09-01-2002 13:57									#91
	Support Apolyton

Natan -

quote: Berzerker: What you are know saying is that a border change is theft, and I think that's absurd.

Geez, I stated my position twice and did not say a border change was theft. I said a border change was theft IF it resulted in the taking of someone's land - and that is theft.

quote: Also, it's quite clear that the British sided with the Arabs - they helped enforce an embargo on sending arms to Israel but armed (and trained) the Arab legion. The single largest source for Jewish weapons was the former east block (this spurred fears that Israel would go red) although the weapons came from a lot of strange places. Others included: raids on British convoys weapons bought up in various parts of the world from armies which were junking old equipment weapons smuggled in by what were more or less criminals

But according to chegitz, the Arab legion was not all that active in the war. It seems they were attacked more by the Jews than the other way around. And if the Brits were really pro-Arab, they would have made a sincere effort to help them. It's clear the Brits were walking a tightrope - playing both sides. But the UN resolution granting an Israeli state would not have succeeded without British approval IMO.

chegitz - your posts are examples of why I like the Apolyton OT, instead of going to the library or bookstore, I can get a summary right here Now I can watch you guys go back and forth to learn more of the history of that region. I spend too much time learning ancient mythology than history

	09-01-2002 14:52									#92
	Put an end to popups!

Going back to the original point of this thread, our image that Jewish people make up a gigantic portion of the world's population simply reflects attitudes towards the Jews.

The mythology that Jews make up a gigantic portion of the world's population simply reflects age-old Christian hated of the Jews.

(I am not saying that all Christians hate Jews, but rather that Christian culture contains a streak of anti-semitism)

That can be seen in the sub-current within the Christian world that the Jews are controlling things. (banks, movies, etc). Which implies that there most be a lot of them if they are in control of things.

If one Jewish person is successful in a business, the person is held as an example that the Jews are in control, or taking over.

Look at one of the quotes from this thread:

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Saying that Jews run Hollywood is not saying the The Jews run Hollywood. Apparently there is a disproportionately large number of Jews among the rulers of Hollywood, like Speilberg and Spelling and others. However, not having done a survey of those running the production studios as well as individual producers, it would be difficult for me to declare that that any of the proceeding is true.

Two directors/producers are Jewish and this is taken as a good indication that Jews run Hollywood. Jews like Lucas, Scorcese [sp?], Coppala, Burton, etc.

CG notes that he doesn't have any proof that Jews run Hollywood, but I bet most of us, jews and non-jews, were willing to accept this as being true.

Anyways, so what if there are only 12 million Jews. There are only six million Scots in Scotland, yet their culture influence on the English-speaking world is far larger than their numbers.

	09-01-2002 20:11									#93
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, obviously I could have named a lot more. Metro-Golden-Meyer ring a bell. Hollywood's film industry was started by a Jewish immigrant (prior to that, the heart of American film making was Jacksonville, FL ... who knew?).

Nor do I think it's a statistical anomally. Education is very highly prized within Jewish cultures, and like Asian Americans, if a higher proportion of your group is educated you will tended to be overly represented in those professions where education is the key to access and success.

What I find as interesting is the success of that subsection of Jews tends to make the Jewish working class rather invisible. I do know some very rich Jewish folks (dated one, sigh, still love her) but I've also known quite a few Jews who must schlep around for a living like most of the rest of folks.

	09-01-2002 20:37									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I'm really really sorry the Jews were persecuted. Really I am. But it frankly doesn't matter how many were killed by Hitler - they don't deserve their own nation just because of that. It's preposterous. Otherwise, Muslims should have their own nation, as should Christians, as should Buddhists, and any other religious group that has been persecuted.

Most religeous groups do have their own nations. Great Britain, for example, is defined as a Christian state (Church of England). Nepal is Buddist, Iran and Sudan are Islamic republics, and so forth. Furthermore, the fact the European Jewry was persecuted in every country in which they ever lived does seem to necessitate for a Jewish state. Personally I think they should have gotten a chunk of Germany and Poland as payback.

quote: But why stop there? Let's give blacks their own nation, because of slavery.

Black nationalists do argue that. Zionism is Jewish nationalism. The whole idea behind nationalism is to have your own state.

quote: And you can't forget the Native Americans - persecution hundreds of years ago on land they didn't claim to own OBVIOUSLY entitles them to a chunk of the US today.

They do own chunks of the US, and are entitled to more, speficially land illegally confiscated from them, such as the Black Hills.

quote: But then again, Hitler sure persecuted Slavs, maybe there should be a Slavic nation.

There are Slavic nations: Poland, the Czech Republic, Solvakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, the Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Russia.

quote: And just for kicks, let's make a nation for everyone Stalin sent to the gulags. And Spain and Portugal sure weren't very nice to the Indians in South America - maybe everyone who can claim Incan descent should get a brand spanking new Incan nation.

Who do you think the Shining Path are?

quote: If the Jews around the world think they are being persecuted, and need a safe haven or whatever, feel free to leave that nation - unless of course that nation won't let you

And go where? Historically only one country has never persecuted Jews (that had a Jewish population), and that was Ireland (but while Ireland was occupied the Jews of Ireland were persecuted by the English). If twelve million Jews showed up in Ireland tomorrow, I expect that would change. Even the US, while not having an official policy of discriminating against Jews hasn't been tolerant of them. Remember the St. Louis? Islamic countries had brief periods of anti-Jewish discrimination (though it tended to be the exception histoically rather than the rule).

My opposition to Israel is based on the oppression of the Palestinians specifically and an opposition to all captialist states generally. I am opposed to Zionism because I am opposed to nationalism, though I may temporarily side with an oppressed nationalism, since every nation has a right to be free from oppression.

	10-01-2002 00:08									#95
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Most religeous groups do have their own nations. Great Britain, for example, is defined as a Christian state (Church of England). Nepal is Buddist, Iran and Sudan are Islamic republics, and so forth. Furthermore, the fact the European Jewry was persecuted in every country in which they ever lived does seem to necessitate for a Jewish state. Personally I think they should have gotten a chunk of Germany and Poland as payback.

You're totally missing the point. None of these nations were set up arbitrarily by an international body in order to "protect" a religious group. Great Britain may be a "Christian state", but then again look at the history of the founding of GB. It is nothing like that of Israel. Same for the other nations above.
And you think the Jews should have gotten a chunk of Germany and Poland? That is sickening. First off, the Poles were a subjugated nation, they certainly weren't responsible for the Holocaust. Neither were most Germans, so how are you going to support stealing their land? Even if you are talking about taking the land of only those Germans involved in the Holocaust, that still isn't right because they were simply following orders (regardless of the Nuremburg Trials tragedy, that IS a valid defense) - if they hadn't followed orders what do you think would have happened to the German soldiers? Hmm? Maybe thrown in prison, maybe shot, maybe sent to their deaths on the Eastern Front? Who are YOU to make a moral judgment from them sitting at home at your computer? Who is Israel to make that judgment for Adolf Eichmann?

quote: Black nationalists do argue that. Zionism is Jewish nationalism. The whole idea behind nationalism is to have your own state.

So I assume the people on here supporting a Jewish State also support a black one?

quote: They do own chunks of the US, and are entitled to more, speficially land illegally confiscated from them, such as the Black Hills.

Fine. Maybe, as Berz said, if they can show up with a deed to the land the residents would be inclined to give it up. However, I'd argue that the structures on that land are also private property belonging to the current residents, and giving that private property to the Indians is just as bad as taking the land from the Indians generations ago.

quote: And go where? Historically only one country has never persecuted Jews (that had a Jewish population), and that was Ireland (but while Ireland was occupied the Jews of Ireland were persecuted by the English). If twelve million Jews showed up in Ireland tomorrow, I expect that would change. Even the US, while not having an official policy of discriminating against Jews hasn't been tolerant of them. Remember the St. Louis? Islamic countries had brief periods of anti-Jewish discrimination (though it tended to be the exception histoically rather than the rule).

Sounds like the Jews' problem, not mine.

	10-01-2002 01:22									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Sounds like the Jews' problem, not mine

now that I know what your stand on the issue is , I will stop following this thread.

	10-01-2002 01:41									#97
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Che :
What I meant is that when you wrote your history of what happened here, you was talking from the point of view you happen to agree with, that says that the Arabs who live in Palestine are the natives to this land, and the Jews are foreign invaders.
And I was suggesting you to write the same, but from an other point of view, the one you dont agree with, which says that the Jews are the natives to this land, the Arabs just happened to live here in our absensce and that this doesnt gives them the rights for the land.

	10-01-2002 01:42									#98
	Tired of ads?

quote: now that I know what your stand on the issue is , I will stop following this thread.

Fine. Explain how it is my problem, given that I am not affected by it.

	10-01-2002 01:55									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Two directors/producers are Jewish and this is taken as a good indication that Jews run Hollywood. Jews like Lucas, Scorcese [sp?], Coppala, Burton, etc. CG notes that he doesn't have any proof that Jews run Hollywood, but I bet most of us, jews and non-jews, were willing to accept this as being true.

I guess all those guys with the beards and long sideburns and walking around in all black and all those temples everywhere in Hollywood and the entire West Side don't mean anything though.


I thought you lived here in LA, I thought you would have known better.

	10-01-2002 02:03									#100
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Berzerker: By that logic, the creation of the US was theft; in fact, the creation of most modern states was theft. The land confiscations from Israeli-Arabs can and should be separated from the creation of the state of Israel; just as the creation of the US should be separated from the seizure of Tory property and the Clinton-Sullivan campaign.
Also, I can't recall if Britain even supporting resolution 181; they simply announced they were withdrawing (as they had from other colonial possesions); certainly British troops were stationed in Egypt throughout the war. And to say that the Arab legion was "not that active" is a mischaracterization of what Chegitz said; since they enabled Jordan to hold more land in Cisjordan than any other Arab state when the dust settled in February, 1949.

David Floyd: You're viewing Israel as essentially an international form of affirmative action, and I think that doesn't make much sense. In my view, the differences between various situations make it possible to develop any universal or even generally useful rules for when a state should be created or destroyed. Israel exists; PLO rule is in my mind a worse alternative.

	10-01-2002 02:08									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: David Floyd: You're viewing Israel as essentially an international form of affirmative action, and I think that doesn't make much sense. In my view, the differences between various situations make it possible to develop any universal or even generally useful rules for when a state should be created or destroyed. Israel exists; PLO rule is in my mind a worse alternative.

Interesting affirmitive action analogy, I haven't thought of it like that until now. I think it's a decent analogy, though - a minority arbitrarily getting something they neither own nor deserve. The analogy ends, though, in that in affirmitive action LOTS of minority groups get stuff they don't own or deserve, and only the straight white males get screwed, while in this scenario only the Jews get land while everyone else gets screwed.

And PLO rule would OF COURSE be worse, in your mind, but what about in the mind of the Palestinians?

	10-01-2002 02:22									#102
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Interesting affirmitive action analogy, I haven't thought of it like that until now. I think it's a decent analogy, though - a minority arbitrarily getting something they neither own nor deserve. The analogy ends, though, in that in affirmitive action LOTS of minority groups get stuff they don't own or deserve, and only the straight white males get screwed, while in this scenario only the Jews get land while everyone else gets screwed.

The point is though, it's not. Che made a very good point, and you responded by saying that Israel was founded in a different manner than his other examples, but then your argument falls apart: Israel was not founded on the backs of straight white males, it was founded by Jews working, fighting, living. I'm sure someone will mention the suffering of the Palestinians; but modern Anglican England was built on the suffering of Catholics, modern Arab states on the suffering of Jews, etc. So Israel really isn't different then the numerous other states designed to protect a certain religious or ethnic group.

quote: And PLO rule would OF COURSE be worse, in your mind, but what about in the mind of the Palestinians?

The point is, it would be on the whole worse for everyone.

Ted Striker: I hope you understand that the vast majority of "black hats" (Orthodox Jews in the garb you described) won't step inside a movie theater, let alone participate in the production of the sort of schlock hollywood turns out these days. It's secular (or at least non-Orthodox) Jews like Spielberg who are involved in the movie industry.

	10-01-2002 04:29									#103
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd You're totally missing the point. None of these nations were set up arbitrarily by an international body in order to "protect" a religious group.

Your idea of how it was formed is incorrect because of a different perception.

You see judaism as purely a religion.

At the time judaism was seen as a race or an ethnicity, and with a growing national awakening (labeled Zionism from Zion which is Jerusalem) the international community decided to grant jews a right for self definition and self-governing.

To you it's clear that judaism is a religion. To me it's not. To me it's first of all a heritage, a culture, a nation.


Accodring to the now world wide accepted articles made by Woodrow Willson every ethnicity has a right for self declaration and self rule.

On this basis, dozens of smaller ethnicities fight to this date to get their own country to define their culture better.

You simply come and deny it calling it arbitrary.

quote: Great Britain may be a "Christian state", but then again look at the history of the founding of GB. It is nothing like that of Israel. Same for the other nations above.

Great Britain had already existed for brittish. Israel and Judea were destroyed and jews were mostly kicked out.

But according to your arguement here, there's no reason for north ireland to ever become independent. Why do they need their own country just because they have a different religion?

quote: And you think the Jews should have gotten a chunk of Germany and Poland? That is sickening.

Why is that sickening?

quote: First off, the Poles were a subjugated nation, they certainly weren't responsible for the Holocaust.

The government of poland wasn't. Most of the people however, just like most of the people in many european countries were very glad to help.

Blaming the holocaust on Nazis alone, or only the government is sickening. Many civilians happily cooperated. Many cooperated out of fear. And many were much more eager then the germans.

quote: Neither were most Germans, so how are you going to support stealing their land?

Stealing their land? You're either very "uninformed" or incredibly brazen.

Jews had property, houses, art, clothes, money in those countries. It was all confiscated by the Nazis and local governments.

Who ever repaid jews for the property they lost? Who ever repaid them for the houses that still stand there? Who repaid them for money, much of it still in Swiss banks?

Jews were reimbursed some amounts for the holocaust, as if redemption and forgiveness could be bought. But they paid, and I'm glad they did.

quote: Even if you are talking about taking the land of only those Germans involved in the Holocaust, that still isn't right because they were simply following orders (regardless of the Nuremburg Trials tragedy, that IS a valid defense) - if they hadn't followed orders what do you think would have happened to the German soldiers?

What would have happenned if all the german soldiers disobeyed?

Persecution of jews doesn't start and end in the holocaust. It existed long before that. The decision that having a state can wait no longer was a result of growing persecution in the 19th century.

quote: Hmm? Maybe thrown in prison, maybe shot, maybe sent to their deaths on the Eastern Front? Who are YOU to make a moral judgment from them sitting at home at your computer? Who is Israel to make that judgment for Adolf Eichmann?

When a soldier chooses to fulfil a mission he takes responsibility for it. Whether or not he has a choise, he is responsible.

Israel is a very good judge for Adolf Eichmann, because it knows exactly what he did.

quote: So I assume the people on here supporting a Jewish State also support a black one?

If you can prove that black people have the same shared culture and religion and ethnicity, then yes. But this isn't the case since they are as many different cultures as among white people.

If they want to have their own state because they don't have a country of their own - yes. However there are many countries run by blacks for blacks.

quote: Fine. Maybe, as Berz said, if they can show up with a deed to the land the residents would be inclined to give it up. However, I'd argue that the structures on that land are also private property belonging to the current residents, and giving that private property to the Indians is just as bad as taking the land from the Indians generations ago.

Fine, then Israel is the property of it's current residents and giving that to previous residents would be just as bad as taking it away in the first place

quote: Sounds like the Jews' problem, not mine.

Fine.

Then:

quote: blah blah blah, israel illegal, blah blak, opressing palestinians

Sounds like the Pals' problem, not mine.

	10-01-2002 04:39									#104
	Support Apolyton

quote: To you it's clear that judaism is a religion. To me it's not. To me it's first of all a heritage, a culture, a nation.

IT'S A ****ING RELIGION! IT ISN'T A NATION! JESUS ****ING CHRIST (If you hadn't noticed, this is one of the things that makes me angry).

	10-01-2002 04:51									#105
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: If the Jews around the world think they are being persecuted, and need a safe haven or whatever, feel free to leave that nation - unless of course that nation won't let you. Sounds like a national sovereignty issue to me, that. But if you CAN leave, why the hell should you get your own nation? Why shouldn't you just immigrate to a nation more friendly to you, sorta like everyone else did who left for persecution reasons? Hell, come to the US!

Woohoo! Great Solution!

You know, it would be really cool if say, Hitler put a few hundred jews on a ship and let them seek refuge in other countries! That would surely work!

Oh, wait, damn. It appears that this indeed happenned. A whole ship packed with Jews was deported. It cruised around the world seeking refuge. And you know what? No one accepted them.

You know what happened then? They came back to Germany. And that experiment lead Hitler to think that the rest of the world doesn't care about the Jews and he can wholeheartedly destroy them.

And you know what? He was right.

And the whole "oh my, holocaust was horrible" line was used by western countries later to justify the war in the people's eyes. If anyone had cared for Jews in reality, they would have done something in time.

quote: IT'S A ****ING RELIGION!

It's a religion... as well as an ethnicity and a culture and a nation associated with the ancient Israel and Judea, though not with modern Israel.

	10-01-2002 05:00									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: It's a religion... as well as an ethnicity and a culture and a nation associated with the ancient Israel and Judea, though not with modern Israel.

No it isn't! It is a religion! Unless you think there is a Christian nation and Islam nation. In which case, you are delusional . Religions are not by themselves nations, and the Jews are a religion. You can't tell me that an Ethopian Jew has the same ethnicity and culture as German Jew... you simply can't!

	10-01-2002 05:07									#107
	Support Apolyton

quote: To you it's clear that judaism is a religion. To me it's not. To me it's first of all a heritage, a culture, a nation.

Then that explains why Israel allows anyone who converts to Judaism to freely immigrate, because you can convert to a different heritage and culture.

Judaism is a religion!! If you want to talk about ethnicity, as someone already pointed out, use the term Hebrew. Jews are followers of Judaism, just as Christians are followers of Christianity, just as Muslims are followers of Islam, etc.

quote: Accodring to the now world wide accepted articles made by Woodrow Willson every ethnicity has a right for self declaration and self rule.

Gee, Woodrow Wilson said it, it MUST be right
Wilson, IMO, was an idiot, and I refuse to accept that something is right either because he said it or it is "widely accepted".

quote: Great Britain had already existed for brittish. Israel and Judea were destroyed and jews were mostly kicked out.

The Israelites/Jews/whatever the hell we're calling them kicked out the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Meninites, etc., etc., etc. What's the difference?

quote: But according to your arguement here, there's no reason for north ireland to ever become independent. Why do they need their own country just because they have a different religion?

You're absolutely right. I see no reason for the Northern Irish to have their own country. Of course, the situation there is a bit different from that of Israel.

quote: Why is that sickening?

I explained that in my post. It boils down to theft.

quote: The government of poland wasn't. Most of the people however, just like most of the people in many european countries were very glad to help.

So? That doesn't mean they violated any laws, does it? Sure, what they did was morally wrong, as we see it, but legally they committed no crime, therefore they should not forfeit any rights, including rights to their property.

quote: Blaming the holocaust on Nazis alone, or only the government is sickening. Many civilians happily cooperated. Many cooperated out of fear. And many were much more eager then the germans.

None of these people committed any crime, as crime was defined at the time, and you can't go around passing and enforcing ex post facto laws - that's definitely immoral.

quote: Stealing their land? You're either very "uninformed" or incredibly brazen. Jews had property, houses, art, clothes, money in those countries. It was all confiscated by the Nazis and local governments.

I suppose two wrongs makes a right, then

quote: Who ever repaid jews for the property they lost? Who ever repaid them for the houses that still stand there? Who repaid them for money, much of it still in Swiss banks?

I suppose no one did, as if that has any relevance on the argument at hand. Stealing someone elses land and property to make up for the land and property stolen from you is wrong.

quote: What would have happenned if all the german soldiers disobeyed?

That's unrealistic and frankly a stupid hypothetical. Soldiers are trained to follow orders, and, especially with the Prussian military tradition, German soldiers were remarkably good at following orders. They shouldn't be punished for that.

quote: Persecution of jews doesn't start and end in the holocaust. It existed long before that. The decision that having a state can wait no longer was a result of growing persecution in the 19th century.

I refuse to address any more whining about the Jews being persecuted until you address the points about Jews persecuting others, and take responsibility. Oh, what's that? You can't be held responsible because you didn't do it? Well, people today or in 1948 can't be held responsible either for others persecuting the Jews in the 19th century. Face it, Jews have been persecuted a lot, but they've done plenty of persecuting on their own. I mean, the Jews killed Jesus, so it could be said that they persecuted Christians as well.

quote: When a soldier chooses to fulfil a mission he takes responsibility for it. Whether or not he has a choise, he is responsible.

So in your perfect army each soldier makes his own moral decision about which order he will follow and which he won't? Damn, that sounds like an army I'd like to be in. You get to carry a big gun but not follow orders you don't like! Perfectly safe! Sounds like a terribly effective army too

quote: Israel is a very good judge for Adolf Eichmann, because it knows exactly what he did.

But Adolf Eichmann committed no crime. Israel did, though, by the act of kidnapping Eichmann from Argentina, which was also an act of war against Argentina. In any case, Eichmann did nothing to the State of Israel, so Israel was not even the victim in the supposed crimes.

quote: Fine, then Israel is the property of it's current residents and giving that to previous residents would be just as bad as taking it away in the first place

Not true, because we are talking about land that was owned and occupied by Arabs (for lack of a better generalized term, you know what I mean), who were kicked out by Jews. The Arabs, by the way, believed that land could be owned, and claimed ownership of said land, unlike the American Indians. So while I'll admit that while taking the land the Indians lived on may have been morally wrong, I fail to see why Indians can claim ownership of land today, while they didn't when the land was taken. Sounds like bullshit to me.

quote: Sounds like the Pals' problem, not mine.

Not true. My point is that the "plight of the Jews" isn't my problem because I'm neither a Jew, or a person oppressing Jews, or anyone involved in any way, while you, as an Israeli, obviously are involved, at least to a larger degree than I am.

	10-01-2002 05:19									#108
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by axi Weird, no jews in Australia?

Over 100,000. Very successful community. Not much anti semitism here - except in the business community - my father is very anti semitic because of business dealings with Jews.

We also have per capita the most holocaust survivors outside of Israel and we took Jewish refugees from Hitler's Germany before World War II.

	10-01-2002 06:11									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui No it isn't! It is a religion! Unless you think there is a Christian nation and Islam nation. In which case, you are delusional . Religions are not by themselves nations, and the Jews are a religion. You can't tell me that an Ethopian Jew has the same ethnicity and culture as German Jew... you simply can't!

Firstly, it is a nation and you must be a member of it since no one but a Jew would have enough Chutzpah to get mad at adherents of another faith because he's sure he has a better grasp of their religion then they do and they won't accept it.

But seriously, as much as the term nation has a meaning, the Jews are a nation. Not all nations are defined by the same traits. Many are defined by language, which the Jews have through Hebrew. Others are defined by a common set of values, such as the US. Others are defined by religion; that is what separates a Serb from a Croat while it is language which separates a Romanian from a Bulgarian. Traditionally, the Jews have always believed that they are a nation and behaved in accordance with that belief. It says right in the Jewish scriptures that the Jews are "a holy nation and a treasured people." Ancient Hebrew, unlike classical Arabic, does not even possess a word for "religion;" clearly, the authors of the Talmud and Torah and their subsequent interpreters thought of the Jews as a nation defined by religion, not as simply a community of believers. Jews treat each other like family - a Jew from out of town can't walk into a synagogue on Friday night (well, a real one at least) without being inundated by invitations from the congregants to join their families at dinner. Jews do things for their fellow Jews which Christians and Muslims do not do for their co-religionists, and the Jews consider themselves to be a nation; which is I think, the key element in being a nation.

David Floyd: This is a silly train of thought - Jews did something bad once (even if they didn't, like the "you killed Jesus" blood libel), therefore, Jewish suffering is irrelevant. This is like saying "why are people so sympathetic to rape victims, after all, it's not like they're all free of sin." It's not clear to me what you're trying to say or where you're going with it. And I'll leave it to Chegitz or someone else to explain to you why "I was following orders" isn't a good excuse to slaughter tens of millions.

	10-01-2002 06:49									#110
	Support Apolyton

BS, Natan! No political scientists worth his weight considers the Jews to be a nation.

quote: Jews do things for their fellow Jews which Christians and Muslims do not do for their co-religionists, and the Jews consider themselves to be a nation; which is I think, the key element in being a nation.

*cough*Islam! Muslims tend to pride themselves on doing things for their religious brothers and sisters that others don't. And Muslims consider all Islam to be of one nation (The Ummah). That doesn't make it a nation. A nation is a group of people that share the same ethnicity and culture. In this way, the United States isn't a nation (and American isn't really a nationality).

The ****ing Jews aren't a nation! They use semantics to try to morally justify their land grabs.

	10-01-2002 07:17									#111
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui BS, Natan! No political scientists worth his weight considers the Jews to be a nation.

Firstly, in my experience, few political scientists are "worth their weight", and secondly, this would be a question for a philosopher or sociologist, not a political scientist.

quote: *cough*Islam! Muslims tend to pride themselves on doing things for their religious brothers and sisters that others don't. And Muslims consider all Islam to be of one nation (The Ummah). That doesn't make it a nation.

Again, I think that the things Jews do for each other go beyond that. Good Muslims (fasters on Ramdan who pray five times a day etc.) in many parts of the world kill each other because they are divided by government, ethnicity, etc. Muslims do not in that sense, consider themselves a nation, now in the absence of a Khalifa. Good Jews (who pray with their tefillin, eat only Kosher food, etc.) don't. This was always one of the main arguments used against Jews in nineteenth century Europe, that Jews were loyal to each other and not to their state, and that they did not share the same culture as those around them. The level of trust and good will between two Jews, even from different parts of the world, is much greater than the level of trust and goodwill between two different Russians or two different Egyptians.

quote: A nation is a group of people that share the same ethnicity and culture. In this way, the United States isn't a nation (and American isn't really a nationality).

I disagree. "Culture" and "ethnicity" have meanings just as variable as "nation." When two Americans meet each other in a foriegn country, there is an immediate series of connections which they share and generally speaking, a loyalty to certain ideas and a certain country. In my mind, this shows them to be a nation.

quote: The ****ing Jews aren't a nation! They use semantics to try to morally justify their land grabs.

I don't know about you, but I don't believe that being a nation gives a group of people special rights, so I don't see why you have to get so emotional about whether or not the Jews are a nation. While I'm here, let me add that you seem to be the semantic one, resorting to insults because someone doesn't agree with you on the definition of a word of unclear meaning. Then, based on your own unclear definition, you start accusing people of being liars. Let's try to maintain a civil discussion, okay?

In my mind, being a nation is not about sharing 12 as opposed to 4 great authors, or having a dialect which varies on the prununciation of only a certain number of words, it's about what you think you are. Ukrainians are a different nation from Russians even though their languages are closer than Mandarin and Cantonese. Iranians are a nation even though they are made up of several different ethnic groups.

	10-01-2002 07:34									#112
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Firstly, in my experience, few political scientists are "worth their weight", and secondly, this would be a question for a philosopher or sociologist, not a political scientist.

No, it is a question for poltical scientists, for 'nations' are a term FROM political science, and the Jews are definetly NOT a nation. They use this to try to get their own country, saying that they should since they are a nation.

And saying Muslims kill each other make them less family than Jews is ludicrous. I BET you that less Muslims kill each other as a percentage of their total population than Jews kill each other. But you seem to make no difference between practicing and non-practicing Muslims, but you make a different between secular and religious Jews!

	10-01-2002 08:03									#113
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: No it isn't! It is a religion! Unless you think there is a Christian nation and Islam nation. In which case, you are delusional . Religions are not by themselves nations, and the Jews are a religion. You can't tell me that an Ethopian Jew has the same ethnicity and culture as German Jew... you simply can't!

Jews do have similar ethnicity. Eastern Jews are different from European ones since they've grown apart for a long time, and in each place, mingled, but not a lot. A proof of that is the Cohanim gene which is unique and common among jews decendants of the priest family, most of those who are named Cohen, Cogan, Kagan, Katz etc.

Judaism is much more closed and not "expansionist". Judaism was never preached anywhere to anyone but those who were already ethnically jews in biblical times. That's why judaism mainly stayed a religion of a specific ethnicity. Islam could have been such if it wasn't spreading like bushfire among dozens of other ethnicities.

You people want to use the term hebrew - fine. Judaism is a religion of hebrews. Hebrews who have left judaism, are also not hebrew anymore since their ethnicity was intermixed with others over generations.

quote: Then that explains why Israel allows anyone who converts to Judaism to freely immigrate, because you can convert to a different heritage and culture.

I admit it's problematic and that's why a better defintion of Judaism should arise than simply religion. Since it's not simply religion.

However, converting to judaism means that one chooses to devote his life to studying and accepting the jewish culture nad history and heritage to his children. It also means he will probably marry jewish (that's why most people convert) and therefore his kids become of jewish ethnicity (over generations).

quote: Gee, Woodrow Wilson said it, it MUST be right Wilson, IMO, was an idiot, and I refuse to accept that something is right either because he said it or it is "widely accepted".

The idea of ethnicities having rights for a country is not only widely accepted but also one of the major human rights assured by the UN constitution IIRC.

Who's the idiot now?

quote: The Israelites/Jews/whatever the hell we're calling them kicked out the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Meninites, etc., etc., etc. What's the difference?

Jews are decendants of Canaanites whether according to biblical story (Abraham & Sarah converted) or according to current research.

quote: You're absolutely right. I see no reason for the Northern Irish to have their own country.

You're working with a completely different premise than the world has been for the last 90 years. No wonder you are in disagreement with everyone else.

In this case, there's little use for our arguing since we're completely different and won't convince each other. It's like Ramo and me arguing about Anarchism vs. Authoritarianism.

quote: That doesn't mean they violated any laws, does it? Sure, what they did was morally wrong, as we see it, but legally they committed no crime, therefore they should not forfeit any rights, including rights to their property.

2 points:

1) I didn't suggest revoking rights for their property from them as punishment.
2) It's ok to make a law saying it's legal to kill jews and then kill them? It can't / shouldn't be punished?

quote: None of these people committed any crime, as crime was defined at the time, and you can't go around passing and enforcing ex post facto laws - that's definitely immoral.

That arguement is out of the question.

It's not like we're talking about a massacare that happenned 1000 years ago. It's not like we're talking about slavery 500 years ago.

We're talking about brutal murder, torture, abuse and ethnical cleansing.

This behaviour was defined as crime at the time in most of the world, and they were aware of it. This behaviour was defined as a crime in thier own world just shortly before, prior to Nazi occuption, and they were aware of it.

The facts that they hid it from the outer world, never directly mentioned the solution, never made such an order by Hitler, they all suggest they knew very well that they were doing a thing that is wrong according to international standards and if discovered they would be penalised by international community.

quote: I suppose two wrongs makes a right, then

No.
I simply suggest that if you think there shouldn't be an Israel
you should arrange for the return of property to it's rightful owners.

quote: Stealing someone elses land and property to make up for the land and property stolen from you is wrong.

How would that be stealing if I ask for a home that was stolen from a jew in germany to be returned to him/his kin?

quote: They shouldn't be punished for that.

Yes they should. Soldiers are still not machines. You can't try a tank for executing inhumane orders. You can try a soldier.

quote: I refuse to address any more whining about the Jews being persecuted

You not only not address these facts but ignore them completely in your world view. My posts on the matter weren't to justify a point but to correct your facts. You refuse to accept the correction and prefer to stay in the dark.

quote: you address the points about Jews persecuting others, and take responsibility. Oh, what's that? You can't be held responsible because you didn't do it? Well, people today or in 1948 can't be held responsible either for others persecuting the Jews in the 19th century. Face it, Jews have been persecuted a lot, but they've done plenty of persecuting on their own.

Israel wasn't formed as a gift because of the holocaust, but rather as a country for a nation to express itself.

Whether you agree that it is a nation or not is irrelevant since the international community already made that decision.

quote: I mean, the Jews killed Jesus, so it could be said that they persecuted Christians as well.

Great!
This shows:

a) Racism
b) Historical ignorance

Racism because you choose to blame jews for the murder of Christ even though jews as a people can't be responisble for his death. Moreso you choose to portray Jews as enemies of Christianity while forgetting the Jesus himself was a Jew.

Ignorance because Jesus was executed by the Romans after he began upsetting the people into revolt, demanding moral reform. He became a power figure, which Rome couldn't afford to keep alive.

The notion of "Jews murdered Christ" is an old one and was used to flare anti-semitism for centuries, even though it's unfounded and improbable.

	10-01-2002 08:10									#114
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Over 100,000. Very successful community. Not much anti semitism here - except in the business community - my father is very anti semitic because of business dealings with Jews.

Possibly. Jews are sometimes, er, cautios with moeny and cherish it a bit more since, well, it's only a century since most of them are allowed to have any.

quote: We also have per capita the most holocaust survivors outside of Israel and we took Jewish refugees from Hitler's Germany before World War II.

Do you know why you didn't take the ship I talked about in a previous post?

I'm enquiring because I remember Australia usually did accept Jews.

	10-01-2002 08:32									#115
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui the Jews are definetly NOT a nation.

Dictionary.com defines a nation as

quote: na·tion (nshn) n. 1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out. 2. The government of a sovereign state. 3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest). 4. a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans. b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

Clearly, what is under discussion here is whether or not Jews fit into the third definition. There is no good way to quantify or develop an objective scale for how many/how much culture, history, origins, customs, or language a group of people share. I think a very good argument could be made that the Jews share quite a bit in this regard, as much as many other nations, such as Poles and Ukrainians. But the key thing is that where it is unclear what makes a nation (which at its heart is a group of people who share important connections) we should look at what signifigance the subjects of the discussion place on their shared customs, history, etc., and clearly, Jews place as high an importance on this as Germans or Italians or what have you.

quote: They use this to try to get their own country, saying that they should since they are a nation.

Why are you adding more political and historical baggage to this conversation then need be. I'm not arguing that Jews deserve anything by being a nation, and I don't know many Jews who do; so why are you making this accusations? What purpose do they serve? Let's debate the issue at hand, okay?

quote: And saying Muslims kill each other make them less family than Jews is ludicrous. I BET you that less Muslims kill each other as a percentage of their total population than Jews kill each other.

Get the murder statistics and then we'll talk, but what I'm talking about is not the frequency of organized crime or domestic violence, but the degree of separation between people due to different governments and ethnicities.
There are good, pious Muslims who consider themselves to have a nationality apart from "Muslim," and place a high value on it. For example, they say things like "first we are Pashtun, then we are Muslim," etc. and there are Muslims who are Arab nationalists or Persian nationalists or Kurdish nationalists or Palestinian nationalists and so on. An incredibly tiny number of pious (Orthodox/real) Jews would say "first I am French/British/whatever" or "first I am Ashkenazi/Slavic/Arab" and only then a Jew. Even Jews who oppose Zionism are Jews first and foremost. Clearly, the Jews have always considered their history and shared customs (including but not solely limited to religion) as setting them apart from their neighbors and their neighbors have shared this view in most cases. This is why I say that Jews are a nation.

quote: But you seem to make no difference between practicing and non-practicing Muslims, but you make a different between secular and religious Jews!

False, you're again failing to read my posts. I said (emphasis added now)

quote: Good Muslims (fasters on Ramdan who pray five times a day etc.) in many parts of the world kill each other because they are divided by government, ethnicity, etc. Muslims do not in that sense, consider themselves a nation, now in the absence of a Khalifa. Good Jews (who pray with their tefillin, eat only Kosher food, etc.)

In short, I did distinguish between practicing and non-practicing Muslims.

	10-01-2002 08:37									#116
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Siro: According to the biblical account, Abraham and Sarah were Iraqis, or at least Syrians from the Euphrates river valley. DNA studies have shown though that Palestinians and Israelis share more or less identical genes, IIRC, both being much closer to each other then they are to their historical neighbors in the Arab world or Europe.

	10-01-2002 08:38									#117
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov Do you know why you didn't take the ship I talked about in a previous post?

What ship? I recall the United States infamously turning back a Jewish refugee ship before World War II but I don't recall an Australian example.

A lot of Jews, particularly holocaust survivors, came to Australia after World War II. There is a big holocaust museum in Sydney and you can meet survivors there.

	10-01-2002 10:01									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: The idea of ethnicities having rights for a country is not only widely accepted but also one of the major human rights assured by the UN constitution IIRC. Who's the idiot now?

I forgot. Who gives a **** about the UN constitution? I certainly don't.

quote: 1) I didn't suggest revoking rights for their property from them as punishment. 2) It's ok to make a law saying it's legal to kill jews and then kill them? It can't / shouldn't be punished?

1)It sure sounded like it - "a chunk of Germany and Poland"??
2)It isn't ok in the sense you mean, but it's ok from the point of view of national sovereignty. Morally wrong, obviously, but national sovereignty trumps all, in my opinion.

quote: We're talking about brutal murder, torture, abuse and ethnical cleansing. This behaviour was defined as crime at the time in most of the world, and they were aware of it. This behaviour was defined as a crime in thier own world just shortly before, prior to Nazi occuption, and they were aware of it. The facts that they hid it from the outer world, never directly mentioned the solution, never made such an order by Hitler, they all suggest they knew very well that they were doing a thing that is wrong according to international standards and if discovered they would be penalised by international community.

Two words: National sovereignty.

quote: I simply suggest that if you think there shouldn't be an Israel you should arrange for the return of property to it's rightful owners.

When have I opposed that?

quote: Yes they should. Soldiers are still not machines. You can't try a tank for executing inhumane orders. You can try a soldier.

It again boils down to national sovereignty.

quote: Ignorance because Jesus was executed by the Romans after he began upsetting the people into revolt, demanding moral reform. He became a power figure, which Rome couldn't afford to keep alive.

Actually, the Jews were the ones who wanted to execute Jesus, Pontius Pilate didn't want to, gave them plenty of opportunities to free Jesus, or at least not execute him, but the Jews, or at least the Jewish religious leaders, declined.

	10-01-2002 10:06									#119
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Pontius Pilate didn't want to, gave them plenty of opportunities to free Jesus, or at least not execute him, but the Jews, or at least the Jewish religious leaders, declined.

Was that when he gave the choice of two prisoners to free: Jesus, or the mudering thief Barabas? That was the only direct opportunity I remember him giving them. What were the others?

	10-01-2002 10:15									#120
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Was that when he gave the choice of two prisoners to free: Jesus, or the mudering thief Barabas? That was the only direct opportunity I remember him giving them. What were the others?

As I recall, Pilate didn't even think that Jesus had violated Roman law, and was not inclined to charge him with anything.

This is really just a side argument, though.