If THAT is what you want, then how about we just go by the UN's decisions, so we can quit with all of the semantics and leading questions?
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I think Zionism is discriminatory, I think you, and maybe Picardathon, don't think so. I'm trying to get to the root of why we disagree. That's all.
because the purpose of the right of return to to PROTECT the equallity of all Jewish of the citizens of Israel.
Is it really a surprise to you all that Israel prefers Jews? Yeah, there's an institutional preference for Jews that extends pretty much throughout the country, which makes quite a bit of sense considering that it was made for jews, by jews. No one is going to bother you if you happen to not be Jewish, but if Israel didn't have the right of return or give minor preferences to Jews, then it would eventually just slide into a majority non-jewish state, and there really wouldn't be any point for Israel's existence.
So your saying that Israel is a country that's determined to maintain a majority of one ethnicity? Wow, that's so much better.
Uh, I don't understand the problem. Its sort of the point, and why a one state solution runs at single digit popularity among Israeli's.
I don't have a problem with a country of one religion, as long as they aren't persecuting against another people based on their religion. I don't think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on religion, instead I think its based on national ambitions, crazy people, water, and land.
Seriously.
It amazes me how many of the people who are up in arms over Israel don't also run around decrying all of the Arab nations which enforce Islamic laws on their inhabitants, or the Vatican, which is considered its own country, etc.
We're giving them 3 billion a year, and covering their asses at the UN, and doing many things that we wouldn't do for anyone else, human rights abuser or not.
Ummm...
Have you looked at how much we give to certain other nations? Israel isn't the only nation we give money to.
And before you go off about ammounts, honestly, we should hold the same standards for ANY country we give money to, regardless of ammount.
And, regaardless of that, I don't believe that everyone here is American anyway.
They're 30% of our foreign aid budget, and they could buy the guns themselves if they wanted to, they're the 16th richest country in the world.
Are you implying that they spend all of that money on military?
Hell, THEY make some of the guns that WE use.
Also, we're ignoring the percentage of our aid dollars that they spend on American things, which just puts it back into our economy. This is arguably actually a pretty good thing for america, because it gets rid of old equipment we don't need anymore that is lying around, and puts money back out in the pockets of citizens, who are hired to manufacture new equipment.
Mostly, though, we support Israel because, despite their failings, they are still the best of the Countries in that area. That does not excuse their behaviors, but it is a thing worth remembering. Israel doesn't go on wars of conquest to take the lands of other countries, nor do they execute people for not following religious laws.
If THAT is what you want, then how about we just go by the UN's decisions, so we can quit with all of the semantics and leading questions?
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I think Zionism is discriminatory, I think you, and maybe Picardathon, don't think so. I'm trying to get to the root of why we disagree. That's all.
I think Zionism goes by the the dictionary definition of racism, in that it involves and even favors one group over another.
I don't understand how this really matters for anything, and I think that the Palestinians are the real issue. And Besides, I agree with Evander, good idea to have a Jewish state.
You seem so admantly anti-Zionist, so I'll ask you a question. If Zionism is so very unwholesome, then what alternatve would you recommend for ensuring the continued safety of the Jewish people?
This is besides the point. We're discussing Zionism, not the Dagrabbit Plan for Preserving the Jewish People. I'd rather focus on that for right now.
Sorry, but this IS the point. Stop going for the low hanging fruit, and actually respond to points of others.
If THAT is what you want, then how about we just go by the UN's decisions, so we can quit with all of the semantics and leading questions?
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I think Zionism is discriminatory, I think you, and maybe Picardathon, don't think so. I'm trying to get to the root of why we disagree. That's all.
I think Zionism goes by the the dictionary definition of racism, in that it involves and even favors one group over another.
And I disagree because Zionism does not involve the "other" in ANY regard.
because the purpose of the right of return to to PROTECT the equallity of all Jewish of the citizens of Israel.
Is it really a surprise to you all that Israel prefers Jews? Yeah, there's an institutional preference for Jews that extends pretty much throughout the country, which makes quite a bit of sense considering that it was made for jews, by jews. No one is going to bother you if you happen to not be Jewish, but if Israel didn't have the right of return or give minor preferences to Jews, then it would eventually just slide into a majority non-jewish state, and there really wouldn't be any point for Israel's existence.
So your saying that Israel is a country that's determined to maintain a majority of one ethnicity? Wow, that's so much better.
Uh, I don't understand the problem. Its sort of the point, and why a one state solution runs at single digit popularity among Israeli's.
I don't have a problem with a country of one religion, as long as they aren't persecuting against another people based on their religion. I don't think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on religion, instead I think its based on national ambitions, crazy people, water, and land.
Seriously.
It amazes me how many of the people who are up in arms over Israel don't also run around decrying all of the Arab nations which enforce Islamic laws on their inhabitants, or the Vatican, which is considered its own country, etc.
We're giving them 3 billion a year, and covering their asses at the UN, and doing many things that we wouldn't do for anyone else, human rights abuser or not.
Ummm...
Have you looked at how much we give to certain other nations? Israel isn't the only nation we give money to.
And before you go off about ammounts, honestly, we should hold the same standards for ANY country we give money to, regardless of ammount.
And, regaardless of that, I don't believe that everyone here is American anyway.
They're 30% of our foreign aid budget, and they could buy the guns themselves if they wanted to, they're the 16th richest country in the world.
Are you implying that they spend all of that money on military?
Hell, THEY make some of the guns that WE use.
Also, we're ignoring the percentage of our aid dollars that they spend on American things, which just puts it back into our economy. This is arguably actually a pretty good thing for america, because it gets rid of old equipment we don't need anymore that is lying around, and puts money back out in the pockets of citizens, who are hired to manufacture new equipment.
Mostly, though, we support Israel because, despite their failings, they are still the best of the Countries in that area. That does not excuse their behaviors, but it is a thing worth remembering. Israel doesn't go on wars of conquest to take the lands of other countries, nor do they execute people for not following religious laws.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html
Yeah, at this point they're spending it all on guns.
The jobs they create are counteracted by the jobs lost due to the taxation required for said aid. Yes, we're giving them things instead of money, but it still is a net negative for the US economy, because things cost money, and in the end we're footing the bill.
You're ignoring me when I say that they can afford it.
And yes, some of that money is spent on military R&D, some of that creates guns and munitions systems that helps out our army. How about we keep that, and let them buy the guns.
And, surprise surprise, there are places where we could send that aid which would both be much more helpful overall. Have you heard of Darfur?
You seem so admantly anti-Zionist, so I'll ask you a question. If Zionism is so very unwholesome, then what alternatve would you recommend for ensuring the continued safety of the Jewish people?
This is besides the point. We're discussing Zionism, not the Dagrabbit Plan for Preserving the Jewish People. I'd rather focus on that for right now.
Sorry, but this IS the point. Stop going for the low hanging fruit, and actually respond to points of others.
But...then why didn't you respond to the rest of that post where I, you know, responded to your points. The discussion about alternatives to Zionism is a valid one, but I'd prefer to remian focused on dissecting Zionism for now.
Here's something for you all. It is the statement of revocation (made by President Bush the senior) for UN resolution 3379, which had declared Zionism to be Racism:
And now, for the first time, we have a real chance to fulfill the U.N. Charter's ambition of working "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and nations large and small to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Those are the words from the charter. We will not revive these ideals if we fail to acknowledge the challenge that the renewal of history presents.
....No one here can promise that today's borders will remain fixed for all time. But we must strive to ensure the peaceful, negotiated settlement of border disputes. We also must promote the cause of international harmony by addressing old feuds. We should take seriously the charter's pledge "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.
UNGA Resolution 3379, the so-called "Zionism is racism" resolution, mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the United Nations was founded. And I call now for its repeal. Zionism is not a policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and, indeed, throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself, a member of good standing of the United Nations.
This body cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel's right to exist. By repealing this resolution unconditionally, the United Nations will enhance its credibility and serve the cause of peace.
That is probably in large part because the Vatican doesn't spend a lot of time sending tanks to crush Rome.
And, uh, I don't think that many people are in love with Iran around here. We see them a pretty evil. But our country isn't giving them billions of dollars for nothing. And they are not considered above reproach by a large segment of Western population the way Israel is. Israel largely gets a free pass for its crimes. That's the problem we have. Or at least the one I have.
So your problem with Israel is what they do to the Palestinians? Okay, that's fair.
So, why not discuss what they are doing to the Palestinians, instead of arguing about their citizenship requirements? If you have a realistic argument why are you wasting time condemming them for something that is inconsequential to your actual issue.
The fact that the country is set up so that it is controlled by a near-indoctrinated religion, and no dissenting voice can realistically be heard perpetuates their poor treatment of Palestine. If the country were not, for all intents and purposes a theocracy, their treatment of their neighbors would be less bad because it would be more likely to be ruled by reason than feeling. Unless there is sweeping change across the Jewish religions, the problem isn't going to be solved, because of the persecution complex the Jewish people seem to have, as you pointed out:
what alternatve would you recommend for ensuring the continued safety of the Jewish people?
Continued safety? The religion doesn't need its own country to be safe in today's world. I think it is somewhat paranoid to think otherwise. Why couldn't Jewish people exist safely in the US or Canada or Spain or Japan?
Theocracy is bad. It breeds violence. Theocracy should not exist anywhere. Not in Iran, not in Israel, not in Mexico, not anywhere. The fact that Israel is in effect controlled by a religion is a bad thing. So is the fact that the president of the United States is a faux-fundie. The problem isn't Jewish rule, it is religious rule.
You seem so admantly anti-Zionist, so I'll ask you a question. If Zionism is so very unwholesome, then what alternatve would you recommend for ensuring the continued safety of the Jewish people?
This is besides the point. We're discussing Zionism, not the Dagrabbit Plan for Preserving the Jewish People. I'd rather focus on that for right now.
Sorry, but this IS the point. Stop going for the low hanging fruit, and actually respond to points of others.
But...then why didn't you respond to the rest of that post where I, you know, responded to your points. The discussion about alternatives to Zionism is a valid one, but I'd prefer to remian focused on dissecting Zionism for now.
Listen, if you want to play, sometimes you have to recognize when the other side has possession of the ball.
I've responded to plenty of your points, I'd like you to respond to mine in turn. Otherwise, I don't find you very fun to play with.
Here's something for you all. It is the statement of revocation (made by President Bush the senior) for UN resolution 3379, which had declared Zionism to be Racism:
Yeah, I'd disagree with what he said. For one thing, it's heavy on appeal to emotion. For another, it doesn't address any of the issues of Zionism and focuses exclusively on Israel's right to exist based on Zionism.
You might be interested to note that I actually feel, independent of Zionism, that Israel, the nation, has as much right to exist as any other nation. I just don't think it should be a Zionist nation.
You seem so admantly anti-Zionist, so I'll ask you a question. If Zionism is so very unwholesome, then what alternatve would you recommend for ensuring the continued safety of the Jewish people?
This is besides the point. We're discussing Zionism, not the Dagrabbit Plan for Preserving the Jewish People. I'd rather focus on that for right now.
Sorry, but this IS the point. Stop going for the low hanging fruit, and actually respond to points of others.
But...then why didn't you respond to the rest of that post where I, you know, responded to your points. The discussion about alternatives to Zionism is a valid one, but I'd prefer to remian focused on dissecting Zionism for now.
Listen, if you want to play, sometimes you have to recognize when the other side has possession of the ball.
I've responded to plenty of your points, I'd like you to respond to mine in turn. Otherwise, I don't find you very fun to play with.
I've responded to every point you've made except that specific one where I gave an explanation as to why I wanted to defer addressing it. I feel it is switching the topic, which is bad debate form. Condescension isn't going to suddenly make your points more valid.
That is probably in large part because the Vatican doesn't spend a lot of time sending tanks to crush Rome.
And, uh, I don't think that many people are in love with Iran around here. We see them a pretty evil. But our country isn't giving them billions of dollars for nothing. And they are not considered above reproach by a large segment of Western population the way Israel is. Israel largely gets a free pass for its crimes. That's the problem we have. Or at least the one I have.
So your problem with Israel is what they do to the Palestinians? Okay, that's fair.
So, why not discuss what they are doing to the Palestinians, instead of arguing about their citizenship requirements? If you have a realistic argument why are you wasting time condemming them for something that is inconsequential to your actual issue.
The fact that the country is set up so that it is controlled by a near-indoctrinated religion, and no dissenting voice can realistically be heard perpetuates their poor treatment of Palestine. If the country were not, for all intents and purposes a theocracy, their treatment of their neighbors would be less bad because it would be more likely to be ruled by reason than feeling. Unless there is sweeping change across the Jewish religions, the problem isn't going to be solved, because of the persecution complex the Jewish people seem to have, as you pointed out:
what alternatve would you recommend for ensuring the continued safety of the Jewish people?
Continued safety? The religion doesn't need its own country to be safe in today's world. I think it is somewhat paranoid to think otherwise. Why couldn't Jewish people exist safely in the US or Canada or Spain or Japan?
Theocracy is bad. It breeds violence. Theocracy should not exist anywhere. Not in Iran, not in Israel, not in Mexico, not anywhere. The fact that Israel is in effect controlled by a religion is a bad thing. So is the fact that the president of the United States is a faux-fundie. The problem isn't Jewish rule, it is religious rule.
Oh god I sound like Loren Michael.
I'm not sure how much familiarity you have with Israeli law, but the religious influenced laws deal primarily with things like public transportation on Saturdays. In fact, the majority of Jews consider themselves to be Secular Jews; the country is FAR from being controlled by religion.
Defining Jews as ONLY being a religion is just wrong. HIstoric persecution of Jews was based on familial descent, not on theological beliefs.
As for Jews being safe elsewhere, can you guarantee their continued safety? There have been times when Jews thought they were safe, only to find public opinion shifting, and themselves being once again persecuted. Should Jews wait around, hoping that it doesn't happen again, or should they resign themselves to a life of transience, ready to run out of their current country at a momment's notice as soon as the tide starts changing? I would argue, no, Jews need to find a way to take hold of their OWN destiny, and Zionism is the only way of doing this.
You seem so admantly anti-Zionist, so I'll ask you a question. If Zionism is so very unwholesome, then what alternatve would you recommend for ensuring the continued safety of the Jewish people?
This is besides the point. We're discussing Zionism, not the Dagrabbit Plan for Preserving the Jewish People. I'd rather focus on that for right now.
Sorry, but this IS the point. Stop going for the low hanging fruit, and actually respond to points of others.
But...then why didn't you respond to the rest of that post where I, you know, responded to your points. The discussion about alternatives to Zionism is a valid one, but I'd prefer to remian focused on dissecting Zionism for now.
Listen, if you want to play, sometimes you have to recognize when the other side has possession of the ball.
I've responded to plenty of your points, I'd like you to respond to mine in turn. Otherwise, I don't find you very fun to play with.
I've responded to every point you've made except that specific one where I gave an explanation as to why I wanted to defer addressing it. I feel it is switching the topic, which is bad debate form. Condescension isn't going to suddenly make your points more valid.
Just because you don't like a point doesn't mean that it isn't valid. The purpose of Zionism is VERY MUCH important to whether or not it is intrinsically discriminatory.
If you are going to refuse to look at all aspects of the topic, that's fine, but I'm not going to waste my time responding to your points when you have no interest in responding to mine.
Just because you don't like a point doesn't mean that it isn't valid. The purpose of Zionism is VERY MUCH important to whether or not it is intrinsically discriminatory.
Well maybe you can clarify for me then. Why is it relevant? I think whether Zionism is discriminatory is answered indepedently of what alternatives there are.
Are you implying that they spend all of that money on military?
Hell, THEY make some of the guns that WE use.
Also, we're ignoring the percentage of our aid dollars that they spend on American things, which just puts it back into our economy. This is arguably actually a pretty good thing for America, because it gets rid of old equipment we don't need anymore that is lying around, and puts money back out in the pockets of citizens, who are hired to manufacture new equipment.
Mostly, though, we support Israel because, despite their failings, they are still the best of the Countries in that area. That does not excuse their behaviors, but it is a thing worth remembering. Israel doesn't go on wars of conquest to take the lands of other countries, nor do they execute people for not following religious laws.
In 2006 America gave Israel a grant of 2.28 Billion dollars, an economic grant of 240 million dollars and a Jewish refugee resettlement grant of 50 million dollars. This gives a total of 2.57 Billion dollars in grants.
Not a single penny of that goes towards weapons development, that money was not included in the source linked earlier in this thread, here.
So no, they don't spend the entirety of the money they get on weapons, just 89% of it.
Are you really going to argue its better for the American economy to give Israel over 2 billion dollars in military grants, then wait for them to buy equipment back than just NOT taking the money out of the economy in the first place, or using it for absolutely anything else? Seriously?
Also, Israel does not engage in wars of conquest? Read the thread, that notion has been debated and subsequently ridiculed more than once. If they don't engage in wars of conquest, why not give back all the land they took in various wars.
I'm guessing you'll say security. A Nation with bleeding edge military technology, one that develops and produces some of the most advanced hardware in the world, and buys anything else from America. One that stole nuclear weapons technology from the French, really needs some strip of land to defend itself from the awesome might Syrian military. The one that gets nearly one billion dollars spent on it, less than half of what Israel gets GIVEN for its own, let alone any domestic expenditure.
Also, since I noticed you made a lot of claims when discussing the Bulldozer incident, none of which were true, kindly cite any evidence that supports your argument.
Actually, I don't see much problem with the Jewish stance that they want control over their nation because it is in line with the goal of creating the nation in the first place.
I don't either; and I also think it's awesome that Arabs who get married to non-Israeli Arabs can't get their spouses to live with them in Israel, but a Jew born in America can live in Israel if he can afford the ticket, because hey, fuck Arabs.
It's awesome that I am not allowed to visit Mecca, because even though it is an important historical site to the history of the entire world, one group of people has decided that no one else can go there.
Just because you don't like a point doesn't mean that it isn't valid. The purpose of Zionism is VERY MUCH important to whether or not it is intrinsically discriminatory.
Well maybe you can clarify for me then. Why is it relevant? I think whether Zionism is discriminatory is answered indepedently of what alternatives there are.
The thing is, unless there are alternatives to Zionism, then no Zionism would potentially mean the irradication of an entire people.
So, if you are going to disect Zionism, you need to understand the alternatives, or else you are really looking at things on too microscopic of a level.
Just because you don't like a point doesn't mean that it isn't valid. The purpose of Zionism is VERY MUCH important to whether or not it is intrinsically discriminatory.
Well maybe you can clarify for me then. Why is it relevant? I think whether Zionism is discriminatory is answered indepedently of what alternatives there are.
The thing is, unless there are alternatives to Zionism, then no Zionism would potentially mean the irradication of an entire people.
So, if you are going to disect Zionism, you need to understand the alternatives, or else you are really looking at things on too microscopic of a level.
This doesn't affect whether Zionism is discriminatory against non-Jews. It affects whether Zionism is necessary to preserve the Jewish people.
I'm concerned you think that if we reach a consensus that Zionism is discriminatory against non-Jews, I'm going to declare victory or something. I recognize that there are other factors that color whether or not that discrimination is necessary, or wholly bad. But unless we can agree that it is discriminatory (or not, I'm still open to being wrong), I'm skeptical of how the rest of the discussion will turn out.
However, if you think we're not going to get any more traction on that issue, we can shift gears.
Just because you don't like a point doesn't mean that it isn't valid. The purpose of Zionism is VERY MUCH important to whether or not it is intrinsically discriminatory.
Well maybe you can clarify for me then. Why is it relevant? I think whether Zionism is discriminatory is answered indepedently of what alternatives there are.
The thing is, unless there are alternatives to Zionism, then no Zionism would potentially mean the irradication of an entire people.
So, if you are going to disect Zionism, you need to understand the alternatives, or else you are really looking at things on too microscopic of a level.
This doesn't affect whether Zionism is discriminatory against non-Jews. It affects whether Zionism is necessary to preserve the Jewish people.
I'm concerned you think that if we reach a consensus that Zionism is discriminatory against non-Jews, I'm going to declare victory or something. I recognize that there are other factors that color whether or not that discrimination is necessary, or wholly bad. But unless we can agree that it is discriminatory (or not, I'm still open to being wrong), I'm skeptical of how the rest of the discussion will turn out.
However, if you think we're not going to get any more traction on that issue, we can shift gears.
Personally, I reject his argument on the fact that it's just a roundabout way of sayng that Judaism needs Zionism. I don't believe that's the case, at least for what Zionism has become (which is another point that Evander doesn't want to address - the hijacking of a movement for a Jewish homeland to make it into a push to restore the historical Judean nation as a modern state.)
Here's where I'm finding myself in disagreement with you, Evander.
Preserving an ethnic majority in a state is bad. End stop. I don't care if you do it by implementing a "fast lane" for one ethnicity, or by discouraging immigration of other people, or by using ethnic cleansing to rid a state of an undesirable population. It's all a violation of international law, and the only differences lies in which court you will be prosecuted in (or should be, anyway).
Israel is a consistent violator of the Declaration of Human Rights' Article 13, Article 15, and Article 20. And that's just in Israel proper. The rest of the Articles are pretty much violated in the OT.
I don't care if you feel that the RoR is a good thing for the Jewish people, because it is a horrible thing for just about everyone else.
Have a wife outside the country who's not a Jew? Then every Jew who immigrates has preference to her.
Do you happen to be a Palestinian student who wishes to continue his studies outside of Israel? Well, if you're gone for more than two years, you'll have to immigrate to get back. And every Jew who immigrates has preference to you. ("Make trips abroad for [Palestinian] students easier, while making the return and employment more difficult - this policy is apt to encourage their emigration."-Israel Koeneg, former Galilee distict commissioner of the ministry to the Prime Minister).
Did you move away from Israel for over two years? Oops, then apparently you no longer have a home in Israel, and every Jew who immigrates has preference to you coming back. Be prepared to wait in line.
This is bullshit. It is not an instance of "lesser of two evils," it's just another way of ensuring ethnic homogeneity! And it happens to be one that Israel uses alongside ethnic cleansing in the OT, double standards in the execution of law, and yes, Israeli exceptionalism!
And the funny thing is, it's not working. You know it, I know it, Israel knows it. The influx of Jews coming from the RoR and natural birthrates is steadily but surely being overcome by Palestinian birthrates, immigration, and "illegal" aliens. What will Israel do then? Go quietly into the night, being too honorable to do anything worse than allow a measly RoR? Like hell it will.
The fact of the matter is that Zionism is not only a racist enterprise, but its a failing one. Pure demographics do not allow for it. The maintenence of Zionism does not seem like such a big deal to you now, but what will it lead to in just a few decades?
I obviously do not feel that Zionism is at all healthy for anyone, even the Jewish people. It goes against many of the Jewish teachings that I, at least, was raised with. It is also not necessary for the preservation of a Jewish homeland. From what I can tell, consociationalist democracy would seem to provide pretty much all the political and civil power to Jews that they would really need to isolate themselves from that oh-so-hostile, constantly threatening world, if they wished it. And it wouldn't even require that pesky enforced ethnic majority bit.
But what am I saying, being in the ethnic majority in a state just makes your position so much cozier. Doesn't provoke fear and mistrust and violence by the rest of the population, not one bit.
What's so much better about Israel than the other nations in the region?
They have more military might, which they use for destabilizing emerging democracies? They're a country ruled by people primarily concerned with the interests of a bunch of religious extremists, that happens to have nuclear weapons?
What's so much better about Israel than the other nations in the region?
They have more military might, which they use for destabilizing emerging democracies? They're a country ruled by people primarily concerned with the interests of a bunch of religious extremists, that happens to have nuclear weapons?
Than, you keep forgetting. Israelis are Westerners, which makes them modern, progressive, democratic and good! Everyone else is Eastern/oriental, which makes them backwards, corrupt, dictatorial, weird, smelly and bad.
It's good that you view others who are not Jewish as being human, but very often, people view only those of their own "tribe" as human, and everyone who isn't as a non-human Other. You are the exception to the rule, unfortunately.
Sorry, I'm reading up what I missed, and I'm responding as I pass especially compelling stuff, so you may have made this clearer in following pages.
Are you saying that most Jews/supporters of Israel view non Jews/non supporters of Israel as 'non-human'?
It's good that you view others who are not Jewish as being human, but very often, people view only those of their own "tribe" as human, and everyone who isn't as a non-human Other. You are the exception to the rule, unfortunately.
Sorry, I'm reading up what I missed, and I'm responding as I pass especially compelling stuff, so you may have made this clearer in following pages.
Are you saying that most Jews/supporters of Israel view non Jews/non supporters of Israel as 'non-human'?
Not non-human, but "not us" would be a decent interpretation.
It's good that you view others who are not Jewish as being human, but very often, people view only those of their own "tribe" as human, and everyone who isn't as a non-human Other. You are the exception to the rule, unfortunately.
Sorry, I'm reading up what I missed, and I'm responding as I pass especially compelling stuff, so you may have made this clearer in following pages.
Are you saying that most Jews/supporters of Israel view non Jews/non supporters of Israel as 'non-human'?
Not non-human, but "not us" would be a decent interpretation.
Well, and I won't go so deeply into supposition as to speak for him, but if he does mean that Jews view non Jews as viscerally different enough to "not be allowed in the tribe", then I think he's woefully wrong.
Well, and I won't go so deeply into supposition as to speak for him, but if he does mean that Jews view non Jews as viscerally different enough to "not be allowed in the tribe", then I think he's woefully wrong.
How comfortable would you be with a majority of people of Islamic faith existing in your country? I'm willing to bet, not very and the reason is because however you look at it they gain de facto control of the government and it's quite likely will want to bring in things that you don't want.
Well, and I won't go so deeply into supposition as to speak for him, but if he does mean that Jews view non Jews as viscerally different enough to "not be allowed in the tribe", then I think he's woefully wrong.
How comfortable would you be with a majority of people of Islamic faith existing in your country? I'm willing to bet, not very and the reason is because however you look at it they gain de facto control of the government and it's quite likely will want to bring in things that you don't want.
Both of my countries of residence have 75% 'religious majority', in one country Christianity, in the other country Judaism. I'm not sure what you're driving at with Islam. Are you suggesting that Jews in Israel shouldn't want a Muslim majority? If so, what does that have to do with my point?
How about commenting on the woman crushed by the bulldozer, you know, the one you claimed was warned repeatedly to move, yet witness reports say she wasn't?
That one?
Yeah.
The witnesses who were part of her group claim she wasn't warned.
The witnesses who were with the bulldozing crew say she was warned.
So, yeah, personally I take the word of government over the word of a bunch of protestors, especially when the government isn't actually defending the actions that were taken (the bulldozer operator WAS considered to be at fault, for whatever little bit that is worth.)
Ah, yes. The same gov't who said "WHOOPS LOL SORRY WE ACCIDENTALLY ATTACKED YOUR CLEARLY-MARKED NAVAL VESSEL FOR OVER AN HOUR! UM...WE WERE TIRED YEAH"
Actually, I don't see much problem with the Jewish stance that they want control over their nation because it is in line with the goal of creating the nation in the first place.
I don't either; and I also think it's awesome that Arabs who get married to non-Israeli Arabs can't get their spouses to live with them in Israel, but a Jew born in America can live in Israel if he can afford the ticket, because hey, fuck Arabs.
It's awesome that I am not allowed to visit Mecca, because even though it is an important historical site to the history of the entire world, one group of people has decided that no one else can go there.
Israel is like Saudi Arabia? This is supposed to make my opinion of it go up?
Here's where I'm finding myself in disagreement with you, Evander.
Preserving an ethnic majority in a state is bad. End stop. I don't care if you do it by implementing a "fast lane" for one ethnicity, or by discouraging immigration of other people, or by using ethnic cleansing to rid a state of an undesirable population. It's all a violation of international law, and the only differences lies in which court you will be prosecuted in (or should be, anyway).
Israel is a consistent violator of the Declaration of Human Rights' Article 13, Article 15, and Article 20. And that's just in Israel proper. The rest of the Articles are pretty much violated in the OT.
I don't care if you feel that the RoR is a good thing for the Jewish people, because it is a horrible thing for just about everyone else.
Have a wife outside the country who's not a Jew? Then every Jew who immigrates has preference to her.
Do you happen to be a Palestinian student who wishes to continue his studies outside of Israel? Well, if you're gone for more than two years, you'll have to immigrate to get back. And every Jew who immigrates has preference to you. ("Make trips abroad for [Palestinian] students easier, while making the return and employment more difficult - this policy is apt to encourage their emigration."-Israel Koeneg, former Galilee distict commissioner of the ministry to the Prime Minister).
Did you move away from Israel for over two years? Oops, then apparently you no longer have a home in Israel, and every Jew who immigrates has preference to you coming back. Be prepared to wait in line.
This is bullshit. It is not an instance of "lesser of two evils," it's just another way of ensuring ethnic homogeneity! And it happens to be one that Israel uses alongside ethnic cleansing in the OT, double standards in the execution of law, and yes, Israeli exceptionalism!
And the funny thing is, it's not working. You know it, I know it, Israel knows it. The influx of Jews coming from the RoR and natural birthrates is steadily but surely being overcome by Palestinian birthrates, immigration, and "illegal" aliens. What will Israel do then? Go quietly into the night, being too honorable to do anything worse than allow a measly RoR? Like hell it will.
The fact of the matter is that Zionism is not only a racist enterprise, but its a failing one. Pure demographics do not allow for it. The maintenence of Zionism does not seem like such a big deal to you now, but what will it lead to in just a few decades?
I obviously do not feel that Zionism is at all healthy for anyone, even the Jewish people. It goes against many of the Jewish teachings that I, at least, was raised with. It is also not necessary for the preservation of a Jewish homeland. From what I can tell, consociationalist democracy would seem to provide pretty much all the political and civil power to Jews that they would really need to isolate themselves from that oh-so-hostile, constantly threatening world, if they wished it. And it wouldn't even require that pesky enforced ethnic majority bit.
But what am I saying, being in the ethnic majority in a state just makes your position so much cozier. Doesn't provoke fear and mistrust and violence by the rest of the population, not one bit.
I agree with most of your points, but apparently Consocialationist democracy has been practiced in three countries that would have been peaceful anyway (or are they considered naturally peaceful because they are consociationalist? My goodness that's hard to type, but anyway it seems like a chicken or egg issue) and Lebanon, which isn't a paragon of either internal nor external stability (though that can usually be put at the feet of Israel and Syria.) My point is that it might not be the be all and end all (and considering that its Israel and Palestine we're talking about, I'd be darned if it was.)
It's good that you view others who are not Jewish as being human, but very often, people view only those of their own "tribe" as human, and everyone who isn't as a non-human Other. You are the exception to the rule, unfortunately.
Sorry, I'm reading up what I missed, and I'm responding as I pass especially compelling stuff, so you may have made this clearer in following pages.
Are you saying that most Jews/supporters of Israel view non Jews/non supporters of Israel as 'non-human'?
I'm saying that many human beings, Jews included, view life as an Us vs. Them situation, wherein the Them is dehumanized. While Evander's personal view, where valuing one's own people causes one to value other, different people as well, is a highly positive one, I do not believe it is a common one among humanity as a whole.
Well, and I won't go so deeply into supposition as to speak for him, but if he does mean that Jews view non Jews as viscerally different enough to "not be allowed in the tribe", then I think he's woefully wrong.
How comfortable would you be with a majority of people of Islamic faith existing in your country? I'm willing to bet, not very and the reason is because however you look at it they gain de facto control of the government and it's quite likely will want to bring in things that you don't want.
Both of my countries of residence have 75% 'religious majority', in one country Christianity, in the other country Judaism. I'm not sure what you're driving at with Islam. Are you suggesting that Jews in Israel shouldn't want a Muslim majority? If so, what does that have to do with my point?
Does the fact that the US is predominantly Christian make you feel that you won't be treated fairly and equally?
It's good that you view others who are not Jewish as being human, but very often, people view only those of their own "tribe" as human, and everyone who isn't as a non-human Other. You are the exception to the rule, unfortunately.
Sorry, I'm reading up what I missed, and I'm responding as I pass especially compelling stuff, so you may have made this clearer in following pages.
Are you saying that most Jews/supporters of Israel view non Jews/non supporters of Israel as 'non-human'?
I'm saying that many human beings, Jews included, view life as an Us vs. Them situation, wherein the Them is dehumanized. While Evander's personal view, where valuing one's own people causes one to value other, different people as well, is a highly positive one, I do not believe it is a common one among humanity as a whole.
Surely you recognize that people- most people, I'd be optimistic enough to say- can subdue those feelings in the name of justice and egalitarianism? While I do not shy away from saying that I am more human and, yes, 'better' than a bum, I wouldn't hope for legislation that places me firmly above him. I don't think that most of my fellow Israelis would endorse such legislation, either.
Well, and I won't go so deeply into supposition as to speak for him, but if he does mean that Jews view non Jews as viscerally different enough to "not be allowed in the tribe", then I think he's woefully wrong.
How comfortable would you be with a majority of people of Islamic faith existing in your country? I'm willing to bet, not very and the reason is because however you look at it they gain de facto control of the government and it's quite likely will want to bring in things that you don't want.
Both of my countries of residence have 75% 'religious majority', in one country Christianity, in the other country Judaism. I'm not sure what you're driving at with Islam. Are you suggesting that Jews in Israel shouldn't want a Muslim majority? If so, what does that have to do with my point?
Does the fact that the US is predominantly Christian make you feel that you won't be treated fairly and equally?
Again, no. I think that most people are reasonable enough to not substantially demote me as a human in the public forum as a result of my religious beliefs.
FWIW I am neither Christian nor Jewish- despite sharing many cultural trends with the two, I am sincerely 'alienated' by both religions.
Regardless, there are a lot of wholesome people in the world- here in America and here in Israel. I've never felt less than human in either place.
It's good that you view others who are not Jewish as being human, but very often, people view only those of their own "tribe" as human, and everyone who isn't as a non-human Other. You are the exception to the rule, unfortunately.
Sorry, I'm reading up what I missed, and I'm responding as I pass especially compelling stuff, so you may have made this clearer in following pages.
Are you saying that most Jews/supporters of Israel view non Jews/non supporters of Israel as 'non-human'?
I'm saying that many human beings, Jews included, view life as an Us vs. Them situation, wherein the Them is dehumanized. While Evander's personal view, where valuing one's own people causes one to value other, different people as well, is a highly positive one, I do not believe it is a common one among humanity as a whole.
Surely you recognize that people- most people, I'd be optimistic enough to say- can subdue those feelings in the name of justice and egalitarianism? While I do not shy away from saying that I am more human and, yes, 'better' than a bum, I wouldn't hope for legislation that places me firmly above him. I don't think that most of my fellow Israelis would endorse such legislation, either.
No, I'm not optimistic enough to agree with that statement. I'm firmly in the cynic category, having read too much history. I would love to be proved wrong, and have human existence become the sole criterion of worth, rather than tribal/national membership. I won't be holding my breath for it, though.
Well, and I won't go so deeply into supposition as to speak for him, but if he does mean that Jews view non Jews as viscerally different enough to "not be allowed in the tribe", then I think he's woefully wrong.
How comfortable would you be with a majority of people of Islamic faith existing in your country? I'm willing to bet, not very and the reason is because however you look at it they gain de facto control of the government and it's quite likely will want to bring in things that you don't want.
Both of my countries of residence have 75% 'religious majority', in one country Christianity, in the other country Judaism. I'm not sure what you're driving at with Islam. Are you suggesting that Jews in Israel shouldn't want a Muslim majority? If so, what does that have to do with my point?
Does the fact that the US is predominantly Christian make you feel that you won't be treated fairly and equally?
Again, no. I think that most people are reasonable enough to not substantially demote me as a human in the public forum as a result of my religious beliefs.
FWIW I am neither Christian nor Jewish- despite sharing many cultural trends with the two, I am sincerely 'alienated' by both religions.
Regardless, there are a lot of wholesome people in the world- here in America and here in Israel. I've never felt less than human in either place.
You are significantly skirting the issue. The fact of the matter is, both here and in Israel some type of Judeo-Christian belief system is in the majority. Now, around those systems exists very similar types of general moral sentiments provided you're not in any of the unfortunate outliers (gay, transgendered, happen to need an abortion etc.) then you're going to feel pretty damn comfortable around them.
Now, let's take the Palestinians and their thoughts on morality as defined - largely - by religious views and suddenly add them as a majority voting block to any of these existing democracies. How secure are you going to feel about that?
Because I don't know about you, but given that I feel pretty alienated by US politics and basically am terrified of every slight fundamentalist religious incursion into my own government, I'm not going to be overly pleased by a large group entering my democracy which all vote the same way on certain issues I disagree with them strongly over.
And that is more or less exactly how a lot of Israeli's feel about adding the Palestinians as full citizens. And frankly, that's not unreasonable, which is why a 2-state solution is a much better idea.
Well, and I won't go so deeply into supposition as to speak for him, but if he does mean that Jews view non Jews as viscerally different enough to "not be allowed in the tribe", then I think he's woefully wrong.
How comfortable would you be with a majority of people of Islamic faith existing in your country? I'm willing to bet, not very and the reason is because however you look at it they gain de facto control of the government and it's quite likely will want to bring in things that you don't want.
Both of my countries of residence have 75% 'religious majority', in one country Christianity, in the other country Judaism. I'm not sure what you're driving at with Islam. Are you suggesting that Jews in Israel shouldn't want a Muslim majority? If so, what does that have to do with my point?
Does the fact that the US is predominantly Christian make you feel that you won't be treated fairly and equally?
Again, no. I think that most people are reasonable enough to not substantially demote me as a human in the public forum as a result of my religious beliefs.
FWIW I am neither Christian nor Jewish- despite sharing many cultural trends with the two, I am sincerely 'alienated' by both religions.
Regardless, there are a lot of wholesome people in the world- here in America and here in Israel. I've never felt less than human in either place.
You are significantly skirting the issue. The fact of the matter is, both here and in Israel some type of Judeo-Christian belief system is in the majority. Now, around those systems exists very similar types of general moral sentiments provided you're not in any of the unfortunate outliers (gay, transgendered, happen to need an abortion etc.) then you're going to feel pretty damn comfortable around them.
I wasn't intending to skirt the issue; as I said, I wasn't sure what you were getting at. I was looking for clarification (which you've just given). I wasn't looking to be evasive.
Now, let's take the Palestinians and their thoughts on morality as defined - largely - by religious views and suddenly add them as a majority voting block to any of these existing democracies. How secure are you going to feel about that?
Because I don't know about you, but given that I feel pretty alienated by US politics and basically am terrified of every slight fundamentalist religious incursion into my own government, I'm not going to be overly pleased by a large group entering my democracy which all vote the same way on certain issues I disagree with them strongly over.
I think this is a reasonable sentiment, though I'm not sure what it's driving at. I never said I was in opposition to a two-state solution. The only reason I jumped back into the thread was to object to the characterization of Jews as unwilling to view others as humans. Like I said, I might have judged that too harshly.
And that is more or less exactly how a lot of Israeli's feel about adding the Palestinians as full citizens. And frankly, that's not unreasonable, which is why a 2-state solution is a much better idea.
Of course, I'm not disputing that Israelis are uncomfortable with the presence of these people. I'm not even disputing that many Israelis would be glad to see them go. I'm just saying that it's a bit of a supposition to say that they are completely unwilling to ingratiate or 'accept them into the tribe'... they are accepting them now, however grudgingly.
I guess I don't really disagree with you, and I'm not sure why you addressed this to me.
Posts
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I think Zionism is discriminatory, I think you, and maybe Picardathon, don't think so. I'm trying to get to the root of why we disagree. That's all.
Are you implying that they spend all of that money on military?
Hell, THEY make some of the guns that WE use.
Also, we're ignoring the percentage of our aid dollars that they spend on American things, which just puts it back into our economy. This is arguably actually a pretty good thing for america, because it gets rid of old equipment we don't need anymore that is lying around, and puts money back out in the pockets of citizens, who are hired to manufacture new equipment.
Mostly, though, we support Israel because, despite their failings, they are still the best of the Countries in that area. That does not excuse their behaviors, but it is a thing worth remembering. Israel doesn't go on wars of conquest to take the lands of other countries, nor do they execute people for not following religious laws.
I think Zionism goes by the the dictionary definition of racism, in that it involves and even favors one group over another.
I don't understand how this really matters for anything, and I think that the Palestinians are the real issue. And Besides, I agree with Evander, good idea to have a Jewish state.
Sorry, but this IS the point. Stop going for the low hanging fruit, and actually respond to points of others.
And I disagree because Zionism does not involve the "other" in ANY regard.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html
Yeah, at this point they're spending it all on guns.
The jobs they create are counteracted by the jobs lost due to the taxation required for said aid. Yes, we're giving them things instead of money, but it still is a net negative for the US economy, because things cost money, and in the end we're footing the bill.
You're ignoring me when I say that they can afford it.
And yes, some of that money is spent on military R&D, some of that creates guns and munitions systems that helps out our army. How about we keep that, and let them buy the guns.
And, surprise surprise, there are places where we could send that aid which would both be much more helpful overall. Have you heard of Darfur?
But...then why didn't you respond to the rest of that post where I, you know, responded to your points. The discussion about alternatives to Zionism is a valid one, but I'd prefer to remian focused on dissecting Zionism for now.
Also, I meant to put this in.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
Continued safety? The religion doesn't need its own country to be safe in today's world. I think it is somewhat paranoid to think otherwise. Why couldn't Jewish people exist safely in the US or Canada or Spain or Japan?
Theocracy is bad. It breeds violence. Theocracy should not exist anywhere. Not in Iran, not in Israel, not in Mexico, not anywhere. The fact that Israel is in effect controlled by a religion is a bad thing. So is the fact that the president of the United States is a faux-fundie. The problem isn't Jewish rule, it is religious rule.
Oh god I sound like Loren Michael.
Listen, if you want to play, sometimes you have to recognize when the other side has possession of the ball.
I've responded to plenty of your points, I'd like you to respond to mine in turn. Otherwise, I don't find you very fun to play with.
Yeah, I'd disagree with what he said. For one thing, it's heavy on appeal to emotion. For another, it doesn't address any of the issues of Zionism and focuses exclusively on Israel's right to exist based on Zionism.
You might be interested to note that I actually feel, independent of Zionism, that Israel, the nation, has as much right to exist as any other nation. I just don't think it should be a Zionist nation.
I've responded to every point you've made except that specific one where I gave an explanation as to why I wanted to defer addressing it. I feel it is switching the topic, which is bad debate form. Condescension isn't going to suddenly make your points more valid.
I'm not sure how much familiarity you have with Israeli law, but the religious influenced laws deal primarily with things like public transportation on Saturdays. In fact, the majority of Jews consider themselves to be Secular Jews; the country is FAR from being controlled by religion.
Defining Jews as ONLY being a religion is just wrong. HIstoric persecution of Jews was based on familial descent, not on theological beliefs.
As for Jews being safe elsewhere, can you guarantee their continued safety? There have been times when Jews thought they were safe, only to find public opinion shifting, and themselves being once again persecuted. Should Jews wait around, hoping that it doesn't happen again, or should they resign themselves to a life of transience, ready to run out of their current country at a momment's notice as soon as the tide starts changing? I would argue, no, Jews need to find a way to take hold of their OWN destiny, and Zionism is the only way of doing this.
If only we'd gone with Uganda...
Just because you don't like a point doesn't mean that it isn't valid. The purpose of Zionism is VERY MUCH important to whether or not it is intrinsically discriminatory.
If you are going to refuse to look at all aspects of the topic, that's fine, but I'm not going to waste my time responding to your points when you have no interest in responding to mine.
Well maybe you can clarify for me then. Why is it relevant? I think whether Zionism is discriminatory is answered indepedently of what alternatives there are.
In 2006 America gave Israel a grant of 2.28 Billion dollars, an economic grant of 240 million dollars and a Jewish refugee resettlement grant of 50 million dollars. This gives a total of 2.57 Billion dollars in grants.
Not a single penny of that goes towards weapons development, that money was not included in the source linked earlier in this thread, here.
So no, they don't spend the entirety of the money they get on weapons, just 89% of it.
Are you really going to argue its better for the American economy to give Israel over 2 billion dollars in military grants, then wait for them to buy equipment back than just NOT taking the money out of the economy in the first place, or using it for absolutely anything else? Seriously?
Also, Israel does not engage in wars of conquest? Read the thread, that notion has been debated and subsequently ridiculed more than once. If they don't engage in wars of conquest, why not give back all the land they took in various wars.
I'm guessing you'll say security. A Nation with bleeding edge military technology, one that develops and produces some of the most advanced hardware in the world, and buys anything else from America. One that stole nuclear weapons technology from the French, really needs some strip of land to defend itself from the awesome might Syrian military. The one that gets nearly one billion dollars spent on it, less than half of what Israel gets GIVEN for its own, let alone any domestic expenditure.
Also, since I noticed you made a lot of claims when discussing the Bulldozer incident, none of which were true, kindly cite any evidence that supports your argument.
It's awesome that I am not allowed to visit Mecca, because even though it is an important historical site to the history of the entire world, one group of people has decided that no one else can go there.
The thing is, unless there are alternatives to Zionism, then no Zionism would potentially mean the irradication of an entire people.
So, if you are going to disect Zionism, you need to understand the alternatives, or else you are really looking at things on too microscopic of a level.
This doesn't affect whether Zionism is discriminatory against non-Jews. It affects whether Zionism is necessary to preserve the Jewish people.
I'm concerned you think that if we reach a consensus that Zionism is discriminatory against non-Jews, I'm going to declare victory or something. I recognize that there are other factors that color whether or not that discrimination is necessary, or wholly bad. But unless we can agree that it is discriminatory (or not, I'm still open to being wrong), I'm skeptical of how the rest of the discussion will turn out.
However, if you think we're not going to get any more traction on that issue, we can shift gears.
I'm frustrated because I've made these arguments a million times, at least three of which were earlier in this thread.
At this point I can't even remember whether I've said them to you or not.
I'll tell you what. I'll restate them all for you, but not right now. Give me some time to cool off.
Read this while you wait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379
Personally, I reject his argument on the fact that it's just a roundabout way of sayng that Judaism needs Zionism. I don't believe that's the case, at least for what Zionism has become (which is another point that Evander doesn't want to address - the hijacking of a movement for a Jewish homeland to make it into a push to restore the historical Judean nation as a modern state.)
Preserving an ethnic majority in a state is bad. End stop. I don't care if you do it by implementing a "fast lane" for one ethnicity, or by discouraging immigration of other people, or by using ethnic cleansing to rid a state of an undesirable population. It's all a violation of international law, and the only differences lies in which court you will be prosecuted in (or should be, anyway).
Israel is a consistent violator of the Declaration of Human Rights' Article 13, Article 15, and Article 20. And that's just in Israel proper. The rest of the Articles are pretty much violated in the OT.
I don't care if you feel that the RoR is a good thing for the Jewish people, because it is a horrible thing for just about everyone else.
Have a wife outside the country who's not a Jew? Then every Jew who immigrates has preference to her.
Do you happen to be a Palestinian student who wishes to continue his studies outside of Israel? Well, if you're gone for more than two years, you'll have to immigrate to get back. And every Jew who immigrates has preference to you. ("Make trips abroad for [Palestinian] students easier, while making the return and employment more difficult - this policy is apt to encourage their emigration."-Israel Koeneg, former Galilee distict commissioner of the ministry to the Prime Minister).
Did you move away from Israel for over two years? Oops, then apparently you no longer have a home in Israel, and every Jew who immigrates has preference to you coming back. Be prepared to wait in line.
This is bullshit. It is not an instance of "lesser of two evils," it's just another way of ensuring ethnic homogeneity! And it happens to be one that Israel uses alongside ethnic cleansing in the OT, double standards in the execution of law, and yes, Israeli exceptionalism!
And the funny thing is, it's not working. You know it, I know it, Israel knows it. The influx of Jews coming from the RoR and natural birthrates is steadily but surely being overcome by Palestinian birthrates, immigration, and "illegal" aliens. What will Israel do then? Go quietly into the night, being too honorable to do anything worse than allow a measly RoR? Like hell it will.
The fact of the matter is that Zionism is not only a racist enterprise, but its a failing one. Pure demographics do not allow for it. The maintenence of Zionism does not seem like such a big deal to you now, but what will it lead to in just a few decades?
I obviously do not feel that Zionism is at all healthy for anyone, even the Jewish people. It goes against many of the Jewish teachings that I, at least, was raised with. It is also not necessary for the preservation of a Jewish homeland. From what I can tell, consociationalist democracy would seem to provide pretty much all the political and civil power to Jews that they would really need to isolate themselves from that oh-so-hostile, constantly threatening world, if they wished it. And it wouldn't even require that pesky enforced ethnic majority bit.
But what am I saying, being in the ethnic majority in a state just makes your position so much cozier. Doesn't provoke fear and mistrust and violence by the rest of the population, not one bit.
They have more military might, which they use for destabilizing emerging democracies? They're a country ruled by people primarily concerned with the interests of a bunch of religious extremists, that happens to have nuclear weapons?
Than, you keep forgetting. Israelis are Westerners, which makes them modern, progressive, democratic and good! Everyone else is Eastern/oriental, which makes them backwards, corrupt, dictatorial, weird, smelly and bad.
It's cool, I forget sometimes too.
Sorry, I'm reading up what I missed, and I'm responding as I pass especially compelling stuff, so you may have made this clearer in following pages.
Are you saying that most Jews/supporters of Israel view non Jews/non supporters of Israel as 'non-human'?
Well, and I won't go so deeply into supposition as to speak for him, but if he does mean that Jews view non Jews as viscerally different enough to "not be allowed in the tribe", then I think he's woefully wrong.
Both of my countries of residence have 75% 'religious majority', in one country Christianity, in the other country Judaism. I'm not sure what you're driving at with Islam. Are you suggesting that Jews in Israel shouldn't want a Muslim majority? If so, what does that have to do with my point?
Ah, yes. The same gov't who said "WHOOPS LOL SORRY WE ACCIDENTALLY ATTACKED YOUR CLEARLY-MARKED NAVAL VESSEL FOR OVER AN HOUR! UM...WE WERE TIRED YEAH"
Rich, Home[heart]
Israel is like Saudi Arabia? This is supposed to make my opinion of it go up?
I agree with most of your points, but apparently Consocialationist democracy has been practiced in three countries that would have been peaceful anyway (or are they considered naturally peaceful because they are consociationalist? My goodness that's hard to type, but anyway it seems like a chicken or egg issue) and Lebanon, which isn't a paragon of either internal nor external stability (though that can usually be put at the feet of Israel and Syria.) My point is that it might not be the be all and end all (and considering that its Israel and Palestine we're talking about, I'd be darned if it was.)
I'm saying that many human beings, Jews included, view life as an Us vs. Them situation, wherein the Them is dehumanized. While Evander's personal view, where valuing one's own people causes one to value other, different people as well, is a highly positive one, I do not believe it is a common one among humanity as a whole.
Does the fact that the US is predominantly Christian make you feel that you won't be treated fairly and equally?
Surely you recognize that people- most people, I'd be optimistic enough to say- can subdue those feelings in the name of justice and egalitarianism? While I do not shy away from saying that I am more human and, yes, 'better' than a bum, I wouldn't hope for legislation that places me firmly above him. I don't think that most of my fellow Israelis would endorse such legislation, either.
Again, no. I think that most people are reasonable enough to not substantially demote me as a human in the public forum as a result of my religious beliefs.
FWIW I am neither Christian nor Jewish- despite sharing many cultural trends with the two, I am sincerely 'alienated' by both religions.
Regardless, there are a lot of wholesome people in the world- here in America and here in Israel. I've never felt less than human in either place.
No, I'm not optimistic enough to agree with that statement. I'm firmly in the cynic category, having read too much history. I would love to be proved wrong, and have human existence become the sole criterion of worth, rather than tribal/national membership. I won't be holding my breath for it, though.
Now, let's take the Palestinians and their thoughts on morality as defined - largely - by religious views and suddenly add them as a majority voting block to any of these existing democracies. How secure are you going to feel about that?
Because I don't know about you, but given that I feel pretty alienated by US politics and basically am terrified of every slight fundamentalist religious incursion into my own government, I'm not going to be overly pleased by a large group entering my democracy which all vote the same way on certain issues I disagree with them strongly over.
And that is more or less exactly how a lot of Israeli's feel about adding the Palestinians as full citizens. And frankly, that's not unreasonable, which is why a 2-state solution is a much better idea.
I wasn't intending to skirt the issue; as I said, I wasn't sure what you were getting at. I was looking for clarification (which you've just given). I wasn't looking to be evasive.
I think this is a reasonable sentiment, though I'm not sure what it's driving at. I never said I was in opposition to a two-state solution. The only reason I jumped back into the thread was to object to the characterization of Jews as unwilling to view others as humans. Like I said, I might have judged that too harshly.
Of course, I'm not disputing that Israelis are uncomfortable with the presence of these people. I'm not even disputing that many Israelis would be glad to see them go. I'm just saying that it's a bit of a supposition to say that they are completely unwilling to ingratiate or 'accept them into the tribe'... they are accepting them now, however grudgingly.
I guess I don't really disagree with you, and I'm not sure why you addressed this to me.