Read the forum code of contact
By: - 23rd June 2002 at 21:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: This is really disgusting ...
This guy is going to start WW3 if he isn't careful.
Maybe he'll know what it's like to be a suicide bomber when somebody gets him!
By: - 24th June 2002 at 10:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: This is really disgusting ...
>It is a shame that this person seems to think that killing
>civilians is a better option than creating a country where
>both Israelis and arabs can get along and religion has no
>part in government... but no there must be an Arab country
>and a Jewish country... segregation is the only answer they
>see.
I disagree, Garry. You obviously see Judaism as nothing more than a religion, one among many that can democratically coexist with all others. But it's not, and history has shown that again and again.
After emancipation in Europe during the last 200 years, Jews thought they would be welcome in their host nations. Numerous incidents, the Dreyfous Affair being the best known, proved otherwise. And the Holocaust was the final verdict - the Nazis did not distinguish between Belgian, Polish, Russian, Greek or Tunisian Jews.
Judaism is more than a religion, it is also a nationality. Jews and Palestinians are two ethnic groups, each with its own valid claim for self determination. A two states solution is the only one that can deliver the aspirations of both people. A binational state is a nice, wellmeaning but completely naive solution - it would just turn into another Arab state where the Jews are once again at the mercy of their masters.
----------------------------------------
U.N. Representative: So, Mr. Evil -
Dr. Evil: It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much.
By: - 24th June 2002 at 17:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: This is really disgusting ...
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-06-02 AT 05:38 PM (GMT)]Once again we are in disagreement, Garry. I think this is because your opinion is more idealic and academic and mine's practical and realistic.
> I could convert to become a jew... I can't convert to become a
> black person or an asian person
True, but that's outward appearance alone. You could actually find yourself suddenly different. How many Christian school buses or churches have been firebombed in France lately? How many graveyards desicrated across Europe? Ethnicity doesn't necessarily revolve around your appearance.
>what you are suggesting is that two different ethnic groups are
>incapable of living together. It is sad that you think that.
Hardly, of course they can. But do you really think a century of hostility can be forgotten? Only in an idealic and altruistic world, not in the one we live in. The current, best and only solution is a two states solution, however romantic any other notion is.
>I assume when you say that Jews and Palestinians are seperate ethnic
>groups you mean that they have different cultures. This is not the
>same thing.
Culture, language, religion, history, and more. That is what makes two ethnics groups different. Actually, a lot less does.
>So you are suggesting that Jewish people cannot coexist with
>others... Could you say why?
Jews can coexist with others, but there will always be places and people who refuse to see Jews as part of the collective. Jews are widely accepted in the Western World today, but Arab Jews don't always have it so easy. There was a time the opposite was correct, and that time can arrive again. Who knows? Antisemitism is not a Jewish problem, its not the Jews' fault, much as white supremacy is not the black man's fault.
>They didn't distinguish between slavic people either... I wouldn't
>base my plans for the future on anything to do with the way the
>Nazis thought about anything
Slavs weren't on the point of being wiped out. That is why Israel is so important to world Jewry. It is the refuge should anything catastophic happen for any reason. Millions would have been saved had Israel existed during World War II. In 1990 Israel airlifted thousand of Ethiopian Jews out of Addis-Abbaba as Tigrin and Eritrean forces were converging on it. Would anyone else have saved them?
>Sounds a little like aparthied to me... don't want to have a
>government with nonjews in it, so I assume all of the Arab labour
>that is currently used in Israel would be replaced by Jewish
>labour... or is it a case of they can work and maybe live there but
>they can have no say in anything.
Where did I say that ?!?!? You're coming to your own misguided conclusions here. What I want is a democratic, equal right Israel which is home to Jews and non-Jews alike, much the same as I wish Jewish right respected abroad. But I do also want Israel that can be the homeland Jews never had and which they can always count on for support, no matter how dark the times are. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, yes, but not necessarily theirs exclusive.
----------------------------------------
U.N. Representative: So, Mr. Evil -
Dr. Evil: It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much.
By: - 24th June 2002 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: This is really disgusting ...
Why can't you forget the past?
In pre-WW2 Europe, Jews were no more "gotten at" than lots of other peoples - it's just unusual that a religion was targeted rather than an ethnic group (like slavs or gipsies). That, as of itself, is no justification to class Jews together ethnically.
If I'm thinking correcrtly, Jews would be of mixed ethnicity, mainly because of the historical expulsion from Israel and subsequent scattering.
The alternative is that Judaism is, as you say, more ethnic than religious. Would this make the "religon" part of Judaism discriminatory - Blacks, Arabs (!) or Asians couldn't convert?
How about if Israel (and Palestine) were stripped of their sovereignty and administered under an international mandate? Then both sides would have a common enemy and would miracuously get on...
By: - 24th June 2002 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: This is really disgusting ...
> Why can't you forget the past?
Really Mongu, you cannot be serious. The entire notion is ridiculous. If you don't learn from your past how are you ever going to learn anything? Besides, do you really expect Jews to say, "that's all in the past, it will never happen again"? Do you have fortune-telling abilities?
Anyway, I don't even know how you can talk about the past :
Russian woman hurt in blast while removing anti-Semitic sign (27/05/2002)
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=169128&contr…
Explosion damages Canadian synagogue in Quebec (19/05/2002)
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=165640&contr…
London synagogue attacked for a second time (01/05/2002)
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=157949&contr…
Arson attack on Berlin synagogue, but no damage (29/04/2002)
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=157355&contr…
Security increased around Belgian synagogue after shooting (22/04/2002)
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=154689&contr…
There's plenty more where that came from.
> In pre-WW2 Europe, Jews were no more "gotten at" than lots of other
> peoples - it's just unusual that a religion was targeted rather
> than an ethnic group (like slavs or gipsies). That, as of itself,
> is no justification to class Jews together ethnically
I beg to differ. 2,000 years of persecution are more than enough, and are quite unparalleled, even in European history. Do you know of any other group which was expelled at one time or another from every European country?
You see Mongu, it's not that Jews chose to be a separate nation - Europe made it so. Emanicapation was supposed to solve that question by making Jews equal citizens of their host nations. But that reality was never realised. It may be mostly true today, but it was very different until not so long ago, and who knows what tidings the future brings. Point is, Israel exists today so that Jews don't have to take that chance.
> If I'm thinking correcrtly, Jews would be of mixed ethnicity,
> mainly because of the historical expulsion from Israel and
> subsequent scattering.
You're taking a very literal interpretation of enthnicity, as if ethnicity is dependant on genetics. You become a part of the nation whether you're born into it or you're converted, you don't have to take a blood test. It a matter of choice, not something eched in stone.
>The alternative is that Judaism is, as you say, more ethnic than
>religious. Would this make the "religon" part of Judaism
>discriminatory - Blacks, Arabs (!) or Asians couldn't convert?
Hardly, as I said, it's not about genetics. There are in fact, thousands of black Jews. Also, I never said it was more ethnic than religious. It is rather both, and anyone can put the emphasis where he chooses. If one so wishes, he can claim to be nothing more than a man of Jewish persuation. It does not mean he's any worse that any other Jew in the world. I am an Israeli, but that does not make me any more Jewish than Jews living in Europe, American or Australia, even if I do live in the "Jewish State".
Bottom line - it's a very abstract notion, there is no single formula to define Judaism, only it is simply not merely a religion.
>How about if Israel (and Palestine) were stripped of their
>sovereignty and administered under an international mandate? Then
>both sides would have a common enemy and would miracuously get on...
No problem, right after the keys to 10 Downing St. are handed over to the UN, you can expect the Israeli delegation to be next in line...
----------------------------------------
U.N. Representative: So, Mr. Evil -
Dr. Evil: It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much.
By: - 25th June 2002 at 07:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
examples?
here's a very very good example, decades you said Garry on Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese? You're very wrong. It was for as long as their history seems to indicate. Again, remember my sayings about "Romancicizing with the victims". Nobody wants to be a victim and Skythe, why would you want someone to indicate to you more wrongs on a group of people than the JEWS? Again, nobody wants to be victim. Here's a counterpoint to you, Korea has been invaded again and again and subjugated or remedialized by both the Chinese and Japanese for centuries. You see today that they Co-hosted the world cup. In your theory, they're fraticizing with the enemy? Sure, Korea more often than not have bitched about the Japanese, but they both understand more and respect more toward each other today. The point here is, Korea got its soverignty, and with that comes with responsibilities and forgeting the past. How come Jews have not much problem with Germans these days? The problem in Israel/Palestine is simply greed for land. Greed for the bragging rights to the "Holy Land". "settlements" are for words used to describe unclaimed land. Who are you joking here that of all the places on this planet, one of the oldest area of the world have unclaim lands so it can be labeled "settlements"? And being critical on the Palestinians, these suicide bombings aren't desperation, it's a weapon of war. That's ok, but when you use these weapons purposely on civilians, then you just committed the most serious of the war crimes. Both seems to ignore each other's sins (remember GREED is a SIN) except when it comes to blame so both is as guilty. In other words, i could careless if whos JEWS and whos Palestinians. there was no sincerety in the leadership. What matters is TODAY, you don't live 50,100,1000,5000 years ago.
As to the original post, that IS disgusting. I thought that's pretty obvious. What a moronic guy.
By: - 25th June 2002 at 08:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: examples?
Some thoughts.
1st:
I believe that Jewish graveyards are not more often disicrated the other in europe. The only difference is that if it is a jewish grave it makes it to the headlines, while if it is a christian or muslim grave it is no news.
2nd : What I really do not like about some jewish politicians is that they always refer to the holocaust when they are criticised. (especially here in germany - you cannot say anything against Israel without having to defend yourself from being a Nazi)
You can criticse every country, except Israel. As long as this is the case the Jews are not integrated into the society in the same way as the others are, as they themselves demand a special position. (Kind of the moral heart of germany) If I can criticise Turkey, China or Palestina nothing is said about it (yet more arabs of palestinian origin living in germany then Jews), but if I say something against Israel I´m a Nazi. Why is that ??
3rd : I can think of many ehtnic/religous groups that could demand an own state to have a safe heaven in time of a crisis. How about buddishts and their treatment by China ?
4th : If I understand you correctly you see it as the right of Israel to attack any country if a jewish minority their is mistreated. What gives you or Israel that right ??
By: - 25th June 2002 at 09:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: This is really disgusting ...
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-06-02 AT 09:46 AM (GMT)]> They shouldn't forget the past but I think they could try to forgive it. A group of
> nutters called Nazis wanted to get rid of your religion.
> Get over it.
> Jewish people don't have a monopoly on hardship you know.
I never claimed that Jews alone have suffered. You're once again missing the point. I brought up the Holocaust because it is the best example of why Jews can't simply accept a situation where they are stateless, subject to the whim and fancy of this or that administration. Jews have repeatedly suffered at the hands of one master or another and as such need an independent state of their own. After all Garry, you would not deny the Jews the same thing you support for the Palestinians, would you?
> Ethnicity is a physical thing... what you are referring to is cultural... or do you
>agree with the Nazi party that strenuously tried to seperate jews from the arian
>race by charactarising them as a seperate ethnic group with big ears and big
>noses?
Certainly not. But we have a fundamental difference of opinion. You see, I don't think ethnicity is merely physical. If you're singled out, if you are repeatedly considered different simply because you belong to a certain group of people, then you got something to think about. To that we add centuries of European hostility towards Jews, in all shapes and forms, no matter the time or geography, and behold, a new nation is born. Reality at work.
> I would still be a european NZer who just happened to be Jewish.
Yes you would. Right now. But should things be different one day, you'll now also have a place that will take you in. But the above comment is beautiful is a sense. If you wish, I could provide you with a similar comment made by a German Jew a century ago. History proved otherwise.
>"How many Christian school buses or churches have been firebombed in France
>lately?"
> First of all what has this to do with anything?
It has to do with everything. As I said, when you're singled out, when you are made different, then you've got a thing to think about. You wouldn't dismiss such things so easily if it were your child's school bus that was firebombed.
> Religious hatred only relates to ethnic hatred in the sence that is is stupid and > relies on the stupidity of those involved.
I agree, but when that stupidity has lasted as long as it has, you can't really ignore it, can you? You'd draw the obvious conclusion that you would do best on your own.
> Second if you change location to India or many other countries where Christians
> are a minority and I'd say quite a few.
Exactly. But there are more than enough places that would take in fleeing Christians, more than enough people and nations to look out for them. There is only one state that looks out for world Jewry.
> Not forgotten... just forgiven... South African can do it and they are stuck in
> this world too. They have greatly benefitted from making this choice. Sure
> crime is high as is unemployment but these were existing problems there
> anyway.
Three cheers for South Africa. But what if it had been different, like in Zimbabwe? White South Africans will always be accepted in Europe. Wish I could say the same about Jews.
> So what you are saying is there is no room in the jewish religion for
> Palestinains?
No, you're saying that. But that, in fact, is probably the best example of why Jews are an ethnic group. Today, as things are (again, that annoying thing, Reality), no you cannot be both Jewish and Palestinian. If Judaism were merely a religion then you could, but a Jewish-Palestinian is something that simply does not exist!
> The only thing they shared with the locals was religion. Different ethnically is
>OK for your new state but must be the same religion... is that the criteria?
No, out of a population of 6 million there are more than 1 million Christians and Muslims in Israel. But I can see what you're striving at Garry. Yes, Israel is a terrible country because it has the audacity to take in people based on their religious beliefs alone. Yes, it's a horrible place that took in the survivors of the holocaust and built new lives for them, it took in Arab Jews expelled from the Arab world, It took in Argentinean Jews persecuted by the Peron regime, it took in Soviet Jews fleeing communism, it saved Ethiopian Jews from an unknown fate. What a terrible racist country! Israel will always be a refuge for Jews, for whatever reason they feel the need to leave their home countries. If only because no one else will.
> Demands for your own state with self rule and nobody else telling you what to
> do suggests that it is jews who refuse to be part of the collective
Cause and effect, Garry, Jewish demands for self-determination are a direct result of European anti-Semitism. What self-determination did Jews demand of Spain when in expelled them in 1492? Alfred Dreyfus, didn't even know what Zionism is. It berely even existed in his days!
> Hahahaha... sorry but it sounds like your safe place isn't very safe...
Right now, no, it's not the safest place in the world. But it could be.
>perhaps partly to do with the way it was built...
Well, the implementation was not as perfect a it was hoped, but that's an entire subject altogether.
> What do you mean... are you saying that Israel wasn't jewish land 1,000 years
> ago and you have just pinched it from the arabs?
My mistake. That should read : "But I do also want Israel that can be the homeland Jews didn't have when they needed it most." Besides, I was talking about Israel in the political sense, nothing to do with the Arab Israeli conflict.
> Could a jewish/palestinian state not be democratic. Any democracy that doesn't > use religion as a basis should in theory be a safe secure place for all religions to > coexist
You're absolutely right, Garry, but you're talking about ideal places. A Jewish/Palestinian could in theory be democratic. In practice? Not in the foreseeable future. The question is: do you want the conflict resolved? If the answer is 'yes' then the two states solution is the most practicable one.
> It is when religion is written into law forcing all other religions to conform that
> problems occur
True, but Israel is not ruled by Jewish law. Israel does actually uphold freedom of worship. Israel's definition as the "Jewish state" is misleading, because it implies the very state is Jewish. The very term "Jewish State" is not even used in local discourse, but rather the "Jews' State". Same words, a world of difference apart. Yes, Israel is a country for the Jews, but not theirs alone.
> I can of course understand that but if it takes Israel in a direction away from
> where non Jewish inhabitants want to go then don't you see that your eutopia
> is making the arabs the "victim" jews in their own country that you fear for
> your own people.
Israel is far from perfect. I am fully aware that discrimination exists, and that there are many wrongs to be made right. The establishment of a Palestinian state will be the first step in the right direction, following which other positive changes will also take place. The prospect of a bi-national democracy instead of Israel is an empty promise (which great Arab democracy will it look like?) that will solve nothing.
> I am naive and acadmicaly minded but I'm not stupid.
Never said you were, and I apologize if I implied it (did I? Where?). I would have never spent the time discussing the matter with you had I thought as much.
----------------------------------------
U.N. Representative: So, Mr. Evil -
Dr. Evil: It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much.
By: - 25th June 2002 at 09:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: examples?
2. You can critisize Israel, the question is how. Someone who compares Israel to the Nazis is simply taking a shot below the belt, rather than tackling the facts head on. It shows a dire need for perspective and a little more knowldege of history.
3. I've got one word for you, Seahawk : Tibet.
4. You understand wrong, I never said that. Israel does reserve the right to look out for Jews wherever they are, but translating it into launching wars is really too far fetched. Israel evacuated Ethiopian Jews, it did not invade the country! You did not see Markavas roling off ships on the beaches of Eritrea!
----------------------------------------
U.N. Representative: So, Mr. Evil -
Dr. Evil: It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much.
By: - 25th June 2002 at 10:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: examples?
That is what the member of a regional parliament named Karsai (spelling ?) said and he was criticised of that. It is ok to do that imo.
But it has hit other politicains as well. One defended the right of Mr. Karsai to speak his mind about the on goings in Israel and that from Mr. Karsai´s perspective (he is of arab origin) things must feel different to what jewish or german people feel about such a comparision.
But furthermore a former Minister Mr. Blüm said that he did not like the behavior of Israel in palestina and said they are building ghettos for the palestinians. And guess what he was attacked too.
I know that not the Jews in general are to blame but some Jewish leaders in germany are taking it too far imo. First is the right of free speech and it should be for everyone. And instead of starting a discussion on why the Israeli reaction is neccessary or what they believe it does for the Israeli people they just claim that the critics are against Jews in general and how disgusting that is in a country with germans history.
I know that the individual jew in europe or else where has nothing to do with that, but I do not like the behavior of some leaders at the moment.
By: - 25th June 2002 at 17:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: He's trolling for cash donations...
There are extremist nut-jobs like this all over the internet. You guys really don't take him seriously, do you?
By: - 26th June 2002 at 21:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: He's trolling for cash donations...
Of course Jews can "forget" what happened. It is nothing to do with modern Europe that persecution arose. The faults lay with a far older generation.
The point about Judaism being an individual mix of religion and ethnicity sounds very theological. To what extent does the same apply to all religions? I would suggest, as has been pointed out, that the word "cultural" is possibly more appropriate than "ethnic".
Furthermore, I am doubtful that Jews do suffer more than other groups. You included a list of news reports highlighting discrimination against Jews.
But, I could do the same exercise and place the emphasis on blacks, or asians or homosexuals. Indians and Pakistanis could do the same about Hindus and Muslims.
I do not accept that Jews faced more discrimination than blacks. Simple as that. I don't feel the need to prove this point, as it is defensive. Your counter argument ought to be proven first - what studies can you point to?
So why can't there be a black homeland?
Well, there isn't and rightly so. Nor should there be a Jewish one. Or, for that matter, a muslim one either.
Lastly...come on, you can't compare Israel to the UK. One is a mature state which has heavily influenced the modern world and even gave us the language we use for this debate. Britain is supposedly a Christian (neither Catholic nor Protestant, despite a slightly Protestant emphasis) nation, but other religions abound too.
Israel can claim none of these. If you're talking pragmatism, the UK is the 4th wealthiest of the industrialised countries.
My point is not to pour scorn on Israel, because some of that countries' achievements have been remarkable. Rather, I am trying to highlight the absurd notion that the UK could be stripped of soveriegnty; whereas this is maybe a little more feasible with Israel.
By: - 29th June 2002 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: He's trolling for cash donations...
Wow, replying to two such prolific posters at the same time is quite daunting. I'll be getting back to Mongu at a later date. This one's for Garry.
"I compared your opinion that Jews were a seperate race ... not to damage your genitalia."
Garry, my reply about equating Israel to the Nazis was intended for Seahawk and was in relation to a recent event in Germany. If you read his response you will see he understood my intention clearly enough. It was not related to our discussion.
I would like, however, to point out that I did not say Jews were a race (I don’t even know what a 'race' is) but rather an ethnic group. There's a big difference between the two, at least from my point of view. As I've already mentioned, I don't think ethnicity is physical alone.
"persist in suggesting that a religion and an ethnic group are the same thing"
But I did not say that! I wasn't talking about religion in general, but specifically about Judaism, and I have quite clearly explained why. Of course religion is not the same as ethnicity, but to label Judaism as merely a religion lacks historical perspective.
"I see Palestinian homes being demolished for another Jewish settlement"
Settlements are indeed built and Palestinians homes are indeed demolished but the two events have very little in relation to one another. That's a common misconception, that's simply not the way settlements are built. But that’s an entirely different subject to the one at hand ...
"I wonder if the way things have been done in the last 50 years whether you deserve it."
Excuse me; you wonder if we "deserve" it? Israel exists not by virtue but by right, we do not have to justify our existence. We "deserve" it, as much as any other state "deserves" to exist. Have you ever wondered if Germany "deserves" to exist or if Brazil "deserves" so? That’s quite an arrogant statement, Garry, wouldn't you say? In fact, I would go as far as to say that such sentiment is exactly why we deserve it!
"If Jewish people were a seperate ethnic group then Hitler would not have needed the help of early IBM machines to create a census... they could have just walked down the street pointing out all the jews."
IF ethnicity was physical alone, yes, but that's not the case, it’s far more abstract than that. It was exactly the Nazis who sought to formulate ethnicity or race through physical stereotypes and such pseudo-scientific notions as racial Darwinism.
Our problem, Garry, is that you seem to think that I claim that the moment a man converts to Judaism he suddenly drops out of the local collective and into another one, as if he undergoes some deep transformation, as if his DNA is somehow changed! You misunderstand me; I don't think so at all. What I'm saying is that the man has just gained another facet to an already multi-faceted personality (as anyone is), which is beyond his mere religious beliefs. He is now not only all he was before but also a part of the Jewish nation. This may be insignificant at many moments of his life, and will certainly be so in current Western society, but there may come a time when it will be more than that, and not necessarily by the man's choice. As I said, this is an abstract notion, not one for which a formula exists.
"I certainly wouldn't run away from the problem."
That's a simplistic, if not chauvinistic, sentiment, not one by which millions of people can lead their lives. Do you think that all Jews should have opted to stay put in Europe just to avoid losing face? You do what you have to do, and if that calls for independence, then so be it.
"this stupidity can be based on ethnic hatred or religious hatred and therefore is not evidence that the Jewish people are an ethnic group."
I disagree. Anti-Semitism is a hatred the world is simply unable to shake, just look at the length of time it has persisted (The story of Jews using young boys' blood for Passover rituals was born in Britain sometime around the 12th century. You can still find it repeated to this day, the latest was in a Saudi newspaper only a few weeks ago). It may be small scale in certain parts of the world, but in others it is not. Unlike you, I can't dismiss it as mere stupidity, but rather as such an ancient, lasting and sometimes lethal phenomenon as to bring about the definition of Judaism as more than a religion.
"The Gypsies have a similar history and some could say that the American Indians have had and continue to have a raw deal, yet they do not try to separate themselves from the rest of the world "
Because they've either not wished it so or because they were never given the choice or chance to do so. Besides, the point is irrelevant. Just because Native Americans don't have a state of their own do not deny any other group this right.
"You have refused the PA the same so far."
Oh please, as if that is what the whole Mid-East conflict is about, Israelis denying Palestinians their self-determination. Yes, let us all forget about the 1947 Palestine Partition Plan that the Palestinians rejected, or consecutive attempts to destroy Israel, or the still persistent incitement against the very existence of Israel, or 50 years of terrorism and de-legitimization. There are grievances on both sides of the conflict, you know, and oversimplifying it will hardly move us towards resolution.
"Did the world not take in Jewish orphans after WWII?"
Yes it did, but that a small detail in a much bigger picture. Israel, who was 600,000 strong upon its formation, took in over one million people in the years following its creation. Not really on the same scale, I think.
"(Growl... we are an evil anti semetic world...)"
I don't really think so, but at least I know there's one place in the world which I am sure is free of that sickness ...
"That must be the US... or has their support been of no help at all?"
Actually, it has been of immense use, and that's only one reason why we appreciate it so much. A country that actually translates values into deeds, unlike other who dispense unhelpful quasi-moral diatribe from behind their fortress walls, n'est pas? }>
“It is a shame you choose to make a joke of what happened in South Africa.”
No I didn't, lighten up.
"Sorry for my ignorance but can some English posters on this forum please post some pictures from Heathrow airport where any Jews who try to sneak into Britain are taken aside and shot. Perhaps a few Belgian posters can show pictures of the pits where they put all of the Jews who try to enter Europe by sea are burned?"
Yes, let's be extreme instead of actually dealing with facts. White settlers in Zimbabwe are descended from Europeans and are culturally almost the same. European nations would take them in without a second thought. What country in Europe would accept entire Jewish populations now wishing to leave. let’s say, Tunisia? They'd hardly even take individuals without the hassles of current immigration, but thousands of people? Only one nation would ...
"What I am trying to point out is that in trying to create your own state to avoid oppression of jews you are creating another state that oppresses minorities"
One has nothing to do with the other. Almost all countries of the world are nation states to one degree or another. Does the existance of a Japanese state automatically suggest any other minorities are oppressed? The fact that discrimination exists in Israel today does not necessarily mean it should be dealt with outside the framework of an Israeli state, does it?
"I mean it is not even OK to marry palestinians!!! What does this say about your new country."
The fact that such events don't often take place is because of the tragic events underway around us. It does not mean it’s not OK by definition or that it has not happened before or will not happen again. War is a bitch, Garry, it spoils a lot more than mixed marriages. The Arab Israeli town of Taibe is a 10 minutes drive from my home. My parents used to go shopping there once in a while. They don't anymore, they're afraid. It does not make them racist, you know, and it says absolutely nothing about my "new country".
"I don't know how you could possibly suggest they are not religionist."
On the contrary. Most Argentinean and Russian Jews are secular, many Russians didn't even know a thing about the Jewish rituals or festivals when they came here. Judaism, in it's purely religious form, had practically nothing to do with it. There must be something more. Could it be a relation that transcends mere heavenly beliefs?
"Racism doesn't apply as Judism is not a race... it may have been at one time but your talk of Russian, Argentine, European, Ethiopian etc etc means it is now just a religion"
No it just means what I said before, that it's an abstract notion, an identity that augments, not replaces other ones.
"How many with political power (ie all departments from military to education etc etc) are not Jewish? If not is there any room in the government for non Jews?
If there is are there any restrictions to which posts they can hold?"
Israeli Arabs and other minorities are represented in all parts of Israeli government. Off the top of my head, the commander of the Givati infantry brigade is a Druze (bear in mind we only have four regular infantry brigades), and he is not even the highest ranking non-Jew in the military. One has only recently been appointed Major-General (don't remember the post), the second highest rank in the IDF. Despite what you may believe Garry, being Jewish is not a criteria for holding a post in Israel. Israeli Arabs have held Israeli diplomatic posts, including ambassadorships.
Not that there is no room for improvement. Arab Israelis, for instance, are underrepresented in Parliament. Those are problems we all have to deal with, but they exist for a number of reasons and are certainly not ingrained in law.
"My point is that if you allow people of any religion to hold office ..."
Too bad that 'if' does not apply ...
“Any restrictions on the religion of those in office …”
restriction which don't exist ...
"one Jewish and one Palestinian then I can't see the latter getting a fair go"
Please define "a fair go". At least the armies of 5 neighbors won't invade them when their state is established. This is really verging on whining.
"Looking at the land where the Palestinians are to be given for their state they will not have much chance to prosper..."
Why not? Look at Hong Kong or Singapore, or Israel for that matter. Ultimately, it is the people, not the land that would make the difference.
"The Palestinians have been told by Israel in the past that they will not be allowed their own port, or airport"
Simply not true. They could have both and they were never told they could have neither. You're coming to wrong conclusions from events you barely understand. Israel destroyed Dahania airport because it was being used to smuggle weapons, not because of some fundamental refusal to allow a Palestinian airport. It was a punitive action, taken in the prospective of the current fighting. You're really looking too much into it.
"I doubt that any plans for power stations involving the use of the atom would get very far either."
No, it won't. If only because no one is his right mind is going that way these days. Of course, imagine that Israelis should be worried about nuclear proliferation among those who still preach for their destruction!
"Even with their own state their powerful neighbour will keep them small and weak... A ready source of cheap labour nice and close to Israel that can be closed up if it starts to get too big for its boots"
OK, now you’re whining. Oh, the horror. Those Israelis, how dare they build an affluent nation, they are strong, and therefore they must be exploiters, collectively responsible for plight of their suffering "victims". Spoken like a true liberal, Garry. I can see that even when peace does arrives, some things will never change – whatever is wrong with Palestine will always be Israel's fault.
"like a big open concentration camp or ghetto."
Indeed. Like the Warsaw Ghetto, you must mean. You know, the one where 20 people survived out of a population of 500,000 at the start of the war. I'm glad we can keep the discussion at a reasonable and factual level.
Palestine can be as much a Ghetto as Austria, Singapore or Switzerland are. It's really up to them.
----------------------------------------
U.N. Representative: So, Mr. Evil -
Dr. Evil: It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much.
By: - 30th June 2002 at 12:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: He's trolling for cash donations...
Why can't there be a black homeland? Thats rich! Liberia maybe? Then again maybe a good part of the African continent. Just the place for those 20+ million black Americans that want to return to their roots.
Regards
By: - 1st July 2002 at 00:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
good arguments Garry and Mongu.
For once I agree with mongu. I wish I could get involved in this banter, but I think Skythe has his hands full with Garry and mongu.
Sam.
By: - 1st July 2002 at 07:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: He's trolling for cash donations...
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-07-02 AT 07:23 AM (GMT)]"It is nothing to do with modern Europe that persecution arose. The faults lay with a far older generation "
So what? No one's talking about fault, no one's looking for compensation. This is about learning from past history, from events that still take place today and things that may yet happen in the future. The actual source of Anti-semitism is not of importance to this discussion. The fact that it exists is.
"I am doubtful that Jews do suffer more than other groups."
Right now, no, but this is of little relevance. This whole thread is not about who suffered more or less, but about the fact that certain persecution has existed long enough to create the need for a separate state. Jewish rights do not compete with the rights of other people, no matter whether their suffering is larger or smaller.
"Indians and Pakistanis could do the same about Hindus and Muslims."
Exactly. And should the need arise they could always return to India and Pakistan. Muslims alone have over 60 independent states, many of which clearly define themselves as Islamic republics (Iran, Afghanistan) or Islamic kingdoms (Morocco, Saudi Arabia). But a Jewish state? Heaven forbid …
"I do not accept that Jews faced more discrimination than blacks. Simple as that. I don't feel the need to prove this point, as it is defensive. Your counter argument ought to be proven first - what studies can you point to?"
Then we'll agree to disagree. I can't point to any studies, what I can is point to 2000 years of history culminating in the destruction of a third of the world's Jewish population. That and the fact that the nations of Africa are a given fact while a Jewish state is someting that the world has not yet come to grips with.
"So why can't there be a black homeland?"
What exactly would you call the nations of Africa? Blacks have chosen to define themselves by criteria that extend beyond skin color (there you go again, ethnicity is beyonf the physical) and as such no single black nation exists. Should that change and they decide that blacks are one people then you could see a black homeland.
"Well, there isn't and rightly so. Nor should there be a Jewish one. Or, for that matter, a muslim one either."
That's a very nice sentiment. Yes, we should all live in a united Earth with no discrimination at all. But reality dictates otherwise.
Furthermore, as you yourself said, Mongu, you live in a Christian state. Yes, I know, Britain is a great democracy where all religions are completely equal, with complete separation of church and state etc. but those are ideals that don’t really exist in full in any nation on Earth. Your head of state is also the head of the Anglican church, Oxford Street is decorated with Christmas trees every December, and your schools and media celebrate Christian holidays. No, it is not a religious authocracy, it is a very free society, but even you cannot deny it's Christianity. Yes, others religions abound, but they also do in Israel, so why can't it define itself as Jewish?
"come on, you can't compare Israel to the UK. One is a mature state which has heavily influenced the modern world"
"I am trying to highlight the absurd notion that the UK could be stripped of soveriegnty; whereas this is maybe a little more feasible with Israel"
What is absurd is the notion held by the nationals of certain countries that their countries have more rights, more "maturity" or are more important or senior than any other states in the world, that their people deserve indepedence while others apparently don't. The very notion stinks of arrogance anchored centuries in the past, back in the days of colonialism, back in the days when Europeans thought they were doing the "savages" some favour by endouring them with their culture and influence. Britain is not more nor less important that Israel, or Syria, or Nepal, or East Timor, or Japan, or Peru, or Bolivia, or Liberia, or Eritrea. Wake up, Mongu, Britannia no longer rules the waves!
Besides, do you think you're the only one who can play that game? You want to talk about maturity? We Jews had our culture and indepedence when your people were still sun-worshiping cave-dwellers. Our culture is the basis for the beliefs of billions of people around the world. Maybe we should begin taking royalties for the use of the Bible! And what about the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Egyptians and many others, are those mature enough that they deserve (thanks Garry) sovreignty, or should they be stripped of their indepedence? What is the criteria?
Frankly, I'm surprised. I had always thought that such sentiment, whereby certain people are more important or deserve certain rights while others don't, is a thing of the past. Maybe we Israelis should be grateful for enlightened European interest in our affairs! You undoubtedly know what's good for us!
----------------------------------------
U.N. Representative: So, Mr. Evil -
Dr. Evil: It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much.
Posts: 3,671
By: Geforce - 22nd June 2002 at 17:55
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-06-02 AT 05:56 PM (GMT)]Top Lawyer Urges Death For Families Of Bombers
Lewin: 'A Policy Born of Necessity'
By AMI EDEN
FORWARD STAFF
A prominent Washington attorney and Jewish communal leader is calling for the execution of family members of suicide bombers.
Nathan Lewin, an oft-mentioned candidate for a federal judgeship and legal advisor to several Orthodox organizations, told the Forward that such a policy would provide a much-needed deterrent against suicide attacks. Under the proposal, which Lewin unveiled in the current issue of the opinion journal Sh'ma, family members would be spared if they immediately condemned the bombing and refused financial compensation for the loss of their relative. (Lewin's article appears on the web at http://www.shma.com/may02/nathan.htm.)
While a 20-month spate of suicide bombings has been met in the Jewish community with calls for increasingly Draconian preventive measures, Lewin appears to be the first Jewish communal leader to approve publicly of the concept of executing innocent civilians in the hopes of curbing terrorism.
"If executing some suicide-bomber families saves the lives of even an equal number of potential civilian victims, the exchange is, I believe, ethically permissible," wrote Lewin, who served as president of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and is a vice president of the Orthodox Union. "It is a policy born of necessity — the need to find a true deterrent when capital punishment is demonstrably ineffective."
Lewin argued that the biblical injunction to destroy the ancient tribe of Amalek serves as a precedent in Judaism for taking measures that are "ordinarily unacceptable" in the face of a mortal threat. His proposal, however, was rejected by an Israeli diplomat in New York, and discounted, in terms ranging from mild to condemnatory, by a range of commentators, terrorism experts and Jewish communal leaders from across the American political spectrum.
"The State of Israel is determined to respond to every Palestinian provocation," said Ido Aharoni, consul for media and public affairs at Israel's New York consulate. "Israel's military approach is to pursue the perpetrators and those who seek to carry out acts of terrorism against innocent Israelis. Within that framework, Israel is trying to minimize, if possible to eliminate, the number of innocent lives lost."
Several leading Jewish figures, including Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, argued that the plan represented a legitimate if flawed attempt to strike a balance between preventing terrorism and preserving democratic norms. But the proposal was strongly condemned by the head of the Reform movement, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, and the executive vice chairwoman of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Hannah Rosenthal.
"The opinion is utterly reprehensible and totally contrary to the most fundamental principles of the Jewish religious tradition and everything the State of Israel has been about since its founding," said Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. "I've said it, and everyone realizes, that in a war all of our standards on civil liberties may not apply. But to say that you need to make common-sense compromises is a long way from saying we are going to kill innocent people to bring about deterrence."
Yoffie rejected Lewin's reference to Amalek as a possible justification for killing innocents. He argued that for nearly 2,000 years talmudic sages and other rabbinic commentators have argued that the lessons of Amalek could not be applied to contemporary times. In an article that appeared in the Sh'ma journal alongside Lewin's essay, Brandeis University Jewish studies professor Arthur Green wrote, "I only wonder how long it will take [Lewin], by the force of this proof-text, to go all the way and suggest that the Palestinian nation as a whole has earned the fate of Amalek."
Green, former president of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, wrote that his first desire upon reading Lewin's essay was to "tear my garments, as a sign of mourning on hearing the desecration of God's name."
The criticisms of Lewin were taken one step further by Jeremy Burton, a member of Sh'ma's advisory board and executive director of AMOS: The National Jewish Partnership for Social Justice. Burton argued, in his own name, that the attorney should now be blackballed from organized Jewish life, just as the late Rabbi Meir Kahane was ostracized for calling for the mass deportation of Arabs from Israel.
Rosenthal, whose organization serves the national network of local Jewish community relations councils and a range of national organizations, said that Jewish groups need to condemn any talk in their community of justifying the killing of civilians. "I can't begin to tell you how many meetings I've been in with colleagues across the country where the words of spokespersons for various Muslim and Arab causes are being parsed," Rosenthal said. "We look at words and decide which side of the line you are on."
Dershowitz and Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, rejected the notion that Lewin should be elbowed out of communal life. They argued that his proposal represented a legitimate attempt to forge a policy for stopping terrorism. Foxman declined to take a stand on the actual proposal, citing his policy of deferring to Jerusalem on Israeli security issues.
Though they declined to endorse the controversial proposal, top officials at the O.U. and Agudath Israel of America, for whom Lewin has done legal work, expressed sympathy for Lewin's efforts to curb what they described as an unprecedented wave of suicide attacks in Israel. "[Lewin] is not a Kahanist; he is not a nut," said Richard Stone, chair of the O.U.'s Institute of Public Affairs. Stone noted that Lewin, a member of the institute's executive committee, was not advocating the mass deportation of Arabs, rather a limited method of fighting terrorists.
Rabbi William Altshul, headmaster of the Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy, a Modern Orthodox Jewish day school in Washington, D.C., told the Forward that he did not regret the decision to honor Lewin this week at the school's annual dinner. "I haven't read the article," Altshul said. "But Nat has always been known for his outspoken opinions, and I respect him for it."
Even as several observers rejected the notion of blackballing Lewin, they offered substantive critiques of his argument. Dershowitz, author of "Why Terrorism Works" (Yale University Press, 2002), and terrorism researcher Steven Emerson, who both favor the limited use of torture to extract information about an impending terrorist attack, said that they balked at the execution of innocent civilians. Still, Emerson added, "all bets are off" if terrorists were to target thousands of people with non-conventional weapons.
Dershowitz argued that the same level of deterrence could be achieved by leveling the villages of suicide bombers after the residents had been given a chance to evacuate (an idea Lewin disparagingly likened to "using aspirin to treat brain cancer").
Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Orthodox Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, N.J., a trained lawyer known for hawkish views on Israeli security issues, argued that a policy of mass deportations, rather than executions, could serve as an effective, but less deadly, deterrent against future attacks.
Several observers defended Lewin by noting that the United States killed tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Yoffie warned against such parallels.
"If we are going to start looking for historical justifications for us to kill innocent people, then we are destroying the moral basis of our argument, which is ultimately our most effective weapon," the Reform leader said. "Don't go down that road because it is wrong, self-defeating and dangerous for Israel."
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.06.07/news1.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
I hope we all agree that this is not a solution ...