religious in nature. Similarly, many of the myths and tales around which the russian nationalism formed were xian in origin, and others pagan, but that doesn't invalidate the relevant national rights. The same can be said of virtually nay nationalist movement in the world. Myth and culture and history and stories form an important part of the conception of ethnicity. So what? i don't rely on stories of moses and Joshua and the exodus, do I? You are arguing with me, not with a convenient strawman.

So you introduce the term 'ancient homeland' but don't allow discussion about if it's correct to call it ancient or how they arrived at their conclusions, if it's sensible at all? That's amazingly disingenuous.

Not at all. That is is our ancient homeland is beyond a dispute, a historical fact as solid as any in existence. Your disputations are quibbling with regard to that point, but you act as if the answer to the question 'did jews show up in israel in 700BCE or 1200BCE?' would somehow result in a different answer to the question whether it's our ancient homeland.

This is monumentally disingenuous of you. The critical facts aren't in doubt, but you act as if minor auxiliary disputes somehow have definitive effect on the question.

vicdan wrote:I see you have given up trying to defend your moronic line that jews have no right to statehood.

You are truly dishonest, dear. Some day, you might grow up and understand what the word 'truth' means.

[rolls her eyes]

Victor, trust me. Things are not what they seem to you. You are, in fact, desperately insane.

I’ve said it many times before and I’ll say it again: where Israel DEPARTS from an actual secular democracy is precisely where the Chief Rabbinate is the ultimate arbiter of national policy. Pretty fucking simple, ain’t it? If you are going to try to disprove that, you need to show HOW the Rabbinates executive powers are NOT religious by nature.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Rabb ... ontroversy

And:

For the most part, a Jewish identity has been seen as a religious question stemming specifically from the Torah and Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) as a whole. As a result, religious authorities, namely scholarly rabbis, have traditionally taken the responsibility of determining the criteria for being a Jew.

Traditional (Halakhic) perspective

According to the traditional Rabbinic view, which is maintained by all branches of Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism today, only Halakha ("Jewish law") can define who is or is not a Jew when a question of Jewish identity, lineage, or parentage arises about any person seeking to define themselves or claim that they are Jewish.
Therefore, Halakha defines a "Jew" as someone, male or female, who is:

Either

(1) The child of a Jewish mother, known in English as "matrilineal descent". This law is derived from Deuteronomy 7:4.**

Or

(2) A person who converts -- that is, is formally converted to Judaism -- under the auspices of a halakhically constituted and recognized Beth Din ("Court [of Jewish-Torah Law]") consisting preferably of three learned rabbis acting as Dayanim ("judges"), but also possibly two learned and respected lay members of the community along with a rabbi who then issue a Shtar geirut ("Certificate of Conversion").

This standard for conversion is mandated by a long series of codes of law and texts, including the Talmud, through the Shulkhan Arukh, and subsequent interpretations that are held as authoritative by Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism.

As a result, mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew.

Of course, it’s that last line there that makes all the difference, ain’t it? What it means is that a “mere belief” in this particular doctrine does not suffice. It MUST be a matter of absolute fundamentalist reality! You know, you have to prove that your mother is a Jew BECAUSE GOD DEMANDS IT! There are divine consequences to this thing, otherwise. Like, your grandchildren will serve “other gods,” for example.

How the hell do you justify your claim that this is non-religious, let alone not racist? Just ignore the rest of the text [racist element bolded below] ascribed to God Himself? Really, it’s quite interesting how you bandy about the word “anti-Semite” --steering clear away from outright racism on your own part--when, clearly, you have been commanded not to make covenant with any not of your God; and this before the Kuran, too:

**Deuteronomy Chapter 7
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 and when the LORD thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; 3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He will destroy thee quickly.

Like I said earlier:

Yes, Israel is a secular democracy in the same way that the Chief Rabbinate (who decides immigration law, no less) is an atheist Jew when it comes to state policy.

Leyla Shen wrote:Of course, it’s that last line there that makes all the difference, ain’t it?

Not to me; but to you it should -- it you had any brains, you would have noticed that obviously being a jew is not defined as a function of one's religion. Youy could have also noticed that the Law of Return does not rely on halachic law to determine who has a right to aliyah and instant citizenship.

What it means is that a “mere belief” in this particular doctrine does not suffice. It MUST be a matter of absolute fundamentalist reality! You know, you have to prove that your mother is a Jew BECAUSE GOD DEMANDS IT!

only if I want to be a jew in the eyes of adherents of judaism. Fortunately, Israel will permit aliyah equally to a halachic jew or to a patrilineal grandson of a jew.

There are divine consequences to this thing, otherwise. Like, your grandchildren will serve “other gods,” for example.

You know, you really need to get over your insane fixation with jews being only a religion and not an ethnicity.

How the hell do you justify your claim that this is non-religious, let alone not racist?

erm... HUH? Why would i be defending religious view of jewishness? it is only definitive if you are an idiot (which you are) who assumes from the get-go that being a jew is a purely religious thing, and not an ethnic one at all (which you do).

Your assertion is utter idiocy. Catholic church similarly views anyone who had ever been baptized in a catholic rite as a catholic. So suppose you have an atheist whose catholic parents baptized her, you would have to be insane to demand that they answer for their catholicism, much less the catholic church's view on their catholicism! The most appropriate response to such an insane demand is 'fuck you, asshole'. So, fuck you, asshole.

Just ignore the rest of the text [racist element bolded below] ascribed to God Himself?

Yup. I simply ignore them. Religions are full of shit, and though judaism is quite a bit less full of shit than xianity or islam, it's still full of shit.

Wow, you just don't get it, do you, dummy?

Really, it’s quite interesting how you bandy about the word “anti-Semite” --steering clear away from outright racism on your own part

What racism 'on my own part' would that be, liar?

--when, clearly, you have been commanded not to make covenant with any not of your God; and this before the Kuran, too:

Why the fuck should I care about your deluded belief that being a jew is inextricably tied with the religion of judaism? I don't believe in god, I think much of OT to be monstrously inhumane, and i don't give a flyign fuck about what you think god commanded me, moron.

Like I said earlier:

Yes, Israel is a secular democracy in the same way that the Chief Rabbinate (who decides immigration law, no less) is an atheist Jew when it comes to state policy.

As i had already demonstrated to you, idiot, Chief Rabbis ('rabbinate' is an institution, 'rabbi' is the person, moron) do not decide immigration policy. They would like to, but they don't -- and Law of Return does not adhere to halachic principles in determining who is eligible for aliyah. Chief Rabbinate only comes into the picture in that they are the ones who determine which giyur (conversion) is legitimate, because converts are also eligible for aliyah; but I think it's quite obvious that this is by far not the same as determining the israeli immigration policy.

Furthermore, the very fact that the orthodox jews' incessant political power grabs, and the Chief Rabbinate's intrusions into the political sphere, are highly controversial and widely resented, shows exactly that religion is not the determinant factor among jews or in Israel.

Your stupidity, willful delusion, and dishonesty never cease to amaze me.

vicdan wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The right on starting a nation for a distinct ethno-religious group.... should be subject to the reality on the ground.

it always is -- but the reality on the ground is that Israel is already a sovereign nation.

But wasn't I discussing the Zionist movement leading up to the declaration of that State? You're now seem to suggest that sixty years of fait accomplit overrules every concern about how it came to be and the legality of those actions in regards to a legal framework still present and used as measuring rod everywhere else? A bit like dismissing investigations of the lead-up to the US invasion into Iraq because it's too late to undo it now. For people longing for justice and truth this just doesn't cut it.

I'm not aware of any Zionist faction ever pushing for a Judah-like province. The claims were quite specific, the target set and the game well played. Realistic? I wouldn't say so, not without a bloody price to pay for the ones who lost the game.

Who would that be that paid such a bloody price? Palestinians? By and large, they weren't forcibly expelled

There are enough relevant voices who claim different. For example Benny Moris has showed how the issue was way different than assumed by many Jews over the last decades, because they perhaps didn't want to know.

and those who chose to not leave, right now comprise the only major arab population in the middle east to enjoy full franchise in a modern democracy.

For many people living in a modern democracy is not their overarching value. They have greater concerns, beyond life and death, so-called freedoms, luxury and Westernism. You might not agree but the fact is that people have different ethical outlooks on life. The West seems infatuated with its own brand of Universalism.

The right to political self-determination doesn't describe exactly which type of groups can claim this right or which actions would be legal in which circumstance. It's important to note that this right pans out differently after 60 years of a booming Israeli state compared to its birth. It would be obvious to me the right makes more sense for Tamils and Tibetans

Both of those peoples have a right to self-determination as well. You seem to be finally accepting that; so why not for jews?

The historical claims on the regions in question differ immensely, in degree and nature. Jews immigrated into their desired land from places they lived for centuries, if not millennia, as to make it their own. I wouldn't know of any other examples like it.

A democratic state needs to have borders and some form of representation of inhabitants in the government. The claim that it's not really important how the state would be implemented in these regards seems moronic to me.

Good thing nobody made that claim, eh/..

I considered at least two of your statements as implying that claim:

- "The question of matching some arbitrary boundary out of many possible ancient boundaries never arose" which is not true according to mainstream Zionist literature and campaigning.

- "your silly claim that only the exact ancient borders are relevant?" I didn't say exact but yes the size of some ancient Jewish state named Israel seems to have been very relevant to the plan.

It would be a major difference for the viability of the State of Israel if the area would have been, let's say, 50% smaller. Do I really have to explain the reasons why?

Erm, DUH?.. This -- the neighbors' hostility -- is precisely why Israel occupied the territories in 1967. Do you have a point?

So they occupied more territories while the hostility arose because it was perceived that they had taken way too much to begin with? And thinking that might somehow magically create long-term security? Really pro-Israeli Jews seem to be living in the same mental space as their Nomad Conqueror Kings they idolize so much. It's backwards all the way.

You deny their relevance but that doesn't make it so.

You are arguing with me, not with a miniature zionist in my pocket who happens to hold exactly the views you find most easy to dispute.

LOL! How many miniature Zionists does a Jew need in his pocket to argue about Israel?

But you're wrong, I'm not criticizing you or Jews but I'm criticizing the complete dependency on a Judeo-Christian interpretation of history by Zionism and the creation of modern Israel which seems mainly brought about by Zionist efforts. I don't see how Israel could have been without Zionism and I'm interested in origins and causation, not only in the now. The key to understanding the present lies most often in the past. That's why history is the first thing that is buried or modified beyond recognition, as a means for unchallenged continuations of the present state of affairs.

Don't be silly.

So you know that what you said was bullshit, you just don't care.

No, your portrayal of it was silly so it seemed like you had an argument of some kind. (Reminder: you wrote: "Do you think jews in israel are unaware of the fact that exodus from Egypt is not supported by archeological evidence? Do you think the largely secular Israelis rest their zionism on the belief that Moses spoke to the burning bush?!").

]it's about the whole history of the jewish people as we know it. Inasmuch as bible can be considered a historical source (which is not much), it is used as such; but the reasons are secular -- it's secular gleanings of secular information from a religious historical source. Religion incorporates historical facts quite often, and it's not prima facie outlandish to assume that the Torah described some historical facts.

But Victor, the whole history of the Jewish people in the Canaan area is mainly known though Torah only, even including the heroic struggles of Judah Maccabee, which when it comes to important details are based on religious sources alone. Looking at evidence, it's reasonable to assume they lived there like on so many other places. It's the specific claims on top of that which have only a religious background. Why would a secular nationalist be interested in mythical glory days more than 2000 years ago in a certain territory? It beats me. The greatness of the Jews has been in the diaspora, where it's a fact what they accomplished, not in what they might have done in ancient Canaan. So a true Jewish 'nationalist' would accept the diaspora as home, as is accepted still in many branches of Judaism. In that specific understanding they are aligned with some of the greatest spiritual traditions on this planet.

That still doesn't make such secular nationalism religious in nature. Similarly, many of the myths and tales around which the russian nationalism formed were xian in origin, and others pagan, but that doesn't invalidate the relevant national rights. The same can be said of virtually nay nationalist movement in the world. Myth and culture and history and stories form an important part of the conception of ethnicity. So what? i don't rely on stories of moses and Joshua and the exodus, do I? You are arguing with me, not with a convenient strawman.

It doesn't invalidate them, perhaps ridicule them, but what other specific nationalist argument toward Palestina were present at the time then? Now in 2007 of course we can point to advancements of the Jewish state. But again, I'm talking about the nationalism in the 19th century and early 20th century.

Most nationalist movements can point to a long tradition of having lived at a place since a prolonged, continuous period in the last few ages with all the cultural footprints and dominating presence. Nothing mythical about it, that's only used as icing on a cake. The Zionists however deal only in icing. I'm not aware of other 'nationalist' arguments apart from the need to find some place.

That is is our ancient homeland is beyond a dispute, a historical fact as solid as any in existence. Your disputations are quibbling with regard to that point, but you act as if the answer to the question 'did jews show up in israel in 700BCE or 1200BCE?' would somehow result in a different answer to the question whether it's our ancient homeland.

Again, they didn't show up in Israel. They lived in an area not comparable at all with modern Israel and most of the time as 'guests' or province or co-habituating with others. Enough reason to respect or worship the area, organize pilgrimages perhaps but declaring a Jewish nation, why? If they had prospered just living there, aiming for a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state, they would have been way more in line with Jewish traditions of the last centuries, in my view.

But as far as I know, there is no way to become a Jew except by religious conversion...

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But wasn't I discussing the Zionist movement leading up to the declaration of that State? You're now seem to suggest that sixty years of fait accomplit overrules every concern about how it came to be

I haven't suggested that, even though i could. I have unequivocally defended the initial founding of israel.

There are enough relevant voices who claim different. For example Benny Moris has showed how the issue was way different than assumed by many Jews over the last decades, because they perhaps didn't want to know.

You do know that Benny Morris has been amply refuted and his bad-faith scholarship exposed, right?..

The historical claims on the regions in question differ immensely, in degree and nature. Jews immigrated into their desired land from places they lived for centuries, if not millennia, as to make it their own. I wouldn't know of any other examples like it.

Jews and the jewish state are rather unique in many regards. That does not entail its delegitimization.

I considered at least two of your statements as implying that claim

I have no idea why. I see no such implication there. I have never said or implied that the implementation of the state is unimportant.

- "The question of matching some arbitrary boundary out of many possible ancient boundaries never arose" which is not true according to mainstream Zionist literature and campaigning.

Oh? Show me some mainstream zionist literature or campaign attempting to match some specific ancient boundary.

- "your silly claim that only the exact ancient borders are relevant?" I didn't say exact but yes the size of some ancient Jewish state named Israel seems to have been very relevant to the plan.

'Some' being the operative word. My point is that your objection -- 'israel's borders changed, nobody knows where they really were, so you can't match them!' -- is moot in light of the fact that nobody has tried to match any specific border AFAIK. iit's more of a typical over-time regional boundary, not specific borders.

So they occupied more territories while the hostility arose because it was perceived that they had taken way too much to begin with?

Don't be so disingenuous. it makes you look like a dishonest liar.

Any territory becoming Israel was too much as far as arabs were concerned; and the arab hostility was what make the Green Line strategically unviable. The arab states cut off their nose to spite their face.

And thinking that might somehow magically create long-term security?

it certainly takes care of the problem prior to 1967, which was that Israel was only 10 or 20km wide down the middle (and in fact Egypt and Syria had explicitly threatened to cut it in half across that point) -- and the war of 1973 took care of the fact that Golan heights provided Syria with a convenient platform to shell israel from. So yes, occupying additional territory did indeed solve much of the problem of strategic safety. if you have trouble dealing with those facts, perhaps you should re-evaluate your agenda.

LOL! How many miniature Zionists does a Jew need in his pocket to argue about Israel?

None. Ever heard the saying -- two jews, three opinions?

But you're wrong, I'm not criticizing you or Jews but I'm criticizing the complete dependency on a Judeo-Christian interpretation of history by Zionism and the creation of modern Israel which seems mainly brought about by Zionist efforts. I don't see how Israel could have been without Zionism

it couldn't have; but Zionism was a secular nationalist movement, not a religious revival.

and I'm interested in origins and causation,

No, i don't think you are. You seem to be interested in supporting a predetermined conclusion.

But Victor, the whole history of the Jewish people in the Canaan area is mainly known though Torah only, even including the heroic struggles of Judah Maccabee,

You don't even know the difference between Torah and Tanakh, yet you presume to discourse about them with an air of authority, going so far as to claim specific authority on historical matters.

So a true Jewish 'nationalist' would accept the diaspora as home

Diaspora where we are hated, persecuted, and spat upon? Subjected to pogroms, false persecutions, stuffed in gas chambers, stripped of rghts and property, etc.? That diaspora?

And then you have the autistic audacity to tell me what 'true jewish nationalist' would do?!. You are slime, dude.

It doesn't invalidate them, perhaps ridicule them, but what other specific nationalist argument toward Palestina were present at the time then? Now in 2007 of course we can point to advancements of the Jewish state. But again, I'm talking about the nationalism in the 19th century and early 20th century.

Back then, it was the advancement of the jewish state. The theory went that jews would only become a people among peoples if they form their own society where they will be farmers, street sweepers, craftsmen, etc. It was to be redemption through work -- the core idea of Labor Zionism, the dominant zionism strand at the time. Israel was to be the place where jews became just another people. The idea -- shared both by reform and labor zionists, though for different reasons -- was that jews cannot be a free people among peoples while in diaspora.

Again, they didn't show up in Israel. They lived in an area not comparable at all with modern Israel and most of the time as 'guests' or province or co-habituating with others. Enough reason to respect or worship the area, organize pilgrimages perhaps but declaring a Jewish nation, why? If they had prospered just living there, aiming for a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state, they would have been way more in line with Jewish traditions of the last centuries, in my view.

Ah yes, a gentile telling me how to best be in line with jewish tradition...

You are a clueless fuck. You have no idea what galut is like and why having a nation of our own is so important. Given the stupidity (yes, stupidity) on this subject you have exhibited so far, i suspect you will never get it. You are simply driven by an agenda without any appreciation for the complex reality of the situation.

Based on both the historical record and the archaeological data, out of the Eygptians, Syrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Caliphs, Ottomans, and Brits, the Jews were the only indigenous group that ever actually ran the place.

Today's "Palestinians" are the descendants of the slave class that each of the greater powers used to enrich themselves, and have never run shit, and aint so good at doing it now. You could give them "Palestine", but that dont mean they'd have it for long. Look at what's been going on in Gaza, not that different from what's been going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If those people had the innate talent to run a decent republic under the rule of law, they wouldda done that sometime over the course of the last 5000 years. The Neocons knew that, and setup 911 for the falseflag event to give them a shot of adding their rule to that of the long line of tyrants with the kind of iron fist that has always been necessary to keep a lid on a boiling pot.

I would try giving power to the women of the region to see if they can work it out. But that idea was too far out of the box for the Neocons.

.

daybrown writes:
You could give them "Palestine", but that don't mean they'd have it for long. Look at what's been going on in Gaza,...

Rabbis warn Bush: Annapolis peace conference will bring destruction to United States
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C73 ... %2C00.html
Israel Jewish Scene, Ynetnews

.

vicdan wrote:

There are enough relevant voices who claim different. For example Benny Moris has showed how the issue was way different than assumed by many Jews over the last decades, because they perhaps didn't want to know.

You do know that Benny Morris has been amply refuted and his bad-faith scholarship exposed, right?..

I'm sure he has his critics and I've read some of the refutations in the past which was certainly not an "exposure". You're making that up. It's certainly not the case that there's any consensus about your statement that "by and large, they weren't forcibly expelled". Not even amongst the Jewish scholars living in Israel and the disagreements are way louder abroad.

The historical claims on the regions in question differ immensely, in degree and nature. Jews immigrated into their desired land from places they lived for centuries, if not millennia, as to make it their own. I wouldn't know of any other examples like it.

Jews and the jewish state are rather unique in many regards. That does not entail its delegitimization.

You don't get it, do you? It certainly would influence any 'blind' application of the universal right on self-determination which you harped about earlier on. In political and international law things are only cleared up when there's a comparable precedent, otherwise one cannot just invoke it like you do.

- "The question of matching some arbitrary boundary out of many possible ancient boundaries never arose" which is not true according to mainstream Zionist literature and campaigning.

Oh? Show me some mainstream zionist literature or campaign attempting to match some specific ancient boundary.

Okay, lets go with the first one I find:
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_definitions.htm

The foundations of Zionism are:

1. The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation

Ah yes, that Eretz Israel: "The Land of Israel (Hebrew: ????? ??????????, Masoretic: ??retz Yi?r??l, Hebrew Academy: Ére? Yisrael, Yiddish: [??r?ts y?s?r??l]) is a territory originally known as Canaan, used either as geographical or theological term, especially in the Biblical sense of the land promised by God as an inheritance to the Jewish people."

And "Consequently, in 20th century political usage, the term "Land of Israel" usually denotes only those parts of the land which came under the British mandate, i.e. the land currently controlled by the State of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and sometimes also Transjordan (now the Kingdom of Jordan)."

Okay, here's another one on the side:

The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel commences by drawing a direct line from Biblical times to the present:

The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural /values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

Yeah, secular state my ass. If secularity is so important to the modern Jew he should rewrite this a bit.

"The 28th Zionist Congress, meeting in Jerusalem 1968, adopted the five points of the "Jerusalem Program" as the aims of Zionism today. They are:

1. The unity of the Jewish People and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life;

2. The ingathering of the Jewish People in its historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through Aliyah from all countries;

Yep, moving in Canaan. That's a quite specific term: "The Hebrew Bible identifies Canaan with Lebanon — foremost with the coastal city of Sidon — but extends the "Land of Canaan" southward across Gaza to the "Brook of Egypt" and eastward to the Jordan Valley, thus including modern Israel with the Palestinian Territories".

My point is that your objection -- 'israel's borders changed, nobody knows where they really were, so you can't match them!' -- is moot in light of the fact that nobody has tried to match any specific border AFAIK. iit's more of a typical over-time regional boundary, not specific borders.

Why are you going on about 'specific' borders I'd have stressed. Now that is a red herring you introduce here, or a straw man you're knocking over. It's only specific as far it clearly leads outside Judah, even leads outside current Israel when "Eretz Israel" was declared to be "historic homeland".

So yes, occupying additional territory did indeed solve much of the problem of strategic safety. if you have trouble dealing with those facts, perhaps you should re-evaluate your agenda.

No it solved the immediate tactical problems. Nothing strategic was accomplished if you look at the whole region, the tensions, the international response and so on.

Zionism was a secular nationalist movement, not a religious revival.

I'm not sure what is worse if they both are making things up as they go.

But Victor, the whole history of the Jewish people in the Canaan area is mainly known though Torah only, even including the heroic struggles of Judah Maccabee,

You don't even know the difference between Torah and Tanakh, yet you presume to discourse about them with an air of authority, going so far as to claim specific authority on historical matters.

You don't even understand where I'm coming from and why I used 'Torah' in my sentence, in a conscious and generally (while mostly orthodox) accepted manner to encompass all Jewish religious teachings. It shows not only your lack of experience with the matter but added to that also an unwillingness to look at the context, the bigger picture, before interpreting the use of a word in some technical formulaic manner.

Do you think I'm talking just to you and your miniature straw men in your pocket? I keep the discussion simple and use on purpose the most generic terms possible so other people can follow. And I was thinking for a second your aim here was to educate others, not to feed your own needs.

So a true Jewish 'nationalist' would accept the diaspora as home

Diaspora where we are hated, persecuted, and spat upon? Subjected to pogroms, false persecutions, stuffed in gas chambers, stripped of rghts and property, etc.? That diaspora?

Yeah, that one. The one where you achieved some of the highest real accomplishments and had to endure the deepest of sufferings. It has formed the 'identity' of the Jew, perhaps from the very beginning and what is the problem of accepting this identity? Of course one doesn't have to remain Jew in cultural or religious sense if that identity is not desired.

Israel was to be the place where jews became just another people. The idea -- shared both by reform and labor zionists, though for different reasons -- was that jews cannot be a free people among peoples while in diaspora.

They might think they're a free people now but it's a delusion: now the whole nation is increasingly becoming hated, spat upon and threatened. Jews are quick to point out rising antisemitism but they're missing the point, don't want to see the point: what is really going on is a rabid anti-Israelism. And having a nuclear arsenal or ruthless secret service apparatus won't make it safer; that never made anyone safe. It only morally empowers the opponents.

Ah yes, a gentile telling me how to best be in line with jewish tradition...

It's painfully clear I know it more in depth than you. Perhaps you should do your advantage with it while it lasts. I won't hang around here for ever.

You have no idea what galut is like and why having a nation of our own is so important.

Yes, because you're still religious at the core when it comes to this, carrying the huge blinders that come with such thing. Claiming to be secular does not change the religious realities of how we came to think or believe things to be true or not.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I'm sure he has his critics and I've read some of the refutations in the past which was certainly not an "exposure".

Showing his highly selective use of primary sources is not an 'exposire'?.. OK...

Okay, lets go with the first one I find:
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_definitions.htm

You mean the one which contains the following statements, which you so conveniently ignored?

Zionism is [n]ot just about religion - There are many religious Zionists, and early proponents of return to Zion in the 19th century were rabbis. However, the founders of the Zionist movement were not religious and the Zionist movement is not about religion or return to a "promised land."

Zionism is not about borders - Zionism was never about borders. Some Zionist programs envisioned a Jewish homeland outside of Palestine, some Zionists envisioned a bi-national state (the Mapam party) , while others ("Revisionists") insisted that the Jewish state must be established on both sides of the Jordan river, in the full territory of the British Mandate.

Yep, moving in Canaan.

interestingly enough, the quotes you cited say nothing asbout Canaan. Make shit up much?

No it solved the immediate tactical problems. Nothing strategic was accomplished if you look at the whole region, the tensions, the international response and so on.

Strategically, the world of good was accomplished. We have a homeland now -- what we didn't have during Holocaust, when British authorities strangled emigration to Israel of jews fleeing nazi persecution.

You just don't seem to fscking get it. We can protect ourselves now, instead of having to trust others' largesse -- and israel has been doing a marvelous job of protecting itself.

You don't even understand where I'm coming from and why I used 'Torah' in my sentence, in a conscious and generally (while mostly orthodox) accepted manner to encompass all Jewish religious teachings. It shows not only your lack of experience with the matter but added to that also an unwillingness to look at the context, the bigger picture, before interpreting the use of a word in some technical formulaic manner.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say, dude.

Do you think I'm talking just to you and your miniature straw men in your pocket? I keep the discussion simple and use on purpose the most generic terms possible so other people can follow. And I was thinking for a second your aim here was to educate others, not to feed your own needs.

My aim is to combat anti-semitism -- such as leyla and others so blatantly exhibited, and such as you are exhibiting in a more subtle form.

So a true Jewish 'nationalist' would accept the diaspora as home

Diaspora where we are hated, persecuted, and spat upon? Subjected to pogroms, false persecutions, stuffed in gas chambers, stripped of rghts and property, etc.? That diaspora?

Yeah, that one. The one where you achieved some of the highest real accomplishments and had to endure the deepest of sufferings.

Fuck you. Having a quarter of my people brutally murdered is quite a bit of 'deepest of suffering'. Diaspora is no home of ours, and for you to tell me how I, a jew, should see it as the proper home of my people, is, frankly, moronic and anti-semitic. Enslavement, even a cushy one, is not freedom, and a gilded cage is still a cage. In this case, it was a cage with random spikes thrusting up through the floor ever once in a while. No thanks.

They might think they're a free people now but it's a delusion: now the whole nation is increasingly becoming hated, spat upon and threatened. Jews are quick to point out rising antisemitism but they're missing the point, don't want to see the point: what is really going on is a rabid anti-Israelism.

You are the one who is missing the point. it's the same old anti-semitism wearing a new hat. There are many countries in the world doing things qualitatively beyond anything israel ever dreamed of, but not a single one of them endures the hatred you and your ilk dole out at Israel.

And having a nuclear arsenal or ruthless secret service apparatus won't make it safer

it sure as hell does. Appealing to others' better nature never protected us from attacks, but a full nuclear triad, one of the best soldier-for-soldier conventional militaries in the world, and a secret service famous worldwide for its effectiveness, go a long way there.

It's better to be loved than hated & feared, but it's better to be hated & feared than persecuted and abused. Take your xian 'turn the other cheek' claptrap, fold it up until it's all sharp corners, and stuff it where the sun don't shine.

No, wait, i am not sure it's xian. I think what is really going on here is that the anti-semites could not see a greater affront than a strong jew, a jew who stands up for himself and refuses to be a passive victim. What you are suggesting is what we should stop standing up for ourselves, and return to our 'glory days' of passive victimhood -- you seem to find the idea of a jewish nation-state, defending itself and doing so successfully and with panache, an affront to your sensibilities. How dare jews stand up for themselves! Back to diaspora with you! Jews have to beg for protection, not take the matters into their own hands!

I find is amusing, though, that you do what you probably wouldn't have done in any other context -- you blame the victim for the problem, you blame Israel for the 'anti-israelism'. Why don't you just cut to the chase, and blame the jews for anti-semitism?

It's painfully clear I know it more in depth than you.

Try another one, it's got bells on it.

You are an ignorant anti-semite with a very distorted view of history, dude. You are the concern troll of anti-semitism.

Yeah, we should give up on the ability to defend ourselves, and return to galut, to be attacked and betrayed and discriminated against, for our own good. you are suggesting such insane shit our of pure unvarnished concern for the well-being of my people.

Fuck you, asshole. I can't believe you don't realize what evil shit you are suggesting.

There is a case to be made for the Jews in Israel, but ad hominum detracts from both sides of the issue.

I guess you mean the 'ad hominem' here in these recent exchanges? I don't know, personally I have followed the exchange somewhat carefully and can only take my hat off to Victor for...the unrelenting effort to counter (what I perceive as) outright anti-semitism. It might not have done y'all any good, or helped you organize your ideas, but it certainly has helped me. It redoubles and triples my resolve to contribute to Israel, not only in 'materia belica' but to those groups that are making the effort to do peaceful, educational work (like Givat Haviva). So, I think that Vctor has done a real service here in countering lies and sophistries, and I am not sure you have the same perspective as a Jew does when you see and listen to very destructive and mean-spirited people preaching such wretched doctrines. And these doctrines abound, they are literally everywhere.

What I find amazing is just how pervasive they are here. Leyla, hsandman, and friends are outright ranting, screeching anti-semites. Diebert pretended to be trying to have a rational discussion, but alas!

I suspected from the beginning that he is an anti-semite, from the subtler qualities of his arguments -- delegitimization of Israel was where all his arguments led; but i was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, when he suggested that our true home is in galut and we should just clear out of israel -- for our own good of course, concerned for our well-being as he is! -- that just cinched it for me, and removed all uncertainty. When someone goes so blatantly against the clear and obvious facts (of israel's ability to defend itself, as juxtaposed with the persecution in galut, for example), there's no room for doubt left.

I find it truly amazing that this place is so deeply, pervasively steeped in anti-semitism. I have never yet encountered such a dense concentration of anti-semites in one place.

It may have something to do with the Quinn/Solway elevation of the suicidally self-loathing Jew Weininger to "spiritual genius" status. Weininger, who hated himself both for being Jewish and for being an effeminate man, equates Jewish culture to the essence of femininity - and knowing what they think about femininity around here, it's not too hard to imagine some of them finding support for a latent anti-Semitism in Weininger.

Then again, this presumes they have read Weininger, which may not be true in some cases.

vicdan wrote:I find it truly amazing that this place is so deeply, pervasively steeped in anti-semitism. I have never yet encountered such a dense concentration of anti-semites in one place.

That is probably the most ridiculous thing you've ever said anywhere at any time. And, I mean, that's really saying something.

You think? Granted, Victor is an abrasive Zionist who brings a lot of it on himself, but are you denying there is quite a bit of genuine anti-Semitism on this thread? That would be a difficult position to support, from where I sit.

Jesus, Nat. Vic said:

I have never yet encountered such a dense concentration of anti-semites in one place.

You seriously think this is an honest statement?

Maybe, if he has never visited a "white nationalist" board.

Yeah, possibly. Depends on where else he's been. If he hasn't been to Stormfront or the like, it could be true. I can't recall any community he's visited (to my knowledge) where there was any more of it.